Transcript Highlights:

• Both for capital and planning.
• We are planning a proposal to split the wonderful testimony from HCD.
• It'll be split based off of the current allocations within those departments.
• Moving, and again, I don't know what the plan is because we don't have it.
• Marina Wy, and I'm the executive director of the Tax Credit Allocation Committee.

Summary: The Assembly Subcommittee on State Administration held a budget hearing focused heavily on housing, homelessness, and related administrative proposals. HCD reported that California housing production has increased, with 2023 completions up 13% from 2022 and entitlement and construction timelines improving, while members and advocates criticized the Governor’s January budget for zeroing out or sharply reducing several housing programs. Public testimony urged funding for affordable housing production, preservation, youth housing, CalHome, LIHTC, HAP, and related programs, and several speakers argued the state should not pull back after recent progress. A major policy item was trailer bill language to allow HCD to access “excess equity” in existing affordable housing projects and recycle those funds into new or preserved housing. HCD and the LAO said the proposal could unlock tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, but members wanted guardrails and clearer statutory direction to ensure the funds stay within the intended housing purposes. The committee also discussed encampment resolution funding; HCD said the proposal would shift expenditure deadlines to the date of award rather than appropriation, while the LAO raised concerns about limited outcome data and urged the Legislature to use upcoming reporting before deciding on future funding. The hearing also covered HCD trailer bills to consolidate default reserve funds into a centralized continuously appropriated account and to clarify reporting requirements for early rounds of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. HCD requested funding to implement chaptered legislation, including a new tribal housing program and reporting-related bills, and also sought extensions for certain reappropriations, including Homekey and REAP 2 deadlines. Public commenters and regional agencies supported flexibility for REAP 2 timing and other housing-related adjustments. Finally, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency presented the Governor’s reorganization proposal to split the current agency into a Housing and Homelessness Agency and a Consumer Protection Agency. The administration said the change would improve focus, efficiency, and coordination, but the LAO and several members questioned whether it would truly save money or improve accountability, especially given the need for new leadership, possible staffing changes, and the fact that the plan had not yet been formally submitted for review. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• At the heart of the plan is the permanent teacher compensation allotment.
• our uncertified teachers are not just out there on their own, but that they have the supports and a plan
• Almost 26 years ago, I was standing in the rotunda as a state qualifier at the UIL academic contest.
• And I told him I'd qualified for the state meet.
• And then our plan will be to recess to the call of the chair.

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 Senate Education K-16 Committee met to consider HB 2, the major school finance bill, with the chair explaining that the committee substitute would provide about $8 billion in new public education funding. The bill was described as including permanent teacher compensation increases, expanded teacher incentive allotment funding, support for early literacy and numeracy, teacher certification and residency pathways, special education funding, career and technical education, school safety dollars, and facilities support for charter schools. The committee adopted the committee substitute without objection after roll was called and a quorum was present. Members questioned the bill’s structure, especially the balance between across-the-board teacher pay and the teacher incentive allotment, the treatment of uncertified teachers, and differences in requirements between traditional public schools and charter schools. Senator Menendez and Senator West raised concerns about equity, charter-school parity, facilities funding, inflation, and whether the bill should include more support for fine arts and extracurricular programs. The chair responded that the bill was designed to direct most new money to traditional public schools while also preserving flexibility and that charter-school and public-school alignment would need further work. Invited witnesses Dr. Imelda De La Rosa and Val Acri testified in support of the bill, emphasizing that the Teacher Incentive Allotment helps recruit and retain teachers in rural districts and supports mentorship and certification pathways. Public witnesses also supported the bill but urged more funding for fine arts, local flexibility, and full restoration of House-proposed funding levels. Dr. Josh Jones supported year-long teacher residencies, Dr. Philip Morgan asked for more local control and restoration of fine arts funding, Rich Saina supported the bill but warned about hold-harmless reductions, and Dr. Greg Poole supported the bill while asking for flexibility for high-performing districts that already pay high salaries. After the invited testimony and some public testimony, the committee recessed subject to the call of the chair so members could attend the Senate floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• administrative allocation administrative allocation from.3%<00:08:13.120> of<00:08:13.840
• <00:08:21.360> of administrative allocation of administrative allocation of $1,679,000<00:
• We're just moving where the money is allocated to.
• <00:51:32.160> uh cardiac emergency response plan uh cardiac emergency response plan uh requirements
• Under the proposed plan, we revenue.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You can't do the plans that you want because it used to be a Texas highway.
• providers by managed care plan issuers to Health and Human Services.
• Senate Bill 2094 by Cook relates to the establishment of a higher education plan.
• Senate Bill 2108 by Hughes relates to the inclusion of direct primary care fees as qualified medical
• Senate Bill 2108 by Hughes relates to insurance deductibles and certain state health benefit plans to

Bills: SCR8, SCR24, SCR25, SB1, SB65, SB315, SB371, SB372, SB379, SB400, SB402, SB406, SB427, SB487, SB502, SB509, SB535, SB610, SB707, SB740, SB761, SB840, SB875, SB893, SB918, SB925, SB965, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1073, SB1106, SB1121, SB1194, SB1253, SB1300, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1447, SB1532, SB1555, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR25, SCR22, SCR12, SCR24, SCR8, SB565, SB372, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB610, SB918, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB535, SB761, SB1, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Transcript Highlights:

• the objectives of that plan is to improve the lives of caregivers.
• And so some of the components of the expenditure plans concern me.
• beginning in plan year 2028.
• The bill tasks ADOT to allocate and transfer $2,500,000 of HURF revenues to this fund. ...to allocate
• That was the plan, and we implemented it.

Summary: The joint House and Senate Appropriations committees met to hear the FY 2027 budget package, beginning with the General Appropriations Act (HB 4154/SB 1847). Staff outlined the overall budget, including one-time fund transfers, lump-sum reductions, funding for state employee health insurance, school facilities, corrections, flood and wildfire relief, education and child care, and other ongoing and supplemental items. Members briefly discussed the absence of a requested $1.5 million for the oversight office, but the chair said no amendments would be taken in committee and that only limited technical changes were likely later in the process. Public testimony on the feed bill was largely supportive but focused on specific funding concerns. Testimony highlighted school safety funding, Alzheimer’s services, small business tax expensing provisions, disability oversight for group homes, county use of opioid settlement dollars, adult education/community college funding, victim notification funding, and ESA oversight. Several speakers praised the budget for funding DDD and other services, while others opposed or sought changes to items such as the COMIT group home monitoring program, Maricopa Community Colleges’ lack of operating aid, and a possible cut to the victim notification program. The chair repeatedly emphasized that changes to the negotiated budget would be difficult and should be routed through leadership. The committee then moved quickly through the remaining budget reconciliation bills. Staff summarized bills covering amusement and wagering, capital outlay, commerce, criminal justice, environment, health care, higher education, human services, and K-12 education. Notable provisions included continued wagering assessments, highway and building renewal funding, defense innovation and economic development changes, corrections and wrongful conviction provisions, groundwater and water banking measures, health insurance oversight and opioid settlement provisions, higher education funding and ABOR operating caps, SNAP and housing trust fund changes, and a 2% inflation increase for K-12 formula components. The K-12 bill also included a biometric school safety pilot and a child sexual abuse prevention pilot. No votes were taken in the portion provided, and the chair indicated the committee would continue through the remaining bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• 69.5% for each subsequent allocation year?
• year and 69.5% for each subsequent allocation year?
• Federally qualified health centers are that they have federal tort claims protection.
• Um, we've already stricken catastrophic major medical plan.
• I would also strike major medical plan.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And those submitting applications that would be qualified within that 80% are also qualified to be considered
• They're qualified for both.
• They're qualified for both.
• They're qualified for both.
• I plan to—we have two panels. Plan to call up one panel at a time.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Members from both parties emphasized education as a major issue, while several Republicans framed the committee’s work around school choice and parent empowerment. Senator West and other Democrats stressed protecting public schools, listening to Texans, and considering the effects of vouchers or education savings accounts on school districts and communities. Chairman Creighton laid out Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, describing it as a universal education savings account program modeled on similar programs in other states. He said the bill would provide about $200 million for a universal eligibility pool and additional funding for students with disabilities and lower-income families, with priority weighting for former public school students. He also highlighted anti-fraud measures, vendor pre-approval, criminal background checks, cybersecurity protections, annual testing requirements for participating students, and the use of the Comptroller rather than TEA to administer the program. Creighton repeatedly said the bill is not a voucher and argued it would not take money from public schools, which he said would receive separate historic funding increases. Members questioned Creighton about the 500% of federal poverty line definition, the adequacy of the $10,000 ESA amount, whether the program would favor students already in private school, how microschools and homeschool pods would fit, and whether the bill protects religious liberty and private-school autonomy. Democrats raised concerns about disability protections, 504 students, foster children, public-school funding, open records, and the historical context of vouchers. Republicans generally supported the bill as a way to expand options for parents and students, while also asking about administration, fraud prevention, and data security. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, with EdChoice President Robert Inlow presenting in support of SB 2 and citing the growth and reported success of school choice programs nationwide.

Transcript Highlights:

• Headley at the table, and I will go ahead and recognize you for your presentation on the resource allocation
• Our topic for today is resource allocation, and we'll dive right in.
• Looking back on slide 16, it shows that they didn't spend all the money that was allocated within the
• And the master plan is for a number of years? And the master plan is for a number of years?
• And the master plan is for a number of years? Yes, they have to redo that.

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:

• <00:54:49.119> and support uh office of planning and support uh office of planning and sustainable
• Allocation of funds to develop questionable solutions to these feared planned epidemics have in the past
• you we have State Health Planning you we have State Health Planning Development<00:57:40.440>
• <01:39:14.760> of unit and so any proposed allocation of unit and so any proposed allocation
• Aaron Cal for the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're able to come up with a seven-state plan, but in case we need it, it's a million dollars for the
• We'll come up with a number, but that is a shortage in the plan that needs to be filled.
• , we have also increased the qualifying requirements on a much more frequent basis.
• Chairman, Richard, the executive is allocating $30 million, or $35 million?
• Chairman, Richard, the executive is allocating $35 million, or $35 million?

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 from the State General Fund to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor said it was a repeat of last year’s request and was intended as a backup if the seven Colorado River basin states cannot reach a new agreement. Arizona Department of Water Resources staff testified in support, explaining the state’s role in ongoing Colorado River negotiations and distinguishing the litigation fund from the executive’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 17-1 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which appropriates $100,000 to ADWR for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expands the mapping effort beyond state trust lands to private lands. The committee adopted Chairman Livingston’s amendment, which extended the coordination timeline to one year, broadened the agencies involved, and revised language on site eligibility and the definition of stormwater. The sponsor said the bill would help identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge, while ADWR testified neutral, supporting the mapping work but raising a concern about language tied to appropriable surface water because that is a legal determination for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148 was then heard, proposing to give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, with requirements for specifying purposes and allowing agencies to spend such funds if the legislature does not act. An amendment excluded university and Board of Regents research grants from the bill’s scope, which the chair said was intended to avoid implementation problems. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, and members discussed the large amount of federal pass-through funding Arizona receives. The amended bill passed 11-7. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, the impact of federal tax conformity, state employee health insurance costs, SNAP administrative and error-rate costs under H.R. 1, developmental disabilities and AHCCCS growth, and K-12/ESA funding trends. Members repeatedly criticized the executive budget for funding some ongoing costs on a one-year basis and expressed concern about rising caseloads and supplemental needs. No formal action was taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• That will allow you to then make your necessary plans.
• Many of these communities did not have an emergency management plan.
• We don't require that they have to, but they may also qualify as a sponsoring entity.
• Where in the budget is the transportation allocation for charter schools?
• I'm asking what the bill says for a school to qualify for that...

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, quorum established, and several recognitions, including a legislative intern, a guest in the gallery, and Representative Bruce Antone’s upcoming induction into the Tuskegee Athletic Hall of Fame. The Speaker also gave brief remarks about the end of session and the freshman class. The chamber then took up a series of Senate-returned messages and concurred or insisted on several amendments while moving bills toward final passage. The House unanimously approved CS/CS/HB 1299 on Department of Health matters, CS/HB 1549 on financial institutions after adopting a House amendment to remove the IOTA-related provision, and CS/CS/SB 768 on foreign ties and business interests after a House concurrence motion. It also insisted on its amendment to CS/CS/CS/SB 184 on housing. CS/CS/HB 875 on educator preparation was amended to restore House provisions on teacher-prep courses, the Florida Center for Teaching Excellence at Miami-Dade College, and related testing and mentor-qualification changes; it passed 91-22 after debate over teacher certification, testing, and “identity politics” language. HB 1101 on out-of-network providers was amended to keep the House’s original notice and referral framework with a good-cause exemption; it passed 87-27 despite objections that it placed too much responsibility on doctors. After recess, the House took up CS/CS/SB 180 on emergency preparedness and response. Members described changes including removal of some homestead-assessment and debris-removal provisions, a study requirement for a post-hurricane county restriction concept, and a Florida Keys evacuation-time change paired with a 10-year cap of 900 permit allocations; the bill passed 116-0. The House also refused to concur in a Senate amendment to HB 1609 on waste incineration and requested the Senate recede. Later, the House returned to HB 1101 and insisted on its amendment after the Senate refused to concur. The longest debate came on CS/CS/HB 1115 on education, where the House amendment replaced the Senate version with the substance of HB 1267, including Schools of Hope, higher education governance, and course transparency. Members questioned provisions expanding Schools of Hope co-location and sponsorship authority beyond traditional opportunity zones, the role of the Department of Education versus school districts, transportation and facility-cost issues, and performance-based agreements. Supporters said the changes would expand options for students and use vacant or underutilized facilities; opponents argued the language was added late, lacked transportation funding, and could allow charter operators to enter high-performing schools. The bill remained under debate at the end of the transcript, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• , local road safety planning.
• From the regional standpoint, there's been active transportation planning, but also a new bike plan has
• planning, land use planning.
• planning, land use planning.
• So we received from the region money to do the planning. So the planning part is done.

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Prior to 2021, the general fund allocation was only $5.6 million.
• No, so we all get allocated. We all get allocated.
• So when Jim performed, allocated, it's not the way, the issue isn't how the money is allocated, right
• And we've got plans, too. So we're not just coming here asking.
• How do you think we should implement our plan?

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the role of County Veterans Service Officers (CVSOs), CalVet’s support for them, and the growing problem of for-profit, unaccredited claims companies. Committee leaders and witnesses emphasized that CVSOs are often the first point of contact for veterans and their families, helping with disability claims, education benefits, survivor benefits, housing, health care, and other wraparound services. Testimony highlighted the return on investment from CVSO work, with witnesses citing hundreds of millions in new federal benefits secured for California veterans and arguing that current state funding is too low relative to the workload and need. County representatives from Nevada, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo described local models of service. Los Angeles County highlighted a “no wrong door” approach, peer navigators, suicide review work, justice-involved veteran services, and homelessness coordination, while San Luis Obispo described rural outreach, mental health partnerships, and high suicide rates in its county. Nevada County stressed that smaller counties can be disadvantaged by workload-based formulas and that additional funding would expand access, especially in rural areas. Several witnesses said veterans often need more than claims help and should be connected to mental health, employment, food, and family supports. Much of the discussion centered on predatory claims consultants, which witnesses said charge veterans for services that accredited CVSOs provide free. Members and witnesses described cases involving requests for VA and banking logins, misleading advertising, and contracts that can take a percentage of veterans’ benefits. Committee members expressed support for legislation to curb these practices and for increased funding for CVSOs, including the Legislature’s intent to fund 50% of county veterans’ services operations. A CalVet deputy secretary also testified that California’s accreditation and training system improves claim quality and appeal outcomes, and that CalVet works with CVSOs through training, district offices, and appeals representation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1998 will certainly help out smaller towns qualify for what is called quality events incentives
• Yes, and so several states actually allocate money to be able to do this again because the return on
• And so, had we allocated this amount before 2020 to be able to get prepared.
• On page two, it talks about incentivizing regional water system planning grants.
• And so, as a part of this regional planning, will that also include potentially recommendations on local

Bills: SB1189, SB1295, SB1297, SB1330, SB1333, SB1338, SB1341, SB1344, SB1355, SB1377, SB1378, SB1546, SB1859, SB1946, SB1990, SB1998

Keywords: school security, funding, public schools, security enhancements, resource officers, domestic violence, fatality review, revolving fund, database, public safety, Oklahoma, census accuracy, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, federal census, grassroots outreach, marketing campaign, water infrastructure, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, grants, environmental compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, any expense that can be solely allocated to one plan or a group of plans will just be allocated
• to that plan or plans.
• c><01:03:46.440> a can be solely allocated to one plan or a can be solely allocated to one plan
• plans will just be allocated to group of plans will just be allocated to that<01:03:49.440> plan<
• And then second, that plan or plans.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The committee first approved the April 14, 2026 meeting minutes without objection. It then took up Senate File 4860 / House File 4812, the St. Paul Teachers Retirement Fund Association bill, which would reduce the employee contribution rate for coordinated members from 9% to 8% starting after June 30, 2026, raise the retiree COLA from 1% to 1.5% beginning January 1, 2027, and increase the state-funded employer contribution by 2.7%. Staff said the bill’s cost is just over $12 million per year over 15 years. Representative Lilly said the bill was intended to bring parity to St. Paul teachers after prior work in this area left some behind. Several St. Paul teachers testified in support, describing financial strain, burnout, and the difficulty of balancing teaching with family responsibilities. Hannah Geimer said the 1% contribution change would make a meaningful difference in her budget as a single parent. Eric Erickson said he and his wife have spent decades working extra hours and coaching, and argued that St. Paul educators pay more and receive less in retirement than other teachers. Arzoo Faroozan Yazdani, a Central High teacher, said the higher contribution rate and lower COLA make it hard to stay in the district and raise a family. Lisa Hodek said teachers are undercompensated for the demands of the job and that the pension disparity has created frustration and a sense of betrayal. Phil Tensic, the SPTRFA director, summarized the request as seeking an 8% contribution and 1.5% COLA to match TRA, and noted that the plan’s members are spread across legislative districts, not just in St. Paul. Members discussed the history behind the pension disparity. Senator Nelson questioned whether “parity” was the right term given the plan’s funding problems and the legacy of the “big red box,” referring to past underfunding. Tensic and Senator Pappas explained that the state had previously allowed St. Paul schools not to contribute for a period of years, that supplemental district and state aid began in 2018, and that the plan is projected to be amortized by 2039 and must be paid off by 2048. Members also noted that the bill and related pension proposals depend on available funding; Representative O’Driscoll and others said no final financing agreement had been reached, though leadership was continuing discussions. The committee received letters of support from Education Minnesota, the St. Paul Federation of Educators, and 40 individual supporters. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• qualified rescue. qualified rescue.
• lets them pay scholarship money within 90 days of the beginning of a semester to allow students to plan
• And with that, uh, I'd ask for a favorable motion. a semester to allow students to plan and a semester
• to allow students to plan and count<00:11:38.560> on<00:11:38.800> funding.
• for people in the spring can allocate for people in the spring and<00:15:10.560> if<00:15:10.800

Bills: SB79, HB379, SB253, HB278, HB438, HB233, SB79, HB379, SB253, HB278, HB438, HB233

Keywords: sex-based terminology, gender identity, male, female, man, woman, boy, girl, single-sex spaces, women's rights, privacy, safety, fairness, anti-discrimination, vital statistics, birth certificate, intersex, DSD, differences in sex development, transgender

Transcript Highlights:

• How does **PSFA** plan to get these funds out?
• The second update I want to provide is an adequacy planning guide update.
• Moving forward, what we plan on doing with that information is to hold a formal work group.
• Our strategic plan. It's not something that happens overnight.
• Currently, we have four pre-K projects in planning and design moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's $3,000 allocated for mentors for each mentor.
• And ensuring we have the most qualified people on hand is priority.
• TIA plans that they're proposing to TEA. Not through us.
• We're on track this year to qualify 85 of those. Okay. Yes, sir.
• You learn what it looks like to plan good lessons.

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:

• The bill appropriates $324,700,000 from the General Fund for the state health insurance plan and programs
• What we're planning to do tomorrow morning is, first thing off the bat, I think at 10 a.m. on the floor
• beginning in plan year 2028.
• The bill tasks ADOT to allocate and transfer $2,500,000,000,000.
• What's been encumbered, what is planned. There's $6.7 million in the fund that is unencumbered.

Summary: The meeting covered a series of fiscal year 2027 budget and budget-related bills, beginning with the general appropriations and tax package. Staff and the chair highlighted a budget built around about $1.4 billion in tax cuts, a one-time 2.5% agency reduction, major funding for state employee health insurance, corrections, flood and wildfire relief, and other supplemental appropriations. The chair repeatedly urged support for the package, emphasizing the size of the tax cut and noting that the committee’s joint vote had only three no votes out of 28 members. Members then reviewed several smaller budget implementation bills affecting racing and gambling, capital outlay, commerce and defense innovation, corrections, environment and water policy, higher education, human services, K-12 education, county finance, tax administration, state data governance, and state office rent rates. Key provisions included extending or modifying funds and fee structures, transferring surplus or unneeded monies, creating or revising oversight boards and pilot programs, increasing K-12 funding by 2% for inflation, adjusting university retention limits, expanding SNAP and housing-related requirements, and changing tax conformity and credits. Several members asked clarifying questions about specific items such as electric vehicle charging funds, mobile home relocation payments, university funding, and the new health insurance oversight board. The chair also explained the tax bill’s major changes, including conformity to federal tax law, a larger dependent tax credit, changes to deductions, repeal of certain tax credits, veteran property tax relief, limits on data center tax incentives, and provisions affecting manufacturing infrastructure and unemployment insurance administration. The committee discussed the Budget Stabilization Fund, debt repayment, and education rollover balances, with the chair arguing for using surpluses to pay down debt. The final item discussed was a behavioral health bill creating a home and community-based services program for adults determined to be seriously mentally ill, with a stated FY 2027 total fund appropriation of $7.8 million contingent on federal approval and matching funds. The meeting ended with a reminder that floor action would begin the next day at 10 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• were<00:47:38.880> 112,000 in 2008 the qualified wages were 112,000 in 2008 the qualified
• million below plan right now.
• <00:58:23.280> so million below plan right now because so million below plan right now because
• below plan. below plan.
• September to plan, we're only $10,000. September to plan, we're only $10,000.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met to review tax expenditures, elect a chair and clerk, and hear updates on two credits due for periodic review: the career and technical education (CTE) center tax credit and the research and development (R&D) tax credit. Members first organized the meeting, then heard from Jennifer Ramsey of DRA, who explained the purpose of the tax expenditure review process and summarized the CTE and R&D credits. She said the CTE credit allows donations to CTE centers for a credit against business profits tax, is capped at 25% of a taxpayer’s liability, has a $500,000 aggregate limit, and was extended in SB 98 to fiscal year 2031. She also noted DRA could not provide detailed financial data because of statistical disclosure limits when too few taxpayers claim the credit. Committee members pressed for more historical and aggregate information, arguing they needed numbers to judge whether the credit is effective and worth continuing. The committee then heard from Chrissy Vanderhook of the Department of Education on the CTE credit. She described New Hampshire’s CTE system as serving 26 secondary centers and seven post-secondary centers, with industry partners providing internships, work-based learning, equipment, employee time, and other in-kind support that can qualify for the credit. She said the department reports annually to legislative leaders and that fiscal year 2025 credit activity was down about 48% from FY24, partly due to staffing changes and outreach issues. Members asked whether the program extends to community college-level programs, and she said it can, though she was not sure how broadly it is used that way. The committee also discussed a new Granite Patron of the Arts credit, which DRA said went into effect July 1 and is included in the tax expenditure report even though it is not yet listed in the statute. For the R&D credit, Ramsey explained that it offsets business profits tax and can carry forward to business enterprise tax, is based on incremental research spending, and currently has a $7 million annual aggregate cap. She said the cap has not yet been reached but could require proration as early as fiscal year 2026 if not increased. She noted there were 271 taxpayers claiming the credit in fiscal 2024 and that a proposal last session to raise the cap to $10 million and increase the per-company limit did not advance. Mark Liberty of BEA said the credit is an important recruitment and retention tool, especially for life sciences, aerospace, defense, and advanced manufacturing, but acknowledged BEA does not track direct revenue return. Andrea Hchvaria of New Hampshire Life Sciences argued the R&D credit is critical for startups and cited growth in applicants from 71 in 2008 to 248 in 2024, with qualified wages rising substantially over that period. Committee members repeatedly asked for more objective economic-impact data, but DRA said it only tracks who claimed the credit and the amount claimed, not broader business outcomes.