Transcript Highlights:

• So in some cases, you have departments that, in order to meet base operational needs, need to keep some
• They need that funding to meet those needs.
• So overall budget resiliency does need to look at special funds as well.
• So overall budget resiliency does need to look at special funds as well; it's not just the General Fund
• We need CUSP and we need LFPA. We farm all organically.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard opening remarks from Secretary of Food and Agriculture Karen Ross, who reviewed the department’s budget and priorities. She emphasized California agriculture’s record production, but also the pressures facing farmers from climate change, drought, groundwater regulation, supply chain disruptions, low commodity prices, and federal funding cuts. Ross highlighted ongoing investments in Farm to School, local food procurement, food hubs, climate-smart agriculture, invasive pest prevention, bird flu response, and food safety, and she warned that proposed USDA cuts and market disruptions could harm research, pest control, and export development. Members also discussed the importance of local food systems, school kitchens, and the need to better connect farmers to schools, food banks, and institutions. A major topic was the Farm to School program and related local food initiatives. The chair raised concerns that the Legislative Analyst’s Office was recommending against continued funding for Farm to School because it did not meet the state’s “must-have” standard, and suggested pairing it more closely with the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program and food hubs to broaden its impact. Ross responded that Farm to School has already reached nearly half of California students, has helped small farms, and is part of a larger strategy that includes school kitchen investments and culinary training. Members also discussed Market Match/CNIP, which Ross said was not funded in the current budget, and Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including SWEEP, Healthy Soils, urban agriculture, invasive species work, tribal food sovereignty, and land access programs. The committee then moved to Item 1 on eliminating vacant positions at the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation, and Food and Agriculture. The LAO explained that the Governor proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions statewide, with the JLBC previously not concurring with 650 of them, including 174 in these three departments. The LAO recommended retaining the special-funded positions at Fish and Wildlife and Food and Agriculture because they support important functions and do not materially help the budget, while weighing the General Fund positions against other priorities. Finance said the vacancy reductions were intended to improve budget resiliency and preserve flexibility, noting that vacant positions can be used to cover other operational costs or be reclassified. Department representatives argued some eliminated positions were hard to fill and that the cuts would affect permitting, public safety, maintenance, and pest detection, though they said immediate impacts would be limited because many positions were already vacant. Members pressed Finance and department staff on whether the savings justified the program impacts, especially at Fish and Wildlife, where permitting bottlenecks were described as a concern for housing, clean energy, water, and transportation projects. Several members questioned why special funds tied to fees were being reduced, and why Fish and Wildlife’s special funds were treated differently from other departments. Parks said the proposed ranger and maintenance cuts would not have immediate effects but could slow long-term maintenance and staffing capacity. CDFA said some of the eliminated positions supported early pest detection, the broom rape program, and other oversight functions, but that the department believed it could still meet its mandate through reclassification and internal prioritization. No votes were taken, and the chair noted that public comment would come after all items were heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:30:15.080> needs in a way that meets their special needs in a way that meets their special
• <00:46:19.240> refuse with special needs and can ref refuse with special needs and can ref
• <04:13:31.159> needs these minimal types of special needs these minimal types of special needs
• needs children with complex special needs children with complex special needs affecting<04:13:37.359
• Such students often need to attend special schools.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 115-FN, which would remove the income cap from New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account eligibility rules. Representative Valerie McDonnell, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure is intended to fund students rather than systems and to expand educational choice regardless of income or zip code. She described the change as a small statutory edit but argued it would have significant benefits, including helping families afford alternative education settings and testing costs such as AP exams. She also cited testimony from families who said EFAs helped children with special needs or difficult circumstances, and she argued the program is popular and cost-effective. Committee members questioned McDonnell about the bill’s fiscal impact and administration. One member asked whether removing the income cap would extend vouchers to families above the statewide median income and whether the change could cost more than $100 million annually; McDonnell said she did not agree with that estimate and pointed to Arizona as a comparison. Representative Wendy Thomas asked whether the bill should require stronger data-sharing from the Children’s Scholarship Fund, which administers the program, so the Department of Education and taxpayers could better track spending; McDonnell said the program already uses ClassWallet and regulated expenditures, and that the question was better directed to the administrator. Several members testified in opposition. Representative Wendy Thomas said the bill would increase costs for public schools, raise local property taxes, and worsen oversight problems. Representative Heath Howard argued the proposal would function as a subsidy for wealthy families already paying private tuition and said public education and special education should be funded first. Representative Megan Murray also opposed the bill, emphasizing the lack of a legal reporting requirement for EFA spending and the need for transparency, accountability, and attention to special education needs. Representative Sam Farrington supported expansion, sharing a constituent story about a student who left public school after harassment and benefited from private school placement. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• needs students.
• needs students.
• ed needs.
• So if there are children with special needs in a charter school, those students would get an enhanced
• So if there are children with special needs in a charter school, those students would get an enhanced

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met with a quorum present, approved the prior meeting minutes, and then took up several House bills with strike-and-insert amendments. House Bill 5510 was amended to incorporate provisions from Senate Bills 1065 and 928, modernizing Alcohol Beverage Control licensing and adding rules for low-proof spirit alcohol products, including a $1.25 per gallon tax; the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation. The committee then considered House Bill 5453 on school funding. After discussion of a proposed block-grant system and supplemental aid for special education, the committee adopted an amendment replacing much of the bill with weighted funding for level two and level three special education students, exempting those funds from block grant rules and limiting their use to direct instruction. The committee also adopted a clarification to extend the special education funding to charter school students and reported the amended bill to the Senate. House Bill 5412, dealing with multi-year technology licensing contracts for local fiscal bodies and science-of-reading training for K-5 teachers, was amended to clarify contract language, delay implementation dates, change “endorsement” to “training,” and require charter school teachers to participate; it was then reported. The committee next amended and reported House Bill 4006, which creates aerospace development and workforce grant programs, changing the funding mechanism to use Department of Commerce reporting and personal income tax proceeds rather than direct employee withholdings. It also took up House Bill 4009, combining voluntary portable benefits for independent contractors with microcredentialing and an expanded apprenticeship tax credit, adopted the Finance Committee amendment, and reported it. Finally, House Bill 4004 creating the Recharge West Virginia training reimbursement program was amended to raise the annual employer reimbursement cap from $50,000 to $100,000 while keeping the $10,000 per-employee limit, and the committee reported the bill. The meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education aid
• But we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education aid
• But we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education aid
• But we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education aid
• , but we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The executive session focused primarily on HB 563, which revises the school funding formula, especially the adequate education grant amounts for special education students and the treatment of fiscal capacity disparity aid. Representative Ladd moved OTPA on Amendment 06508, explaining that FY 26 would largely hold the current formula steady, while FY 27 would increase several per-pupil amounts, including base cost, free and reduced-price meals, English language learner aid, and special education differentiated aid. He said the special education change was based on estimated case loads across disability categories and that the amendment also reinstates fiscal capacity disparity aid, using a formula intended to better assist property-poor communities. Several members supported the amendment as a step in the right direction, saying it better recognizes special education costs and separates property wealth from low-income student counts. Others raised concerns about the lack of time and the absence of a printed spreadsheet showing how the fiscal capacity disparity aid would affect each town. In response, sponsors said the spreadsheet existed, that the LBA had copies, and that the amendment would help about 40 target towns, while Manchester would be the main community receiving less under the new formula because of prior shifts in the extraordinary needs grant. Discussion also covered the broader impact of the bill, with members noting that about 200 of the state’s 245 cities and towns would see an increase and 45 a decrease under the proposed FY 27 changes. Supporters argued the bill was a compromise given limited revenues and that it should move forward so it can be considered by the full House and then Finance. No final vote on the amendment or bill was taken in the portion provided, and the chair indicated the committee was still deciding whether it had enough information to proceed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. of this transition in special education funding. It is desperately needed.
• Allotment and the commitment to special education, both seriously in need of additional funding.
• Stephens, real quick, you said, so you did, or you're career is serving students with special needs,
• investment in special education, increased weight for... students who need the most help to catch up
• We know what students need and we need your help to do it.

Bills: HB2, HB2

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• But needed, and that's why we had differential aid, the special education aid there, and under differentiated
• special uni like a unified arts special special uni like a unified arts special during<00:53:16.800
• needs and program. needs and program.
• um costs and uh needs. um costs and uh needs.
• special education. special education.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One of our biggest populations of students that have these pressing needs are special education students
• needs?
• support needs?
• There's this—we need to continue to do work in this space because those needs are real.
• I mean, we need to have a range of expertise. We need different kinds of skills on the board.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee heard a lengthy agenda of education-related bills, with quorum established at the start and several measures taken up on consent or special order. The committee also announced that AB 1644, AB 2362, and later AB 2197 were pulled from the hearing. Members reminded the public of hearing rules and limited testimony to two witnesses each in support and opposition. AB 2651, by Assemblymember Bonta, would require schools to notify parents when school vaccination rates fall below herd-immunity thresholds. Supporters, including physicians, the California State PTA, public health groups, and school employee organizations, argued that families need timely, school-specific information to protect children and vulnerable community members. Opponents raised concerns about privacy, stigma, and whether school-level snapshots could be misleading. The bill passed the committee 5-1 and later 7-1 on the roll call. AB 2509, by Assemblymember Schultz, would allow districts to use a five-year rolling average for ADA funding calculations; supporters said it would stabilize funding amid attendance declines, while one member noted concerns about masking long-term enrollment problems. It passed 5-1 and later 7-2. The committee also approved AB 2430, which would expand after-school access, especially for high school students, improve funding and transparency, and create a work group on program quality. Testimony emphasized the value of expanded learning for youth development and working families, and members discussed the need to address middle school access as well. AB 2526, focused on special education funding, would expand the low-incidence fund to include students qualifying for the California alternate assessment; supporters said it would better align funding with student need, while some concerns remained about over-identification. AB 2325, the Pathways to Bilingual Teaching Act, would create a grant program to build bilingual teacher pipelines through partnerships among schools, community colleges, and universities; it received strong support and passed unanimously. AB 2460, presented by Assemblymember Pellerin for Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez, would update school mental-health referral protocols to address trauma related to immigration enforcement; it also passed unanimously. AB 2404, which sought to require Central Valley representation on several governor-appointed bodies, drew debate over geographic representation and board composition and ultimately failed on a 2-5 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• The second one is special education.
• , for special education is, is, is from the legislature.
• students receive special education in a general education classroom, but then about 40% of special education
• They are receiving special education. So these are isolated.
• And right now the special education student population is 14%.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've just looked up here in FY26 base scholarships are capped at $3,450, while special ed needs under
• I've just looked up here in FY26 base scholarships are capped at $3,450, while special ed needs under
• while special ed needs under the while special ed needs under the education<02:11:56.880> tax
• <02:28:01.520> But<02:28:01.840> we<02:28:02.080> need special special education
• But we need special special education.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our Heavenly Father, we start this special session.
• The governor is vested with special, specific authority to convene a special session of the Legislative
• The special session of the Legislative Assembly...
• during the special session.
• And will not meet during the special session.

Bills: SB2401, SB2402, SB2403, SB2404

Keywords: SB 2401, North Dakota, Century Code, occupational therapy, occupational therapy board, criminal history record check, background check, licensee investigation, physician continuing education, medical license renewal, nutrition education, metabolic health, chronic disease prevention, health occupation boards, medical board, licensure fee, audit response, disciplinary action, Title 43, board of medicine

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and roll call establishing a quorum of 45 members present and two absent. The chamber received certification from the Secretary of State and the governor’s executive order calling the special session to address funding for the Rural Health Transformation Program and to act quickly to accept and appropriate federal funds. The main action was adoption of the procedural rules for the extraordinary session. Senator Klein explained the proposed rule changes, which were designed to speed up consideration of bills during the short session, including limits on bill introduction, same-day second reading and final passage, elimination of standing committees for the session, creation of a Joint Policy Committee and Joint Appropriations Committee, and authorization for remote testimony and limited remote participation. The procedural committee’s report on these rules was adopted without opposition. The Senate also adopted reports naming members to the Joint Policy Committee and Joint Appropriations Committee. Announcements noted that the Senate Employment Committee, Joint Policy Committee, and Joint Appropriations Committee would meet later that morning, that the Senate would not reconvene at 4 p.m., and that a Highway Patrol presentation on legislator safety would be held. The Senate then moved through the listed orders of business and recessed, planning to meet in joint session with the House before adjourning until Thursday, January 22, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• I knew that we were going to hold you into a special session, and that's okay if we need to finish up
• I think the time between now and when a special session is called will determine the length of the special
• I think the time between now and when a special session is called will determine the length of the special
• We have a going to special session.
• we're going to roll into special we're going to roll into special session.<00:18:06.400> At

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So in the rates case, we don't need to make that special; we don't have to refer to both unless you don't
• to make that rates case we don't need to make that special<01:34:40.800> we<01:34:40.920>
• Oh, special education.
• You don’t need to bring a special person in.
• fine you don't need to bring bring<02:01:54.560> a<02:01:54.639> special<02:01:54.960><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of School Finance provided an adequacy-funding training for Division II, led by Mark Mello. He walked the committee through the adequacy formula using Albany, Allenstown, and Alton as examples, explaining average daily membership, base adequacy aid, and differential aid for free/reduced-price meals, special education, and English language learners. He also noted a recent change requiring home-education differential aid and emphasized that these aid streams are generally unrestricted district funding rather than money tied to specific students or programs. A major focus was the ongoing litigation over the adequacy base amount and the statewide education property tax, or SWEPT. Mello explained the historical basis of the current base amount, the 2008 legislative report that set the original methodology, and the later court ruling that the adequacy amount should be $7,356, which is now before the Supreme Court. He also described how SWEPT currently raises a fixed statewide amount of $363 million and how that revenue is used to offset the state’s adequacy obligation. For the example towns, Albany and Allenstown receive state adequacy grants because their SWEPT revenue is below their calculated adequacy cost, while Alton is an excess SWEPT community because its local SWEPT revenue exceeds the cost of adequate education. The discussion then turned to the pending “excess SWEPT” issue in the Supreme Court and what would happen if excess collections had to be remitted to the state. Mello said the Department is preparing a hypothetical walkthrough and explained that, if the court upholds the Superior Court ruling, DRA would likely be directed to collect excess SWEPT. Members raised concerns about whether SWEPT must be used for educational purposes and about the cash-flow burden on towns if money had to move from municipalities to the state and then back to districts. Mello and members discussed possible administrative workarounds, such as credits against other state aid distributions, and noted that the committee would continue reviewing the mechanics if the court decision comes down during budget work.

Transcript Highlights:

• You You need this over here.
• We just need parents to know that they have access to it.
• We just need parents have access to it.
• at the cost of special education and We're looking at the cost of special education and the cost in
• So there's some logistical challenges with relative to special education uh, um, with relative to special

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Freedom Account Oversight Committee met on March 27 and approved the agenda, adding a request for clarification on how the Children’s Scholarship Fund separates applications for the EFA program and the education tax credit program. The committee also approved minutes from December 30, 2025, and March 27, 2026, with a request that the March minutes include a link to the live stream. Members discussed the status of pending Legislative Budget Assistant audit reports on EFA and special education, noting the reports were still not released and would likely come later in the summer after review by the Department of Education and the Children’s Scholarship Fund. A major topic was the EFA program’s administrative fee, which statute allows up to 10% of deposits. Children’s Scholarship Fund representatives said current administrative costs were under 8%, that staffing had been reduced through the ScholarVia platform, and that any unused amount is reconciled and returned to students at year’s end. Members asked for historical administrative-cost data and a written explanation of how the withholding and reconciliation process works. The committee also reviewed the distinction between the EFA and education tax credit funding streams and was told the two programs use separate applications and separate funds, though both use the same platform. The committee spent substantial time on assessment and accountability. Department of Education staff explained that EFA students may satisfy annual assessment requirements through a portfolio, a norm-referenced test, or the statewide assessment; only about 10 EFA students took the statewide assessment, while most used portfolios or standardized tests such as the California Achievement Test and NWEA. Staff described how statewide assessment data are kept separate by student identifier and can be aggregated for EFA reporting, and members asked for breakdowns by grade, test type, and school district. The department also discussed linking assessments through Lexiles and Quantiles and said it could provide a list of commonly used formative assessments in New Hampshire districts. The committee additionally discussed a possible PSAT addition to the state contract and the costs of the statewide assessment program. Another major issue was special education eligibility and services within the EFA program. Members questioned the rule allowing a medical certification of disability from a licensed professional anywhere in the United States as an alternative to an IEP-based determination. Department staff said the current system allows either pathway, that about 1,000 EFA students are identified as special education students, and that the program does not track growth or service alignment on an individual basis. Members expressed concern that the medical-certification route may be too broad and asked for data on the disability categories used. The committee also discussed career and technical education access for EFA students, noting that Senate Bill 491 would provide guidance and that House Bill 1817 would address access and funding issues, but that current law still allows EFA funds to be used to pay CTE costs. The meeting ended with a request for future agenda items and a decision to leave the next meeting date open until fall, pending further information from the LBA audit process.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't need to have it, right?
• And so we certainly need certainty on that.
• And, of course, somebody has to run that equipment, so you need skilled labor, you need skilled workers
• a special session for the beginning of December we suggested a special session for the first week of
• I find it surprising that we hear that we need a balance, ...surprising that we hear that we need a balanced

Bills: HB2011, HB2089, HB2090, HB2092, HB2477, HB2785

Keywords: individual income tax, subtraction, Arizona Revised Statutes, retirement benefits, adoption costs, charitable contributions, health insurance, premium payment, Arizona State Retirement System, contingent annuitant, long-term disability, benefits limitations, disability compensation, social security, retirement system, elected officials, ASRS, eligibility waiver, age 65, education savings

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2785, a tax conformity measure that would update Arizona statutes to conform to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would align state law with tax forms already issued by the Department of Revenue, provide certainty to filers, and deliver about $440 million in tax relief through provisions such as no tax on tips and overtime, a larger standard deduction, and a $6,000 senior deduction. Opponents argued the bill would significantly reduce state revenue, disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers, and should be considered alongside a broader budget plan. After debate and an amendment addressing retroactivity and foreign dividends, the committee approved HB 2785 on a 5-4 vote. The committee then took up several Arizona State Retirement System and education savings bills. HB 2089 clarified the health insurance premium benefit subsidy for retirees and passed unanimously. HB 2090 changed the disability determination period for long-term disability benefits from 24 months within a five-year period to a straight 24-month period and passed 8-1. HB 2092 allowed employees over age 65 to waive ARS participation within 30 days of becoming eligible and also passed 8-1. HB 2477 conformed Arizona’s 529 education savings plan to federal law, including expanded uses and a permanent rollover to ABLE accounts and Roth IRAs; testimony supported the cleanup and simplification, but some members raised concerns about the Roth rollover and possible use of transferred ESA funds. HB 2477 passed 5-3 with one present vote, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:22.479> to him that we shouldn't have needed to him that we shouldn't have needed to
• special privilege to hide stuff.
• that are posted as this is a Special that are posted as this is a Special Assistant<00:06:27.599
• > privilege special treatment and special privilege special treatment and special privilege to<00
• themselves to have this special themselves to have this special protection<00:20:06.240> under

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House Majority Leader Harry Niska discussed House File 20, a bill he said would amend Minnesota’s Data Practices Act by adding the words “on individuals” to clarify that the private-data exemption applies only to information actually tied to an individual person. He argued the bill would overturn a 2022 Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Energy Policy Advocates v. Allison that, in his view, allowed the Attorney General’s office to withhold policymaking and closed investigative data even when no individual privacy interest was involved. Niska framed the measure as a transparency and democracy issue, saying the Attorney General’s office should not have a special secrecy privilege that other state agencies and prosecutors do not have. In response to questions, Niska said the Attorney General opposed the bill, citing concerns about the cost and burden of data practices requests and raising a broader question about whether some businesses might have privacy interests similar to individuals. Niska said the bill is not meant to eliminate legitimate privacy protections for actual individuals, including sensitive investigative information, but to prevent the office from using the private-data category to shield non-personal information. He also said the issue arose in part from information about outside influence on the Attorney General’s office, including funding for positions through NYU and the Bloomberg Foundation. Niska said the bill had been introduced by Republicans two years earlier but did not receive a hearing, and he expected it to come to the House floor because Republicans now control committees. He said Democrats were expected to vote as a bloc against it, and he suggested the vote would show where members stand on transparency. He also said other GOP priorities may move through committees and to the floor as they are ready, mentioning permitting reform, repeal of the nuclear moratorium, and an OIG-related bill, but he did not provide a detailed schedule. No vote on the bill was taken during the exchange.

Transcript Highlights:

• The conservation community is rising to meet the need.
• We need to take good care of them.
• We need to... And we're bombarded, but we need a little break.
• We need to rethink, we need to get away from the everyday hustle and bustle.
• You know, where are the needs, what are the greatest needs, and where are the resources?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition No. 25-15, H.5505, “An Act to Protect Water and Nature.” Committee co-chairs outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the hearing was divided into expert, proponent, opponent, and public-comment sections. The first witness, Undersecretary Stephanie Cooper of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, described current state and federal funding sources for land conservation and outdoor recreation, said existing programs are oversubscribed, and noted that the proposal aligns with the Commonwealth’s 30% land conservation goal by 2030 and 40% by 2050. She also flagged possible governance clarifications in the petition, including board structure and administrative authority, while saying the administration has the expertise to manage such a fund. Proponents from Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, Mount Grace Land Trust, the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, and Bemis Associates argued that Massachusetts needs a dedicated, sustained revenue stream for conservation, clean water, climate resilience, and public access to nature. They said current funding is inconsistent and insufficient, cited estimates that the state may need roughly $300 million or more annually to meet conservation targets, and emphasized benefits to public health, mental health, biodiversity, flood protection, and the outdoor recreation economy. Several speakers said the measure would dedicate a portion of existing sales tax revenue tied to sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses, and that it would support both urban and rural communities, including underserved communities. Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill’s fiscal and constitutional implications, including how much sales tax revenue would be redirected, whether the measure is constitutional, how funds would be allocated among communities, and why the proposal includes certain revenue sources but not others such as ticket sales. Proponents said the measure would likely direct up to about $100 million annually when fully phased in, that it was designed as a “subject to appropriation” mechanism, and that legal review had found it constitutional. They also acknowledged that the proposal would reduce general fund flexibility but argued it would create a long-term investment in natural resources. The hearing concluded after public testimony, and the committee announced it would accept written testimony until March 27 at 5 p.m.; no vote was taken on the petition at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Health Needs program, which is a set of programs to serve children with special needs in their...
• Health Needs program, which is a set of programs to serve children with special needs in their...
• Health Needs program, which is a set of programs to serve children with special needs in their...
• Health Needs program, which is a set of programs to serve children with special needs in their...
• with special needs in their ...families.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The meeting was an informational walkthrough for the Health Finance and Policy Working Group, focused on committee structure, budget basics, and major health-related accounts and programs. Staff explained the roles of House Research and House Fiscal, then reviewed key funds used by the committee, including the general fund, government special revenue fund, federal funds, the health care access fund, remediation account, and drinking water revolving fund. They also outlined the committee’s main budget areas, noting that medical assistance is the largest general fund item and that the Department of Health is a substantial agency funded by a mix of federal, general fund, and special revenue dollars. A major portion of the presentation covered subsidized health coverage programs. Staff described Medical Assistance (Minnesota’s Medicaid program) as an entitlement for eligible Minnesotans, with no premiums or cost sharing, and explained its managed care and fee-for-service delivery systems. MinnesotaCare was presented as a separate federal-state basic health program for people who are not eligible for MA, with income limits, premiums for adults age 21 and older, and cost-sharing requirements; staff noted that federal premium tax credit changes affect MinnesotaCare premium ranges. The presentation also summarized MNsure’s role in the individual market and in determining eligibility for premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, MinnesotaCare, and MA. The committee also received an overview of health-related licensing boards and occupational regulation. Staff said Minnesota has 16 health-related licensing boards, funded mainly through the state government special revenue fund and subject to legislative appropriation, and explained that health occupations may be regulated by the Department of Health, the Office of Emergency Medical Services, or the boards under chapter 214. Interstate licensure compacts were briefly noted as a way to ease practice across states. No bills were debated and no votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no need for this at all.
• that they need serving their communities.
• I don't call that a special interest carveout.
• election and a special election.
• Without a set timeline for calling special elections, dramatic inconsistencies for scheduling special

Transcript Highlights:

• So we need to make that point clear.
• We need to recognize that there was a need. Policy is only as good as how it's implemented.
• we need.
• We need services like that. We need support.
• Investing in effective educators, especially in high-need areas like special education and early childhood

Bills: SB26, SB 26

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, SB 26, Texas Property Code, colonia, colonias, Spanish translation, bilingual contract, real estate contract, executory contract, residential property, border county, international border, economically distressed area, consumer protection, language access, translator certified in Spanish

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes dependent special districts, independent special districts, MSTUs, etc.
• And maybe they need it.
• Do I need closer? Okay. Thank you.
• Maybe we need to look inside and say we need to do a better job in a JALAC committee.
• So, as I said, I will vote for today, but I can tell you it needs work. It needs changes.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.