Transcript Highlights:

• Even then, if TDT revenues in anyone here exceed the prior year's revenues, then the amount of the prior
• And the other would be any TDT revenues that exceed the prior year's revenues.
• TDT revenue to pay off the bond.
• This gives local governments access to the TDT revenues to use for general revenue purposes, which has
• to general revenue.

Bills: HB 118, HB 388, HB 114, HB 205, HB 2789, HB 2791, HB 499, HB 2960, HB 3163, HB 3135, HB 2427, HB 1618, HB 1672, HB 1722, HB 1338, HB 787, HB 2618, HB 879, HB 1126, HB 4134, HB 3513, HB 718, HB 1536, HB 1445, HB 1640, HB 1893, HB 1734, HB 3229, HB 3306, HB 1276, HB 3272, HB 3276, HB 3516, HB 4145, HB 1585, HB 4810, HB 2989, HB 2558, HB 3014, HB 2742, HB 1695, HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2798, HB 107, HB 1587, HB 3684, HB 118, HB 388, HB 114, HB 205, HB 2789, HB 2791, HB 499, HB 2960, HB 3163, HB 3135, HB 2427, HB 1618, HB 1672, HB 1722, HB 1338, HB 787, HB 2618, HB 879, HB 1126, HB 4134, HB 3513, HB 718, HB 1536, HB 1445, HB 1640, HB 1893, HB 1734, HB 3229, HB 3306, HB 1276, HB 3272, HB 3276, HB 3516, HB 4145, HB 1585, HB 4810, HB 2989, HB 2558, HB 3014, HB 2742, HB 1695, HB 609, HB 630, HB 420, HB 767, HB 1708, HB 1404, HB 2457, HB 140, HB 227, HB 913, HB 2198, HB 2763, HB 1261, HB 1135, HB 1318, HB 2358, HB 2765, HB 2735, HB 3307, HB 1242, HB 2842, HB 333, HB 201, HB 694, HB 2415, HB 155, HB 272, HB 405, HB 519, HB 1136, HB 1275, HB 1437, HB 1532, HB 1675, HB 1868, HB 1888, HB 1990, HB 2286, HB 2523, HB 3129, HB 3251, HB 3354, HB 3479, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 3887, HB 4163, HB 4238, HB 1240, HB 1842, HB 2029, HB 2622, HB 3255, HB 654, HB 4643, HB 4945, HB 3611, HB 3724, HB 3623, HB 3810, HB 4127, HCR 78, HCR 12, SB 767

Keywords: HB 388, HB388, coordination of benefits, COB questionnaire, health benefit plan, health insurance, insurance commissioner, Texas Department of Insurance, uniform form, primary payer, secondary payer, multiple coverage, dual coverage, Medicaid, CHIP, managed care, HMO, small employer health plan, school district health coverage, self-funded plan

Transcript Highlights:

• it requires the commissioner of Revenue it requires the commissioner of Revenue to<00:09:36.800>
• <00:09:46.720> notification commissioner of Revenue notification commissioner of Revenue notification
• substantiate that I think oh Revenue substantiate that I think oh Revenue estimate<00:21:35.559>
• When my bill first went in, our state revenue came in and said this is going to lower revenue, and it
• devastating um and then the revenue devastating um and then the revenue estimate<01:16:32.760>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund, you're decreasing revenue to the general fund.
• You're decreasing revenue to the general fund.
• It would increase revenue to the HCA by the same amount.
• And then it's revenue to the state.
• And we know that there's typically a loss of family revenue income.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm especially interested in the Office of Insurance and the Department of Revenue.
• The tribal gaming revenue, on the other hand, is $357 million.
• The tribal gaming revenue, on the other hand, is $357 million.
• The Commission is funded by both general revenue and trust fund dollars.
• The Commission is funded by both general revenue and trust fund dollars.

Summary: The State Administration Budget Subcommittee met for an introductory overview of the agencies under its jurisdiction and their current-year budgets. Chair Vicki Lopez welcomed members and staff, and each member briefly introduced themselves and identified areas of interest, with recurring themes including fiscal restraint, insurance regulation, revenue administration, condominium issues, and government efficiency. The chair then outlined the subcommittee’s overall budget, about $3.1 billion, and noted major recent policy areas affecting the budget such as condominium legislation and emergency communications funding. Agency heads then presented high-level summaries of their missions and budgets. The Department of Revenue described property tax oversight, tax administration, and child support enforcement; the Department of Management Services reviewed state purchasing, telecommunications, fleet, state insurance, retirement, and digital services; DBPR highlighted licensing, enforcement, condominiums, and building code work; DFS covered insurance consumer services, risk management, unclaimed property, fire marshal functions, and criminal investigations; the Gaming Control Commission discussed pari-mutuel and tribal gaming oversight and enforcement; OIR explained insurer solvency and rate review; the Lottery emphasized education funding and record sales; OFR described regulation of banking, securities, lending, and money services; DOAH outlined administrative and workers’ compensation adjudication; PSC covered utility rate regulation and consumer complaints; PERC described labor relations and career service appeals; and FCHR summarized discrimination complaint investigations and outreach. Several members asked questions about utility returns, insurance regulation staffing, DMS’s state employee health plan deficit and prescription drug formulary management, agency recommendations for reducing regulatory burden, and state facilities usage. Responses generally emphasized that utility rates and insurer filings are determined through evidentiary and actuarial processes, that OIR has reduced vacancies but still seeks specialized staff and a Tampa office expansion, and that DMS acknowledged rising health plan costs and said the issue likely requires broader budget-level discussion. The chair also pressed multiple presenters to stay focused on agency operations and budgets rather than broader policy issues. No votes or formal actions were taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• revenues but some of it is off budget. revenues but some of it is off budget.
• <00:10:17.440> So projected revenues and spending. So projected revenues and spending.
• > that<00:16:33.120> we're<00:16:33.360> revenue the revenue structure that we're
• revenue the revenue structure that we're revenue concerns<00:16:34.320> we're<00:16:34.480>
• redistributing directly the MET revenues redistributing directly the MET revenues as<00:25:59.360

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to move next to the diesel revenue per lane mile.
• bond and use that new revenue to pay back bonds.
• And that revenue goes from the tax and revenue department in those states to the state road fund.
• And so it didn't touch non-recurring revenue for the state, it didn't touch recurring revenue for the
• The state road fund revenues are expected to decline by 13.

Transcript Highlights:

• Revenues are performing well, maintaining our debt burden manageable.
• The limit is 10% of unrestricted revenue of the previous fiscal year.
• Revenues are performing well, maintaining our debt burden manageable.
• We're going to issue $60 million, and in this particular case we assume no revenue growth, so revenues
• <00:45:24.680> um and even if revenues um and even if revenues um if<00:45:27.440> if

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Public Works and Highways committee held a capital budget orientation led by Legislative Budget Assistant Office staff, who walked members through the budget materials, the capital budget process, and the committee’s compare sheet. The presentation explained that agencies begin developing capital requests nearly a year in advance, submit them by May 1, and that the governor’s recommended capital budget is a reduced version of the much larger agency wish list. Members were told the agencies initially requested about $1.1 billion in projects, the catalog was trimmed to just over $400 million in general fund projects, and the governor’s recommendation in the pink book totals about $143 million in general fund capital appropriations. The committee also reviewed the prior capital budget and related statutes and committee procedures. Several specific projects drew discussion. The Department of Education’s CTE projects were explained as having been shifted into the operating budget in the prior cycle and now returning to the capital budget recommendation; members asked whether there was a backup CTE project and whether local approval had been secured for the named project. The Cannon Mountain tramway request was highlighted as a $20 million recommendation, with the presenter explaining that an earlier $18 million appropriation would be lapsed back to the general fund to help balance the budget. The Department of Corrections’ new prison project was also discussed; members were told the state has already appropriated $50 million for planning and site evaluation, but the governor’s current capital budget does not include a new prison construction appropriation because the project is not yet ready for that phase and may need to be funded differently, possibly through a separate, staggered appropriation. State Treasurer Monica Mezzapelli then presented on debt affordability and the state’s borrowing capacity. She said the state’s credit position has improved, with the debt-to-revenue ratio falling from 8.2% in 2015 to 3.8% in 2024, and explained that RSA 6-C limits debt authorization to 10% of unrestricted prior-year revenue. She noted that the Treasury’s planning assumes $60 million in annual bond issuance, with the prison-related $40 million now expected to be issued in 2026 rather than 2025 because the project is not ready to spend the funds. She said the state can still borrow more, but additional debt service must be paid from operating funds, and recommended keeping capital bonding in the $120 million to $130 million range to preserve affordability and the state’s credit rating. Members asked for clarification on the CTE funding shift, the prison schedule, and the meaning of the large agency request totals. The chair and treasurer discussed the governor’s $143 million recommendation versus the committee’s usual target range, and the treasurer said $130 million would be more comfortable than $140 million, with $135 million described as a possible compromise. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the meeting was informational and ended with the presenters offering to answer follow-up questions as agencies come before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's revenues. Just revenues? Operating revenues?
• It's only their own revenues. I mean local revenues. Okay. Can you talk a little bit more, Mr.
• Those recommendations support the same use of federal revenues and other revenues.
• revenue.
• So, can you tell me what the new revenue was? from you said there was 12 million in revenue. 214?

Transcript Highlights:

• in line with our ongoing revenues.
• Yes, so if, for whatever reason, let's say revenues came in less than the consensus revenue estimate,
• So theoretically, no net effect on general revenues. effect on general revenues once the project is complete
• And like I said, when general revenue is plentiful, it's easy just to throw general revenue in there.
• And like I said, when general revenue is plentiful, it's easy just to throw general revenue in there.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Total revenue related funds for the 26-27 biennium is projected to come from tax revenues.
• Sales tax is our revenue system's mainstay.
• revenue and all general revenue dedicated, cannot grow faster than the rate of. growth of population
• There's the general revenue funds, general revenue dedicated funds.
• General revenue is what was budgeted.

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The Florida Legislature is unconstrained in raising revenue.
• When revenue growth is constrained, governments are placed in a difficult position.
• Because every business wants to paralyze itself three years in the revenue.
• Every business wants to use a hatchet against its revenue, not a scalpel.
• It is only a cap in the future growth of property tax revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• reasons that the tobacco um uh revenues reasons that the tobacco um uh revenues and<00:20:10.400
• <00:27:20.640> to Massachusetts, bringing the revenue to Massachusetts, bringing the revenue
• up that revenue from what bucket? up that revenue from what bucket?
• their revenue by $49.7 million. their revenue by $49.7 million.
• So VLT revenue is increasing.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1596, which would raise New Hampshire’s cigarette excise tax from $1.78 per pack to about $2.80, using an inflation-based adjustment since the rate was last set in 2008. Representative Jerry Stringham, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure would keep New Hampshire competitive with neighboring states, generate revenue, and help offset other budget pressures. He also described the bill as repealing an income-based premium charge in Medicaid/CHIP-related programs and restoring cuts to the University System of New Hampshire, arguing that the combined package would still leave the state in a positive fiscal position. He said the tobacco tax increase would likely have some cessation effect but would remain low relative to other New England states, and he cited prior testimony from health groups supporting a larger increase. Members questioned the sponsor about how the new rate was calculated, the prior tobacco tax reduction and restoration, whether tobacco companies would absorb or pass on the tax, and the fiscal note’s estimates for Medicaid premium revenue and UNH funding. Stringham said he used Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation data, that the earlier 10-cent reduction did not produce the expected sales increase, and that the current bill would eliminate the premium charges now in the budget. He later clarified that the Department of Medicaid Services had updated the revenue estimate, but said the bill still showed a surplus overall. He also said the federal government already imposes a $1-per-pack tax and that New Hampshire would remain below neighboring states even after the increase. Two public witnesses testified in opposition to the tax increase. Anna Bettincourt, a tobacco category manager, argued that higher tobacco taxes would unfairly target smokers, reduce New Hampshire’s tax advantage, and likely shift purchases to other states or illicit markets rather than reduce use. She said tobacco companies generally do not lower prices and that Massachusetts’ flavor restrictions had not eliminated sales. In response to questions, she maintained that a smaller increase would still be harmful and that enforcement problems make bans ineffective. The sponsor and some members countered that smokers impose higher health costs and that tobacco taxes are a policy tool for both revenue and public health. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:22.079> program, of the local optional revenue program, of the local optional revenue
• And those are supplemental revenue.
• The duties compensatory revenue.
• revenue.
• :15:35.760> revenue.

Bills: HF1388

Keywords: BARR Center, Building Assets, Reducing Risks, education finance, school funding, grant appropriation, evidence-based program, student achievement, social and emotional learning, school climate, teacher effectiveness, high school graduation, students in poverty, students of color, BIPOC, equity in education, Minnesota Department of Education, urban schools, suburban schools, rural schools, school coaching

Transcript Highlights:

• Total revenue related funds for the 26-27 biennium is projected to come from tax revenues.
• Sales tax is our revenue system's mainstay.
• Which is all general revenue and all general revenue dedicated cannot grow faster than the rate of growth
• There's the general revenue funds, general revenue dedicated funds.
• General revenue is what was budgeted.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Local property taxes represent 90 to 95% of Missouri public library revenue.
• And I know, speaking personally from my library, we would really appreciate being able to revenue.
• Once again, local property tax is 95% of public library revenue. We do receive some state funding.
• revenue.
• As Steve mentioned earlier, currently we rely about 95% of our revenues on property tax.

Summary: The Committee on Local Government held a public hearing on Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1023, sponsored by Senator Justin Brown. Brown explained that the bill would expand existing authority for certain public library districts to seek voter approval for a sales tax, with property tax reductions tied to the sales tax in some cases. He noted special provisions for Cass and Johnson counties, where the sales tax rate would be capped at 0.33% and would replace real and personal property taxes, and also described a separate provision allowing circuit courts to collect a civil case filing surcharge of up to $15 for law library maintenance. Library representatives and supporters testified in favor. They argued that libraries rely heavily on property tax revenue, that the bill would let local voters choose a more diversified funding mix, and that it would help libraries respond to growth and facility needs. Witnesses from Scenic Regional Library, St. Charles City-County Library, Marshall Public Library, the Missouri Library Association, and the Kansas City Public Library described local circumstances, including St. Charles County’s three-year phase-out and rollback requirement, Marshall’s voter-approved sales tax and concerns about county reclassification, and Kansas City’s request for fiscal-year flexibility. Committee members raised questions about the fairness of shifting library funding to sales tax, especially for nonresidents, and one member objected to the tone of the senator’s questioning during the hearing. No one testified in opposition, and the chair closed the public hearing. The committee announced it planned to executive the bill on Monday, with notice to follow. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• and obviously things Projected much higher revenues.
• and obviously things. projected much higher revenues.
• Reduced amount does, you know, reflect that improved revenue outlook.
• from before we know for sure what those revenues are.
• It says revenues from this fee increase will backfill the loss in testing revenues from the subject matter

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , net revenues, net revenues, uh,<00:27:17.679> which<00:27:17.919> is<00:27:18.159
• of that revenue requirement, or, well, it's the revenue requirement and then the target revenues that
• <01:33:26.080> that increases in the target revenues that increases in the target revenues
• It had a record $514 million in revenue. It had a record $514 million in revenue.
• them the most revenue. them the most revenue. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational briefing on the Public Utilities Commission’s performance-based regulation (PBR) framework and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ whistleblower complaint process. Chair Jared Kohole opened the meeting, noted it was informational only with no public testimony, and explained that members would hear presentations and then have an opportunity for questions. The committee heard first from Ulupono Initiative, which provided background on why utilities are regulated, how Hawaii’s cost-of-service model and rate cases work, and why PBR was adopted to shift utility incentives away from a capital-investment bias and toward performance, efficiency, cost control, and policy goals such as renewable energy and reliability. Ulupono described Hawaii’s PBR structure as a five-year multi-year rate plan with annual revenue adjustments, a customer dividend, a Z factor for extraordinary exogenous events, and an exceptional project recovery mechanism for large projects. It also outlined performance incentive mechanisms tied to renewable portfolio standard progress, interconnection speed, reliability, and shared savings. The presentation said the current docket is evaluating a possible hybrid approach that would combine forward-looking forecasting with historical results, and Ulupono advocated for stronger incentives, arguing the current rewards are too small relative to utility revenues and should be more meaningful to better align utility behavior with legislative intent. The PUC then presented its own overview, emphasizing that the PBR docket is open and active and that the briefing was limited to the record to avoid ex parte concerns. The commission described the development of PBR in Hawaii through multiple phases beginning in 2018: an initial collaborative phase to set goals, a formal contested-case phase that produced the initial framework, later phases adding scorecards, reported metrics, and additional performance incentive mechanisms, and subsequent refinements including sunset of some mechanisms and adjustments after the August 2023 Maui wildfires. The PUC said the framework is intended to be customer-centric, administratively efficient, and protective of utility financial integrity, and that current work includes evaluating how to balance forward-looking and historical test-year approaches within the rebasing process. No votes or formal actions were taken at the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• other revenue raisers. other revenue raisers.
• in turns leads to less sales tax revenue in turns leads to less sales tax revenue and<00:16:22.240
• It's a small revenue that generates.
• <00:21:10.559> then um and generating a lot of revenue then um and generating a lot of revenue
• If you read the revenue estimate from the Department of Revenue that was included in your packet, you'll

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3117, which would impose an excise tax on social media companies based on Minnesota monthly users and data-mining activity, and adopted an A1 amendment that added clarifying language identifying social media platforms. Chair Gomez described the bill as a way to tax companies profiting from data mining and social media use, citing concerns about child bullying, misinformation, and wealth concentration. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the 2025 taxes bill. Supporters testified that the measure would help raise revenue from a highly profitable industry and better align the tax code with the social costs of data collection and social media use. Pastor Julie Thompson, MAPE representative Tanner Fritzinger, Council Member Sue Bud, and Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota all backed the bill, arguing that social media companies extract value from users’ data, contribute to mental health and social harms, and should pay more toward public needs. Bernstein also framed the tax as a way to broaden the tax base and fund schools and other services. Opponents warned that the bill could sweep in local broadcasters, newspapers, and other businesses that use digital platforms and collect some user data, and that costs would likely be passed on to consumers. Wendy Pollson of the Minnesota Broadcasters Association said the definitions were too broad and could unintentionally include local media. Deb Peters, speaking for Americans for Digital Opportunity, argued the tax would raise costs for small businesses and consumers, create legal risks, and amount to double taxation. Several members echoed concerns about regressivity, administration, and whether the bill actually addresses online bullying or data privacy, while supporters said it is a first step toward taxing a new, lightly taxed industry.

Transcript Highlights:

• The initial page on page two talks about revenue changes.
• You’ll see that’s noted as base revenue adjustment, the April FAC forecast.
• Our office updates our revenue forecast three times a year.
• You’ll see that downward revenue adjustment is noted there on line four.
• So that credit would be repealed, netting additional revenue of $1.7 million.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The initial page on page two talks about revenue changes.
• You’ll see that’s noted as base revenue adjustment, the April FAC forecast.
• Our office updates our revenue forecast three times a year.
• And you’ll see that downward revenue adjustment is noted there on line four.
• So that credit would be repealed, netting additional revenue of $1.7 million annually.

Summary: The meeting began with a JLBC presentation on the state budget proposal. Staff reviewed revenue changes from the April forecast, which lowered expected growth slightly, and then walked through major tax policy provisions. Those included full conformity with HR1 for the current tax year, a shift to the provisions of SB 1106 for future tax years, new deductions for retirement/pension distributions and Roth IRA contributions, an increase in the dependent credit, and a child and dependent care subtraction. Staff said the tax changes had an overall fiscal impact of about $1.4 billion over four years. They also described offsets from repealing several tax credits and exemptions, including solar-related tax breaks, a renewable energy production credit, a new employment tax credit, a refundable R&D credit for smaller employers, and a pollution-control device credit, totaling about $75 million in added revenue. Another budget item would redirect Arizona Commerce Authority Competes Fund lottery distributions to the general fund. Members asked questions about the budget’s effect on ACCESS eligibility checks, state employee health insurance funding, and cuts to one-time funding for area agencies on aging and Alzheimer’s programs. The committee then moved to caucus items on several bills. HB 2249, as amended by the Senate, would expand the parents’ bill of rights to include access to a child’s complete educational record and notice if school staff facilitate social transitioning, and would require investigation of prior violations; the sponsor concurred with the amendment. HB 2035 would require DCS and courts to identify and consider extended family for kinship foster care placement, with Senate changes shortening a reporting deadline and adding adopted family members to the definition. HB 2170 would bar state contracts for electronic or IT goods with PRC-controlled companies, with a certification requirement added in the Senate. HB 2573 would remove a waiting period for ignition interlock restricted licenses after DUI revocation and adjust psychotherapy language. HB 2415 on kratom would classify synthetic kratom as a narcotic drug and add advertising, packaging, and retail restrictions, but the sponsor intended to refuse the Senate changes. HB 2873 would let local petition sponsors withdraw municipal referendum petitions retroactively, which members noted could affect the Marana data center petition effort. The final bill discussed, SB 1798, would create a Financial Aid Awareness Program in the Department of Education to recognize schools that support FAFSA completion. Members questioned whether the department would need additional staff or resources, but no fiscal note had been provided. The meeting ended with recognition of interns and a brief photo opportunity before the caucus moved into closed session.