Transcript Highlights:

• Would that not impact what their budget is?
• of need and not on budgets of have.
• Yeah, cause I'm gonna... budgets I'm gonna...
• , we have to deal with budgets too.
• This process matters and the bill has changed as it has gone through the process and it's better for

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate this being included in the budget process.
• I appreciate this being included in the budget process.
• But there is language in our budget currently that requires certain issues to be examined in the budget
• process.
• But its desire is to keep this issue before our budget writers every time they sit down to write a budget

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those budgets or processes at the local level. Those are handled by local school boards.
• Is that this process? I'm just going to... This process.
• There are processes, Mr. Chair, in place. There are processes, Mr.
• And this process has not been, the process is in place.
• And this process has due process. It's not just, okay, you're off.

Bills: SB23, SB73, SB210, SB234, SB243, SB244, SM16

Keywords: student use, wireless devices, public schools, policy implementation, education technology funding, driver education, driver's ed, driving school, motorcycle safety, traffic safety, vulnerable road users, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, cyclist, bike lane, micromobility, scooter, moped, motorcycle training, DWI prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• that we just put it into the budget that we just put it into the budget regardless<00:06:16.520>
• to like the budget lines.
• I'm noticed for a budget.
• I would budget that noticed-required work session to be brief, so that we can budget a regular budget
• I would budget that noticed-required work session to be brief, so that we can budget a regular budget

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II work session focused on organizing the committee’s remaining budget work and reviewing a set of recommended changes to House Bills 1 and 2. Mr. Landrian explained the committee’s tracking sheets and draft amendment package, noted that the division was being asked to find roughly $200 million in reductions, and said the governor’s lottery proposal in House Bill 2 could help offset part of that target. Members also discussed how revenue estimates tied to fee changes would be handled, with the chair saying the committee could seek Ways and Means input but would ultimately decide the estimates itself. The committee then considered four mostly technical amendments to House Bill 2. It voted unanimously to delete Section 81, which duplicated CCSNH dual and concurrent enrollment language already moving in House Bill 192; to delete Sections 143 and 144, which duplicated police standards and training extra-duty language already in House Bill 778; to adopt a correction to Section 151 that removed an inadvertently repeated sentence; and to delete Section 178 because the same Lottery Commission language already appears in House Bill 1. The committee also agreed to approve Section 4 of House Bill 1, the Lottery Commission boilerplate language, while deferring action on Section 2 of House Bill 1 until the university and community college budget is settled. A substantial portion of the meeting was spent planning upcoming work sessions and discussing possible revenue measures. The committee planned to invite Fish and Game on Monday to review a large set of follow-up materials and to discuss a possible amendment requiring hunters and trappers to pay the license fee before taking free training classes, with a second chance to retake the class if needed. Members also discussed possible fee adjustments for Safety and Fish and Game, including using dedicated-fund fees to reduce reliance on general funds and help stabilize the Highway Fund and Fish and Game Fund. The chair emphasized that all actions were recommendations until the committee’s final deadline and encouraged members to review draft language carefully before voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our role is to coordinate the process, working with committee staff and state entities to process and
• legislative budget Office of the lbo is legislative budget Office of the lbo is a<00:04:08.280> nonpartisan
• moment the biggest um item in our budget moment the biggest um item in our budget besides<00:13:
• <00:52:47.720> a advantage of them as we process a advantage of them as we process a request
• <00:54:27.799> that through a little bit of the process that through a little bit of the process

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:

• ms22 budgets and we do kind of a budget ms22 budgets and we do kind of a budget an<00:21:39.679>
• If you enacted an open warrant, yeah, you would be over budget. It would be a budget control issue.
• If you enacted an open warrant, yeah, you would be over budget. It would be a budget control issue.
• So it would be the budgeting process where no taxes have been levied.
• taxes be the budgeting process where no taxes be the budgeting process where no taxes have<01:18

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• budgets.
• Are you aware that the state's budget has grown? ...significantly from the city of Austin's budget.
• It is about a city doing their budget the right way and making sure those parts of their budget that
• ...in their budgeting process?
• And what is that process?

Bills: HB17, HB16, SB 10, HB27, HB23, SB 15, SB 18, HB 17, HB 16, SB 10, HB 27, HB 23, SB 15, SB 18

Keywords: property tax, school funding, enrollment changes, inflation adjustment, tax rate notice, judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments, property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support

Transcript Highlights:

• Bluff are different budgets.
• That just seems a bit odd, and the process here, albeit not a member of the budget committee, is just
• And the process here, albeit not a member of the budget committee, is just to review and analyze these
• The process here, albeit not a member of the budget committee, is just to review and analyze these requests
• He's been a huge help with this process, and I do call it a process.

Summary: The committee first adopted revised JBC rules, which staff said were updated to reflect legislation passed in the 2025 session. It then heard a presentation from DFA Secretary Jim Hudson on the governor’s proposed balanced budget for FY27, with no action taken. Hudson said the budget reflects three priorities: limiting state-government growth, continuing investments in education, and advancing income-tax cuts. He highlighted increases for education funding through EFAs, pay-plan costs for Corrections, DPS, and the Attorney General, higher education productivity funding, drug task forces, a Corrections medical contract, the governor’s 1033 initiative, SNAP error-rate reduction efforts, and an additional $100 million set aside for Medicaid sustainability. Committee members questioned the size of the tax cuts, the balance requirement, public education funding, Medicaid trust-fund levels, EFA funding, and the expected impact of new SNAP cost-sharing rules. The Division of Higher Education then presented its productivity-based funding recommendations. Officials said institutions were 2.61% more productive overall, with funding changes driven by a statutory formula that rewards degree production, underserved populations, and high-demand fields. Members asked about declines at UA Little Rock, the formula’s multipliers, the role of the Arkansas Access Act and a new return-on-investment metric, and how two-year colleges are adjusted for size. The committee also reviewed special items and approved two letters: one authorizing 17 net personnel changes across nine institutions, and another adding special language for North Arkansas College’s entry into the University of Arkansas system. The committee then adopted the Higher Education Coordinating Board’s recommendations for all institutions. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on the University of Arkansas system, especially Fayetteville’s athletics funding and the broader impact of the House/NIL settlement. Chancellor Charles Robinson and system officials explained that the board had waived a longstanding campus transfer and directed the university to provide an additional $6 million to athletics, with some costs likely to be passed through to students but partially offset by existing budget growth. Members debated whether the university should prioritize academics or athletics, how the transfer originated, and whether the athletic changes would affect affordability. The committee also discussed the 1890 extension program at UAPB and the Division of Agriculture’s land-grant funding. UAPB officials said the state match is intended to be one-to-one, that the current recommendation aligns appropriation with actual spending, and that a $2 million set-aside remains available if needed. The Division of Agriculture later clarified that its Smith-Lever extension and Hatch research funds are part of the UA system’s separate budget and that the state matched about $6.2 million in federal extension funding last year. The committee then moved to the Department of Corrections. It approved G1, transferring 51 positions to the secretary’s office to activate a recidivism program, with an estimated cost of about $4 million. Staff then began walking through the department’s FY27 budget, noting an increase of about $8 million for administration and shared services, including a $170,000 sex-offender assessment appropriation moved under Act 723 of 2025 and roughly $6 million more for medical contracts. Questions on the Corrections budget had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• access to budgets?
• That's how we defined the budget, or kind of drafted the budget around.
• Nursing, there's concepts of in the budget and out of the budget services.
• against the budget.
• against the budget.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• uh amendments to their driveway process. uh amendments to their driveway process.
• I mean, I think speaking for myself, I feel a little battered after just going through the budget process
• process and that it wasn't included in the budget request.
• /c><00:44:43.200> wasn't budget process and that it wasn't budget process and that it wasn't included
• The motion to retain Senate Bill 63 passed, 8 to 1. budget and at this point the budget is budget and

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 74, which would require agencies issuing certain real-property-related permits to track and report how many permits they issue and how long the process takes. Representative Carol McGuire introduced the bill and said the goal is to gather data on permit timing and fees, especially for DES and DOT permits involving wetlands, alteration of terrain, driveway permits, and similar approvals. Supporters argued the state needs better visibility into permitting delays and whether statutory deadlines are realistic; they also noted the bill had passed the House on a voice vote with no debate. Adam Crapo of the Department of Environmental Services said DES is generally supportive of the reporting concept but warned that the agency’s data are spread across many separate, partly manual databases. He said DES can already do this for some land resources permits through its new system, but not across all of its more than 90 permit types without additional help. DES estimated it would need two part-time positions to compile the reports, especially for waste management and water programs, and said otherwise existing permitting staff would have to do the work, potentially slowing permit processing. He also said the agency is already working to simplify rules and move more permits onto a new online platform, but could not meet the bill’s 2026 reporting deadline with current staffing and systems. Committee members questioned whether delays are often caused by incomplete applications rather than agency inaction, and Crapo said that is frequently the case. He said DES already tracks timelines to some extent for management and statutory compliance, but not at the individual-permit detail the bill would require. He also said some letters and records are captured in One Stop, but not all are. Members expressed support for the bill’s transparency goals while also worrying about added workload and possible slowdowns. The discussion then moved to DOT, where Susan Clawson said DOT is neutral on the bill because it recently implemented Salesforce and now has good data for reporting; DOT’s fiscal note reflects software-related costs, but the agency can already track the required information in its system.

Transcript Highlights:

• We began this process.
• bank processing?
• Molander on the annual and biennial budget process, and the P-Card administrator will work with DSU
• budget process.
• It was on the budget side.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• budget.
• budget.
• impact on the budget.
• It is not in our budget that any of that money is being allocated in this budget.
• This budget is decisive. This proposed budget brings stability.

Bills: HJR 99, HB 1399, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HCR 35, SB 14, HB 12, HB 1522, HB 422, HB 675, HB 204, HB 748, HB 912, HJR 99, HB 1399, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HCR 35, HCR 123, HCR 124, HR 57, HR 87, HR 111, HR 228, HR 230, HR 322, HR 624, HR 625, HR 626, HR 627, HR 628, HR 630, HR 631, HR 634, HR 635, HR 636, HR 637, HR 638, HR 639, HR 640, HR 645, HR 646, HR 648, HR 649, HR 651, HR 652, HR 653, HR 654, HR 664, HR 665, HR 668, HR 675, HR 676, HR 678, HR 679, HR 680, HR 683, HR 686, HR 688, HR 689, HR 694, HR 695, HR 697, HR 698, HR 699, HR 472, HR 622, HR 632, HR 633, HR 643, HR 655, HR 657, HR 660, HR 661, HR 662, HR 663, HR 667, HR 670, HR 674, HR 681, HR 682, HR 696

Keywords: animal feed, tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, retail, constitutional amendment, retail sale, tangible personal property, Texas tax code, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption, regulation, deceased transportation, HB 365

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a budget bill.
• final budget authority. That is the the final budget authority.
• It's a budget bill. We given bill. It's a budget bill.
• corrections budget. Um just wondering uh corrections budget.
• to improve processes. to improve processes.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on House Bill 1087 and House Bill 123, both related to firearms. HB 1087 was introduced as a Second Amendment measure, but after questions from the chair and discussion with law enforcement, the sponsor agreed it should be set aside and referred to a study committee for further review, rather than advanced as written. The New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association testified in opposition to the bill as written, while also indicating support for the sponsor’s proposed amendment or a study approach. The bulk of the discussion centered on HB 123, which would require the return of firearms after a not guilty verdict or dismissal. The sponsor and several members described the bill’s purpose as speeding up the return of property, but law enforcement and judicial branch witnesses raised concerns about federal law, the need to ensure a person is still legally eligible to possess firearms, and the bill’s 24-hour return requirement. Witnesses from the State Police and judicial branch explained the current process, including background checks through the state police gun line, and said the existing procedure already aims to return firearms promptly while allowing time to verify disqualifying information. Members and witnesses discussed possible amendments, including removing language that would bar background checks and instead tying return of firearms to completion of the check within a set time frame. Judicial branch and State Police witnesses said a process that requires a background check and return within a reasonable period, with notice if there is a delay or denial, would better address safety and legal concerns. The hearing ended without a vote; the committee closed the public hearing and indicated it would continue working on the language before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's going to be fun to help you guys and learn with you guys through this budget process this year
• with you guys through this budget with you guys through this budget process<00:04:57.600> this
• So moving from fiscal notes into the operating budget process, I wasn't sure Mike Kane was going to go
• So moving from fiscal notes into the operating budget process, I wasn't sure Mike Kane was going to go
• So moving from fiscal notes into the operating budget process, I wasn't sure Mike Kane was going to go

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was an introductory Division One budget briefing led by Legislative Budget Assistant staff Melissa Rollins and Jack Mullen. They explained staff roles and agency assignments within Division One, noting that Jack is taking over the General Government category while Melissa handles Categories 2 and 3, and that members can contact either staffer with questions. They also reviewed the upcoming budget calendar, including the governor’s budget presentation expected in mid-February, agency hearings beginning around February 17–20, a Division One deadline around March 26, and House Finance reporting deadlines in early April. A major portion of the discussion focused on how to read fiscal notes and the difference between expenditures and appropriations. Staff used sample language to explain that a bill may show an expenditure estimate without actually authorizing funding or new positions, and that a zero appropriation means the agency is not authorized to spend the estimated amount unless the bill is amended. Members asked questions about why a bill could show costs but still not authorize spending or hiring, and staff clarified that new positions require specific legislative authorization and classification detail. They also noted that many bills will have expenditure lines without appropriations, and that amendments may be needed if the committee wants to fund or authorize the program. The rest of the meeting walked members through the HB 1 and HB 2 tracking documents used by the division. Staff explained that HB 1 tracking sheets record additional agency requests not included in the governor’s budget, including requests that may be zero-net transfers, corrections, or new spending items, and that grayed-out items indicate actions already taken. They said HB 2 will be handled through a similar tracking process, with amendments routed through LBA staff and the Office of Legislative Services. Members were told that the division will review agency budgets, class lines, and proposed changes over roughly six weeks, with the goal of preparing a detailed change report for full House Finance.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will also hear a few January budget items related to Prop. 98, the guarantee, and the K-12 budget,
• the 2025-26 budget. ...for the 2024-25 budget and the 2025-26 budget.
• for the 2425 budget and the 2526 budget for the 2425 budget and the 2526 budget while deferrals may
• Budget.
• Budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance met for its annual Proposition 98 overview, with Chair Alvarez outlining the committee’s focus on K-12 funding, student outcomes, and use of one-time funds. Superintendent Tony Thurmond gave an update on education issues, including wildfire recovery support for affected school communities, ongoing concerns about federal threats to education funding and immigration enforcement, progress on literacy and math, dual-language immersion, educator housing, and support for dual enrollment. Members broadly expressed support for these priorities, while also raising concerns about implementation, funding stability, and the need for schools to remain safe places for students. The committee then reviewed the Governor’s Proposition 98 proposal. The Department of Finance said the 2025-26 Proposition 98 guarantee is projected at $118.9 billion, with higher revenues and TK-related rebenching driving the increase. The LAO said the budget adds about $7.5 billion over two years and discussed the volatility of the guarantee, especially in 2024-25, when changes in revenue could have an outsized effect on school funding. Members questioned the proposed $1.6 billion delayed settle-up payment, the legal basis for delaying it, and the impact of possible federal funding freezes. The LAO presented alternatives such as a reserve deposit or delayed disbursement, while Finance said the proposal is intended to manage uncertainty. Members also raised concerns that ethnic studies implementation was not funded in the January budget, and Finance said the administration was not proposing funding for it. The committee next heard on the Proposition 98 rainy day fund and education deferrals. Finance said the reserve would receive a mandatory deposit of about $1.2 billion in 2024-25 and a discretionary deposit of $376 million in 2025-26, leaving a balance of about $1.5 billion. The LAO supported rebuilding the reserve as a way to manage volatility. On deferrals, Finance described the Governor’s plan to eliminate remaining deferrals by 2025-26, and the LAO said paying them off improves cash flow and budget resilience. Members generally supported eliminating deferrals and rebuilding reserves, though some asked about acting earlier if revenues allow. The committee also reviewed the proposed $1.8 billion student support and professional development block grant; Finance said it would fund professional development, recruitment and retention, and dual enrollment, while the LAO recommended clearer language on local discretion and use for one-time costs. Members were divided, with some supporting flexibility and others warning that one-time block grants can create instability and confusion for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• budget proposals. budget proposals.
• governor's um supplemental budget. governor's um supplemental budget.
• . process. process.
• Um, Liam and Kyle are going to take us through the DE budget and the DE budget spreadsheet for the budget
• spreadsheet for the budget. spreadsheet for the budget.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• STEP UP DID NOT TIMELY PROCESS FPS EO EDUCATIONAL TUITION PAYMENTS FOR STEP UP DID NOT TIMELY PROCESS
• AS I WILL DESCRIBE NEXT THE PAYMENT PROCESS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCESS
• SECOND ISSUE REGARDING EXTENDED BUDGET PROCESS.
• DO PLANS TO PHASE IN BETTER PROCESSES?
• IS THAT THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD?

Transcript Highlights:

• or annual review process.
• for us to get that waiver request through the process.
• We have the Right structure, we have the right processes, etc.
• Same thing, these a lot of these processes are very manual.
• our budgeted headcount has not changed.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In fiscal year 2026, we have a state budget of about $9.6 billion.
• committee on how to balance the budget committee on how to balance the budget along<00:06:24.160
• But there's also the budget horizon that sort of limits our scope of looking.
• But there's also the budget horizon that sort of limits our scope of looking.
• But there's also the budget horizon that sort of limits our scope of looking.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's called Budget Overview Brief.
• One is budget activity, FTE, all funds, base budget, and statutory references.
• It's called Budget Overview Brief.
• One is budget activity, FTE, all funds, base budget, and statutory references.
• three key elements one is budget three key elements one is budget activity<00:04:57.560> FTE<

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and staff roles. Nonpartisan House Research and House Fiscal staff explained that they draft bills and amendments, prepare bill summaries and background research, answer legal and fiscal questions, and help track revenue and budget effects. They also distributed a Budget Overview Brief intended to condense the larger budget materials into a more usable format for members. Staff then walked through the Human Services budget and the committee’s areas of responsibility. They described the department structure, noting that DHS oversees administration, compliance, rulemaking, and county support, and that the overall Human Services budget is large, with medical assistance as the dominant program. They also explained recent and upcoming reorganizations: many children and family-related functions are moving to the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Direct Care and Treatment is becoming its own agency, and some homelessness-related functions remain at DHS. Staff reviewed how the budget is organized by program and budget activity, the difference between direct appropriations and standing appropriations, and how forecasted programs and “tails” work in the budget process. The presentation also covered Medicaid financing and long-term care. Staff explained the federal-state FMAP match, including Minnesota’s current 51.16% federal match for most Medicaid spending, the CHIP match, and the 90% federal share for the expansion population. For long-term care, they outlined Medical Assistance services for elderly and disabled people, state-funded long-term care supports, and Board on Aging programs. They highlighted the personal care assistance program’s phaseout and replacement by Community First Services and Supports, and reviewed the five home- and community-based waivers. Members asked one question about refugee resettlement funding, specifically whether it covers flights; staff said they would need to follow up on the exact use of the federal funds. No bills were heard, and no formal votes or other committee actions were taken during this meeting.