Transcript Highlights:

• We reviewed the meeting minutes, but we didn't see a lot of detail on the nature of these discussions
• it will conduct formal program reviews on a going-forward basis every two years.
• I was getting to that portion of the placement review process, which...
• It goes through three levels of review. The first level is by the program.
• , and we do the final review.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held an oversight hearing on the state auditor’s October 2024 report on California’s Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for sexually violent predators. Members and witnesses discussed public safety, the long delays in finding community housing, the role of local housing committees, and the Department of State Hospitals’ oversight of Liberty Healthcare, which operates much of the program. Several legislators from rural and high-desert districts said their communities have been disproportionately affected by placements and questioned why many placements end up in remote areas. State Auditor Grant Parks said the audit found that CONREP participants were convicted of new offenses less often than sexually violent predators who were unconditionally released, but that 18 of 56 participants had been revoked and returned to state hospitals for noncompliance. He said it took an average of 17 months to place current participants in the community, with 20 additional people awaiting placement for an average of 20 months, and that the program incurred significant pre-placement costs. Parks also said local officials were often unclear about their role, DSH had not given clear guidance at the time of the audit, and California lacks a transitional housing option used in some other states. He reported that DSH had implemented four of the five audit recommendations, while declining the recommendation to explore state-owned transitional housing. DSH Director Stephanie Clendendon and Liberty representative Ken Carabello defended the program as a court-ordered, highly supervised treatment model intended to reduce reoffending and support reintegration. They said DSH is actively involved in placement review, that Liberty searches countywide under statutory restrictions, and that community feedback and court approval are part of the process. DSH said it has now implemented guidance for housing committee designees, formal program reviews, an outcome tracker, and an analysis of whether to separate some Liberty services into different contracts. DSH continued to oppose transitional housing, arguing it would not solve the core siting and statutory problems and would add cost. Several members remained critical, arguing the program is broken, costly, and unfairly concentrated in certain communities, and some called for major statutory changes or suspension of the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Codes do improve safety and save energy, but there also are means of reviewing and do improve safety
• and save energy, but there also are means of reviewing and approving new technologies, processes, and
• I do agree, you know, a year of DTSC review is way too long.
• permits if it would take the local building department longer than 30 days to conduct that review.
• , and they do an efficient and effective job of providing thorough and robust review.

Summary: The committee heard a series of housing and wildfire-recovery bills, with members repeatedly framing the package as a response to the Los Angeles fires and the state’s broader housing affordability crisis. AB 306, by Assembly Member Schultz, would place a six-year moratorium on new residential building-code updates and local code modifications except for health-and-safety emergencies. Supporters argued it would reduce costs and provide certainty for rebuilding and new housing production, while opponents from environmental, clean-energy, and labor groups warned it would freeze beneficial code improvements, delay innovation, and limit local control. Despite those concerns, several members said they would support the bill while seeking amendments, and the committee voted it out on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. The committee also approved AB 301, which would require state agencies to follow shot-clock style deadlines for reviewing building permits, and AB 253, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to conduct certain post-entitlement permit reviews if local departments take more than 30 days. Supporters said both bills would reduce delays, lower costs, and speed rebuilding and housing production; some members emphasized that safety reviews must remain intact. AB 301 passed on a due pass vote to Appropriations, and AB 253 passed 8-0 to Local Government. AB 462, by Assembly Member Lowenthal, would exempt accessory dwelling units in Los Angeles County’s coastal zone from coastal development permit requirements, with the goal of speeding ADU construction for disaster recovery and housing supply. Supporters said ADUs are a proven tool and that the bill would help displaced residents and future coastal disaster areas; one member of the public opposed the bill, arguing ADU proliferation can change neighborhood conditions. The committee sent AB 462 to Appropriations on an 8-0 vote. The final bill discussed, AB 299, would let disaster-displaced families stay in hotels, motels, and short-term rentals for more than 30 days without triggering landlord-tenant rules, mirroring an earlier homelessness-related law; the transcript ended as the author began presenting the bill and its support.

Transcript Highlights:

• In my review of the full bill passed by the Senate, I spotted a few broken links, and then undertook
• of the full bill passed by the my review of the full bill passed by the Senate,<00:13:39.320><c> I</
• Uh, so, this was reviewed by the chair of the building code review committee.
• :27:59.360><c> review</c><00:27:59.720><c> committee.
• </c> building code review committee. building code review committee.

Summary: The Conference Committee on House Bill 244 met to resolve remaining drafting issues in the bill updating and recodifying municipal enforcement of building and fire codes. The chair explained that the measure is largely a technical recodification, moving statutory references and correcting broken cross-references after review by the subcommittee, the Senate, AI-assisted checking, and the Building Code Review Board. Members emphasized that Amendment 2026-1923H contains no policy changes, only reference updates and language cleanup to ensure the bill points to the correct current RSA sections. The committee then discussed a few specific drafting questions, including a reference on page one and language on page two concerning the phrase “remove the prohibition on a building permit.” Some members questioned whether that wording should instead describe a variance or exception, but the chair and Representative Darji explained that the language is intended to allow an applicant to return to the zoning board to remove a prohibition attached to a specific building permit, not to broadly eliminate the underlying rule. The committee also noted a corrected reference to current statutory language because the underlying law had changed since the bill was introduced. After the explanation, the House receded from its position of non-concurrence and concurred with the Senate amendment as further amended by 2026-1923H. Members agreed to place the measure on the House consent calendar, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, without objection, the rule is reviewed and approved.
• Seeing none, without objection, the rule is reviewed and approved.
• Seeing none, without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved.
• Seeing none, without objection, the rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you.
• Seeing none, without objection, the rule is reviewed and approved.

Committee: All ALC-ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

Transcript Highlights:

• We do conduct some special purpose or limited reviews, this time we conducted a special purpose review
• Most agencies are reviewed on a 12-year cycle, and on average, we review about 22 agencies. agencies
• Do y'all ever review it that way?
• They are being reviewed.
• Um, if we're going to do claims reviews, I need. nurse to review the claims.

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Transcript Highlights:

• So those case reviews get completed there.
• They send their reviews and their data up to FNS, who does the final review and determines the accuracy
• </c><00:36:43.119><c> uh</c><00:36:43.280><c> they</c> reviews get completed there. uh they reviews get
• um those reviews always closely align<00:37:12.720><c> line.
• Is that what it sounds like for the reviews? >> Yes. There's reviews going on every month. >> Okay.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes, then heard a lengthy presentation from the Department for Public Health on Kentucky’s rural health transformation plan and related budget questions. Commissioner John Langfeld said the state received a $212.9 million federal award, one of the larger awards nationally, and outlined five focus areas: maternal and infant health, integrated EMS/trauma response, behavioral health and substance use disorder, oral health, and chronic disease prevention with an emphasis on obesity and diabetes. He stressed that the effort is intended to be integrated, data-driven, and sustainable, and that the federal funds cannot be used for new construction, clinician salaries, research and development, EHR replacement, or to pay for currently billable services. He also said the program carries accountability requirements and that funds can be clawed back if milestones are not met. Members pressed for clarification on duplication with other budget requests, sustainability after the five-year funding period, and how success would be measured. Langfeld said he was not aware of any duplicate funding with the department’s additional budget requests and said the rural health funds were separate from those requests. He also said the program will be tracked through specific metrics and timelines, using both execution measures and outcome measures such as readmissions, with more rapid-cycle feedback to allow course correction. Representative Fleming raised concerns about possible overlap with navigator funding and asked for more detail on the budget breakdown; Langfeld said a detailed line-item budget had been prepared but was still awaiting final CMS approval before release, and that he would explore sharing more information once restrictions were lifted. The committee then heard from the Kentucky State Public Health Laboratory about a request for a new central lab expansion. The presenter described the current 35-year-old facility as outdated and constrained by aging infrastructure, obsolete equipment, deferred maintenance, and inadequate space, and said the lab performs critical work with no in-state alternative for many services, including newborn screening, select-agent and biosafety level 3 testing, animal necropsy for rabies, genetic sequencing, environmental and food safety testing, and response to emerging infectious diseases. The project is already in design phase C, expected to finish in mid-April, with construction funding sought at roughly $276 million on top of about $35 million already approved for design. Members asked about long-term operating costs, backup arrangements, and whether the current facility would remain in use; the presenter said the current lab would continue to be used by the department while other divisions move into vacated space, and that the lab has mutual-aid agreements with the Southeast Consortium and universities for contingency support. Finally, the Department for Community Based Services began its budget presentation on SNAP and relative caregiver issues. Commissioner Lisa Dennis and budget director Misty Sammons identified the governor’s recommended budget items tied to new federal requirements under HR1, including changes affecting payment error rates. The discussion was just beginning when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• . reviews. reviews.
• </c> review is a failure of accountability. review is a failure of accountability.
• </c> review to the state level. review to the state level.
• of the cases that we review.
• of the cases that we qualitative review of the cases that we review. review. review.

Bills: HF3665 , HF3002 , HF4217 , HF4125 , HF4174

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:38:59.600><c> the</c> the P DAB 20 years to review the the P DAB 20 years to review the remaining
• There are plenty of drugs to be reviewed.
• . reviewed. reviewed.
• </c> doing any affordability reviews. doing any affordability reviews.
• </c><01:02:54.160><c> these</c> recommended, "Hey, don't review these recommended, "Hey, don't review

Summary: The Senate met with a quorum, approved the journal, and then proceeded out of order to consider Senate Joint Resolution 20, recognizing April 9, 2026, as Home Education Day in Colorado. Senator Pelton spoke in strong support of home education, describing it as a parent-led choice that benefits students and families. The resolution was adopted on a 30-0 vote, and the current roll was added as co-sponsors. The chamber then took up the consent calendar and passed House Bill 1229, House Bill 1244, and Senate Bill 153. HB 1229, which concerns the human-animal bond as a social determinant of health, drew three no votes from Senators Pelton, Zamora Wilson, and Baeza; the other two measures passed unanimously. The Senate also laid over third reading of bills until Friday, April 10. In Committee of the Whole, senators considered Senate Bill 72, which increases criminal penalties for assaultive conduct involving a motor vehicle and adds causing death with a motor vehicle to criminally negligent homicide. The committee adopted the report and advanced the bill on second reading. Later, the chamber laid over Senate Bill 134 and House Bill 1084 until April 10, and then took up Senate Bill 140, which would exempt certain rare disease and plasma therapies from review by the Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board. Sponsors and supporters argued the bill protects access for patients with rare diseases and prevents harm to treatment development, while opponents said it would weaken the PDAB’s affordability work and was too broad. Senators Weisman and Gonzales spoke against the bill, with Weisman citing concerns about the federal definition used and Gonzales defending the PDAB’s role in lowering drug costs; the debate continued in the transcript without a final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then a human being reviews that footage to verify that a violation did in fact occur.
• I guess my question is, does law enforcement review it?
• Sometimes they enter into agreements with the local sheriff's office to review those.
• Are there entities involved in reviewing these citations or reviewing these photographs of the red light
• Are there entities involved in reviewing these citations or reviewing these photographs of the red light

Summary: The Committee on Transportation received a presentation from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles on Florida’s camera-based traffic enforcement programs: red light cameras, school bus stop-arm cameras, and school zone speed cameras. The department explained how the programs work, including human review of recorded violations, issuance of civil notices to vehicle owners, and escalation to uniform traffic citations if unpaid or uncontested. Officials also outlined the fee structure and reported preliminary data showing 42 red light camera jurisdictions, 496 red light cameras, and more than 923,000 notices of violation in fiscal year 2024-2025, along with growth in school zone and school bus programs. Senators asked about camera placement, signage, review procedures, and whether reviewers or vendors receive revenue from citations; several questions were left for follow-up because the witness did not have all statutory or operational details. The committee then heard an update from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue on the Moving Florida Forward Infrastructure Initiative, funded by a $4 billion general revenue investment leveraged into a $7 billion program for 20 major projects. He said the initiative is advancing high-priority congestion relief projects across the state, with 80% of the plan expected to be underway by the end of 2026 and the remaining projects in 2027. Perdue highlighted new delivery methods such as modified phased design-build, voluntary acceleration, and structured acceleration, along with workforce and supply-chain efforts, including regional hiring events and aggregate planning. He cited projects such as I-4 congestion relief lanes, Golden Glades, I-95 at US-1, I-75 auxiliary lanes, and I-275 improvements as examples of the program’s progress. Members questioned FDOT about traffic management during construction, subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, public transit planning, contractor safety and fatalities, bridge strikes, logistics access near ports and airports, aggregate supply, local government coordination, and federal funding uncertainty. Perdue said FDOT continuously reevaluates traffic control plans, works with local governments and industry partners, uses small business participation targets, and requires contractors to be in good standing with OSHA and to implement corrective action plans after incidents. He also said Florida’s transportation revenues are flat, the state remains largely state-funded, and additional resources are the main need for future transportation delivery. The committee adjourned after the chair requested FDOT staff provide senators with district-specific project information.

Transcript Highlights:

• They review preliminary engineering reports.
• But all that comes to the Water Trust Board for review.
• Review every requisition as it comes through.
• The first review of the requisition is then sent for a technical review, usually by a contractor.
• We'll also review their budget.

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• review.
• So, basically it's a look back review.
• and our program evaluation uh review and our program evaluation review.<00:02:46.080><c> Um</c><00:02
• Um and and what this has allowed review.
• That's just one each grant review.

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• That is how we review them.
• And that's the bulk of our file reviews, or all of our file reviews, the bulk of our hearing process.
• </c> then we have file reviews. file reviews. then we have file reviews. file reviews.
• ,</c> file reviews or all of our file reviews, file reviews or all of our file reviews, the<01:26:35.520
• </c><01:27:30.800><c> for</c><01:27:31.040><c> parole</c> review, they are reviewed um for parole review

Bills: HB60

Committee: Joint Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Virginia, I believe, does that review.
• If it exceeds a certain cost threshold, they will review it and they will send it back.
• </c><00:30:53.799><c> process</c> through this Government Review process through this Government Review
• and</c> Code review board for review and Code review board for review and Confirmation<00:53:11.000>
• I am Phil Sherman, Philip Sherman, Chair of the Building Code Review Board.

Committee: Senate Executive Departments and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• are affected by the proposed facility in order to provide for participation and input during siting review
• and the chair must provide regular updates on the consultation to the FSEC during the application review
• And then as part of that FSEC review of applications, those government-to-government consultation meetings
• And then, or is it required to be reviewed by the full board of the FSEC for the full.
• We also support the new requirement that FSEC provide a summary of consultation to a tribe for review

Summary: The Environment and Energy Committee heard three bills. House Bill 2496 would expand tribal consultation in Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (FSEC) siting reviews by requiring the full council, rather than only the chair, to participate in government-to-government consultations with federally recognized tribes, allowing tribes to review and comment on consultation summaries before they go to the governor, and exempting those consultation meetings from the Open Public Meetings Act so long as no deliberation or commitments occur. The bill’s sponsor, tribal representatives from the Yakama Nation, and supporters from labor and conservation groups said it would better protect sensitive cultural and treaty resources; the Association of Washington Business opposed it, citing due process and ex parte concerns, while FSEC staff said they support the intent but have some wording concerns. House Bill 2575 would reduce or eliminate several reporting requirements for utilities and the Department of Commerce, including changing some annual reports to biennial or every-four-years reporting, removing heat-related utility disconnection reporting, and eliminating a Commerce report on utility resource plans and combined heat and power data. The sponsor and Commerce said the changes would streamline duplicative or unused reporting and focus staff time on more useful information, while an opponent warned that legislators should not lose information needed to assess resource adequacy and reliability. A question was raised about whether the bill would affect timely reporting under clean energy laws; Commerce said the bill does not change Clean Energy Transformation Act reporting and that those processes remain in place. House Bill 2605 would raise the asbestos threshold for certain building materials from 0.1% to 0.25% and exempt low-level naturally occurring fibrous silicate material in commercial aggregates, asphalt, and concrete from labeling, use, and inspection requirements. The sponsor said the bill would reduce construction and transportation costs and help use local materials for roads and other projects while still preventing deliberate addition of asbestos-like materials. The Washington Aggregate and Concrete Association supported the bill, saying it corrects an overbroad prior approach and that existing workplace safety laws should address any dust-related risks. The committee heard testimony on all three bills and then closed the hearings; no votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• A cursory review of the report reveals many errors.
• A cursory review of the report reveals many errors.
• A cursory review of the report reveals many errors.
• LOFT found that OMES does not conduct a true utilization review.
• A complete utilization review requires three calculations.

Summary: The LOFT Oversight Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then received LOFT’s report on state office space utilization in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. LOFT presented three main findings: OMES is not fully exercising its statutory authority over state property and relies on flawed self-reported data; state office space is being used inefficiently and often below policy benchmarks; and better use of state-owned space could save tens of millions in private lease costs. LOFT also described errors in the state’s real property inventory, low utilization rates across OMES-owned, agency-owned, and privately leased space, and recommended stronger data verification, clearer space standards, and more active oversight of underused property. OMES responded that it believes it is meeting its statutory obligations and said it tries to balance oversight with being a partner to agencies, placing them in space that best fits their mission and service needs. OMES officials said they rely on agency-reported data, do not have enough staff to independently verify all inventory information, and do not “police” daily occupancy. Members questioned the distinction between meeting statutory duties and exercising full authority, the use of “shall” versus “recommend,” the lack of enforcement for agencies that decline space recommendations, and whether OMES should more aggressively consolidate or divest underused buildings. LOFT and OMES also discussed the methodology behind utilization calculations, including badge-swipe data, space standards, and common-area adjustments. In the final finding, LOFT estimated that relocating agencies from private leases into existing state-owned space could save roughly $16 million to $28.8 million annually, depending on the scenario used. LOFT cited other states and federal reforms as models and recommended that OMES more actively assess underutilized properties, verify data, and use actual utilization analysis to reduce private leasing. OMES said it would review the comments and work to improve. The committee then unanimously approved a rapid-response evaluation request for LOFT to examine DHS child care subsidy verification and reimbursement processes, citing concerns about possible improprieties and the need to confirm whether fraud or waste is occurring.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we've reviewed the, um, the exception that been offered by the Department of the Attorney General
• They sent an application to the surveillance review unit.
• It was reviewed and sent back to them for further information and further additions to be made.
• </c> application to the surveillance review application to the surveillance review unit<00:16:04.000>
• </c><00:42:53.480><c> board</c> small business regulatory review board small business regulatory review

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SB 284, which would remove the requirement that wiretapping applications to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill as drafted and instead proposed a new emergency-wiretap procedure allowing county prosecutors to seek immediate judicial authorization in exigent circumstances, followed by AG review and a follow-up application within 48 hours. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s office supported creating an emergency exception, citing a kidnapping case involving a missing material witness and the need to obtain live phone location data quickly, but asked that the AG be required to respond clearly within the follow-up period. The AG said the current wiretap process often arrives incomplete and noted a prior Honolulu application that was returned for more information and then abandoned. The committee also heard public testimony, including one speaker in support and another in opposition, and discussed whether the proposed emergency process should include imminent danger findings and what happens if the follow-up application is not approved. No vote or final action was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up SB 295, which increases penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and makes related changes. The Deputy Public Defender opposed the bill’s higher penalties, arguing that not all restraining-order cases involve domestic violence and that the measure could affect family disputes, property conflicts, custody battles, and other non-domestic situations. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney supported the bill, saying it would create a more uniform and efficient charging framework and that violations of court orders can be serious even when the conduct appears minor in isolation. Domestic violence advocates also supported the measure, emphasizing the need for meaningful enforcement and deterrence; one witness cited statewide data showing thousands of TRO petitions but relatively few convictions and fines. A representative from the Domestic Violence Action Center supported the bill but requested amendments to reduce unintended consequences for survivors. During discussion, the committee focused on the proposed minimum sentence, with the Domestic Violence Action Center recommending reducing it from 15 days to 5 days. The witness explained that longer minimums can create hardships such as job loss, housing instability, and child care problems, while still allowing time for survivors to access shelter and services. The committee chair indicated support for amending the bill to reflect that recommendation. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney also clarified that the bill is intended to address violations of already-issued protective orders after judicial review, not the initial issuance of restraining orders, and said the office supports eliminating the distinction between domestic and non-domestic protective-order violations because charging decisions are often made under time pressure. Multiple individuals and organizations signed up in support, and one witness testified in opposition. No vote or final committee action was announced in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the law basically categorizes projects into two categories: standard review or major review.
• And lastly, applicants now conduct the initial environmental review, which commission staff will review
• </c><01:20:48.320><c> staff</c> transferred environmental review staff transferred environmental review
• </c><01:21:34.719><c> um</c> major review here in this graphic. um major review here in this graphic.
• We have not yet standard review.

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• A second review found additional failures involving vendor management and financial reporting systems
• Since 2008, we have had close to 300 audits, reviews, or assessments.
• The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration conduct reviews.
• The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration conduct reviews.
• I think it's also important, and while I know Prop 36... ...should be independently reviewed.

Committee: House Joint Legislative Audit

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes reviewing the CPIP for capital projects.
• The reviewing tech initials the designated line upon completion.
• And internal reviews. Closing packages.
• I can review these things.
• And also review—I review the feedback from supervisors and sign off on performance appraisals and planning

Summary: The committee met to receive a detailed financial operations presentation from the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency, with staff walking members through funding sources, budgeting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and grants management. Sabrina Walker explained VR’s blended funding structure, including federal grants, state appropriations, program income, and interagency contracts, and emphasized that state funds are essential to meeting the federal match and maintenance-of-effort requirements. Members asked repeatedly about transparency, audit controls, and the risk that state cuts could reduce federal drawdowns; staff responded that all reports reconcile back to the SCEIS accounting system, are subject to state audits and internal reviews, and that even modest state reductions could significantly reduce total available funding. The committee also discussed pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities, with staff confirming services are offered through school districts, charters, and private schools, and that contracts are monitored for performance and compliance. The presentation then shifted to budgeting and internal controls. Walker described a zero-based departmental budgeting process, monthly monitoring reports, contingency reserves for unexpected expenses, and a formal annual cycle that culminates in board approval. Members asked about facilities tracking, culture, and how the agency maintains accountability; staff said facilities staff inspect buildings and equipment, supervisors justify line-item requests, and the process has become smoother over time as departments learned the system. Cynthia Johnson followed with an accounts receivable overview, describing invoicing, receipting, aging, customer verification, year-end reporting, and the use of cross-training, shared email inboxes, and spreadsheets as checks and balances. She also explained work training center billing, interdepartmental transfers, and the revolving fund used to issue consumer checks more quickly than standard vendor payments. Olivia Perez presented accounts payable operations, including invoice processing through SCEIS and OnBase, the three-way match, travel reimbursements, revolving fund checks, State Treasury Office interactions, and handling of reversals, rejections, and levy notices. She reported that AP processed 67,723 SCEIS payments, 13,670 case management system invoices, 3,379 travel reimbursements, and 15,693 revolving fund checks in fiscal year 2025, with only 70 payment rejections. The final portion of the meeting covered Grants and Funds Management, where Walker explained federal reporting, drawdowns, payroll allocation, asset tracking, lease and IT contract reviews, cost allocation, and closing packages. She noted upcoming system changes such as S/4HANA, Workiva, and SC Pro, but said the agency is receiving training and feedback opportunities. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the presentation portion beyond approval of the prior minutes and a brief recess.

Transcript Highlights:

• 47.839><c> and</c> metropolitan significance review and metropolitan significance review and reporting
• Currently it's every two years, rather than ... council has um review authority over council has um review
• Um that review was written originally.
• </c> council must review those rules. council must review those rules.
• to review projects proposed in the metro area.

Bills: HF3884 , HF3881 , HF3882 , HF3883 , HF3363 , HF3362

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations