Transcript Highlights:

• Um but again, Um so them is just apples.
• mentioned the one bite of the apple mentioned the one bite of the apple corrections<01:25:08.400
• ,<01:30:46.400> um, back to the one bite of the apple, um, back to the one bite of the apple
• Um, and so depending on come into maps.
• that maps provides. that maps provides.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The task force held its first meeting, beginning with roll call and introductions of members and participants in the room and on Zoom. The chair emphasized Sunshine Law transparency, noted the meeting was on September 11, and opened public testimony on the orientation report. No one testified in person or on Zoom, and the chair observed a moment of silence in remembrance of 9/11 before moving into the agenda. The chair then reported on several orientation presentations given statewide between July 18 and September 5, including meetings with transit-oriented development, the Maui Chamber of Commerce, the Kona-Kohala Chamber, the Japanese Chamber of Commerce on Hawaiʻi Island, the Hawaiʻi Island Chamber of Commerce, the Hawaiʻi Island Native Hawaiian Chamber, and the Capo Chamber of Commerce. The main presentation item was a detailed overview from Kauaʻi County on its permitting process. County staff explained that zoning and building permits are handled separately on the outer islands, with zoning focused on form, character, and compatibility, and building permits focused on health and safety. They described a two-tier zoning system: ministerial permits that are automatically approved if not acted on within 30 days, and discretionary permits that go to the planning commission and can become lengthy contested cases if there is intervention. They also discussed special management area review in coastal areas, which can add time, and explained that building permits must conform to what was approved in zoning. Kauaʻi County staff also outlined the building permit process, including online and in-person submission, coordination with planning, engineering, water, wastewater, health, and fire agencies, and the county’s fully electronic review system using ProjectDox and related software. They noted that applicants are encouraged to check zoning, water, wastewater, and floodplain issues before hiring someone to prepare plans, especially for homeowners. The county shared permit and utility statistics and said the public can check permit history through Click2Gov. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided; after the Kauaʻi presentation, the chair opened a question period for members.

Transcript Highlights:

• project, and it's been very helpful at putting things in perspective of how, when we're comparing apples
• to apples and when we're comparing apples to oranges, when we're looking at other states and what the
• Second, it is, as someone had already mentioned, comparing apples to oranges to some extent to compare
• We've got our next couple hearings mapped. I know what's going to happen after that.
• We've got our next couple hearings mapped. I know what's going to happen after that.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on January 12 to continue its review of DOC classification practices, with Senator Brownsberger and Representative Hunt co-chairing. After brief discussion of the prior hearing, members said there would likely be another opportunity for additional testimony, including possible video testimony from people inside facilities. The main presentation for the day was DOC’s classification system and a UMass Chan study of whether the system predicts institutional misconduct and whether overrides affect its accuracy or create racial/ethnic bias. DOC officials described the objective point-based classification system, its history, and the role of discretionary and non-discretionary overrides. They said the system is designed to balance public safety and reintegration, with initial classification emphasizing offense history and reclassification emphasizing institutional adjustment. DOC reported that, in the current population, about 16% are classified to maximum security, 74% to medium, and 10% to lower security. They also reviewed the non-discretionary restrictions that keep people out of minimum or medium security, and said discretionary overrides are used less often than the National Institute of Corrections’ suggested ceiling and are reviewed within six months. UMass Chan researchers said their analysis used historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, focused mainly on about 7,600 male reclassification cases, and found that the scored custody level accurately predicted institutional misconduct. They said the tool performed well on standard statistical measures, but predictive accuracy declined after overrides were applied, with overlap appearing between minimum and medium groups. In a supplementary analysis, they said the loss of accuracy was driven primarily by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. They also said the study did not find evidence of racial or ethnic bias in the tool itself, and that DOC’s current system is comparatively more lenient than many other states. Members and guests raised concerns about overclassification to medium security, the low share of people in minimum, the role of civil commitment restrictions, and whether the data captured historical bias or individual cases where overrides felt subjective. DOC and UMass Chan responded that the study was group-based, not case-specific, and that minimum-security rates are hard to compare across states because Massachusetts’ prison and county systems differ structurally. The commission did not take a vote or formal action, but asked members to send follow-up data questions by the end of the week for referral to DOC and the researchers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Diverse weights and diverse measures, which this is, because it's not apples to apples.
• So I want you to consider that, that this is not apples to apples. We would miss it.
• Diverse weights and diverse measures, which this is, because it's not apples to apples.
• So I want you to consider that, that this is not apples to apples. We would miss it.
• He also had a Google map with directions from his home in Houston to our home in Austin.

Bills: HB223

Keywords: municipal budget, county budget, local government finance, spending cap, expenditure limit, inflation plus population growth, taxpayer impact statement, budget transparency, property tax, fees, Legislative Budget Board, voter approval, disaster spending, fiscal restraint, Texas Local Government Code, city budget, county expenditures

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs heard several House bills, with most measures left pending after testimony and later taken up in a batch of votes. Early in the meeting, HB 5624 on liability protections for motocross/off-road vehicle tracks, HB 223 on requiring competitive procurement for municipal lobbying contracts, HB 3709 on post-election audit procedures, and HB 5081 on protecting personal information of judicial officers and court staff were all discussed and left pending after testimony. Witnesses on HB 223 supported greater transparency in municipal lobbying contracts. HB 3709 drew sharp opposition from an election integrity advocate who argued the bill would reduce precinct-level granularity and make it harder to detect ballot errors, while a Secretary of State resource witness said the bill would simplify and standardize the audit process by location. HB 5081 received strong support from court administration and a district judge who described prior threats and an attack tied to publicly available personal information. The committee also heard HB 3546 on allowing school districts to move elections to November, HB 493 on barring certain felony offenders from serving as poll watchers, HB 5115 on increasing penalties for election fraud and related conduct, HB 4081 on trade secret filing procedures, HB 3909 on limiting restrictions on wireless devices at polling places, HB 2702 on limiting gubernatorial closure authority for certain veterans organizations during pandemics, HB 119 on foreign adversary lobbying, and HB 5138 on the Attorney General’s authority to prosecute election crimes. Several of these bills were explained with committee substitutes and then left pending before final action. Testimony on HB 493 and HB 5115 came from an election integrity advocate who supported both bills, saying the poll watcher restriction was appropriately narrowed and that the election fraud bill would help address invalid votes and refusal to count valid votes. Later, the committee took up pending business and voted out a large number of bills, generally along party lines or with broad support. HB 186 on minors’ social media use, HB 229, HB 2885, HB 3909 as substituted, HB 4285, HB 1661, HB 2820, HB 3181, HB 4157, HB 223, HB 521, HB 640, HB 1234, HB 2253, HB 2294, HB 3053, HB 3697 as substituted, HB 4281, HB 4463, HB 4995, HB 5081 as substituted, HB 5624 as substituted, HB 119 as substituted, HB 3225, HB 5138 as substituted, HB 5115, HB 481 as substituted, HB 3546, HB 493, and HB 4145 were reported favorably to the full Senate, with several also placed on the local and uncontested calendar. The committee also adopted committee substitutes for multiple bills, including HB 3909, HB 5081, HB 5624, HB 119, HB 5138, and HB 481. At the end, the chair noted another committee meeting would likely be needed before deadlines, possibly on a weekend, and recessed the committee subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• The majority islands as seen on the map.
• NAEP is the only true apples-to-apples comparison across states.
• <00:47:44.319> across true applesto apples comparison across true applesto apples comparison
• The $22,000 figure is just not an apples-to-apples comparison.
• So it's just not an apples-to-apples number, and we'd be very happy to sit down whenever there's time

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Lynn Johnson, and I live in Apple Valley.
• ,<00:59:12.640> is Hennepin County property map, is Hennepin County property map, is $140,000
• While we direct market our apples, others in the Minnesota apple industry compete with apples grown in
• While we direct market our apples, others in the Minnesota apple industry compete with apples grown in
• Minnesota Grown, such as in-season apple Minnesota Grown, such as in-season apple variety<01:31:30.040

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's apples, apple orchard. [Unclear word: 'Contest.']
• Garrett: If we could just get even a basic outline, the Women's Historical Marker would be nice, to get a map
• If we could just get even a basic outline, women's historical marker would be nice to get a map of where
• It won't allow us to complete our mapping program, which is really important for permittees, so they

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you look at your Google Maps or Apple Maps, you'll see that it is a checkerboard of jurisdiction there
• Next slide, this is a map of our gaming tribes and casinos.
• We began developing this map last month in partnership with our Communications team.
• I also interviewed John Trujillo, and he is an apple farmer.
• He has a good-sized apple orchard and sells his apples at the market in Santa Fe.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not<00:57:28.480> apples<00:57:28.799> for<00:57:29.000> apples.
• The ability to not apples for apples.
• Yes, it isn't apples to apples question.
• Yes, it isn't apples to apples necessarily,<00:58:04.640> but<00:58:04.960> they're<00:
• that we use now, Google Maps Map Quest that we use now, Google Maps or<01:46:21.440> whatever.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• are going, we think, into similar formations, so there's reason to believe that, just looking at the map
• It will take you to a webpage that has an interactive map. showing where all of the currently orphaned
• We're not doing a cost benefit analysis, so we're not at that point where we can compare apples to apples
• So cost-benefit analysis helps you all as policymakers compare apples to apples across policy areas.
• Apples to apples and it's really the gold standard for answering what we call normative questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm concerned. about is we're not like while it looks like we may be comparing apples to apples I'm
• very concerned that the way the data are presented we're actually not comparing apples to apples because
• I'm just concerned about getting lawmakers, you know, an apples-to-apples comparison.
• up with you offline just to make sure that we are giving. giving policymakers a more transparent apples-to-apples
• Slide three presents a map of our current hospitals.

Keywords: budget, House Bill 1, public education, healthcare, border security, federal funding, spending limits

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on reviewing the proposed budget for the upcoming biennium, with substantial discussions around House Bill 1 and its implications for public education, healthcare, and border security. The Comptroller presented a revenue overview indicating a total of $194.6 billion available for general purpose spending, which reflects a slight decrease compared to previous years due to fluctuating economic conditions. Members raised questions regarding spending limits and the impact of federal funding on state programs, highlighting concerns about the sustainability of funding in light of potential changes at the federal level.

Transcript Highlights:

• no pass maps as part of their guidance. no pass maps as part of their guidance.
• My name is Abby Sites, testifying on behalf of Hawaii Apples Seed in strong support of this measure.
• Next, we have Hawaii Apples >> Thank you.
• Next, we have Hawaii Apples Seed<00:40:46.880> Center<00:40:47.040> for<00:40:47.200>
• Seed in strong support of this Apples Seed in strong support of this measure.<00:40:58.079> Uh

Bills: HB2241, HB2316, HB1566, HB1926, HB1673, HB1948, HB2602, HB1598, HB2334, HB2451, HB2243

Keywords: renewable energy, income tax credit, solar energy, wind energy, low-income households, energy policy, lead materials, drinking water, public health, water infrastructure, safety regulations, HB1566, energy efficiency, LED lighting, light-emitting diodes, fluorescent bulbs, fluorescent fixtures, compact fluorescent lamps, CFL ban, mercury-free lighting

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a bill to expand the solar energy tax credit for single-family residential properties by removing certain cap amounts and raising the adjusted gross income limits for taxpayers to elect a refund of excess credits. The Hawaii State Energy Office and Department of Taxation both said they were standing on written testimony, while industry and advocacy groups largely supported the measure. Members questioned whether the income thresholds were set appropriately, how many taxpayers would be affected at different income levels, and how many would qualify for refundable treatment; Taxation said it did not yet have the requested numbers but was preparing a fiscal estimate. A major issue raised was drafting and administration: witnesses said the bill appears to apply differently to owner-purchased systems versus third-party leased systems, and Taxation said it likely could not easily verify household income for leased systems or cross-reference different taxpayers. Discussion also covered whether the credit should remain refundable, whether credits should be limited to amounts actually expended, and whether the bill should instead be structured to keep the credit with the system owner or lessor, with concerns about equity, market effects, and possible incentives to lease rather than buy. The committee then moved to HB 2316, which would align state restrictions on lead materials in drinking water infrastructure with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The Department of Health and other supporters testified in favor, and there were no questions from the chair. Next, HB 1566 on energy efficiency would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting, with the Hawaii State Energy Office providing technical assistance and a compliance survey prioritized for first responder facilities; testimony from state agencies and advocates was in support, and again there were no questions. For HB 1926 on Red Hill, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Board of Water Supply, and multiple organizations and individuals supported funding for remediation studies, environmental monitoring, groundwater research, independent testing, and a public dashboard, with DLNR emphasizing that decades of work remain necessary even after defueling and that the bill supports ongoing university and community partnerships. The committee then heard HB 1673 on landfill units. The Department of Health initially said it was in support but later corrected the record and stated it strongly opposes the measure, saying the bill would undo protections enacted last session that keep landfills out of areas over aquifers; the Board of Water Supply also opposed repeal of those protections, while the City and County of Honolulu supported the HD1 version that leaves siting decisions to the counties. Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi and the Energy Justice Network opposed the bill, arguing the original protections should remain and that the amended version had confused commenters; supporters of the original version urged restoring it and considering additional language on ash.

Transcript Highlights:

• When you look on the right-hand side, that's By quarter, so this is an apples-to-apples conversation.
• We didn't fund the aquifer mapping program, and we didn't fund it over a three-year period.
• Aquifer Mapping.
• Last year, it was all the buzz about Aquifer Mapping, same institution, the same people.
• There's a map of that one in the annual report.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if you notice on the map, it's a pretty straight shot.
• <01:16:15.719> There's ATVs but you look at that Map There's ATVs but you look at that Map
• We have instances, and it's gone—are the days, I should say, of the bad apples.
• We could always point to, well, there was that bad apple. He went out, or she went out.
• <03:23:11.319> we days I should say of the bad apples we days I should say of the bad apples

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting was an orientation for the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee, led by Chair Bob Harb. He reviewed committee procedures, including pink cards for witnesses, blue sheets for counts, use of drawers in the committee room, scheduling practices, and how bills would be posted and distributed. Members briefly introduced themselves and explained why they wanted to serve on the committee, with several citing interests in conservation, water quality, outdoor recreation, land use, and related local issues. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 1113, relative to OHRV operation on certain highways within the town of Windsor. Representative Ré Colcombe, the sponsor, explained that the bill would allow local OHV/UTV access across a short section of state road in Windsor so residents on divided portions of town could travel legally between areas. He said the town selectmen were already allowing OHRV use on town roads, the route was paved, traffic impacts were expected to be minimal, and local police had no objections. He also said the town would hold public hearings and notify abutters as required, and that if the select board ultimately opposed the proposal he would recommend killing the bill. Members asked about the legal authority for the change, speed limits, traffic volume, winter maintenance, and whether the Department of Transportation or select board had to approve the route. Colcombe said the town must hold a public hearing and that the change would need to be incorporated into RSA 258:10, section 4. He said the road is maintained by the town in winter and by the state in summer. An opponent, Anne Davis, testified that she opposed the bill, saying ATV use should be treated as a tool for forest management rather than recreation, that law enforcement capacity in Windsor was a concern, and that she believed affected residents should be fully notified before any approval. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• both an organizational discussion and also the consideration of how do we sequence construction and map
• The team is working to... ...decision out of Coast Guard is so material to mapping that out.
• that's about that sort of a loose range is what I can say to you today, because we don't have it mapped
• The team is mapping it out right now, and that seems reasonable.
• Different markets, STOPS allows us to compare, to basically compare those somewhat apples to big apples

Summary: The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff outlined major milestones, including the recent biological opinion, the Coast Guard’s opening of a public comment period on the Navigation Impact Report, expected decisions in early 2026 on navigational clearance and the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and a possible amended record of decision in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant amendment deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and ongoing community outreach and contractor engagement. Greg Johnson announced he was stepping down as program administrator, and Carly Francis introduced herself as interim administrator. A large portion of the meeting focused on design and cost questions. Staff said the program is studying fixed and movable spans, single- and double-deck configurations, and one versus two auxiliary lanes, with final recommendations to be made through the federal environmental process. They said the Coast Guard’s decision is central to what bridge configuration is permittable and to the timing of the updated cost estimate, which has not yet been released. Members pressed for more detail on cost drivers, potential impacts to businesses upriver, and whether the states would need to seek additional funding. Staff said they had reached agreements with four impacted river users, but the underlying evaluation materials are protected and not publicly releasable. The committee also reviewed transit-related questions. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative and that ridership and operations estimates are being updated using federal modeling methods. They said projected opening-day transit operations and maintenance costs have dropped from an earlier estimate of $21.8 million to about $10.3 million annually because the current model assumes lower frequency, with Oregon and Washington shares split by geography and fare recovery. Members raised concerns about TriMet’s financial stability and the need for a funding plan by fall 2027, ahead of a planned federal transit funding application in fall 2028. During public testimony, several speakers criticized the delay in releasing a new cost estimate and argued the project scope should be reduced if costs continue to rise. Testifiers from City Observatory and the Just Crossing Alliance said the project appears to be avoiding bad news, urged the committee to consider scope reductions, and questioned whether the active transportation and freeway components align with the project’s core purpose. The meeting ended with thanks to Johnson for his service and a transition to public hearing testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• In calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2016, Bureau staff worked with consultants to map the resource lines
• So any expenditure that has not been mapped to a matrix line is considered non-matrix spending.
• discrepancy between expenditures that are not items included in the matrix and they sometimes get mapped
• It's difficult, first, to identify with certainty which classification should be mapped to each of those
• being spent on compared to the line items and those expenditures, it's difficult to do so without an apples-to-apples

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

Transcript Highlights:

• In calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2016, Bureau staff worked with consultants to map the resource lines
• So any expenditure that has not been mapped to a matrix line is considered non-matrix spending.
• I know there's an issue sometimes with how... ...expenditures are coded or mapped, and sometimes they
• It's difficult to identify with certainty which classification should be mapped to each of those lines
• being spent on compared to the line items and those expenditures, it's difficult to do so without an apples-to-apples

Keywords: 1204, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Apple Watch running through someone's Apple Watch running through someone's yard<00:42:21.400> to<
• on many web maps.
• c> caused<00:47:26.760> folks Faulty web mapping also caused folks Faulty web mapping also
• <00:48:29.000> maps.
• web map maps. web map maps.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the map.
• benchmark map.
• good map.
• That map shown like yesterday was the correct map. They even said it was the correct map.
• That map shown like yesterday was the correct map. They even said it was the correct map.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm concerned. about is we're not like while it looks like we may be comparing apples to apples I'm
• very concerned that the way the data presented we're actually not comparing apples to apples because
• I'm just concerned about getting lawmakers, you know, an apples to apples comparison.
• up with you offline just to make sure that we are giving. giving policymakers a more transparent apples-to-apples
• Slide three presents a map of our current hospitals.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:48:55.760> their Uh it's GISbased so they can map their Uh it's GISbased so they can map
• > different<00:54:42.640> financial them to map out different financial them to map out
• We would not that's what we would map.
• be mapping on premise infrastructure. be mapping on premise infrastructure.
• Is this study to link all of those together into one big map?

Bills: SF0101

Keywords: Second Amendment, firearm regulation, state legislation, public safety, civil penalties, 916, all