Transcript Highlights:

• And with that, I'm going to move on to talk about subsidies for child care.
• Um, they can get a higher CCAP subsidy if they participate and reach a certain star level.
• And with that, I'm going to move on to talk about subsidies for child care.
• We have two programs in the state that provide subsidies.
• education about licensing or um subsidy education about licensing or um subsidy programs<01:30:26.400

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and budget, with the chair emphasizing the committee’s role over a large portfolio of children, youth, and family programs and the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). House Research and House Fiscal staff explained their roles and described the 2023-24 reorganization that transferred many programs from DHS, DPS, MDH, and MDE to DCYF, along with a statute recodification and a crosswalk resource for members. Doug Berg then walked through the committee’s budget structure, explaining the difference between all-funds and general fund views, the major funding sources, and how forecasted programs and grant bases roll forward. He highlighted that the committee’s general fund base is a little over $2.1 billion for the biennium, with large federal components such as SNAP and TANF, and noted smaller accounts including child protection-related opioid funds and federal reimbursement offsets (FFP) for administrative costs. Members asked several questions about federal financial participation, TANF, and the effect of the repeal of the Diversionary Work Program (DWP). Staff explained that FFP generally applies to administrative costs for federally related programs and usually does not change much unless program activity changes, while TANF is a block grant that has been stable for years. On DWP, staff said the program was sunsetted effective March 1, 2026, and that the associated funding and administrative costs were being reworked rather than simply removed. A member also asked about federal funding fluctuations; staff said no changes were currently factored in, though SNAP or other federal policy changes could alter future numbers. Danielle Penelli then presented on economic assistance and employment supports transferred to DCYF, focusing first on MFIP, Minnesota’s state-supervised, county-administered welfare program jointly funded by state and federal dollars. She explained that MFIP provides cash and food assistance, employment and training services, and related supports, with a 60-month time limit and certain exemptions for illness, incapacity, or other barriers to employment. She also described the program’s income and asset standards, including a $10,000 asset limit with exclusions for homesteads and one vehicle per assistance unit member age 16 or older. Members asked clarifying questions about how the time limit applies and what assets count, and staff responded that the limit applies to the caregiver and does not restart with additional children. Penelli also introduced support services grants, which fund employment services for MFIP, DWP, and SNAP participants through workforce centers, counties, tribes, and community agencies, and help cover some county and tribal administrative costs. She began outlining nutrition programs under DCYF, including SNAP, the Minnesota Food Assistance Program, the Minnesota Food Shelf Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the American Indian Food Sovereignty Program. No formal votes or bill actions were taken during this meeting; it was primarily an informational staff briefing and question-and-answer session.

Transcript Highlights:

• President, would you believe that tax subsidies are paid for by the taxpayers of the United States?
• If there's a subsidy or if there's A way for the governor, the government to pay that back.
• And so there's a difference between subsidies and incentives.
• I think we have given broadband plenty of incentive and subsidy at this point to incentivize them to
• But again, we're talking about over a billion dollars in subsidy for just the state of Oklahoma.

Bills: SB2102, SB1940, SB1625, SB1442, SB1623, SB1242, SB1949, SB1592, SB1913, SB592, SB992, SB1241, SB259, SB1928, SB1426, SB1531, SB1561, SB1122

Keywords: credit card fees, merchant discounts, payment card network, interchange fees, transparency in fees, Oklahoma law, payment card, rebate, merchant, tax compliance, health insurance, mandate, impact analysis, insurance department, public health, access to healthcare, SB1442, alcoholic beverage control, ABLE Commission, liquor license fees

Transcript Highlights:

• We're doubling the cross subsidy aids.
• The new 20% subsidy program would replace our current reinsurance program with a direct subsidy for the
• provision in the bill that would provide the subsidy, 20% subsidy, to Minnesotans on the individual
• <01:21:20.800> and Um, regarding the premium subsidy and Um, regarding the premium subsidy
• uh, drug rebates, premium subsidi uh, drug rebates, premium subsidi subsidies, subsidies, subsidies

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Oil companies do not need the subsidy.
• Oil companies do not need the subsidy.
• Oil companies do not need the subsidy.
• Oil companies do not need the subsidy.
• We've heard a lot about this being a subsidy; the industrial allocation is a subsidy.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 held a joint hearing on CARB’s proposed amendments to the cap-and-invest regulations. Opening remarks from senators emphasized the 2025 reauthorization of the program through AB 1207 and SB 840, and focused on whether CARB’s April revisions faithfully implement legislative intent while balancing climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Several senators raised concerns that the proposal could reduce GGRF revenues, weaken funding for transit, affordable housing, wildfire prevention, drinking water, and other community programs, and shift too much support toward industry. Others stressed the need to protect businesses and consumers from higher costs and to avoid leakage and refinery closures. Senator Cortese’s statement, read into the record, warned that the proposal could jeopardize transportation funding commitments. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments respond to legislative direction and public comment, and described four main changes: increased electric bill credits, a larger manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI), additional compliance support for industry, and removal of post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. She said the proposal keeps the cap aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, maintains affordability protections, and is intended to reduce emissions while minimizing leakage and supporting in-state jobs. CARB staff also said the MDI would have guardrails, require applications and reporting, and be tied to emissions-reducing facility upgrades. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are highly uncertain and are updated periodically based on auction data. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could materially affect environmental ambition, industry support, utility credits, and GGRF revenues. LAO highlighted that the MDI could add allowances above the cap, potentially reducing certainty that 2030 targets will be met, and noted that the proposal appears to shift more allowances to industry and fewer to GGRF than current regulations. LAO also said the proposed GGRF estimate of about $8 billion through the decade could be insufficient to fully fund lower-priority tiers of programs. In questioning, senators pressed CARB on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether free allowances or MDI funds would actually lower prices at the pump, how leakage is measured, and whether the Legislature’s budget assumptions would need to be revised before final action. No votes were taken during the hearing; the discussion was informational and focused on questioning CARB and fiscal staff ahead of the board’s planned May 28 consideration of the amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, we've got a spring and a summer subsidy. Spring and summer are purely subsidy.
• to operate a spring and a summer subsidy to operate a spring and a summer subsidy program. program
• This was last We had a fall subsidy.
• <00:12:59.000> benefit wrapped up a spring subsidy benefit wrapped up a spring subsidy benefit
• those subsidy programs is about $160. those subsidy programs is about $160.

Bills: SB8

Keywords: utilities, public service commission, energy regulation, appointment, emergency declaration, tax increases, consumer protection, The first couple minutes of the livestream was cut off. This recording restored the beginning of the meeting Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:51 Approval of Minutes 00:02:07 Legislator Comments 00:02:18 LIHEAP Public Hearing 00:04:19 PSC Update on RS 26 SB 8 00:32:18 WaterStep Presentation 01:04:08, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's also comes with subsidies that help us keep costs down.
• Uh, the retirement systems used to also provide that subsidy.
• Uh I I I don't provide that subsidy.
• It cannot provide for that subsidy.
• So, it cannot provide for that subsidy.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:35 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:55 Approval of Minutes: 00:02:56 Deferred Compensation Authority Update: 00:03:12 Retiree Health Update - TRS: 00:15:58 Retiree Health Update - KPPA: 00:56:13 Adjournment: 01:20:33, 958, all

Summary: The Public Pension Oversight Board received updates from the Kentucky Public Employees Deferred Compensation Authority and the Teachers Retirement System. Chris Biddle reported that deferred compensation assets had grown to about $4.787 billion with roughly 88,000 participants, crediting auto-enrollment, targeted marketing around pay raises, and retiree-focused services. He said the board’s self-directed brokerage account, authorized by last year’s legislation, is being designed around a $40,000 account-balance threshold with up to 25% transferable into the brokerage window, tentatively for July 1 of the coming year. He also described the free financial planning program, which has been used by about 3,300 to 3,500 participants with an 87% return rate, and noted that the plan is currently in a fee holiday; members asked about the fee structure and whether the CFP service is provided through Nationwide, which Biddle confirmed. Board members praised the deferred compensation program’s growth and asked for the legislation referenced by Biddle. He said the plan’s annual fees are capped, with a $1 monthly fee plus other charges up to a $225 cap, for a maximum of $237 per year absent a managed account. He also said the program is seeking unified payroll access to expand participation, especially among teachers, and that prior lineup changes saved about $6 million annually in participant fees. Bo Barnes of TRS then addressed retired teachers’ health insurance, first clarifying a prior question about declining federal contributions to the retirement annuity trust. He explained that federally funded school positions generated contributions that rose from $72 million in 2019 to $109 million in 2022, then fell to $85 million this year, with a projection of $80 million over the next three years; if those dollars do not come from federal sources, they would have to be replaced through the SEEK formula. Barnes then reviewed TRS health coverage, explaining that the statutory contract guarantees access to group coverage but not fixed premium levels, and that TRS administers two retiree plans: KEHP for retirees under 65 or otherwise not Medicare-eligible, and MEHP for retirees 65 and older or Medicare-eligible. Barnes said TRS completed RFPs for the 2026 plan year, retaining Express Scripts for prescription drugs and switching the Medicare Advantage medical provider from UnitedHealthcare to Humana, while keeping plan design, provider access, out-of-pocket costs, and benefits materially unchanged. He noted a modest hearing-aid improvement of $500 per ear beginning in 2026. He also reported that the TRS Board approved the maximum state contribution for KEHP at $1,044.96, up from $930.76, an 18% increase that he said would require about $15 million to $16 million more annually, while the MEHP premium would drop from $210 to $200 per month because of the new contract. Using the 2024 valuation, he said the KEHP increase would slightly reduce the health trust funded ratio from 80.4% to 80.1% and raise unfunded liability from $4.036 billion to $4.051 billion. Barnes closed by reviewing the 2010 shared-responsibility reforms that shifted retiree health costs away from a pay-as-you-go model, including phased employee and district contributions and Commonwealth stabilization funding. No votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• It can yield affordable units without drawing upon other scarce forms of public subsidies, such as vouchers
• It would provide subsidies to potential home buyers and economic support for developers who are building
• As you know, HDIP, as it's called, is a multi-million-dollar subsidy only for market-rate and upscale
• H-DIP, as it's called, is a multi-million-dollar subsidy only for market-rate and upscale housing in
• However, housing advocates are routinely told that there's not enough money for subsidies for low-income

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• Every single form of energy has subsidies. Fossil fuels have subsidies.
• Everything has some form of subsidy.
• , that you're going to get your subsidy, that you're going to get your subsidy, your<00:37:51.200
• , not a zero amount of subsidies.
• , not a zero amount of subsidies.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So one question that I have is line 12 on the first page: rent subsidies. Is that determined?
• However, a rent subsidy could be a federal housing program.
• Or there might be somebody there who can pay the whole bill and doesn't need a subsidy.
• But that takes rent subsidy. But that takes rent subsidy.
• So you're suggesting that the subsidy for that be paid through Human Services.

Bills: SB2015

Keywords: corrections, rehabilitation, prison budget, department of corrections, adult services, youth services, correctional facilities, Heart River correctional center, Missouri River correctional center, James River correctional center, minimum security facility, county jails, regional jails, deferred maintenance, capital construction, strategic investment and improvements fund, Bank of North Dakota, line of credit, tasers, body cameras

Summary: The committee first discussed a wastewater infrastructure bill, centered on whether state support should be provided as a grant or through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund as a low-interest loan program. Department of Environmental Quality official David Brushwine explained that the SRF already finances wastewater projects, can leverage federal funds with state bond proceeds, and could accommodate the Washburn, Lincoln, and Peasant projects if they are ready to proceed. Members noted that losing federal grant support would make projects harder for local residents to afford because costs would be recovered through utility rates or special assessments, but the projects would still be eligible for loans. Senator Magrum indicated he would likely concur with the budget after this discussion, and the bill was set aside for later consideration. The committee then turned to a proposed amendment for a four-plex housing project for people with disabilities or other special needs. Senator Mathern described Sections 7 and 8 as creating a design consultation appropriation and a revolving loan fund modeled on existing hospital and nursing home loan programs, while Section 9 would transfer $3.3 million from the state infrastructure fund. Members debated ownership, rent subsidies, repayment terms, and whether the state should finance the project directly or leave it to a private developer with Department of Human Services oversight. Concerns were raised that the state should not own the housing and that the proposal needed more work to be workable, but the committee ultimately reached consensus to adopt Sections 7 and 8 and leave out Section 9 for further conference committee discussion. The committee also reviewed provider inflation and long-term care rate issues, with members discussing whether to support a 2% and 1.5% inflation adjustment and how to handle the $5-per-day basic care rate. Staff explained that the $5 payment was already in the base budget, but members debated whether it should remain ongoing or be treated as one-time funding and paired with a study of rate rebasing. The committee agreed to have draft language prepared to remove the $5 from the base budget and add study language, then moved the bill forward for drafting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Every single form of energy has subsidies. Fossil fuels have subsidies.
• Everything has some form of subsidy.
• , that you're going to get your subsidy, that you're going to get your subsidy, your<00:37:51.200
• I'm against subsidies in any event.
• And as Representative subsidy.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met on April 14 and began by welcoming a new member, Representative Samban Denier, who briefly described his background as a Clarkson University environmental engineering graduate and Air Force veteran. The committee then moved into a work session on five energy-related bills, starting with Senate Bill 65 on stormwater management for solar arrays. Representative McGee presented amendment 1594H, which would exclude projects in shoreland areas from the bill’s permit-by-notification process and require the standard alteration-of-terrain permit review instead. Members asked for clarification, and McGee explained the amendment was requested by the New Hampshire Lakes Association and others to preserve the fuller review process for shoreland projects. The committee appeared satisfied with the explanation and moved on. The committee next discussed Senate Bill 230 on electric utility restructuring and investment in distributed energy resources. Members concluded that section one was unnecessary because a better definition of advanced nuclear resources had already been added to House Bill 710, and that section two would allow investment in advanced nuclear resources in a way they had already rejected in another bill due to ratepayer risk. Several members agreed the bill was redundant and supported an ITL motion. They also discussed Senate Bill 232 on net metering terms and conditions, focusing first on whether hydroelectric generators could be listed in ISO New England while also taking net metering credits. Granite State Hydropower Association representative Heidi Kroll testified that generators are subject to checks and balances, that double-dipping is not occurring, and that rules and tariffs already require participation in one market arrangement or the other. Discussion on Senate Bill 232 then shifted to section two, which would bar retroactive changes to net metering tariffs in place as of January 1, 2025. Representative McGee proposed alternative language to protect existing customer generators, group hosts, and municipal hosts from retroactive changes, while others said the language was needed to provide stability for current participants operating on thin margins. Some members supported the clearer wording; others argued the committee should not tie the hands of the PUC and DOE, noting future circumstances could require regulatory flexibility and that conflicts could be resolved in court if necessary. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion of the meeting provided, and the discussion was still ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• creation of reflective health benefit plans only affects individual market plans which are eligible for subsidies
• creation of reflective health benefit plans only affects individual market plans which are eligible for subsidies
• creation of reflective health benefit plans only affects individual market plans which are eligible for subsidies
• creation of reflective health benefit plans only affects individual market plans which are eligible for subsidies
• are eligible for subsidies. are eligible for subsidies.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House opened with a devotional by Reverend Kemp Randolph, who reflected on the idea that simpler solutions often require letting go of existing assumptions and urged lawmakers to consider what they may need to give up to achieve the greatest good. After the prayer, the chamber introduced House Bill 889, exempting disability-related income on candidate disclosure forms, and House Bill 890, aimed at reducing barriers for nonprofit religious organizations providing preventive health care services. Both bills were read the first time and referred to committee. The House also referred three bills to money committees under House Rule 35A: H.548 to Appropriations, and H.557 and H.567 to Ways and Means. Members then offered several announcements, including welcoming the guest pastor Kemp Randolph and visiting European Parliament member Maria Walsh, along with her mother and aunt. There were also notices about caucus meetings and a correction to a prior vote explanation regarding H.70. The House then took up H.611, a technical and housekeeping bill affecting the Department of Vermont Health Access. Committee testimony and floor remarks described provisions to reduce administrative burdens, update advisory committee membership, remove outdated references tied to the individual/small group market split, adjust the VARMM prescription drug assistance program, increase the allowable amount in Medicaid-related prepaid funeral arrangements, and delay Medicaid coverage for doula services by one year while federal approval is sought. The Health Care and Appropriations committees both recommended the bill, with Appropriations noting no fiscal impact and correcting a prior vote tally. The House adopted the Health Care Committee amendment to H.611 and ordered the bill to third reading. It then passed H.540, relating to recommendations of the post-adjudication reparative program working group. Finally, the House concurred in the Senate proposal of amendment with further amendment on H.50, concerning identification of underutilized state buildings and land; the committee explained changes restoring annual reporting, removing leased buildings from the inventory, and directing annual reports to the Department of Housing and Community Development through 2030. The chamber concluded with announcements about a Joint Fiscal Committee meeting on a rural health transformation grant and then adjourned until February 10, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't generally support subsidies, um, and housing. I think they sometimes hurt.
• However, I think the solution is rather elegant, and the extent that I support subsidies at all, which
• at all which is rare this is subsidies at all which is rare this is exactly<00:13:27.079> the
• it needs a lot of work, and while I think the intent is good, I made some comments earlier about subsidy
• um and I I think they certainly subsidy um and I I think they certainly apply<00:17:20.760> here<

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're even less income, you might have not just a premium subsidy under the Affordable Care Act,
• But what I want to focus on is the subsidy issue.
• Because of the reduced subsidy, they moved to a bronze plan rather than just giving up completely.
• I've seen studies in the past, and this I think was before the enhanced subsidies were enacted.
• , and those subsidies are able to help them buy an individual policy. and those subsidies are able to

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They are shaking in their boots over what happens when this HomeBASE subsidy runs out because, yes, we
• I helped develop the older adult housing bridge subsidy pilot program in Somerville, which was run by
• So I helped develop the older adult housing bridge subsidy pilot program in Somerville, which was run
• We were able to reduce that subsidy to 30% of income.
• Fortunately, the bridge subsidy program stepped in to cover the rest, helping Steve avoid eviction.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on a broad slate of housing and homelessness bills. Chairs Rich Haggerty and Julian Cyr opened by noting the committee’s focus on EOHLC programs such as RAFT, MRVP, and HomeBASE, and several members and advocates emphasized the urgency of the state’s homelessness crisis, including rising family homelessness and the need for earlier intervention, more stable subsidies, and stronger long-term housing tools. A major theme was homelessness prevention and rehousing. Multiple witnesses supported bills to codify and strengthen RAFT and HomeBASE, arguing that assistance should be available earlier in a crisis rather than only after a notice to quit or imminent loss of housing. Testimony from legal services, homelessness coalitions, social workers, municipal housing staff, and tenant advocates said the programs help families avoid eviction and shelter, but need more flexibility, higher benefit caps, and permanent statutory protection. Several speakers also urged support for codifying the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP), describing it as a critical long-term subsidy for low-income households and older adults, and warning that codification would protect the program from future budget or policy changes. The committee also heard testimony on housing stability for older adults, affordable homes for people with disabilities, supportive housing, housing cooperatives, home sharing, local preference, and reentry housing for returning citizens. Advocates for older adults described a Somerville bridge subsidy pilot that helped stabilize seniors while they waited for permanent housing, and urged statewide expansion. Supporters of supportive housing called for an interagency board to streamline funding and development, while cooperative housing proponents backed creation of a Massachusetts Center for Housing Cooperatives and a dedicated funding reserve. A bill to secure housing for returning citizens drew support from reentry providers and Senator Adam Gomez, who said stable housing is essential to successful reintegration. No votes were taken during the hearing; witnesses generally asked the committee to report the bills favorably, and some members asked follow-up questions on data and program details.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so there are families that need the care that qualify for those subsidy families.
• and some of them even take 40 to 60 percent subsidy.
• So it's not that we're not willing to take the subsidy children.
• some of them even take 40 to 60 percent subsidy.
• So it's not that we're not willing to take the subsidy children.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its third hearing, focused on how transitional kindergarten (TK) fits into California’s mixed-delivery early learning system, with an emphasis on the Central Valley. Opening remarks stressed that TK and child care should complement each other, not compete, and that families need both part-day school-based options and full-day, year-round care. Committee members outlined hearing goals around aligning TK with existing programs, understanding family needs, and examining the economic impact of early learning on workforce participation and local economies. Panelists from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Every Child California, Early Edge, Children Now, and others described TK’s rapid expansion to all four-year-olds, the growth in enrollment, and related changes to state preschool and after-school programs. Witnesses generally supported TK but warned that its expansion has shifted enrollment away from community-based providers, especially centers and family child care homes, creating financial strain, vacant classrooms, and staffing challenges. They urged stronger partnerships between school districts and community providers, more flexible licensing and facilities support, higher and more uniform reimbursement rates, permanent authority for state preschool to serve two-year-olds, and better compensation and training for educators across settings. Parents and providers testified about the importance of trusted, culturally and linguistically responsive care, the need for infant-toddler and home-based options, and the difficulty of affording child care when TK is not full-day or does not fit family schedules. Several speakers emphasized that many families still face long waits for subsidies and that reimbursement and payment delays threaten provider stability. Public comment echoed these concerns, with providers calling for true cost-of-care rates, more vouchers, support for transportation and nontraditional hours, and protection from insurance and facility costs that can force programs to close. State education officials said California’s UPK system works best when TK, state preschool, Head Start, and community-based providers are treated as a shared system, and noted that planning and implementation grants and local coordination efforts have helped build mixed-delivery partnerships. The hearing ended without formal votes or actions, but committee members indicated they would continue gathering input to inform future policy and budget decisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the third major theme was the growing reliance on local subsidies, funding subsidies specifically
• And then the third major theme was the growing reliance on local subsidies, funding subsidies specifically
• , they don't But they get a fair amount of their operating revenue from tax subsidy.
• , even the private nonprofits, are losing money, including their local tax subsidies.
• So this is not going to... ...are losing money, including their local tax subsidies.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee was called to order, a quorum was established, and the minutes from the prior meeting were approved. The first major presentation came from Montana Public Employees Retirement System executive director William Hollahan, who gave an overview of Montana’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Compensation Act plan. He explained that the plan covers volunteer firefighters in unincorporated areas, is funded by 5% of state fire insurance premium taxes, and currently serves 228 departments with about 2,936 active members and 1,242 retirees. He described eligibility rules, annual training and reporting requirements, benefit levels for partial and full pensions, disability, death, medical, and funeral benefits, and said the plan is actuarially sound with roughly $60 million in assets and a funded ratio slightly above 100%. Committee members asked about prior-service credit, whether EMS personnel are included, the effect on recruitment and retention, and whether expanding coverage would require a funding analysis; Hollahan said prior service is not credited, EMS is not currently included, and any expansion would need financial review. Tim Walleen of Workforce Safety and Insurance then presented a draft North Dakota workers’ compensation solution for volunteer firefighters and volunteer EMS personnel. He explained that volunteer responders are already covered by workers’ comp for medical and wage-loss benefits, but the proposal would set a minimum annual wage of $30,000 for calculating wage-loss benefits for qualifying volunteers, with the benefit paid at two-thirds of that amount. Representative Porter suggested tying the volunteer definition to existing code rather than a fixed dollar amount, and Walleen agreed. Questions focused on whether search and rescue or other volunteer emergency services could be included, whether departments would face new paperwork, and whether volunteer organizations can already elect coverage; Walleen said there would be no additional paperwork and that volunteer coverage is already available. The committee also heard from volunteer fire service representatives and the state fire marshal. An Oakes-area firefighter, Mr. Olson, testified that small departments are struggling with retention, communication, and administrative burdens, especially around separate bookkeeping and funding rules for donated or fundraising money, and he said departments need clearer guidance from the state. State Fire Marshal Dr. Matthew Clark introduced himself and outlined a broader effort to improve education, support, and coordination for fire departments, including a planned 10% audit of certificates of existence beginning in 2027, more outreach through his office, and better assistance with training, reporting, and grant access. He said his office is authorized under current law to provide these services, but the role has been vague and underused. Finally, Arnagard Rural Fire District Chief Rick Schreiber testified in favor of new recruitment and retention ideas, including retirement-style benefits, health insurance, tax incentives, scholarships, grants, and more remote or regional training. He said volunteer departments are losing members, that local tax and donation funds are already stretched, and that any new retirement or incentive program should be sustainable and likely involve a mix of state and local support.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the special education cross subsidy in the special education cross subsidy in<00:24:11.760>
• We're grateful for the funding around special cross-subsidy areas.
• The transportation proposals are another $3 million that would add to the cross-subsidy.
• the other cross special cross subsidy the other cross subsidy<01:13:22.080> areas<01:13:22.760
• This newly created cross-subsidy will inevitably force our district to make staffing reductions.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, in general, the premium with subsidies in Albuquerque right now is about $7,000 to $7,200.
• And the subsidy for families at 400% of the federal poverty level living in rural areas, is that the
• Okay, so now without the subsidy, starting today, is that correct, Mr. Speaker, gentlemen? Mr.
• Suburban, with and without the subsidy, and then the same sort of exercise on the rural side.
• In rural areas, without the subsidy, we're looking at $41,000.

Transcript Highlights:

• Child Care subsidy again would be Senate. Star Academy was a compromise.
• Child care subsidy again would be Senate. Star Academy was a compromise at $1 million.
• Child Care subsidy again would be Senate. Star Academy was a compromise.
• Child care subsidy again would be Senate. Star Academy was a compromise at $1 million.
• The House version of the language for child care subsidies, I had significant concerns with.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• it be, suffice it to say, appropriate or reasonable to eliminate all of California's rebates and subsidies
• So our subsidies are for private insurance we have 87 million Californians in the individual market.
• And you're speaking specifically to the enhanced subsidies. Yes.
• So the enhanced subsidies, as I understand it, are set to expire at the end of. of 2025, the current
• The state's subsidies are not nearly as large for in covered California as those enhanced federal subsidies

Keywords: 988, house, all