Transcript Highlights:

• Several aspects of this program make a reduction to CAP less appealing.
• First, because the average cost per slot in CAP is lower than in general child care, a reduction to CAP
• Additionally, slots funded through CAP typically reach families more quickly.
• Next we have the CSPP family fee deductions trailer bill language.
• and to collect these family fees.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• What we do know is if cap these rates.
• Nuclear cask fees. Carbon free by 2040.
• Nuclear cask fees. Carbon free by 2040.
• Nuclear cask fees. Carbon free by 2040.
• All it says is we are capping the amount All it says is we are capping the amount of<00:35:55.080>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House debated a motion to suspend the rules so House File 76 could be recalled from committee, given second and third readings, and brought to final passage. The bill, carried by Representative Greenman, would limit the amount of investor-owned utility executive compensation that can be charged back to Minnesota ratepayers, with the cap tied to the governor’s salary. Supporters argued that utility customers should pay for service, not lavish CEO pay, and cited Xcel Energy’s recent CEO raise, high utility bills, and growing energy affordability burdens on Minnesota households. They said shareholders, not ratepayers, should bear executive compensation costs and pointed to similar action in Colorado as evidence the policy could work without driving executives away. Several members questioned the bill’s practical impact and cost estimates. Representative Swedzinski asked how much the measure would affect individual ratepayers and suggested the amount was relatively small, while also arguing that the state should focus on larger reforms and other available funds. Representative Greenman responded that the exact per-customer impact was not before the body but emphasized that millions of dollars in executive compensation were being passed through to customers. Representative Acomb and Representative Craft supported the bill, describing investor-owned utilities as monopolies that already earn strong returns and saying the proposal would shift costs from ratepayers to shareholders. Opponents argued the bill was not serious policy and would not meaningfully lower bills, warning it could discourage talent and comparing it to broader state spending and governance issues. Representative Niska said the proposal amounted to “class warfare,” argued utilities need to pay competitively to attract competent leadership, and urged a no vote. The debate also included repeated points of order after members criticized one another personally; the presiding officer reminded members to confine remarks to the motion. A roll call and a call of the house were requested during the debate, but the transcript provided does not include the final vote result.

Transcript Highlights:

• Last session, we passed legislation capping excessive fees on medical records, and this bill is kind
• Last session, we passed legislation capping excessive fees on medical records, and this bill is kind
• :41.920> fees<00:51:42.319> on legislation capping excessive fees on legislation capping
• <01:04:34.799> records<01:04:36.160> um, to cap the fees of medical records um, to
• cap the fees of medical records um, that<01:04:37.200> um,<01:04:37.359> was<01:04:37.599

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Two questions: one is, are there caps on these for each campus?
• And second, are there questions about any conversation about increasing those caps?
• If there is caps and if there's talk about increasing those at all, that's...
• tuition and fees maximum established for the State Grant.
• The base component to North Star Promise is the tuition- and fee-free promise.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• a removal of the long title for halfway program removal regarding the spending policies and the FMR cap
• , the spending policies and the FMR cap, the spending policies and the FMR cap, which<00:10:38.520
• The PMTF spending policy, the common school permanent land fund spending policy, the FMR secondary cap
• Secondly, $18,262 for stormwater fees is effective immediately, as requested by the governor.
• fees is effective immediate<00:18:42.920> as<00:18:43.080> requested<00:18:43.560>

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first addressed an unintended consequence in the Joint Conference Committee report involving dual and concurrent enrollment funding. Staff explained that a dollar-for-dollar reduction tied to Senate File 81 would have fully funded public school dual/concurrent enrollment while leaving no funds for non-public school students. Senator Salazar moved to strike that provision, the motion was seconded, and it carried. Budget and Fiscal Administrator Don Richards then walked through the conference committee report and the major adopted amendments. He reviewed Senate and House amendments affecting items such as sign language interpreters, rural veterinary education, predator management authorization, petroglyphs and pictographs, senior services, community college funding, school district entitlement payments, the School Foundation Program reserve transfer, a tourism-related rodeo museum change, archaeological work on human remains, a jet airplane reduction, abortion-related language, livestock ear tags, provider rates for developmental disabilities, student-athlete endorsement restrictions, a forensic audit for the Wyoming Business Council, and the Yellowstone tree inscription. He also described several deleted sections and policy changes, including removal of spending-policy provisions, flex authority language, and other budget sections. Richards further summarized new or revised appropriations and conditions, including funding for local cybersecurity, stormwater fees, the Wyoming Natural Resource Trust Fund, lab services, IT modernization, Wyoming Public Television, matching funds, cloud services, and restored governor FTE requests. He noted a compromise on the outdoor trails matching program, a conditional $10 million University of Wyoming operational review appropriation tied to future cost savings, and a stablecoin appropriation. He also explained that the report retained the base-bill reversion language, discussed the remaining general fund balance and statutory reserve, and said the committee would circulate the amendment and signatures for floor action later that day. The meeting then adjourned without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• the amendments to the Medicare fee the amendments to the Medicare fee schedule<00:36:36.680>
• they linked costs to the Medicare fee they linked costs to the Medicare fee schedule<00:47:57.160
• didn't have to pay the registration fee didn't have to pay the registration fee for<01:14:30.840
• , or is it just a fee for out-of-state?
• There's a fee for both in-state and out-of-state patients to apply. It's the same.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Health Committee held its first hearing of 2025, with Chair Greg Takayama and Vice Chair Representative Leoy opening the meeting and outlining housekeeping rules, including a two-minute limit for testifiers and Zoom etiquette. The committee first heard HB 303 on health care preceptors. The Department of Health, Department of Taxation, University of Hawaiʻi, Hawaii State Center for Nursing, and several health care organizations supported the bill, saying the existing preceptor tax credit program has been successful and that expanding eligibility to additional professions and students would help address workforce shortages. In response to questions, the Department of Health said the annual tax credit cap is $1.5 million, about 650 to 670 credits are currently used each year, and the bill applies only to unpaid preceptors. The committee then moved on to HB 441, which would raise cigarette taxes. The Attorney General, Department of Health, University of Hawaiʻi Cancer Center, Hawaii Public Health Institute, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and others supported the measure as a way to reduce smoking, especially among youth, and to support tobacco control and cancer-related programs. Opponents, including the Taxpayers Protection Alliance and the Cigar Association of Hawaii, argued the tax is regressive and unreliable as a revenue source. The Department of Health noted the last cigarette tax increase was in 2011, and one witness urged a larger increase than proposed. No vote was taken on either bill in the portion of the hearing provided. The committee also heard HB 557 on telehealth. The Department of Health supported the bill so long as it did not displace executive budget priorities, and the Hawaii State Health Planning and Development Agency and Hawaii Primary Care Association supported it. HPCA said the bill would conform state insurance law to recent Medicare changes expanding audio-only telehealth coverage beyond mental health services, and it emphasized access for rural residents, kupuna, and people with disabilities. HMSA opposed the bill as written, saying it strayed from the intent of Act 107 and that audio-only telehealth should remain limited because of quality-of-care concerns, though it supported continued access and asked for a different amendment approach. A telehealth provider also testified that payment disparities limit provider expansion and that audio-only access remains important for patients with serious illness. The hearing ended in the excerpt before any committee action or vote on HB 557.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have that tuition fee invoice that Gina just mentioned.
• We currently get our fees. Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.
• Do you require that fee schedule every year?
• ...fee schedule by a certain percentage or dollar amount.
• Each year, we verify schools, tuition, and fee schedules.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met to continue reviewing how Family Empowerment Scholarship students are funded through the FEFP and the role of scholarship funding organizations. Staff gave a statutory overview of parent, SFO, and Department of Education responsibilities, including application deadlines, eligibility verification, quarterly payment timing, cross-checks to prevent duplicate funding, and the 99% district FEFP limitation for certain awards. The committee then heard demonstrations from Step Up for Students and AAA Scholarship Foundation showing their parent portals, application workflows, reimbursement systems, school enrollment/invoice processes, and marketplace tools for tuition, tutoring, and approved goods and services. Step Up reported major growth since HB 1, saying its scholarship population expanded from about 260,000 to more than 440,000 students, with application processing averaging about 10 days. It also highlighted faster tuition, provider, and reimbursement payments, multilingual support in English and Spanish, and resources such as videos and a call center. Members asked about support for Creole speakers, optional Florida ID numbers, student identifiers, marketplace pricing, tutor qualifications, background screening, and how awards differ from funded status. Step Up said it does not currently support Creole, does not do background screenings for tutors, sets no marketplace prices itself, and uses a unique internal student ID separate from the state ID. AAA demonstrated its revised software for the 2025-26 school year, including an eligibility screener, household and student application steps, messaging with staff, reimbursement requests, and administrative review and payment batching. AAA said the new system is custom-built, more transparent about award value versus available balance, and designed to better handle quarterly funding for UA students. Members questioned AAA and Step Up about student ID numbers, public-school cross-checks, fraud controls, school fee schedules, whether schools must participate, and reimbursement timing. Both organizations said they report quarterly to DOE, receive public-school cross-checks, and recover funds when students return to public school; AAA said its average reimbursement turnaround is about 14 business days, while Step Up said its reimbursement approvals have improved significantly. The committee also requested follow-up information, including one-pagers, data on income levels and demographics, and additional details on forecasting and system costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• regulated cap on these fees.
• What happens after the disconnect fee? Is there a reconnect fee and disconnect?
• It's a $40 fee.
• Or the fees that they charge. Many of them are statutorily capped and are at their caps. Got you.
• District's fees.

Bills: HB 1520, HB 1525, HB 1530, HB 1535, HB 2068, HB 2091, HB 2347, HB 2372, HB 2805, HB 2815, HB 2867, HB 3154, HB 3482, HB 3483, HB 3663, HB 3781, HB 3901, HB 3915, HB 4135, HB 4153, HB 4158, HB 4329, HB 4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• If you have a well that's been inactive for five years or more, you have to pay an assessment fee.
• And that fee was originally designed, when it was put in place, as I guess a penalty—I don't know if
• If not, they were going to have to pay these fees after being inactive on the inactive list for five
• So what it's designed to do is, instead of this operator being punished to pay this fee, they can use
• Which is an incentive, but also doesn't minimize the available funding that's there to cap...

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 513 by Representative Young, which would regulate name, image, and likeness activity for intercollegiate and interscholastic athletes, especially high school athletes. Young said the bill reflects recommendations from a task force and sets guardrails such as parental consent and prohibited NIL categories. The committee adopted a technical amendment and then reported the bill favorably as amended. Members then heard several Senate bills from Senator Mizell and Senator Cloud. Senate Bill 233 would create a statewide data exchange compact to allow state agencies to share information more efficiently; it was reported favorably. Senate Bill 300 would make various changes to the Procurement Code, including auction techniques, sole sourcing for consulting services in limited cases, and procurement process clarifications; it was reported favorably. Senate Bill 303 would allow executive branch agencies to buy or share technology solutions with other states and use the federal GSA schedule, and it was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 411, removing a 20-year lease limitation for certain Orleans Parish state property, was also reported favorably. The committee spent substantial time on House Bill 660 and House Bill 719, both dealing with district attorney funding and staffing. HB 660 would raise the state warrant amount for assistant district attorney salaries from $50,000 to $60,000, with supporters arguing it is needed to recruit and retain prosecutors; an opposition witness argued the state should fund both prosecutors and public defenders more equitably. The committee adopted an amendment making the bill effective only upon appropriation and reported it favorably as amended. HB 719 would increase the number of assistant district attorney warrants statewide, with most of the new warrants directed to Baton Rouge, St. Tammany, and Caddo; it too was amended to be subject to appropriation and reported favorably as amended. House Bill 596, which would have created an inactive well-feet assessment credit for oil and gas operators, was voluntarily deferred after concerns that it could reduce funding for the oil field site restoration fund. Later, the committee reported favorably as amended House Bill 802, which redirects existing revenue to watershed and flood restoration work in the Amite River Basin, and House Bill 940, which creates a task force and rules framework for law enforcement responses to unlawful drone activity. It also reported favorably House Bill 76 on coverage for orally administered anti-cancer medications, House Bill 950 on consumer protection materials for seniors, and began discussion of House Bill 1028, which would require higher Medicaid reimbursement rates for non-emergency medical transportation providers.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, so our fees are remaining the same.
• paying you you're not changing fees paying you you're not changing fees you're<00:17:02.759>
• cap or the fine cap for me.
• The cost of that moving forward is that fee?
• salary benefits um supervisory fees salary benefits um supervisory fees assessed<05:29:05.718>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard the Banking Department’s fiscal year 2026-2027 budget presentation from Commissioner Amelia Galeri. She described the department as a self-funded consumer protection regulator overseeing two main areas: the Banking Trust Division, which supervises state-chartered banks, credit unions, and trust companies, and the Consumer Credit Division, which oversees more than 7,000 licensees including mortgage and money transmitter businesses. She said the department’s budget is about 86% salaries and benefits, with 53 positions all filled, and explained that the agency funds itself through fees, fines, and end-of-year assessments on regulated entities. Galeri said the department is facing workload growth from several directions: continued growth in the trust industry, increased fintech supervision, and a new requirement to regularly examine auto dealers that take finance applications, which adds about 300 exams over two fiscal years. She said the department was directed to flat-fund its budget based on 2025 levels but was allowed to increase travel and training. To stay within that limit, she said the department reduced office space, went paperless, converted administrative and licensing positions into examiner positions, and expects to defund an embedded DOJ database administrator position once a new SharePoint system is fully implemented. Members asked about how the department’s revenue and assessments work, including whether fees were increasing and how much existing banks would pay. Galeri said fees are not being raised, most banks pay little or no fines, and assessments are based largely on asset size, with trust companies paying the bulk. She also explained that fines are set by statute, generally capped at $2,500 per violation for consumer credit entities, and said she would not recommend increasing that cap. The committee then voted to accept the Banking Department’s budget proposal as presented in HQ1, with a motion and second and no discussion. The transcript then moved to the Department of Energy budget. Commissioner Jared Chakin and Chief of Operations Lenny Radio discussed federal program funding, including LIHEAP fuel assistance and weatherization. They said the apparent drop in fuel assistance funding from FY 2024 actuals to the budgeted amount is due to the loss of ARPA and CARES Act supplemental funds, while weatherization remains a federally constrained program with a waiting list and limited flexibility. Members also asked about a proposed transfer from the renewable energy fund; staff said the transfer would still allow the department to carry out its statutory duties for the year, though the committee deferred deeper discussion until House Bill 2.

Transcript Highlights:

• And let me be clear: South Coast AQMD is not and will not impose a cap on cargo throughput.
• South Coast AQMD is not and will not impose a cap on cargo throughput.
• Impose a cap on cargo throughput at the ports directly or indirectly. Now that's new.
• It’s not a fee. It’s a deposit.
• It's not a fee. It's a deposit.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 14, which would direct state agencies to reduce single-use plastics and improve waste diversion at state facilities by updating integrated waste management plans, increasing reusable foodware use, reducing paper purchasing, and requiring better employee education and recycling/composting practices. Supporters from the California Compost Coalition, Republic Services, Waste Management, and others said the bill would help build composting and recycling markets and let the state lead by example. Several groups that had opposed earlier versions said they were now neutral after amendments, including the removal of a 90% requirement. The bill was moved out on a due pass as amended recommendation. The committee then took up SB 326 on wildfire mitigation. The bill would create a framework for Cal Fire to evaluate the risk-reduction benefits of fuels management and landscape resilience investments, and it would accelerate implementation of Zone Zero defensible-space standards, including grants for local enforcement and broader application to rental and sale properties and post-fire reconstruction. Support came from Stanford climate researcher Michael Mastrandrea and several local government, insurance, and climate groups. With no opposition, the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. Next, SB 34 on port emissions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District drew extensive testimony. The author said the bill was narrowed by committee amendments to preserve the ports’ ability to reduce emissions while preventing cargo throughput caps and addressing concerns about automation, local control, and the timeline for port clean-air planning. Supporters included ILWU, business groups, and port-related stakeholders, while the South Coast AQMD and many environmental and community organizations opposed it, arguing it would weaken public-health protections and set a bad precedent. After lengthy debate, the committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Transportation, with some members voting no and others abstaining. The committee also heard SB 279, which would expand composting options for farmers and small community composters by allowing limited on-farm composting after large biomass events and increasing the amount small operations may process and sell. Supporters said the bill would help address agricultural waste, expand composting capacity, and reduce landfill disposal. Commercial composting representatives opposed it, warning that the bill could create regulatory inequities, strand recent investments in permitted facilities, and allow too much unregulated food waste. Despite those concerns, the bill passed to Appropriations on a due pass vote. The transcript also briefly referenced SB 613 on upstream methane emissions data, described as having no opposition and intended to improve tracking of imported oil and gas emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill does not include any caps.
• My issue has to do with the cap, like everybody has mentioned that.
• And we have to make sure we have a cap because it just happened two days ago.
• I keep hearing cap, cap, cap.
• My issue has to do with the cap, like everybody has mentioned that.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and heard five bills. HB 1097 would rename the Florida Catastrophic Storm Center at FSU as the Florida Center for Excellence in Insurance and Risk Management, transfer the public hurricane loss projection model from FIU to FSU, and provide recurring and nonrecurring appropriations to support independent insurance research and collaboration with OIR and other universities. Members discussed university roles, model oversight, independence from industry funding, and student/workforce benefits. The bill passed favorably on a roll call vote. HB 319 would create a regulatory framework for virtual currency kiosk businesses, requiring registration with the Office of Financial Regulation, consumer disclosures, and penalties for violations. Much of the discussion focused on fraud prevention, especially for seniors, and whether the bill should include transaction caps or stronger recovery tools; AARP supported the bill but urged additional protections. The bill passed favorably. CS/HB 385 made technical changes to the Florida Trust Code and Community Property Trust Act, including decanting, trustee claims, redemption by satisfaction, and homestead transfer treatment; an amendment conforming to the Senate version was adopted, and the bill passed favorably. CS/HB 97 would allow service of process for exploitation injunctions against unascertainable scammers through the same communication method used to contact the victim, such as text or social media, and would let courts freeze funds temporarily while the matter is heard. Testimony from elder law practitioners and AARP supported the bill as a tool against scams, while some members raised due process and overreach concerns; the bill passed favorably. HB 839 would shorten the overpayment recovery window for claims submitted to psychologists and HMOs to match other health providers, with the goal of improving parity and access to mental health care; an amendment was adopted, and the bill passed favorably. The meeting concluded with adjournment after the final roll call votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• strengthening some of the civil fees strengthening some of the civil fees associated<00:04:25.520
• This very well could in cap cities.
• <01:25:04.880> on implement complex optional caps on implement complex optional caps on retail
• Some are enforcing retail registration caps that are not by ordinance.
• Again, they've cap retail registration.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So while our fees are going down from Medicare, uncapped fees hurt.
• Another way we can reform medical malpractice is to cap attorney fees, right?
• And one way of doing this is to use the California model, which caps attorney fees at about 25% to use
• the California model, which caps attorney fees at about 25% for settlement and about 33% if the cases
• A cap on attorney fees, absolutely, all day, every day. I think that is what happened in 2021.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its fourth meeting, held October 27-28 in Santa Fe, with Representative Duncan moving approval and no opposition. The chair then introduced a panel on the cost of providing medical care in New Mexico, focusing on physician shortages, rising practice costs, and access problems, especially in southern New Mexico and Las Cruces. Panelists included family physicians, a pediatrician, a cardiologist/electrophysiologist, and a community health center medical director, who described their backgrounds and practices before turning to the policy discussion. The doctors argued that New Mexico is losing physicians because of three main pressures: medical malpractice exposure, gross receipts tax on medical services, and low Medicaid reimbursement. They said malpractice premiums are much higher than in neighboring states, punitive damages and venue shopping increase risk, and the patient compensation fund and attorney fee structure create additional costs. They also described administrative burdens from insurance billing and referrals, the high debt and long training period for physicians, and the effect of corporate medicine and private equity on practice decisions. One panelist emphasized the economic impact of each physician on jobs and local spending, while another noted that shortages force patients into emergency rooms and delay specialty care. The panel presented a list of proposed solutions: reform punitive damages, limit venue shopping and stacking, restore lifetime medical payments from the patient compensation fund, enact apology protections, cap attorney fees, continue Medicaid funding improvements, and eliminate gross receipts tax on medical and dental services. Committee members generally agreed the presentation was thorough and useful, but several noted that some proposals fall outside this committee’s jurisdiction and would likely need to move through other committees, especially judiciary and tax. Some members supported drafting legislation or working on separate bills, while others urged caution, requested more input from hospitals and economists, and raised concerns about local government revenue impacts from GRT changes. The chair concluded by encouraging members to continue discussions offline and noted that the tax-related issue would be taken up further in the next day’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each plaintiff in the class was required to pay a percentage of the common fund attorney's fees for the
• Do you want, for the ad hoc COLA, to maintain the cap that you've done in more recent years?
• The cap is an issue, as you know.
• I know your groups would like to get rid of the cap because they wanted to help everyone.
• The cap is, I know, a private issue within your organizations.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Executive Committee approved the April minutes by roll call vote, with members present voting aye and the minutes adopted. Staff then provided an Attorney General update on pension-related litigation, including the newly filed Dawson class action challenging Gross Second Substitute House Bill 2034, the concluded Dolan case, and the Fowler case, where the trial court orally ruled for plaintiffs on interest calculations and potential disgorgement of state gains, with a written ruling still pending. Committee members emphasized the need for ongoing monitoring and regular reporting on the Dawson case because of its potential impact on the committee and retirement systems. An actuarial update followed, noting that June will include the preliminary 2025 valuation results and contribution-rate information, along with commentary on the demographic experience study. Staff said actuarial resources are limited and asked that any additional actuarial agenda items be scheduled for July or later. The committee also discussed the draft interim work plan and agreed to move the OSA annual update to July. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on Plan 1 COLA policy. Retiree representatives urged the committee to keep working on both immediate ad hoc COLA relief and a longer-term ongoing COLA solution. Members discussed a possible budget proviso requiring legislators to consider a COLA each budget cycle, and staff was asked to develop proposals for further discussion. The committee also agreed to add a June briefing on the PERS/PEACERS request involving animal control technicians, and to include an introductory Plan 3 briefing, with possible comparison to Plan 2, on the June agenda. Staff also explained changes to correspondence handling, including removing letters from the public website to better protect privacy while still making records available upon request. The committee approved the revised June agenda and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're capping the interest rate at 3% for medical debt.
• So basically, members, what we're doing is we're just capping the interest rate on medical debt at 3%
• The interest rate on medical debt is capped at 3%, which is similar to what other states have done.
• hours for unindentured and/or 1,000 hours plus approved training, along with education, exams, and fees
• Page 3, line 4, under penalties, it authorizes administrative fees between 500 and 5,000 per violation

Bills: SB147, SB414, HB220, HB750, HB799, HB827, HB952, HB953

Keywords: roof standards, construction code, residential property, fortified roofs, insurance, medical debt, interest rate, healthcare services, consumer protection, debt collection, Louisiana Medical Debt Protection Act, child exploitation, online reporting, platforms, cyber crime, PROTECT Act, automatic renewal, cancellation policy, subscription service, transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• , standardizing application fees, capping tenant screening fees at $50, and regulating late fees.
• Senator, I saw on my handout that I was given today that it caps fees at $50.
• fees are non-refundable, so folks are paying those fees over and over again.
• This is in addition to sometimes a $100 admin fee or $200 holding fee, sometimes in conjunction with
• We are not asking to regulate those types of fees, just the fees associated with processing an application

Transcript Highlights:

• So they have a cap on how much they can charge for export fees, and then it can increase by, I believe
• So they have a cap on how much they can charge for export fees, and then it can increase by, I believe
• It is not a cap.
• Is a hard cap on annual production. I would argue to say it's not a hard cap.
• Production and export fees must be sufficient to fund actual mitigation needs, not capped below what

Summary: The committee held a hearing on high-capacity groundwater wells proposed in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties, with members framing the issue as one of local water supply, fairness, and the need to modernize groundwater law while protecting private property rights. Opening remarks focused on the scale of the proposed Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss projects, the potential export of tens of thousands of acre-feet of groundwater annually, and concerns that the applications lacked sufficient technical detail and could harm nearby landowners, cities, agriculture, and manufacturing. Members also noted the broader context of the recent flooding tragedy in central Texas and the Legislature’s intent to address water-related loss of life in the upcoming special session. Witnesses from the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and the Texas Water Development Board explained the current groundwater management framework. They described groundwater conservation districts as the state’s preferred management method, the role of groundwater management areas and desired future conditions, and how the Water Development Board uses those conditions to calculate modeled available groundwater. They emphasized that districts rely on local data, monitoring wells, and planning processes, but that information is often more limited in areas without a district, where the rule of capture applies. Members pressed witnesses on recharge rates, export permits, subsidence, the effect of pumping on nearby wells, the age and real-time availability of model data, and whether the proposed project would exceed modeled available groundwater in some counties. TCEQ explained its limited oversight role over groundwater conservation districts, including inquiries, compliance actions, and, in extreme cases, dissolution authority. Water Development Board staff also outlined funding programs, saying the New Water Supply for Texas Fund is limited to projects such as brackish desalination, reuse, ASR, and other new-supply projects, and does not fund fresh groundwater exports alone. They said the project at issue had not applied for board funding. A water lawyer then testified on the rule of capture, ownership in place, and district regulation, arguing that districts must use permitting and other tools to manage production within modeled available groundwater and that the Legislature could consider additional authority over groundwater exports under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• increases and requests from plans to cap increases and requests from plans to cap the<00:02:33.120
• This includes things like interest income, exchange user fees, and personal responsibility fines.
• That's not capped. That's likely only going to go up in the future.
• Then the only question I have is how often can you raise the fee?
• Then the only question I have is how often can you raise the fee?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The governor had it capped at 2%, and we are doing a 4% per year cap on the consumer price index urban
• The governor had it capped at inflation.
• Article 3, the health care section: We reinstate some TERA fees.
• So section, we reinstate some TERA fees.
• Uh it's going EIBI they don't pay a fee.

Bills: HF2433, HF2434

Keywords: education funding, children with disabilities, transition aid, special education, school district consolidation, healthcare, personal care assistance, worker retention, disability services, state funding, 1183, house