Video & Transcript Research : 'variance'
Page 1 of 29
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee 2/18/25
Children and Families Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:32:04.039>
how gives them 100 square feet variance how gives them 100 square feet variance - They keep asking for a variance for 100 square feet.
- They keep asking for a variance for 100 square feet.
- She said the variance would be given for that.
- <00:43:27.920>
process through the variance process through the variance process representative
Keywords:
child care, childcare, day care, daycare, licensing, variance, licensed capacity, capacity limit, staff qualifications, staffing, child care center, family child care, provider flexibility, Minnesota career lattice, Department of Children Youth and Families, DCYF, licensing rules, enrollment, indoor space, professional development
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee 4/8/26
Children and Families Finance and Policy
Keywords:
human services, background studies, NETStudy 2.0, licensing, license suspension, license revocation, provider enrollment, program integrity, fraud, medical assistance fraud, Medicaid, payment withholding, credible allegation of fraud, background check, disqualification, variance, set-aside, foster care, family foster setting, adult foster care
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
EEP Public Hearing - Thu Feb 5, 2026 @ 9:00 AM HST
Energy & Environmental Protection
Transcript Highlights:
- Variance applications are only accepted if submitted by an architect or licensed mechanical engineer
- In analyzing the variance data, Hawaii Island received 60% of the demand water heater variances, and
- In analyzing the variance data, Hawaii Island received 60% of the demand water heater variances, and
- In analyzing the variance data, already.
- in Kauaii and water heater variances in Kauaii and Maui<00:46:50.160>
followed.
Bills:
HB2245, HB1618, HB1985, HB2079, HB1921, HB2232, HB1567, HB1984, HB2608, HB2435, HB1623, HB1774
Keywords:
wastewater systems, denitrification, environment, pollution, coral reefs, nearshore waters, public health, shoreline regulations, cesspool conversion, cesspool replacement, wastewater, sewer connection, sewerage systems, septic system, pollution control, water pollution control revolving fund, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, HGIA, low-interest loans, forgivable loans
Summary:
The committee heard testimony on several bills related to cesspools, wastewater, and clean water protections. On HB 2245, which would require additional denitrification capacity in wastewater systems near shorelines, the Department of Health offered comments, DLNR supported the bill, and multiple environmental and ocean groups testified in strong support, emphasizing nitrogen pollution from cesspools, reef damage, and the need to prioritize shoreline systems. Testifiers said the bill should move forward, with technical issues such as GIS mapping to be worked out later. No member questions or votes were taken on this measure.
On HB 1985, concerning the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority and accessible conversion loans for cesspool homeowners, HGI supported the bill and suggested making the program a revolving loan fund; DLNR and the Public Utilities Commission also supported it, while the Department of Health supported the concept. Committee discussion focused on program design, possible forgivable loans for low-income homeowners, and whether the program should be administered through existing infrastructure rather than a new procurement process. The committee then moved to HB 1985’s companion discussion on cesspool conversion outreach and deadline extensions, where DLNR and DOH supported outreach but DLNR and ocean advocates expressed reservations about extending deadlines, especially for financial hardship, saying that issue would need careful work.
The committee also heard testimony on HB 2079, which would reestablish the accessible upgrades inversion or connection income tax credit. The Department of Taxation raised administrative and fraud concerns about refundable credits, explaining that nonrefundable credits reduce tax debt while refundable credits can function like cash payments and require more oversight. DOH, DLNR, OPSD, counties, Hawaii Realtors, and environmental groups supported the bill, with one ocean coalition witness saying tax credits could help homeowners but grants would be preferable. Members asked about the difference between refundable credits and grants and about whether the credit would cover sewer connections versus individual wastewater systems. The committee then heard brief testimony on HB 1921, allowing certain priority-three cesspools to add a bedroom, with support from Hawaii Realtors and some other groups and no opposition discussion. HB 2232, preserving state water-quality protections at least as strong as the federal Clean Water Act, drew support from DOH and ocean advocates, with no questions. The committee also began hearing energy-related bills, including HB 1567 on energy equity and HB 1984 on self-certification for distributed energy resources, with a mix of support and some opposition or requested amendments, but no votes were taken in the portion provided.
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee 3/26/25
Children and Families Finance and Policy
Keywords:
HF1918, Department of Children Youth and Families, DCYF, child welfare, foster care, out-of-home placement, permanency planning, relative search, noncustodial parent, kinship care, family preservation, African American Child and Family Well-Being, racial disproportionality, maltreatment reporting, educational neglect, truancy, school attendance, Great Start compensation, child care provider payments, TEACH early childhood program
HI
Bills:
SB2064, SB2312, SB2811, SB2662, SB2744, SB2809, SB2862, SB2343, SB2336, SB2075, SB2308, SB2601, SB2397, SB2219, SB2849, SB2449, SB2781
Keywords:
state architect, construction projects, design approvals, building codes, state agency oversight, government contracts, transparency, record retention, public oversight, Hawaii Revised Statutes, building permits, task force, state-owned lands, construction, regulatory process, government accountability, external consultants, procurement reform, cost efficiency, in-house expertise
Summary:
The committee met for decision-making on measures heard earlier in the week and took up a series of government operations, procurement, public records, public meetings, and related bills. Several measures were deferred one week to February 12, 2026, including bills on state construction projects, government accountability, gubernatorial appointments, the legislature, public procurement, and a bill on Hawaiian lei sales, largely so the committee could compare similar measures, address concerns, or integrate related reports. The committee also deferred SB 2449 on public meetings for the year, citing concerns that the proposed business-day definition was overly prescriptive and unnecessary.
The committee passed several bills with amendments. These included measures clarifying UIPA applicability to records created or maintained by agencies, with amendments changing “government function” to “agency function” and committee report language noting Attorney General concerns and exempting ERS for now; SB 2811 on state building projects with technical amendments and a delayed effective date; SB 2809 on budget-related reports; SB 2336 on trees, with a Senate draft and removal of “political subdivision”; SB 2308 on small purchase vendor compliance, setting the threshold at $5,000 and adding a delayed effective date; SB 2601 on procurement, reorganizing misdemeanor language and leaving funding/FTE issues to Ways and Means; SB 2219 on a capital visitor center working group; and SB 2849 on public meetings, with technical amendments and a delayed effective date. Bills on neighborhood board concerns and public notice were also adopted, with SB 2929 drawing testimony both for and against.
Testimony was generally supportive on procurement and small business measures, especially SB 2928 establishing permanent small business procurement coordinator positions, which drew strong support from the State Procurement Office, DBEDT, the Chamber of Commerce, DOT, the Ethics Commission, and others. On public notice, the County of Maui supported allowing website posting, while another witness raised concerns about accessibility, centralized notice locations, and impacts on kūpuna and people with disabilities. On search and rescue, the committee heard support for creating a statewide coordination structure, along with discussion of where such an office should reside; the Attorney General raised constitutional and placement concerns, while witnesses suggested law enforcement, DLNR, or DoD as possible homes. The committee also heard support for a bill protecting home addresses of covered public servants and candidates, though the Public First Law Center urged broader coverage and a better fit with existing law.
HI
Bills:
SB2064, SB2312, SB2811, SB2662, SB2744, SB2809, SB2862, SB2343, SB2336, SB2075, SB2308, SB2601, SB2397, SB2219, SB2849, SB2449, SB2781
Keywords:
state architect, construction projects, design approvals, building codes, state agency oversight, government contracts, transparency, record retention, public oversight, Hawaii Revised Statutes, building permits, task force, state-owned lands, construction, regulatory process, government accountability, external consultants, procurement reform, cost efficiency, in-house expertise
Summary:
The committee heard several government operations measures, beginning with SB 2064 on state construction projects, which would create an office of the state architect within DAGS to oversee design review and approvals for state construction. DAGS said it stood on its written testimony, DECAB supported the bill, DOT supported it, and HGA opposed it. No audience testimony or member questions were taken, and the chair moved on.
The committee then took up SB 2312 on government contracts, which would make records held by private contractors performing government functions subject to UIPA. The State Procurement Office, Attorney General, OIP, ERS, DHS, and HGA offered comments or opposition, while the League of Women Voters, Public First Law Center, All Hawaii News, Grassroots, and several individuals supported the bill. Public First Law Center argued the bill closes a loophole and does not expand or reduce existing exemptions, while OIP and others raised concerns about privacy, confidential information, and the need for clearer procedures. Members discussed possible clarifying amendments, including changing “government function” to “agency,” and the bill was left for further consideration.
Other measures discussed included SB 2662 on government accountability, which would require justification and caps for external consultants; ERS and DOT opposed it, while the American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii and Airlines Committee of Hawaii argued consultants are often more efficient and necessary for major projects. The committee also heard SB 2744 on due process, for which no testimony was received; SB 2809 on budget-related reports, with comments from B&F and the Tax Foundation; SB 2862 on gubernatorial appointments, opposed by the Governor’s Office and the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission and supported by one individual; a bill on continuous legislative sessions, with comments from B&F, LRB, and Hope for Hawaii; SB 2336 on tree management standards, supported by an individual and the Outdoor Circle; and SB 2075 on public procurement local preferences, which drew broad support with comments from SPO and the Attorney General and discussion of simplifying the preference structure. No votes were taken in the excerpt, and the chair repeatedly moved measures along after testimony and questions.
HI
Keywords:
conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge
Summary:
The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit.
The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach.
The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:41:35.040>
that more than half of the variances that more than half of the variances that - And if you are going to pass, so I think we don't need a variance.
- And if you are going to pass, so I think we don't need a variance.
- And if you are going to pass, so I think we don't need a variance.
- And if you are going to pass, so I think we don't need a variance.
Bills:
HB1739, HB1741, HB2606, HB2362, HB2608, HB2294, HB2431, HB2375, HB2582, HB2585, HB2231, HB1601, HB2424, HB1956
Keywords:
transit-oriented development, zoning, land use, urban planning, density, local governance, housing, inclusionary zoning, inclusionary mandate, affordable housing, below-market-rate housing, inclusionary housing, development exaction, impact fee, housing affordability impact fee, needs assessment study, financial feasibility, rough proportionality, essential nexus, county ordinance
Summary:
The committee on Water and Land met on February 19, 2026, and the chair opened by emphasizing strict time limits and that all bills would be deferred if the agenda was not completed before the noon session. The first major measure discussed was HB 1739 HD1, which would preempt county land-use authority in transit-oriented development areas. The Department of Planning supported the bill, saying it could promote state-funded TOD and infrastructure, while the city and county’s position was raised in questioning. Unite Here Local 5 opposed the bill, arguing it would strip counties of self-determination, disrupt state-county policy collaboration, and remove a check on unrestrained development. Committee members pressed the supporters on whether the bill was really about higher density and whether it would override local zoning and sustainability concerns.
The committee then heard testimony on HB 1741 HD1, a housing bill described by supporters as reducing inclusionary housing mandates and increasing supply. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii argued affordability mandates reduce overall housing production and raise market-rate prices, while a Zoom testifier said the bill would improve housing stability, health, and community outcomes for working families, kupuna, and young residents. Members asked about the bill’s needs assessment and who would conduct it, with a witness saying the counties would likely contract it out but that the bill did not clearly specify the reviewer.
HB 2668 HD1, dealing with water heating systems, drew testimony from the Hawaii State Energy Office and industry representatives. Supporters generally backed adding heat pumps to the law, but one solar-water-heater industry witness asked for amendments to remove or extend the current 15-year statutory life limit for solar water heaters and to update outdated standards and variance rules. A Kauaʻi Climate Action Coalition witness opposed the existing solar-only structure, arguing heat pump water heaters are cheaper, align with climate goals, and should be allowed without a variance. The Energy Office said the current law already allows variances in some cases, suggested adding high-efficiency heat pump water heaters to the exemption, and said the 15-year figure may be too short, with 18 years mentioned as a possible alternative. The committee also briefly moved through several other bills, including HB 2606 HD1 on off-site construction and HB 2362 HD1 on housing, with no notable testimony or action recorded in the excerpt.
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs (01/13/2026)
Election Law and Municipal Affairs
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- state aid roads um and for variances state aid roads um and for variances when<00:08:34.640>
- So there are many seek uh variances.
- They were told no and, in fact, applied for an appeal of the denial of the variance, a variance which
- around which uh those variances criteria around which uh those variances are<00:14:01.519>
judged - advisory committee on design variances advisory committee on design variances um<00:15:48.959>
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
Committee of Conference on HB 244 (05/20/2026)
Transcript Highlights:
- It grants a variance to the rule.
- It grants a variance to the rule.
- Well, in theory, as I'm trying variance?
- variance to the prohibition. variance to the prohibition.
- a variance or special exception.<00:28:50.320>
They exception.
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.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm
Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government
Transcript Highlights:
- In many cases, variances are granted, and under current law those variances must be acted upon within
- In many cases, variances are granted, and under current law those variances must be acted upon within
- That would be a use variance.
- , changes to the variances.
- , changes to the variances.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a hybrid hearing on bills related to land use, zoning, permitting, municipal governance, and homelessness. Early testimony focused on a home rule petition for Ipswich to remove a residency requirement for a town manager, with supporters saying it would broaden the applicant pool and help fill a vacant permanent manager position. Another panel backed legislation to change the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission’s governance so ratepayers in surrounding communities would have representation, arguing the current board structure leaves many users without a voice in rate-setting and capital decisions.
Several housing and zoning bills drew testimony. Senator Keenan and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association supported a bill to toll the one-year period for acting on a variance while an appeal is pending, saying appeals should not consume the time needed to implement approved projects. Representative Murray and the Real Estate Bar Association also testified on broader zoning reforms, including changes to undersized lots, merger rules, hearing deadlines, appeals, and variance standards; they argued the proposals would reduce delay and uncertainty and help housing production. Committee members questioned whether shifting zoning appeals from de novo to closed-record review would limit new evidence, and the witnesses said the change would speed cases while preserving limited opportunities to supplement the record.
The committee also heard testimony on bills to end the criminalization of homelessness. Representatives, advocates, and shelter organizations said local camping bans and fines are counterproductive, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision, and urged a statewide response centered on housing and public health rather than punishment. Other municipal bills included remote participation in open town meetings for Wayland and a statewide local option, Fairhaven and Mattapoisett charter changes, and Cambridge’s request to use automated parking enforcement and mail parking tickets. The hearing also included testimony supporting fairground zoning flexibility, a Shrewsbury solar siting bill, and an Inspector General bill clarifying county land disposition procedures by requiring written notice to DCAM and a defined response period. No votes were taken during the hearing.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House State Government Finance and Policy Committee 3/10/26
State Government Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- Where do those variances play out? Where do those variances happen?" happen?" happen?"
- <01:06:58.520>
Um to do this type of variance analysis. - Um to do this type of variance analysis.
- <01:11:48.360>
analysis what this type of variance analysis what this type of variance analysis - The phrase variance side conversation.
Keywords:
payment transparency, public contracts, contractor rights, government accountability, construction payments, barbering, licensing, examinations, barber schools, public safety, certifications, Barber Examiners Board, data transparency, Legislative Budget Office, state agencies, fiscal notes, public data, standard time, federal law, time zone
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Committee on Health and Human Services - 04/07/26
Health and Human Services
Transcript Highlights:
- clarity on obtaining setback variances clarity on obtaining setback variances for<01:51:09.760><
- <01:54:39.400>
uh uh um this opens up the variance uh uh um this opens up the variance uh - We had one approved through variance, with one variance approved for these types of systems.
- I mean, I I go to variance, right?
- uh with a one variance approved variance uh with a one variance approved for<01:58:36.520>
these<
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee 3/26/25
Transportation Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- This pre-approved list would reduce the number of necessary variances.
- This also creates a more accountable variance process.
- has been there's been uh recent variance has been there's been uh recent variance determinations
- <01:32:03.360>
this number of necessary variances this number of necessary variances this - They sought that variance, and the matter under dispute is this 10-foot lane width.
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
House Finance Division II (03/06/2026)
Transcript Highlights:
- I'm calling it a variance process, which is very similar to the variance process we have on the state
- I think the general public would understand a variance or, you know, a variance process or exception
- I guess for it would a variance process I guess for it would a variance process seems<00:53:51.359>
- they can come to you to get the variance they can come to you to get the variance where<00:55:06.000
- The local exception or variance.
Summary:
The meeting opened with brief remarks honoring Harry Bean after his death on February 14, with members describing him as a larger-than-life figure, a valued colleague, and a friend whose conversations and presence will be missed. The committee then moved to vehicle title bills, beginning with HB 1421, which would change title exemptions for older motor vehicles. DMV witnesses explained the fiscal note was based on 2024 new title applications for vehicles in the affected age range and represented a high-end estimate; members discussed whether the bill would actually be revenue-neutral because reduced title revenue would be offset by reduced staffing work. There was also clarification that the bill applies to cars and regular trucks, not heavy trucks or tractor trailers, and that owners could still obtain titles if they met proof-of-ownership requirements. Members noted antique cars would largely be unaffected because they are already exempt. HB 1421 was moved on an OTP motion and passed 9-8.
The committee next considered HB 1466, a related title bill narrowed to boat trailers. Members again raised concerns about lost revenue, but the sponsor and DMV witness said the fiscal note was a high-water estimate and that the bill would likely be close to a wash because the department would save on title-processing costs. The witness also explained that VIN verification, when needed, can be done by local police or a dealership, but not for every trailer title. Members discussed the low value and infrequent resale of older boat trailers, and the bill was described as a practical policy change. HB 1466 was moved OTP and passed 8-0.
Finally, the committee discussed HB 1483, which would create a special ham radio operator plate with a lightning bolt symbol and call sign. The sponsor explained an amendment was needed because the bill had mistakenly referred to a House and Senate Ways and Means Committee; the fix would treat the plate under existing vanity plate law. DMV witnesses said the plate would be optional, would require legislative approval, and would function like other special decal plates, which are generally limited to nonprofit-related or legislatively authorized uses. Members asked whether the plate would generate revenue, and DMV confirmed vanity plates carry an added fee that does produce revenue. Discussion focused on the plate’s practical purpose for identifying ham operators, especially in emergencies, and on whether it might set a precedent for other special-interest plates.
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
House Executive Departments and Administration (01/28/2026)
Executive Departments and Administration
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
House Housing Finance and Policy Committee 4/2/25
Housing Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- Uh it's intended to allow for a flexibility uh or what we would otherwise see come through as a variance
- idea is that they're going above and beyond the code in exchange for uh what would typically be a variance
- uh on a one-off case, but this variance uh on a one-off case, but this would<00:03:20.800>
be - typically be a variance. typically be a variance.
- But um But um when can they still use this planned unit development as a tool to avoid the variances,
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
Senate Executive Departments and Administration (04/15/2026)
Executive Departments and Administration
Transcript Highlights:
- The second gap the bill fixes is that it gives him the power to do variances to the building code.
- The language does not say variances, but it matches the code lingo in the state building code.
- use our current say fire code variance use our current say fire code variance to<01:31:24.480>
- to the to the essentially uh variances to the to the building<01:31:55.040>
code. - I will share on the fire code variance side.
- to the to the essentially uh variances to the to the building<01:31:55.040>
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission 12/17/25
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:15:18.079>
and of the co the cause of the variance and of the co the cause of the variance - They look at the spending variance.
- So they look at the spending variance.
- <00:20:04.880>
Um variance uh within this estimate. Um variance uh within this estimate. - Uh then it has an FTE that variance.
Summary:
The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused.
The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO.
Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.