Transcript Highlights:

• educational opportunity and the amount of state funds provided to school districts based upon the cost
• The statute further states that this is accomplished by completing an expenditure analysis and resource
• and resource allocation review each by That this is accomplished by completing an expenditure analysis
• Next, looking at our school type analysis categories, we have four here.
• And that is a handbook that's used for analysis purposes to help identify which codes mean what.

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would think so, yeah. insurance cost itself and then their transaction costs, like I said, the recording
• Added cost to the clerk's office or how what are the added costs?
• You know, and to representative, your question about the cost savings, if it is cost prohibitive. for
• savings particularly cost to providers is going to be and perhaps how those cost savings from providers
• At the end of the day, we're looking at the cost.

Bills: HB150, HB869, HB876, HB 1043, HB1494, HB1522, HB150

Keywords: cybersecurity, state command, information resources, data protection, incident response, information technology, classification officer, job descriptions, state positions, competency-based, information sharing, government efficiency, public sector, private sector, distributed ledger, title registry, real estate, property liens, pilot program, healthcare

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:38.080> of<00:04:38.320> the conducting an analysis of the conducting an analysis
• The imposed cost doesn't have to be prohibitive.
• <00:11:53.120> of is not keeping up with the cost of is not keeping up with the cost of operating
• The imposed cost doesn't agreements.
• <00:42:50.960> of aren't covering the costs of aren't covering the costs of managing<00:42

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting opened with roll call and approval of the prior minutes, including a requested correction to Thomas Han’s statement about a Granite State Division of the Society of American Foresters subcommittee studying the timber yield tax and current use forest land tax assessment formula. The correction was adopted, and the minutes were then approved as amended. The main agenda item was a hearing of landowners on forest taxation and carbon credits. Several scheduled speakers canceled, so the committee received a letter from Ross Karen, a Coos County landowner and forester, who opposed carbon credit sales because of “leakage” and argued that diverse local markets and productive forests are better than carbon sales. Aean Kelly of White Mountain Lumber and the Randolph Town Forest also testified, saying many Coos County landowners and forest managers have declined carbon credit offers because they do not fit New Hampshire’s working-forest tradition. He argued that carbon agreements should be treated on a level playing field with traditional harvesting and that, if they are to be encouraged, they should face a fiscal adjustment comparable to the timber tax. Kelly also gave a detailed history of the timber tax, explaining that it was created in 1948 to replace uneven local property taxation on standing timber, discourage clearcutting, and stabilize the tax base while preserving working forests. He said the tax was intended to be collected when timber is harvested, not to stop logging, and that a later commission found the 10% rate roughly matched the revenue towns lost. In response to questions, he said pre-1948 assessments varied widely by town and tax collector, and that carbon projects today are already being valued by sophisticated models, so he believes carbon should be included in the assessment system. He also said short-term carbon agreements may simply monetize existing forest value, while 100-year agreements raise enforceability concerns. No votes or other formal actions were taken beyond approving the amended minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you can see in Nebraska, it costs just over a million dollars.
• And in South Dakota, it costs dollars. And in South Dakota, it costs $600,000 annually to do this.
• We learned a lot about our cost estimates from the past as well.
• There’s no data science, no analysis, nothing underlying that.
• A landmark peer-reviewed meta-analysis led by Dr.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• cost compared to the Budget Act.
• It mentioned several times kind of the additional, like, rising costs around pharmacy costs.
• The first report is due at the end of April of this year, which will include an analysis of the costs
• total program workload costs.
• total operating cost.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, after working with the field and looking at what costs are going to come in close, we found
• I'm concerned with the application in that I'm not concerned about adding the gross cost.
• Total estimated project costs prior to vetting. The earnings again. Five. President Putin.
• The cost of construction. So, that's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• That adding a middle school analysis would then extend our timeline for that.

Transcript Highlights:

• hospital cost reports. hospital cost reports.
• of what that cost is. of what that cost is.
• But we do have to sort of talk about the cost. And we can do that with an actuarial analysis.
• no cost share. no cost share.
• So, that analysis does not necessarily impact what the true cost of something like this would be.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• fee increases so it would cover the cost fee increases so it would cover the cost of<01:54:51.239
• and the idea of the net analysis and the idea of the net benefits<02:01:56.320> analysis<02:01
• This pays for all of the personnel costs, all the benefits, all of the indirect costs, and then also
• direct costs.
• I mean, the real costs here are transportation costs and not so much tipping fees.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the Department of Environmental Services on proposed changes in House Bill 2 and related technical changes in House Bill 1 tied to the governor’s permitting realignment initiative. The proposal would move environmental review staff from Fish and Game and DNCR to DES to create a more centralized “one-stop shop” for applicants needing DES permits, especially for wildlife and natural heritage reviews. DES said the goal is to speed permitting, support a 60-day review clock, and improve coordination among agencies while keeping the substantive review work in place. Members asked about staffing impacts, the scope of the transferred duties, and whether the change would create redundancy or weaken the other agencies. DES said most of the affected staff work primarily on these reviews, though Fish and Game staff also handle other state and federal reviews, which is why the proposal was adjusted to keep one of the four Fish and Game positions there and move three to DES, along with two positions from DNCR. DES also described a new supervisory position in HB 2 to manage the transferred staff within its land resources bureau. Officials said the reviews would still be done by specialists, but under DES supervision, and that the agencies would continue to coordinate recommendations on species impacts and mitigation. The committee also discussed fee increases intended to offset costs, including a 50% increase in wetlands fees and a 100% increase in alteration-of-terrain fees, with the department saying the changes would cover the new positions. Members raised concerns about impacts on private homeowners, possible incentives to work without permits, and whether fines should be used more as a revenue source or for mitigation. DES said wetlands permits are roughly split between homeowner-related and commercial projects, that permit-by-notification already creates a two-tier structure for smaller projects, and that enforcement relies partly on public complaints and online permitting systems. The department also said most fines currently go to the general fund and vary widely year to year, with about $75,000 budgeted, and that the proposal would also create permit-by-notification authority for alteration-of-terrain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet, mirroring language in Senate Bill 110. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• we're going to take up, excuse me, for consideration, House Bill 413, attorney's fees, suit money, and costs
• So document review and analysis, predictive analytic tools to look at what has been happening in the
• put all these bank records into generative AI, and then it helps see, you know, how much does Chair Cost
• Is that part of the analysis? That's a great question, and the answer to your question is yes.
• And then it helps see, you know, how much does chair costs or spend on DoorDash?

Summary: The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 413, relating to attorney’s fees, suit money, and costs in family law cases. Representative Gottlieb explained that the bill and strike-all amendment were intended to promote fairness, create more uniformity across circuits, expand judicial discretion in awarding fees, and strengthen enforcement language. Members discussed how the amendment’s reference to good-faith settlement offers would apply only after trial in fee determinations, not during the trial itself. Jamie Epstein of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section supported the measure overall, saying it would improve consistency and deter bad-faith litigation, but noted concern about one paragraph creating a presumption of entitlement to fees in contempt actions. The committee adopted the strike-all amendment and then passed HB 413 favorably as amended by a 13-0 vote. Chair Koster said the bill would provide needed clarification in family law practice and help parties litigate more professionally and amicably. After the vote, the committee heard a presentation from Florida Bar President Sayah Baker Barnes on the Florida Bar’s role and the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession. Baker Barnes described the Florida Bar as an arm of the Florida Supreme Court responsible for regulating lawyers, protecting the public, handling discipline, reimbursing some victims of lawyer theft through the client security fund, and providing continuing legal education. She said AI use among lawyers has grown rapidly and that the Bar has created committees, guidance, and an ethics opinion to help lawyers use AI responsibly. She emphasized that lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of AI-generated citations and work product, noted that Florida courts have already disciplined lawyers and a pro se litigant for fake AI-generated citations, and discussed confidentiality, privilege, and deepfake concerns. Members asked about protecting client information and finding best-practice resources, and she directed them to the Bar’s LegalFuel site and AI guidance materials. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many organizations, including ours, participated in a comprehensive analysis to identify the needs of
• The statewide IEP—we’ve learned through data analysis that students with disabilities have a slightly
• The data analysis reveals that one in three New Mexico high school students with disabilities change
• So on the FIR, when we're talking about what it'll cost over... Thank you.
• Because in the bill analysis, it talks about on the second page, it says...

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We began the study with a comparative analysis.
• Earlier, I mentioned the comparative analysis to other states, and while it’s true that in recent years
• Earlier, I mentioned the comparative analysis to other states, and while it’s true that in recent years
• Earlier, I mentioned the comparative analysis to other states, and while it's true that in recent years
• And in 2025, the payroll cost created by AB5 exceeded $150,000, which is almost 15% of our budget.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Arts held an informational hearing on California’s first sector-specific creative economy strategic plan, “California’s Future: Creative Strategies for Cultural Resilience, Economic Growth, and Global Leadership.” Chair Allen opened by framing the creative economy as a major state asset and urged support for arts funding in the May Revision, including California Humanities, museums, public media, cultural districts, LA28 arts programming, and AB 2319, which would create a $100 million post-production incentive. He also emphasized the need for next-step funding to implement the strategic plan and noted concerns about federal headwinds and declining creative-sector jobs. California Arts Council Director Danielle Brazel, Institute for the Future’s Rachel Hatch, CDE’s Allison Frenzel, and Workforce Development Board representative Michael Weoff described how the plan was developed through AB 127 and related legislation, a 30-plus-member work group, and an interagency process. They outlined the plan’s phased approach and six priority areas, including preparing the workforce, stabilizing businesses, increasing revenue through cultural tourism, leveraging state incentives, defining and tracking ROI, and building state capacity. Testimony highlighted workforce pipelines, apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, digital badging, and cross-agency coordination, with speakers stressing that the sector is shaped by AI, climate change, affordability, capital access, and social cohesion. A second panel of artists and advocates described on-the-ground implementation and the need for better data and support. Ricarlo Handy discussed the Handy Foundation’s apprenticeship pipeline into film and TV jobs and the difficulty of capturing freelance and 1099 creative work in state data. Joanna Reynolds described Arts for LA’s Creative Jobs Collective, which aims to create 10,000 living-wage creative jobs in Los Angeles County by 2030. Alejandro Gutierrez Chavez urged the state to embed artists in health, aging, behavioral health, and climate resilience systems, and Roxanne Messina Kaptur spoke about the need to treat arts careers as viable professions and expand residency and school-based artist programs. Senator Rubio, who joined the hearing later, shared her own background in teaching and the arts, supported arts education and small theaters, and raised concerns about AI, asking how schools and educators can adapt. In the final panel, Rebecca Ratzkin reported on 26 town halls across eight regions, where more than 1,100 people attended and generally affirmed the plan while asking for better access to information, new financial models, clearer definitions and data, and stronger networks. Julie Baker of California for the Arts and California Arts Advocates argued the plan is an urgent blueprint for a sector that generates $288 billion and more than 820,000 jobs, but remains below pre-pandemic employment levels and is losing market share. She and others called for funding, statewide definitions, better data collection, and cross-agency implementation, while committee members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that the plan will require political will and resources to move from strategy to action.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know that committee staff recommended in their analysis a simple amendment to ensure that the legislative
• The analysis refers to the issue of where do we draw the line in terms of identifying this penalty for
• Again, I'd like to thank the committee for the work that was done and the analysis on this bill.
• As the committee analysis notes, Contra Costa County, one of the counties that offers this option to
• The author agreed to accept amendments that were suggested in the committee analysis.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met as a subcommittee until quorum was established, then heard a series of election- and public-trust-related bills. Early items included AB 2592, which would move lobbyist training from legislative ethics committees to the FPPC starting in 2029 and make it available online on demand; it drew support from the FPPC and an oppose-unless-amended request to make the training public and ensure lobbyists pay fees. AB 2573 would refine California’s confidential voter registration protections for candidates and elected officials, with support from the Secretary of State and county election officials after amendments narrowed some family-member coverage. AB 2753 would bar registered sex offenders from running for or holding local or state office; it prompted extended debate about public trust, second chances, and where to draw the line, but was ultimately advanced on a 5-0 vote with one member not voting. AB 2691 similarly would expand disqualifying felony convictions to include sexual assault and human trafficking, and it also passed 5-0 after testimony from victim advocates and discussion about survivors, restorative justice, and the power dynamics involved in public office. The committee also advanced AB 2413, which would prohibit public funds from being used for large-format ads featuring elected officials, and AB 2281, which would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to assess replacement resources after federal cybersecurity support cuts and allow consultation with academic researchers. AB 1664 would require local election officials to notify the Secretary of State and Attorney General within one business day of warrants, subpoenas, or investigations involving election records or voting systems; supporters said it would help the state respond quickly to improper seizure of election materials, and it passed 5-0. AB 2484, concerning San Diego MTS, would let voters authorize a local sales tax initiative for transit funding and exempt it from an existing cap; it drew support from transit leaders and labor, opposition from the Realtors, and a lengthy exchange over Prop. 13, Prop. 218, and whether the measure created a special deal, before passing 6-1. The committee then heard AB 2230, which would create buffer zones around voting centers and child care facilities to keep immigration enforcement away from those locations. The author said the bill was meant to reduce fear and intimidation for voters and families, while the opposition argued it was unenforceable, lacked evidence of a problem, and would interfere with federal officers doing their jobs. Members supporting the bill cited reported ICE profiling and intimidation in California communities, while others raised jurisdictional and practical concerns. The transcript ends during this debate, with no final vote shown for AB 2230.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do a business analysis. they come up within the agency. We do a business analysis. Okay.
• They review rate cases, conduct financial and economic analysis.
• Have you do you figure the cost of turnover and what I mean that the question is your cost to turn over
• If you would mind, would you give me the committee that cost?
• I'd be very interesting to see what it would cost for us when we when somebody leaves and what it costs

Transcript Highlights:

• And during that time, there was never a cost-benefit analysis done on what the cost of these requirements
• There still has been no cost-benefit analysis of what these costs are going to be going forward.
• And during that time, there was never a cost-benefit analysis done on what the cost of these requirements
• There still has been no cost-benefit analysis of what these costs are going to be going forward.
• RATE PAYERS OR NEW YORKERS GOING FORWARD, THERE STILL HAS BEEN NO COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF WHAT THESE

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened, approved the prior journal, and then took up a series of utility and public service bills and resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Senator Scarcella-Spanton designating April 9, 2026, as Yellow Ribbon Day was adopted after remarks honoring veterans, active-duty service members, and their families. The chamber then moved through several Public Service Law measures focused on utility affordability, consumer protections, and PSC procedures, with some bills laid aside and others advanced. Among the bills passed were measures by Senators Mayer, Cleare, Hinchey, Comrie, and Parker. Debate on the Mayer bill centered on limiting utility expenses and fees recoverable in rate cases; supporters said it was part of a broader package to reform PSC practices, while opponents argued it would not lower current bills and had been softened from earlier versions. The Webb bill creating a residential utility usage monitoring program drew extended debate over whether it would meaningfully reduce costs, who would pay for the program, and whether it could lead to government monitoring of household usage; supporters said it would give consumers more control and transparency, while critics said it would not lower rates. The Gonzalez bill, which would add consumer protections during PSC investigations and delay shutoffs in certain circumstances, also passed after questions about whether it applied to rate cases, with the sponsor saying rate cases were explicitly excluded. Several members explained their votes, with supporters emphasizing affordability, transparency, and consumer protection, and opponents arguing the package would not address immediate rate relief and could burden ratepayers or encourage nonpayment. Senator Tedisco and others criticized PSC appointments and state energy policy, while Democratic sponsors argued the bills were part of a longer-term effort to reform utility regulation and address climate and affordability concerns. The chamber restored multiple bills to the non-controversial calendar before final votes, and the recorded results showed passage of the major utility bills by substantial margins, along with one amendment appeal being ruled nongermane and rejected.

Transcript Highlights:

• The local impact note process answers the question: what's the cost of the local impact?
• of the state the local impact the cost of the state the local impact not<00:05:25.680> processes<
• and research they direct what analysis and research they want<00:08:17.319> we<00:08:17.479><
• Our primary cost is staff. We currently have 16 staff in 14 FTE positions.
• what it ended up costing.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met briefly to approve the January 16 minutes, then heard a series of informational presentations from legislative joint offices and commissions that fall under its jurisdiction. Michelle Urick of the Legislative Coordinating Commission explained the LCC’s governance structure, including its leadership-based membership and role overseeing joint offices such as the Legislative Auditor, Legislative Budget Office, Legislative Reference Library, Revisor of Statutes, and the LCC staff office itself. Christian Larson of the Legislative Budget Office described the office’s nonpartisan fiscal note work, local impact notes, and support for the Tax Expenditure Review Commission, noting the volume of requests it handles and that the office currently has 18 budgeted FTE. He also explained the LBO Oversight Commission’s role in setting standards and appointing the director. Elizabeth Lincoln of the Legislative Reference Library outlined the library’s services, including answering thousands of reference questions, maintaining state policy and legislative collections, archiving state documents, supporting the legislative website and search tools, and preserving House and Senate audio, video, and committee minutes. She also noted the library’s staffing levels and its move to the Capitol. In response to a question, she said copies of the book Minnesota Standoff were in constant circulation, that the title is out of print, and that the library had digitized it for use by legislators and staff. Ryan Inman, the Revisor of Statutes, described the office’s drafting, legal review, publication, IT, and other services. He said every bill introduced is reviewed by a Revisor attorney, the office publishes Laws of Minnesota, Minnesota Statutes, and Minnesota Rules, and it maintains the legislative drafting system now being replaced. He also discussed rule drafting for agencies, legal counsel, the claims subcommittee, court opinions reports, and the annual technical Revisor bill. Members asked about bill volume, amendment drafting, and the history of administrative rules review; Inman said the office is handling over 2,500 active bill requests and that a prior commission on administrative rules existed in the past. No votes were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we're going to recommend it on the schedule and so adopting that with them doing that analysis
• Are they those hospitals reimbursed at 100% of the cost to serve those individuals.
• areas. is to offset the cost to their agency while still being able to fulfill their mission.
• I myself have not done that analysis.
• On page four of our presentation, you can see that cancer costs this state enormously.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a risk-benefit analysis.
• This is a risk-benefit analysis.
• This is a risk-benefit analysis.
• This is a risk-benefit analysis.
• This is a risk-benefit analysis.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Improvements to project management and professional service costs, elimination of unnecessary costs.
• costs, and encouraging shared platforms and reusable components.
• The project cost is over $100,000 or more, and the Cabinet Secretary states.
• Have you or your staff looked at what the cost savings of doing that for the state?
• Office of Management and Budget for how much a project is going to cost.

Transcript Highlights:

• When you all finish your final analysis, we'll be back.
• Because there's some startup costs, right? There are.
• So our anticipated cost for startup, and then there are some ongoing costs, is about $110 million. and
• Could you, those startup costs, could those dollars be?
• sort of the net cost or net benefit to the stakes.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we did an analysis on that one question.
• Here you use the term "fixed costs."
• It's a good time for us to look at the allotment for basic costs by categorizing the costs last year
• Informal estimates place implementation costs between $111.65 billion.
• High implementation costs for districts.

Keywords: 1184, house, all