Transcript Highlights:

• these ownership changes, we've heard from residents facing steep rent increases, new and confusing fees
• So, transparency means getting your hands on reports on surprise assessments, increases in condo fees
• And I have, I'm here to bring some issues a little bit clearer about the monies and fees and special
• And as I'm looking at it, I'm already being charged maintenance fees. So this is an addition.
• So you're paying an excise tax fee? Oh, I am, yes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hearing on a wide range of housing bills focused on manufactured housing, condominiums, public housing, tiny homes, and protections for elderly and disabled residents. Chairs Haggerty and Cyr opened by emphasizing the importance of these housing types and the need to hear from many speakers. Testimony on manufactured housing was especially extensive and sharply divided. Supporters of bills such as H. 1475, S. 990, and H. 1513 argued that out-of-state corporate owners are buying communities, raising rents and fees, reducing services, and exploiting legal gray areas. Residents and lawmakers from affected communities like Taunton, Middleborough, Attleboro, and Oak Point described steep rent disparities, fear of displacement, and the need for stronger protections, while Representative Hawkins urged an omnibus approach and said the bill would create a local board to ensure compliance with existing law. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Association and Hometown America’s counsel, argued that current law already provides protections, that the bills would create uncertainty or unfairly restrict owners, and that H. 1475 was intended to clarify the post-Blake legal landscape. The committee also heard testimony on condominium reform through S. 980, with owners describing lack of transparency, surprise assessments, and limited accountability, and urging updates to Chapter 183A and more owner rights. Public housing bills also drew support from housing authority advocates. MassNAHRO backed S. 955, H. 1517, H. 1512, H. 1550, and H. 1551, saying housing authorities need more flexibility to preserve and expand affordable housing. Witnesses supported tax relief for replacement public housing units and streamlined procurement rules, arguing these changes would help projects move faster and make better use of capital funds. Committee members asked questions about PILOT agreements, tax treatment of new developments, and whether state and federal public housing would be treated similarly. The committee also heard from Senator Lovely and advocates for S. 1007/H. 1525, which would prevent and respond to bullying of elderly and disabled residents in housing. Supporters described the bills as a long-needed response to harassment in senior and public housing, calling for building-level plans, staff training, and AG oversight; Jerry Halberstadt said the measure should be strengthened with enforcement and tenant advocacy support. Pamela and other witnesses described severe personal impacts from bullying and management retaliation. Another major topic was S. 1474/H. 1474 on movable tiny houses as permanent dwellings and accessory dwelling units. Supporters, including Representative DeCoste, Vera Struck, Kaylee DeCrease, and Abundant Housing Massachusetts, said tiny homes are a safe, affordable, sustainable option for seniors, workers, and others facing the housing shortage, and urged the committee to legalize them and align state rules with emerging standards. They also discussed tax classification and the need for a clear building code and DMV category. Finally, H. 1476 on pet-friendly elderly housing drew support from animal welfare groups, who said the bill would restore and modernize a prior pet program, expand access across state-aided housing, limit pet deposits, and reduce pet surrender caused by housing barriers. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the Department determines that a fee If the Department determines that a fee is<00:25:56.720>
• program, it must first propose that fee program, it must first propose that fee to<00:26:00.720>
• At that point, this body can consider whether to enact this fee.
• propose the fee to the General Assembly. propose the fee to the General Assembly.
• The Committee whether to enact this fee.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House opened with a devotional in honor of Earth Day, then referred three Senate bills to money committees under House Rule 35A: S. 173 to Appropriations, and S. 232 and S. 327 to Ways and Means. The chamber also adopted JRS 50, a joint resolution setting weekend adjournment so the House and Senate would reconvene no later than April 28, 2026. Several members then made announcements recognizing guests and interns in the gallery, including a homeschooling eighth grader, UVM interns, a constituent shadowing a member, family members, and a Civil Air Patrol delegation. The House next took up S. 89, expanding survivor benefits, and passed it in concurrence with proposal of amendment. It then considered S. 157 on recovery residence certification. The Human Services Committee described the bill as making permanent a temporary framework for certified recovery residences, placing oversight with the Department of Health, requiring standards, data collection, and annual reporting, and preserving resident protections such as written agreements, notice, grievance procedures, and alternative housing arrangements. The committee also said the bill would modernize definitions and repeal the sunset on the current framework. Human Services voted 9-0-2 to recommend the strike-all amendment, and Ways and Means reported the bill favorable 11-0-0, noting no fiscal impact unless a future fee is proposed and enacted. The House adopted the amendment, ordered third reading, and moved the bill forward. The final major item was S. 239, creating a child abuse and neglect reporting working group. The Human Services Committee said Vermont’s mandated reporting system has not been substantially reviewed in over a decade and that the bill would convene experts to review the law and recommend updates. Committee testimony emphasized that Vermont has a very high reporting rate but relatively low rates of substantiation and referral to supportive services, and members said the working group should examine reporting before, during, and after a report, including alternatives when in a child’s best interests. The committee’s strike-all amendment added findings, narrowed and prioritized the working group membership to people with direct child-serving or mandated-reporting experience, set deadlines for an interim report by April 1, 2027 and final recommendations by October 1, 2027, and required the first meeting by August 15. The committee also heard from a wide range of child welfare, education, law enforcement, and advocacy witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• , with tuition and fees being capped at the maximum in state law.
• <00:36:59.920> being<00:37:00.160> capped fees with tuition and fees being capped fees
• uh tuition and fee public institution uh tuition and fee rate.<00:46:26.720> So<00:46:26.880>
• that dollar um that that tuition and fee that dollar um that that tuition and fee dollar<00:46:40.960
• <01:14:53.199> um proposal to adjust tuition and fees um proposal to adjust tuition and fees

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• watercraft registration fees. watercraft registration fees.
• >> I was moving into fees next, Mr. >> I was moving into fees next, Mr.
• fees.
• So, it's not the amount of license fee you derive from the fee, it's the Pittman-Robertson.
• <02:13:21.520> And obligations for those fees. And obligations for those fees.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In Miami-Dade, there's a lake belt management fee; there's mobile home licensing fees.
• There is a history of local discretionary sales surtax levies... ...fees.
• We are going to fee the citizens of Florida to death.
• They don't have the ability to have fees.
• Municipalities can choose to charge a fee, whatever they want.

Summary: The House met in special session, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and adopted the special order report setting the day’s calendar. The chamber then took up CS/House Joint Resolution 1F, the Governor’s property tax proposal, which would raise the homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and restrict county and municipal ad valorem revenue to public safety and certain other uses. Sponsor Rep. Overdorf said the measure would return money to homeowners and give local governments flexibility, while opponents repeatedly argued the ballot language was misleading and that the proposal could create large local revenue shortfalls, shift costs to other taxpayers, and threaten local services and debt obligations. Members debated a series of amendments aimed at protecting specific programs from the bill’s effects. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to exempt Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was defeated 25-74 after supporters said those entities fund child care, mental health, aftercare, and family support, while opponents said local governments could still choose to fund them. Rep. Cross’s amendment to include water management districts in allowable uses of ad valorem taxes was also defeated, despite testimony that the districts are essential for flood control, water supply, Everglades restoration, and drought response. Rep. Eskamani’s amendment to require the Legislature to backfill public safety funding failed 25-71 after debate over whether the proposal could reduce police and fire budgets and response times. The House then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other aging services, and opponents saying the state already funds senior programs. Finally, Rep. Gant’s amendment to protect veteran services was introduced and debated, with members emphasizing housing, mental health, transition assistance, and homelessness concerns for veterans; the transcript cuts off before the vote on that amendment. Throughout the debate, sponsors and supporters of the main resolution maintained that local governments would retain spending discretion and could use other revenue sources, while critics argued the measure lacked clear backfill provisions and could force cuts or tax shifts at the local level.

Transcript Highlights:

• Department to set the fee level.
• would parallel the existing freshwater habitat fee.
• , which would parallel the existing freshwater habitat fee.
• It's a fee, you know, it's a fee. Oh no, we've got to have a roll call on that. You know, I get it.
• And I'm going to stand up and be a Democrat for a fee.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:45.759> to the court shall not charge any fee to the court shall not charge any fee
• SP 512, uh relative to the fees SP 512, uh relative to the fees and<02:53:14.240> criminal
• <02:54:33.120> or further is the the size of the fee or further is the the size of the fee
• I'm not paying a fee to have that done. I'm not paying a fee to have that done.
• still a a fee being paid to the court. still a a fee being paid to the court.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And if developers are using dual use strategies in their energy projects, they get a 50% fee credit.
• Initially, it required the fee, it required the fund, it required the funding.
• It does not require a fee at this moment.
• It goes to the project if that fee were charged up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• So then who pays the fee? Is it the farmer or the energy product project?

Bills: SB2173, SB2028, SB2117, SB2127, SB2134

Keywords: landowner, energy negotiation, agricultural preservation, orphaned wells, renewable energy, raw milk, unpasteurized milk, milk products, dairy, pasteurization, food safety, consumer warning label, health warning, farm sales, direct-to-consumer sales, ungraded milk, goat milk, raw milk cheese, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, agricultural regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 2402 by Hot Rose relating to the determination of fees, charges, and rates of certain benefits under
• group home facilities, including optional county and municipal permitting requirements authorizing a fee
• by cole relating to the provision of solid waste disposal services by certain counties authorizing a fee
• It'd be 250 by 2504 by Hayes relating to the fees changed by certain property owners association for
• HB 2524 by Cook relating to recovery fees, court costs, and expenses in family law proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• that portion or authorizing the imposition and collection of fees through the rulemaking process.
• that portion or authorizing the imposition and collection of fees through the rulemaking process.
• Moving on to our next testifier, we have the Department of Taxation with comments. collection of fees
• so we recommend collection of fees so we recommend either<00:03:37.959> deleting<00:03:38.519
• um through the ru making process of fees um through the ru making process and<00:03:45.159> I

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the Committees on Economic Development and Technology and Tourism on February 12, 2025, focused on HB 77/HB 1077, a measure related to increasing the transient accommodations tax and directing revenue toward climate mitigation/resiliency and economic development/tourism resiliency. Most testifiers supported the bill, including the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, State Energy Office, Governor’s office, DLNR, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, the Nature Conservancy, the Hawaii Climate Advisory Team, Care for Aina Now Coalition, the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and the Ocean Legislative Task Force. Supporters emphasized the need for reliable funding for disaster preparedness, environmental restoration, infrastructure resilience, and tourism-related resilience projects; some cited polling and a reported funding gap for natural resource protection and restoration. Opposition or concerns came from the Kohala Coast Resort Association, which argued the state should fully collect existing taxes from short-term vacation rentals and other accommodations before considering any tax increase. The Attorney General and Department of Taxation offered technical comments, noting the bill’s special fund language referred to fees that the chapter did not actually authorize and recommending either deleting that language or authorizing fee collection through rulemaking. The Hawaii Tourism Authority supported the measure but asked that the funding mechanism have a clear nexus to tourism resiliency. After a brief recess, the chair recommended amendments to redirect the proposed 1.75% TAT increase away from the two special funds and into the general fund, while earmarking 7.3% of total revenue for climate mitigation/resiliency and 7.3% for economic development and tourism resiliency, with technical and defect-effective-date amendments. Both committees then voted to pass the measure with amendments; the recommendations were adopted, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will say that that uh it went to help cushion the increases for grain inspection fees of elevators
• being collected to replenish this fee being collected to replenish this fund,<00:03:56.159> it
• the increases for grain inspection fees the increases for grain inspection fees of<00:04:17.040>
• <00:15:06.720> So<00:15:06.880> with uh the fee assessed on farmers.
• So with uh the fee assessed on farmers.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This proposal narrows the focus of the fee authority to the transport refrigeration unit and commercial
• This proposal narrows the focus of the fee authority to the transport refrigeration unit and commercial
• This proposal narrows the focus of the fee authority to the transport refrigeration unit and commercial
• This proposal narrows the focus of the fee authority to the transport refrigeration unit and commercial
• and the undercollection in fees that were assumed as part of SB 158.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision, especially the proposed extension of the cap-and-trade program to 2045 as “cap-and-invest,” the related greenhouse gas reduction fund (GGRF) spending framework, and several trailer bill proposals. Department of Finance staff outlined budget solutions including a $1.5 billion annual General Fund-to-GGRF shift for Cal Fire that would grow to $1.9 billion by 2029-30, continued support for high-speed rail, climate bond implementation, and various environmental and water-related statutory changes. The administration also described proposals affecting the Delta Conveyance Project, water quality planning, groundwater bulletin timing, Exide cleanup funding, and other agency-specific items, though the chair repeatedly asked staff to keep the presentation high-level and save details for the next hearing. Members from both parties raised strong concerns about the cap-and-invest proposal, arguing that it could reduce or displace funding for transit, affordable housing, active transportation, wildfire prevention, zero-emission vehicles, and other previously committed programs. Several members questioned whether the administration was effectively shifting essential ongoing services like Cal Fire onto a temporary carbon market fund, how the General Fund backstop would work if auction revenues fall short, and whether the proposal would leave enough money for continuous appropriations and future awards. Members also criticized the inclusion of cap-and-invest reauthorization in the budget process and asked for clearer information on the impact to high-speed rail, transit, and other GGRF priorities. The Delta Conveyance Project and related trailer bill language drew significant opposition from members and public commenters, who argued the proposal would fast-track the project, weaken CEQA-related review, and authorize revenue bond financing without sufficient legislative oversight. Public testimony also included support for maintaining or expanding funding for transit, affordable housing, AB 617 community air protection, offshore wind infrastructure, and ignition interlock programs, while environmental and community groups opposed cuts to wildfire prevention, housing, and school climate-related programs. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the chair said the committee would continue the discussion and receive more detailed responses at the follow-up hearing on Tuesday.

Transcript Highlights:

• SOMETIMES THE PEOPLE FORGET THAT IS THERE AND THEY DON'T PAY THEIR RENTAL FEE AND THEN TO THE OWNER OF
• SOME PUBLIC SCHOOLS LOCALLY THERE IS A FEE FOR THE STUDENTS TO PURCHASE PLAY IN THE SPORT.
• EACH TIME FEES EACH TIME THEY APPLY FOR HOUSING.
• IS THE BREAKDOWN OF THE FEE SUCH AS THIS IS FOR SCREENING, THIS IS THE PROCESS YOUR PAPERWORK?
• MANY TIMES THERE'S JUST A SET FEE. I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY SEEN IT BROKEN DOWN.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we also pay the credit card fees both ways because we pay the fees when we charge the person and
• .<00:25:20.960> Um, fees.
• Um, fees.
• the credit card processing fees, etc. the credit card processing fees, etc.
• card fees, insurance, energy, etc., etc. card fees, insurance, energy, etc., etc.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , fee structure, and implement fee increases needed to support ongoing operations.
• This backfill would allow fee discussions to focus solely on what fee levels are required to support
• But it also, we support ourselves off state appropriation and student fees.
• But it also, we support ourselves off state appropriation and student fees.
• But it also, we support ourselves off state appropriation and student fees.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• we we don't have a lot of the extra fees we we don't have a lot of the extra fees that<00:20:56.760
• And particularly now that we also included in this legislation fees and taxes.
• And particularly now that we also included in this legislation fees and taxes.
• for this kind of development and hopefully manage to bring these costs of these fees down.
• bring these costs of these fees down. bring these costs of these fees down.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't see any further discussion amongst the committee on the motion to waive the fee.
• So the first one is just simply on the fee. Okay. Yeah, we can. Mike here. Mike is on.
• Right, so the motion regarding striking language around the fee.
• So lines 19 and 20, and then lines 325 to 326, which are with regard to the fee.
• Potentially the fee. Any discussion to that motion? I don't see any more discussion.

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• driveway permit there's no fee driveway permit there's no fee associated<00:19:34.200> with
• <00:19:47.600> to they would be willing to pay a fee to they would be willing to pay a fee
• the municiple portion registration fees the municiple portion registration fees to<00:35:15.800>
• <00:41:40.240> uh state and Municipal costs and fees uh state and Municipal costs and fees
• <00:41:57.520> will<00:41:57.720> be fees will be fees will be prated<00:41:59.680>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• analysis to ensure its fees were consistent with statute.
• Absent a documented fee analysis, it's unclear whether current fee levels are appropriate to support
• It's all through licensing fees. Last year, we had $9 million swept from our fund... fees.
• not collect some required licensing fees... ...related to the charging and setting fees, including that
• the board did not collect some required licensing fees, charged other fees not authorized by rule, and

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee conducted sunset reviews for the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy, the State Board of Nursing, the Arizona Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners, and the Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants. The Auditor General’s reports praised each board for timely licensing in some areas but identified recurring problems with complaint investigations, public safety oversight, fee analysis, records/documentation, and internal controls. For Pharmacy, the main concerns were weak enforcement of controlled substances prescription monitoring program (CSPMP) requirements and slow complaint resolution; the board said it had implemented some recommendations, was pursuing a new database vendor, and supported legislation to strengthen CSPMP enforcement. For Nursing, the audit found a large and growing backlog of complaints and repeated delays in resolving cases; the executive director said the board was under-resourced and requested 28 additional investigative positions, while nursing stakeholders supported process reforms and cited a bill to improve timelines and fairness. For Occupational Therapy, the audit focused on missing or poorly documented fingerprint clearance card checks, delayed action on a serious criminal-charge disclosure, and other compliance issues; the board said it had accepted and was implementing all recommendations, including new procedures and rulemaking. For Physician Assistants, the audit found weak oversight by the executive director, extensive delays in complaint handling, and an incentive-pay system that did not align with key performance goals; the board said it had already made structural changes, was improving tracking and IT systems, and planned to continue implementing recommendations. After discussion and testimony from board officials, public members, and nursing stakeholders, the committee voted to continue the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy for six years until July 1, 2032, the State Board of Nursing for four years until July 1, 2031, the Arizona Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners for four years until July 1, 2030, and the Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants for a continued term with statutory changes (the transcript includes the board review and related discussion, but the final motion text for the physician assistants board is not fully captured in the excerpt). The votes on the first three continuations were approved by roll call, with members generally supporting continuation while expressing concern about complaint backlogs and the need for reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's supported by utility fees. And B8 is the last letter.
• It's supported by license and application fees.
• It's supported by license and application fees.
• This is just going to cover us for any unexpected fees.
• fee or an ICF provider fee, but then not transfer it out to be matched.

Summary: The committee considered a series of appropriation, transfer, and review items, approving most requests in Sections B through J. These included temporary appropriations for state technology upgrades, personnel management, court reporters and interpreters, crime victim claims, juvenile sex offender assessments, radiation lab testing, higher education workforce grants, an ARPA grant for the UAFS LPN program, an IIJA grant for geological/critical minerals work, a restricted reserve transfer for 102 State Police vehicles, a transfer to the Arkansas Heroes Program, several cash fund requests for the Real Estate Commission HVAC and AV needs, and overtime appropriations for Emergency Management and Military. One budget classification transfer request from the Commissioner of State Lands for $250,000 to cover operating expenses tied to a new building was discussed at length but failed on the vote after questions about the lease and operating costs. A major portion of the meeting focused on a $25.7 million pay plan appropriation request for 15 agencies. Members questioned why the Department of Human Services had not requested additional pay-plan dollars for human development centers, where DHS acknowledged staffing shortages, high turnover, and heavy overtime but said the issue was not lack of pay-plan funding. DHS was asked to provide a written plan to address staffing problems. The Department of Corrections testified that the pay plan had improved retention and hiring, and committee members asked for follow-up data on vacancies and staffing outcomes. Members also clarified that the pay-plan request was appropriation only, not new funding, and approved it. The committee then reviewed fund reports, including the restricted reserve, Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, Tobacco Settlement, State Central Services, Education Adequacy, Medicaid Trust Fund, IIJA, and Revenue Services transfer reports. DHS and DFA were questioned closely about the Medicaid Trust Fund, with members noting a $90 million February draw and asking about projected year-end balances; DFA and DHS said February was a high-expense, low-revenue month and projected the fund would remain solvent through the fiscal year, ending between $150 million and $200 million, while a second $100 million set-aside is planned for FY27. The committee also discussed a state hospital damage report, where DHS explained that insurance proceeds would not fully cover the repair costs because of depreciation and the age of the buildings; members expressed concern that the state would recover far less than originally expected, and DHS said any additional insurance recovery would be limited and returned to restricted reserve.