Transcript Highlights:

• My husband and I are the parents of a special-needs son.
• Some special education students have needs that are more profound than a school district has the capacity
• Chairman, members, this bill ensures that we don't turn a blind eye to the specialized medical needs
• of a student as we endeavor to meet their specialized educational needs.
• specialized programs.

Summary: The Committee on Education K-16 heard several bills focused largely on special education transparency, school safety, and student support services. Senate Bill 1908, by Senator Zaffirini, would direct the Higher Education Coordinating Board to study the feasibility of a statewide system for coordinating clinical training placements, including regional portals for healthcare clinical slots, with a report due by December 1, 2026. A representative of the Texas Nurses Association and the Nursing Legislative Agenda Coalition testified in support. The bill was left pending subject to the call of the chair. The committee then took up Senate Bill 111, by Senator Hall, which in its committee substitute was narrowed to a reporting bill requiring school districts to disclose legal proceedings involving special education due process complaints when legal fees exceed $10,000, rather than capping spending. Several parents and advocates testified that districts spend large sums on litigation against families of children with disabilities and that greater transparency is needed; some senators raised concerns about unintended consequences, including possible pressure to settle cases. The committee adopted the substitute and left the bill pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1551 on automated external defibrillators in public schools, Senate Bill 865 on CPR instruction requirements for certain volunteers, Senate Bill 1032 on the Governor’s University Research Initiative, and Senate Bill 571 on school employee misconduct reporting and access to the Do Not Hire Registry; each was reported favorably after committee substitute adoption and roll-call votes. Additional bills discussed included Senate Bill 1884, which would formalize and expand dedicated staff support for the State Board of Education and give the board chair hiring authority over that staff; members questioned whether it duplicated TEA functions, while a witness argued the workload increase justified the change, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 625 would replace the current half-credit economics requirement with a half-credit in personal financial literacy; educators and advocates strongly supported making the course required, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 582 would make TEA settlement agreements in special investigations publicly available when sanctions are imposed, and Senate Bill 2600 would bar transportation fees for students living within two miles of campus unless districts do not receive state transportation funding; both were left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2751, which would require TEA inspections of non-public special education programs to consider medical standards of care and crisis-prevention training; testimony from a program operator described severe student behaviors and the need for more flexibility, and the bill was left pending after the substitute was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• you special education expenditures you special education expenditures you submit<00:19:06.480>
• for us to do um so the Bureau of special for us to do um so the Bureau of special education<00:20
• definitely the Bureau of special definitely the Bureau of special education<00:27:50.960> and
• the open the the so we need the we need the open the the warrant<00:42:37.640> language<00:42
• And if we left the extraordinary needs grant as it is, and we also had the increase for special education

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• established criteria for when a special established criteria for when a special fund<00:39:18.720
• <00:39:29.599> fund Those criteria are that a special fund Those criteria are that a special
• Needed to be done and presented to this legislature to confirm the essential need and viability of this
• valuable experience in critical need valuable experience in critical need areas<01:32:51.920>
• require us to return to a special require us to return to a special session<01:39:28.400> at<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That categorical aid increase would also have an effect on the Choice, Charter, Special Needs Scholarship
• I'm going to tell you right now, I think that we need to put more money into special education because
• of the children in that particular school district, what those special needs would be.
• But I think you're referring to the actual cost provision under the special needs scholarship program
• The actual cost provision under the special needs scholarship program. That's right.

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That members that the chairman myself could request a special committee meeting, but that I would need
• On any special committee? You're referring to what page? Well, let's see, special committees.
• Special committees on page 37. Yes.
• So that would need that modification. For every special committee meeting that you would have.
• as needed.

Summary: The Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board met on June 18, 2026, established a quorum, and adopted the agenda. Public comment took up most of the meeting, with numerous district defenders and chief defenders speaking in support of State Public Defender Remy Starns. Speakers from several districts said the system is more unified, communication with the state office has improved, and local offices feel better supported than in the past. Several also credited Starns with visiting districts, helping with local issues, and improving coordination on capital and non-capital work. One speaker, Richard Thompson, emphasized Starns’ background and training under Sam Dalton, and another noted that a recent staffing decision in St. John the Baptist Parish ultimately proved beneficial for mentorship and resource sharing. Starns then gave his state public defender report. He said the system has improved over the last seven years and argued that public defense still needs a stable, renewable funding source comparable to other parts of the criminal justice system. He discussed legislative changes affecting public defense, including a cleanup bill, a law eliminating filing fees for writs and appeals, and a new procedure related to expert-fee claims after a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision. He also described ongoing efforts to integrate capital and post-conviction work into district offices, expand the laws/writs program, and use local and state resources more efficiently. He thanked the board, the Public Defenders Association, and the late Mike Ginnart, whom he praised for his leadership and service. The board then considered and adopted proposed bylaws. Members discussed the need for a vice chair and a secretary, the role of special committees, and whether committee meetings should be public and limited to less than a quorum. The bylaws were adopted with the understanding that a committee would review and refine them later; volunteers were named for that committee. The board then elected a vice chair and designated the Office of the Public Defender, with staff assistance, as secretary for recordkeeping. Finally, the board heard a presentation on the strategic plan, which was described as largely unchanged from FY25 except for updates to reflect current law, accessibility requirements, training, compliance, and communication goals. The strategic plan was adopted by resolution, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is special to my heart. I have a special place in my heart for our special needs community.
• In my community, just two Sundays ago, we celebrated our special needs students, 16 years in a row.
• needs and special opportunities.
• As a teacher, we didn't call them special needs; we called them kids with superpowers.
• Because I know that a lot of the special needs enhance other areas in our development.

Summary: The Assembly met after a quorum call and brief procedural business, including approval of the prior day’s journal, suspension of certain rules for guest introductions, and moving AB 568 to the inactive file. The chamber then recognized several visiting groups, including a fourth-grade class from Marigold Elementary School, representatives of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses and its Royal Court, and students from the University of California Students Association on lobby day. The main floor actions centered on two resolutions. ACR 147 by Assembly Member Lackey designated March 9, 2026 as California Special Olympics Day. Members from both parties spoke in strong support, sharing personal connections to Special Olympics and praising its impact on athletes, families, and volunteers. The resolution received 70 co-authors and was adopted by voice vote. H.R. 89 by Assembly Member Patterson declared March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. Speakers emphasized rising colorectal cancer rates among younger adults, the importance of screening, and new testing options including blood tests. The resolution also received 70 co-authors and was adopted by voice vote. After the resolutions, Assembly Member Rodriguez offered an adjournment in memory of Bob Yuloa of Chino, a Navy veteran and longtime community servant. The Assembly then announced upcoming committee and floor session dates and adjourned until Thursday, March 12 at 9 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's special ed teachers and the expense of writing the IEP, so I think there needs to be some things
• I think that's the important point: this formula does not displace the high-cost special needs placement
• So this addresses general education and not the special needs—that's your point, right?
• needs placement funding cost special needs placement funding that's<03:44:14.479> separately<
• <03:44:25.319> needs education and not the special needs education and not the special needs

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on school funding formulas, adequacy aid, and special education aid, with the chair outlining a schedule for the next several Tuesdays and noting that the committee would likely need multiple executive sessions to narrow down the bills. Members discussed the FY 26 formula, including base cost, differentiated aid, extraordinary needs grants, hold harmless provisions, and the roughly $28 million in excess statewide education property tax (SWP) funds that are not currently returned to the state under the existing formula. The first bill discussed was HB 137, which would allow excess SWP funds to remain with the local municipality for school and municipal purposes. Representative Spilsbury argued the issue is fundamental and suggested the state should require excess funds to be remitted back to the state, while Representative Damon said the bill appears to codify current practice and may be unnecessary, especially given possible court action. The discussion then shifted to a related bill from Representative Fellas that would redefine SWP as local money rather than state money and keep the current adequacy aid numbers revenue-neutral for now. Representative Fellas explained that SWP was created in 1999 after the Claremont lawsuit as part of the state’s effort to show increased school aid, but that it effectively labeled part of the local property tax as state money without changing property tax bills. She argued the state should not be tapping local property tax revenue and said her bill would preserve the current distribution while removing the SWP tax label, with future work possible on a different measure of local capacity such as income, home values, or poverty rate. Members also referenced prior discussions of fiscal capacity aid, relief aid, and other formula changes as part of the broader effort to restructure school funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you know, can you talk to me about the decision to have a one-day special session?
• one-day special session from 10:00 a.m. one-day special session from 10:00 a.m.
• How did that come special session? How did that come about?
• infrastructure things that motans need infrastructure things that motans need across<00:04:15.760
• Special session worked out. Yeah.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• especially when it's special education especially when it's special education with<01:00:30.839>
• ed needs.
• ... needs um so we proceeded with that then needs um so we proceeded with that then I<01:03:44.079>
• <01:15:29.960> needs<01:15:30.679> serves<01:15:31.120> as students with special
• needs serves as students with special needs serves as the<01:15:31.440> legal<01:15:31.960>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the concern that we have, especially with the creation of any new special fund, is that it needs
• I think the concern that we have, especially with the creation of any new special fund, is that it needs
• It makes the special fund bigger.
• It makes the special fund bigger.
• It makes the special fund bigger.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 818 HD1, which would establish the Waiawa Community Development District. The Attorney General’s office said the bill may not comply with requirements for a special fund, and DLNR asked for further amendments so lease revenues would remain with DLNR while it continues managing the lands. DLNR cited ongoing costs, including the Uncle Billy’s demolition debt and management needs at Banyan Drive/Banyan Country Club. HCDA/Waiawa representatives supported the bill, agreed that DLNR should keep lease revenues while it remains the land manager, and said a future transfer of land management would change where revenues should go. Members focused on whether removing lease revenue would undercut the bill and on how existing and future revenues should be allocated. The committee then took up HB 338 HD1 and HB 339 HD1 on renewable energy-related utility transactions and procurement. Testimony came from the Consumer Advocate, the State Energy Office, the Public Utilities Commission, Hawaiian Electric, IBEW Local 1260, Ulupono Initiative, and Life of the Land. Supporters generally backed the measures, while some asked for labor-related strengthening language. Discussion centered on how the PUC should handle competing bids or offers in utility merger or acquisition situations, with concerns raised about NDAs, timing, and whether the original version or amended language better allowed public and intervenor participation. A witness from Life of the Land argued that utilities should not negotiate under NDA in a way that blocks later public competition, and a PUC-related witness said the current language was changed from the original to address PUC testimony. Finally, the committee heard HB 1467 HD1 on housing resiliency. OIP was not present, while B&F raised concerns about placing federal funds into a special fund, saying federal grant money should remain in a separate P fund for transparency, accountability, and single-audit compliance. State agencies and groups including OPSD, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, the Climate Advisory Team, and Hawaii Realtors supported the measure. Testimony emphasized that many older roofs lack hurricane clips and that strengthening homes could reduce disaster sheltering and temporary housing costs. IBEW Local 1260 supported the bill but argued that building to current standards upfront is preferable to retrofitting later. Members questioned funding structure, eligibility, and whether the program should be needs-based; the bill was described as limited to households under 140% AMI. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• the proposed special session rules.
• we adopted during the previous special session.
• To bring into the special session for consideration.
• They're just not delineated as a special amount or a special appropriation.
• Can we just—do we need a motion for that? Mr.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: Legislative Management met with a quorum, approved the July 11, 2025 minutes, and then considered recommendations from the Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee. Beth Dittes explained proposed special session rule changes, which largely mirror prior special session rules and are intended to speed floor action. The changes would allow faster second readings and transmission between chambers, replace regular standing committees with two joint committees for the special session—Joint Appropriations and Joint Policy—and limit bill introduction methods. The package also included delayed-effective-date changes for the next regular session, such as moving the agency and Supreme Court prefile deadline earlier and advancing several resolution deadlines. Liz Fordall then reviewed revisions to the legislative workplace harassment policy, including clarified definitions, longer intake and review deadlines, an option for informal resolution before a review panel, and clearer disclosure rules. The committee adopted the report and forwarded the rules and policy changes. The committee also approved tentative first-day special session agendas for both chambers, with a Speaker-requested revision to allow time to swear in new House members. Megan Gordon outlined the schedule: early Rules Committee meetings, morning floor sessions, a joint session for the governor’s State of the State, then meetings of the joint appropriations and policy committees, with optional later floor and committee time. Members discussed how the joint committees would handle bills and confirmed the process would mirror the prior special session. The agendas were adopted. Chairman Bekkedahl then reported for the Rural Health Transformation Committee, which had completed its work and recommended five bill drafts for the special session: a Presidential Physical Fitness Test requirement for schools, a nutrition component for physician continuing education, joining a physician assistant licensure compact, expanding pharmacist scope for lab testing and prescribing, and a two-year appropriations bill to cover the program through the next regular session. He explained the federal rural health transformation grant, the state’s application, funding restrictions, and the need to keep the bills aligned with CMS requirements to avoid funding reductions or clawbacks. DHS officials said the department would measure outcomes through required metrics, use templates for awards, and set up an Office of Health Transformation to track long-term impacts. The committee adopted the rural health report and forwarded the bills. Finally, members discussed special-session logistics. Legislative staff said employment committees would approve a limited number of staff, Legislative Management would serve as the delayed-bills committee, and a letter would be sent to legislators explaining the process and a suggested Friday noon drafting deadline for bills to be considered at the January 20 meeting. The committee also discussed how many bills might be introduced and how to assign the rural health bills to the House or Senate for origin. No formal vote was taken on those logistics, and the meeting adjourned with plans to reconvene on January 20.

Transcript Highlights:

• That members that the chairman myself could request a special committee meeting, but that I would need
• On any special committee? You're referring to what page? Well, let's see, special committees.
• Special committees on page 37. Yes.
• So that would need that modification. ...for every special committee meeting that you would have.
• as needed.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board met on June 18, 2026, with a quorum present and adopted the agenda. Public comment was dominated by district defenders and other public defense leaders praising State Public Defender Remy Starns for improving communication, collaboration, and overall system performance. Speakers from multiple districts said the system is more unified, better supported, and more stable than in prior years, and several credited Starns with helping resolve long-standing tensions and improve coordination across capital, district, and appellate work. One speaker also paid tribute to the late Mike Ginnard, describing him as instrumental to earlier public defense reforms. In his report, Starns said the system has improved over the last seven years but still needs a sustainable funding source. He discussed legislative changes affecting public defense, including a cleanup bill, elimination of filing fees for writs and appeals, and a new procedure related to expert-fee requests in light of recent court rulings. He also described ongoing efforts to integrate capital and appellate work into district offices, expand the laws/writs program, and continue post-conviction work under new statutory rules. Starns emphasized recruitment and retention, including the need for affordable health insurance and retirement benefits, and again honored Mike Ginnard for his leadership and service. The board then adopted proposed bylaws, after some discussion about special committees and public meeting requirements. Members agreed to create a committee to review and refine the bylaws later, and they also elected a vice chairman and designated the Office of the Public Defender, with staff support, as secretary for recordkeeping. Finally, the board heard a presentation on the strategic plan, which was described as largely an update to the prior version with terminology changes, new accessibility-related goals, and added performance measures for training, compliance, and communications. The strategic plan was adopted by resolution, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you reduce special education aid, you're not reducing the needs of students.
• If you reduce needed.
• But it's a good thing to have early identification of special education needs and early intervention
• Commission on Special Education. Commission on Special Education.
• needs to do its part. needs to do its part.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That we all need.
• needs.
• It's very much needed.
• I was a special ed professor there.
• Okay, another office of special ed.

Summary: The committee first heard a detailed staff presentation on the LESC FY27 public school support recommendation. Staff reviewed the budget structure and explained that, despite a downward revision in state revenue estimates, the recommendation still relied on recurring and non-recurring revenue to support educator compensation, insurance, transportation, literacy, math, special education, and other school programs. Major recurring items included a 3% compensation increase, funding for an 80-20 health insurance cost share, insurance premium growth, and transportation adequacy funding. Staff also flagged a possible supplemental need of up to $35 million for virtual education tied to rapid enrollment growth in Chama and Santa Rosa, and members raised concerns about the quality, accountability, and funding model for virtual programs. Members asked questions about transportation for rural districts, the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit fees, the treatment of enrollment declines in the school funding formula, and whether the word “average” in salary language should remain in the budget. Staff explained that the SEG should remain whole, that the insurance and transportation recommendations applied to all public school employees but not contractors, and that the budget included multiple math-related investments spread across several lines rather than one single appropriation. There was also discussion of out-of-school learning grants, school meals, literacy center operations, special education training, and the Public Education Reform Fund, including the use of multi-year, evaluation-based appropriations for high-impact tutoring and community schools. After discussion, the committee adopted the LESC budget recommendation. The committee then moved to endorsed legislation proposals. It endorsed a bill allowing the secretary to suspend an individual school board member, with notice and appeal procedures clarified, and a bill creating an 80-20 health insurance cost-share requirement for public school employees, along with a study of the sustainability of public school insurance programs. It also endorsed a bill on attendance provisions for students with severe medical conditions, which would keep those students from being classified as excessively absent. Finally, the committee discussed a teacher residency bill that would raise stipend levels, allow residents to complete service anywhere in New Mexico, and remove the requirement that sponsoring schools must hire them, though the bill did not include an appropriation. Members also raised questions about bilingual, Hispanic, and Black education funding, cultural and linguistic supports in teacher preparation, and where various programs should be placed in the budget or PERF framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• Special education, funding only for students in special education.
• A much greater percentage of kids in their classroom with. who need special education and not commensurate
• You have special investigations.
• As we do special investigations, special investigations are called special for a reason, they are unusual
• People need to make. opinions about what field they're going to pursue and honestly you need to start

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• we have our moderate-need and high-need subjects.
• High-need subjects refer to subjects that need to replace 20% or more Subjects, and high-need subjects
• needs.
• needs.
• That’s what I need to know.”

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our teachers, if you ask them what they need, they will say they need students who come to school on
• We need our custodial workers.
• We need HB 2 for teacher pay, for special education, and for public charter school facilities funding
• He is both special needs and high IQ. He's taken three STAAR tests this spring.
• It addresses our critical needs and all human capital needs in every district, as well as helping us

Bills: HB2

Keywords: disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace, medical examiner, county judge, sheriff, mayor, emergency coordinator, emergency manager license, volunteer management system, volunteer registration, criminal history check, background check, Texas Division of Emergency Management

Summary: The committee continued public testimony on House Bill 2, which would make major changes to public school funding, teacher pay, special education, early learning, school safety, and related programs. Many superintendents and education advocates supported the bill’s overall direction but urged changes, especially a larger basic allotment and more flexible funding for rural and small districts. Witnesses from Paint Creek, West Hardin, Cushing, Blooming Grove, Mildred, Buffalo, Plano, and rural school groups said the bill’s targeted raises and new requirements would not fully cover inflation, TRS/Medicare costs, transportation, insurance, or support staff salaries, and several asked the committee to restore the House version’s higher basic allotment and small-school allotment. Charter school representatives supported the facilities funding changes and said charter schools need state help because they cannot levy taxes, while also noting the funding gap with ISDs. Fine arts advocates asked the committee to restore the fine arts allotment, arguing arts improve engagement, attendance, and academic outcomes, especially in rural and at-risk communities. Early learning and special education witnesses supported parts of the bill but raised concerns about pre-K restrictions, disability-related pre-K access, and the need to preserve or clarify special education provisions and mental health oversight language. Several witnesses praised the teacher pay raise, teacher incentive allotment expansion, and teacher preparation investments, saying they would help recruit and retain educators and improve student outcomes. Others, including counselors and support staff advocates, argued the bill should also include raises for counselors, nurses, librarians, bus drivers, custodians, aides, and other non-teaching employees who keep schools running. One witness from the Texas Counseling Association opposed the substitute because it removed a counselor pay provision, warning of counselor shortages and inequities. A parent and special education advocate said the bill’s structure creates too many strings attached and asked for a larger basic allotment instead of more targeted funding. Another witness from Mental Health America urged keeping the collaborative task force on public school mental health services through 2031, and a disability rights advocate said the committee substitute appears to omit some special education items that were in the House version. The committee also briefly took up House Bill 6, a school discipline bill. After questions about automatic mandatory expulsion for vape possession and concerns about younger students, the committee adopted the substitute and voted to report HB 6 favorably to the full Senate by a 9-1 vote, with Senator Menendez voting no and Senators West and Menendez expressing reservations but supporting further discussion. After that vote, testimony on HB 2 resumed. Senators used the hearing to ask about the bill’s cost, the difference between the basic allotment and the bill’s targeted funding buckets, and whether the permanent teacher pay increase shifts pressure off districts. The bill’s supporters emphasized that it represents an historic, roughly $8 billion investment and that many of the new funding streams are intended to be permanent or to address specific district needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> our<00:09:26.399> schools<00:09:26.720> need so, our school needs our schools need
• > needs.
• We need to focus on what students and what teachers and what parents need.
• We need teachers and what parents need.
• We need to wave all of we need to do.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Secretary, call the roll. the specialized place you may need to the specialized place you may need
• special operate such street legal special purpose<00:21:25.080> vehicle<00:21:25.400> if
• <00:21:34.360> purpose area is not open to a special purpose area is not open to a special
• But if they're going to, they need to be inspected. They need to be lawful.
• They need to have the roll bars, they need to have the brake clamps, they need to have the seat belts

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee met with a quorum, approved the February 19 minutes, and opened with guest recognitions and a brief prayer for a colleague who had a medical episode. The committee then took up Senate Joint Resolution 66, which would create a task force to study Advanced Air Mobility and related policy issues in Kentucky. The sponsor and witnesses described AAM as emerging eVTOL “flying car” technology, argued Kentucky has strong aviation and logistics assets to compete for the industry, and said the task force would include legislative, KYTC, and industry representatives. Senators asked about the technology and potential uses, including rapid transport of medical specialists. The resolution was reported favorably after roll call, with several members expressing support and at least one member noting a desire for more information while still voting yes. The committee next considered Senate Bill 38, as amended by committee substitute, dealing with school bus stop-arm safety cameras. The sponsor cited survey data showing hundreds of illegal school-bus passings in Kentucky and argued the bill would help change driver behavior by allowing, but not requiring, school districts to use camera systems funded through violators rather than district budgets. Testimony emphasized that the measure is voluntary, vendor-neutral, provides an appeals process in district court, limits camera activation to when the stop arm is deployed, and keeps revenues within the school district and court system. Representative David Hale supported the bill, sharing a personal story about a near-miss involving a child crossing after a bus stop. The committee approved the committee substitute and then reported SB 38 favorably with the expression of opinion that it should pass with the committee substitute attached. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 63 on street-legal special purpose vehicles. The sponsor and Backroads of Appalachia representatives said the bill would define and regulate these vehicles, while expressly excluding farm and agricultural vehicles from its requirements. They explained the bill would require inspection, registration, and a motorcycle plate for qualifying vehicles, set limits on where and how far they can be driven, and allow local or state restrictions where applicable. Supporters framed the bill as an economic development measure for Eastern Kentucky and the broader state, citing tourism, trail-system spending, and examples from other states. A committee member asked for clarification about farm-to-farm use, and the witness confirmed the bill would not affect agricultural use. The transcript ends during discussion of SB 63, before any final committee action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I speak on this as a state retiree and also the parent of a special needs child.
• needs and it the child with special needs and it allows<00:21:37.600> them<00:21:37.919> to
• <00:22:42.159> needs leave that pension to a special needs leave that pension to a special
• their special needs child as the their special needs child as the beneficiary<00:23:55.120> of
• <00:25:03.279> they<00:25:03.520> are special needs trusts generally they are special

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:01 SB 132 Discussion 00:44 SB 132 Vote 07:10 SB 33 Discussion 08:30 SB 33 Vote 17:24 SB 85 Discussion 18:08 SB 85 Vote 25:58 Adjournment: 26:38, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 132, which would clarify that state law does not limit local governments’ authority to regulate businesses affiliated with licensed massage therapists. The sponsor and supporting testimony from a police chief and the Kentucky League of Cities said the bill is aimed at helping cities respond to complaints about suspected illegal activity, including possible human trafficking, by expressly allowing local ordinances on zoning, licensing, inspections, advertising, hours, and sanitation. The bill also increases the penalty for practicing massage therapy without a license from a class B to a class A misdemeanor and makes each unlicensed session a separate offense, while preserving existing protections for trafficking victims. The committee then heard Senate Bill 33, which addresses recovery residence centers. Senator Thomas said the bill responds to fraudulent or noncompliant recovery homes operating without proper certification and creating neighborhood problems. The measure would require recovery residences to notify cities when they apply for and receive certification, report certain ownership and contact information, and allow cities to keep a registry so they can identify certified facilities. Testimony from the Kentucky Alliance of Recovery Residences supported the bill’s enforcement goals but objected to making addresses public, citing safety concerns for vulnerable residents; the sponsor agreed to remove the public-record language through a floor amendment. The committee passed the bill favorably 8-0. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 85, which would allow state retirement benefits to be directed to a special needs trust. The sponsor and co-sponsor said the bill is intended to help state employees provide for a dependent with special needs after the employee’s death without affecting eligibility for waiver or other benefits. A witness from the Kentucky Alliance of Recovery Residences supported the concept and noted the importance of clear language, while Senator McDaniel raised a technical concern about whether the bill could allow benefits to be directed to an unintended beneficiary. The sponsor said the language would be reviewed and clarified if needed. The committee approved the bill 8-0 with favorable expression and adjourned.