Kentucky.

Tonight I'm Renee Shaw.

We thank you so much for joining us and happy New Year.

Tonight we preview the 2026 legislative session, which starts tomorrow.

It's a 60 day session with state lawmakers working to pass a two year budget for Kentucky, as the state faces a budget shortfall of about $156 million this fiscal year, and lawmakers will deal with other issues from housing to artificial intelligence to education, and to discuss what to expect during the session for legislative leaders.

Join us in our Lexington studio.

State Senator David Givens, a Republican from Greensburg and Senate president pro tem.

State Senator Gerald Neal, a Democrat from Louisville and Senate Minority floor leader.

State Representative David Meade, a Republican from Stanford and House Speaker pro Tem and State Representative Pamela Stephenson, a Democrat from Louisville and House minority floor leader.

We certainly want to hear from you tonight.

You can send us your questions and comments by X, formerly Twitter at Pub Affairs KET.

Send an email to KY tonight at ket.org or use the web form at ket.org KY tonight.

Or you can simply give us a call at one 800 494 70 605.

Well welcome everyone.

Happy New Year to you.

Happy New year.

Happy start of session.

It's not sunny die.

What's the Latin for?

The opposite of sunny die.

Session Eve session, session.

Eve.

That's good enough.

Okay, before we talk about some of the issues, let's talk about what has gotten a lot of ink of late.

And that's about access to the state capitol because of the Capitol renovations that are expected to take at least three years, perhaps more.

It's not the same way to get access.

And so there is some concern about how people can follow what's happening.

There won't be the Capitol rotunda available for rallies and for others advocacy groups to engage with state lawmakers.

Senator Gibbons, talk to us about the access to the temporary chambers.

We know that the committee meetings will still happen in the annex, but the House and Senate chambers have a temporary location.

>> Much needed renovations to the People's Capitol.

It will last a number of years.

Three would be optimistic.

It may be a shade longer than that.

We've got a temporary building that we're going to be in for purposes of meeting for regular session and any special sessions for a period of 3 to 5 years.

And then most likely, as I understand it, there's going to be some renovations done on the annex.

So that temporary building will then be used to house offices that were previously in the annex after we get back in the Capitol.

In terms of transparency, we do have a strong, robust media, and that will continue to be they'll continue to have full access.

I think the role of KET is going to be even that much more.

And so I'm appreciative of all the coverage that KET provides and would encourage anyone wanting to participate to continue to do so, either online through the YouTube channel or the KET coverage that's done so well.

>> Yeah.

Representative Mead, good to see you and thank you so much for being here.

The in both of the chambers.

Neither have galleries right where spectators could go and observe the proceedings.

Was there any consideration about how that might be perceived by the public.

And what was the the rationale for not including that in the overall plans for the temporary structure?

>> Well, I think that the the overall plan was to make the temporary structure is as inexpensive as possible.

Of course, it's going to be expensive to build anything like that.

But I think that one one thing we have to keep in mind is that the contract was signed through the administration and not by us, and those plans were drawn out by the engineers that were there.

The gallery, of course, is simply for spectating when you're in those in the House and Senate chambers.

The rules say that you can't interfere with the proceedings, can't be noisy and discuss things up there.

So you get to get to watch it.

And that's that's the bad part of it, is you can't come in and see the historic floor proceedings and things like that, and that's the sad part about it.

But as far as us doing business, we're going to continue to do business the same way.

We have two committee rooms set up for the house, two committee rooms set up for the Senate.

They will be viewing areas.

KET, of course will continue to cover.

LRC has expanding their YouTube channel.

And then we have the LRC live feed.

So there will be plenty of ways to to see that.

I know that the governor has made comments about it.

He's talked about having bleachers in there or whatever it may be.

And I would just say that, you know, we're going to continue to operate in transparent manner.

But I would just point out one thing that's the governor has said that we're not being transparent, that here recently, he was sued by the Lexington Herald-Leader for not fulfilling an open records request.

And so I think that we have some questions about transparency there.

And I will also say that we're talking about a man that closed the the mansion that was open to the public and now lives behind a fence that's paid by the taxpayers.

So I think there's other questions that we could ask instead of the the eye being shot at us later.

>> Neil, do you have any rebuttal to what Representative Mead have to say, and what are your thoughts about transparency?

>> Well, you started out with the fact that we're going to be in different quarters and so forth.

And I do want to point out that it's going to take some adjustment, but I think we'll adjust.

Well.

We've done things in the past where we had to do that, and I think it's very important.

The transparency piece, in terms of the public being involved there, and I think we got to keep our eyes on what we're doing.

We got to make sure that we take all the steps necessary to make sure the public is informed.

So yes, KET plays a very key role in that, and the rest of the press does as well.

So I'm looking forward to how that's going to play out and how it's going to engage.

And I trust that we'll have the transparency.

And I think we all work to get that together.

Now as it relates to the governor, the governor's you know, people support this governor.

He's doing a fantastic job.

And the voting patterns speak for themselves.

So, you know, I think we can be critical of each other on various kinds of things.

But I think at the end of the day, all of us are trying to do what's right by the people, and I think that's why we're there.

And we'll continue to try to do better as we go forward.

>> Leader Stevenson have anything to add on this particular point?

>> The only thing I would add it is the eve of session and already the fire has started.

The real issue is this government is for the people, by the people to serve the people, and we all want them to have access.

Everyone is doing the best they can with what we've got.

So I would engage as the public to please start early, be early, use all the resources that were announced and stay engaged with us.

>> Yeah.

What are the expectations in terms of the numbers of bills that could be filed?

Everything from owning a pet chicken in Kentucky to the state budget, which is a very, very serious matter.

We don't mean to make light of that, but what kind of legislation is a priority for Senate Republicans?

And what do you really want to see across the finish line other than the budget?

>> Sure.

Well, when you look at what what our priorities are, we talk about the budget being one of those, because really, what we end up doing, and we've discovered over time is that the place we spend the taxpayers hard earned money is where we tend to put the focus, and we can have lots of great ideas.

We can file lots of pieces of legislation about things that we'd like to see happen, but what do we actually spend money on?

And so the budget amplifies and magnifies those things.

So when we say the budget, we're going to be spending money on education.

When we think about the role of state government, education, transportation, Medicaid, incarceration, sadly.

But that covers a lot of what we're going to be spending money on.

Almost half of our state budget.

General fund revenues go for education purposes, and that's the charge of almost every state.

>> I'll go to this side, kind of get it out of here a little bit.

I know the Senate Democrats are having a press conference tomorrow where you're unveiling the priorities for your caucus.

Give us a little spoiler on that.

>> Right on that.

Give us the scoop.

You wouldn't be surprised to know that we want to protect those things that are not only useful to people, but people expect in terms of services and so forth and so on.

So we're talking about some of these areas that relate to the health, relates to the safety and the community.

We're talking about those things that that relate to the ability to uphold what you need for your family, getting the proper wage, a living wage in some respects, and.

>> There's a bill that's going to be filed to raise it to $15 an hour, which has been an attempt for several sessions.

>> Absolutely.

We're going to visit that again, and I hope that we can persuade our colleagues across the aisle to join us with that.

But there's going to be a number of things that we're going to deal with.

We've got housing issues and problems.

We're going to have to address those things.

We had a task force to deal with some of that subject matter.

I don't think it came to a total end because it's not an easy issue really to deal with.

But I think we're together on both sides of the aisle on we have to tackle that and do something positive about that, and I think we will.

So I'm encouraged by that.

But I do want to say this we have some serious challenges.

The moment might be something that's manageable, but we have some serious challenges and I imagine it will get into more of that discussion later on about what's happening on the national scene, its effect on what's happening in Kentucky.

And I hope we get to that discussion.

I trust.

>> Absolutely, Leader Stevenson, for your caucus, that you also are planning a press conference on Thursday.

But we would like for you to give the scoop tonight and perhaps many of those priorities in line with the state Senate Democrats.

>> Absolutely.

The people of Kentucky want a government that provides for the basics food, clothing, shelter and health care.

You can't have a thriving family without those things.

So our job is to create an environment where people can work 40 hours a week and take care of their families to provide an environment where there is access to housing.

So our platform is going to focus on working families that do the work.

But the check is not enough to make sure that the basic human needs are covered.

>> Well, let's talk and representative, I'll allow you to talk about the House Republicans priorities, but also the Housing Task force.

We know there are several task forces that, of course, they give their recommendations in December, and that's among them.

So you can start there and other priorities that your caucus deems absolutely priority for this session.

>> Well, of course, the budget is taken up most of the time for us because it has to start in the House and all revenue measures start over there as well.

And so that's what we've been focusing on the most.

But and just really get getting to roll into other priorities here recently.

But housing is one of those roads and infrastructure of course will be another one.

I think child care will be another one for us.

But as you did mention the housing task force, it did meet.

It's met the past couple of years.

We did a few things last year in legislation with that.

But this year they concluded in November and sent their recommendations to us there in the House.

And based on those recommendations, I think we'll you'll see ways of we'll start investing in local areas to try to invest in infrastructure and try to help with those things, getting it out of the way and preparing land to be able to be built on.

There's other things that we could do, like updating building codes.

As the task force said, we've got some antiquated building codes that are just very costly when it comes to building, streamlining, streamlining, permits.

That's one of the things that we hear most often from builders is talking about how slow it is to get permits and inspections, and maybe we need to put in timelines for the government on on honoring those permits.

And if they don't, maybe we we give automatic permits on certain things like electric and plumbing and those type of things.

There are land use policies that we can work with at the local level, as far as lot sizes and parking availability and setbacks for boundaries on buildings, some of those things, and I hope that our local leaders will partner with us in that.

>> And one of the things, and perhaps you already mentioned it, was allow local governments flexibility to adopt their own pro-housing policies.

Right?

So giving that flexibility to local governments, and we know that the General Assembly has already addressed this in some measure in the last legislative session, House Bill 160 that prevent local governments from placing certain restrictions on manufacturing housing.

Senate Bill 25 allows local governments to issue industrial revenue bonds for the construction of large multi-family housing developments.

And another measure, House Bill 321, that placed restrictions on who has standing to appeal.

Planning and zoning determinations of a planning unit.

So you've already done some things and this is just building on that.

You would say yes.

Do you envision for the budget?

Because usually it always kind of comes together toward the end.

Is there any thought that perhaps you get there and do that first sooner and quicker than perhaps in the past?

And is that even a reasonable option?

>> Every option is reasonable until it's not agreed.

>> And and so the quote of the session right there, I'd like to quote number one.

>> I'd like to circle back for just a moment on this fiscal health of the Commonwealth conversation, because I think we've got something here that we all need to celebrate.

We really, truly do.

You raised the point of there's going to be some concerns, but this is going to be one of the best sessions, I think, that we're ever going to have.

And and I'm going to look to my colleague here on the left, because this will be the 10th year that we've had the chance to work together as a Republican majority in the House, Republican majority in the Senate on addressing the fiscal health of the Commonwealth.

And when you look at how far we've come in those ten years, I think we need to pause for a moment and celebrate that we're talking about.

When we started working on this in 2016, we had a budget reserve trust fund of zero.

We had actually floated a check that we had to move out of the biennium to make the budget balance of $70 million paycheck.

We had to move because we couldn't balance that budget.

Today, we've got the highest level of investment in K through 12 and post-secondary education in the history of the Commonwealth.

Our pension funding has moved from the low teens, around 12 or 13% funded to the high 2829 range.

Now, we're not as healthy as we want to be, but we're on the right path there.

On top of that, we've now not only have we funded those pensions so well and that budget reserve trust fund, highest level of education investment, but we've lowered that personal income tax from 6% down to 3.5%.

So we're starting at a really good place.

Now that doesn't mean we don't have challenges to meet.

But boy oh boy, when we don't talk about structural imbalance and having to sweep funds from Fish and Wildlife and other places to balance the budget, we don't even have those conversations anymore because we've moved past that.

So so I'm excited about that.

>> So we look at, as I mentioned at the beginning of the program, 150 something million dollar deficit that seems easier to deal with.

And can that cause any kind of reduction in services or cuts to agency?

>> Certainly we have to be mindful because the way we've structured these, these tax decreases on personal income tax, we've got triggers we've got to hit.

So we've got to spend that money wisely.

$150 million is still a lot of money.

But we're now writing $15 billion annual budgets as opposed to eight, nine and $10 billion annual budgets.

So 150 million in a $15 billion budget is less impactful.

>> Yeah.

Well, you have anything you want to add there.

>> Before I. Well, well, a lot to add okay.

>> Sure.

>> I think there are some good things that have happened.

And I think we've all shared in that, and we've agreed on a number of things that have been beneficial to the Commonwealth.

But I think it's important to recognize that, you know, when you started off this piece, you started talking about a shortfall more than $100 million, $156 million shortfall.

That's not good news.

The fact of the matter is, is that we're impacted not just by what the challenges are locally, that we would just stem from what we do from day to day.

But what happens nationally?

So now we see we have a situation now where if you look at what the federal government is doing, what Trump is doing in terms of his leadership, they're cutting money that we normally would rely on.

That's going to require us to either make a decision to not provide certain services, or to pay for those services, or and we're doing it at a time where we're headed toward zero down to 3.5.

We got two over two point well over $2 billion.

We're not going to recover from the journey we've had to where we are now.

And now over $700 million more when we go to 3.5.

Now, I'm not saying that that outcome in 4 or 5 years from now or three years from now is not going to be one that we can manage.

I trust we'll be able to manage.

But the reality is, and it's a fact that because of what's happening on the national level, the shift in what is happening in terms of wealth toward those who really don't need it and where it's being cut off at the bottom, is going to have negative impacts, if not this year, next year or the following year in the Commonwealth.

And I think it's naive for me or anyone else, to think it's not going to have that.

We're going to have to deal with that.

It's going to be a challenge.

>> Speaker Meade, do you find validity and what Leader Neil is saying, and is that a consideration, particularly there are conversations about lowering the state income tax and maybe even some division and different interpretations of whether or not those triggers were met.

So is there some divide among Republicans about the persistence in lowering that tax all the way to zero?

And if they're satisfied, you're satisfying certain triggers that you put in statute to satisfy?

>> I think that there's not much division in the Republican Party.

No.

When it comes to this and what you asked about 150 million, if that's a difficult task for us to meet.

And of course, when we're sitting on a the largest budget reserve trust fund the state has ever seen and and soon will probably be the largest per capita in the country, it makes it much easier to meet those needs.

However, we still have to look at where we're spending money and where there's wasteful spending in government.

I mean, just as we saw here recently, the auditor gave us a report on Medicaid and showed there's a lot of wasteful spending there.

I mean, we still need to make those cuts and continue down that pathway.

As far as what's going on at the federal level.

Yes, that will affect us somewhat in some ways, but I will say that this administration, presidential administration, was going to start making those cuts to those entitlement programs to begin with.

That was one of their priorities coming in, because there is so much waste and abuse there.

And I think what you're seeing is the reason that they're having to make those cuts is because it's not been done previously.

We should have been doing this all along.

In our state, we have about estimated about 150,000 able bodied adults who have no dependents at home, who are on Medicaid, who could be out working, that those are the things that they want us to start cutting.

That's what they need us to look at.

Had that been done all along, and those folks have not been taking advantage of those systems, and it had been going to the people that needed it.

They wouldn't be making these cuts right now.

>> So we're getting several questions in from viewers.

And one of them from Jason Talley is what about state workers?

Is there an appetite to offer state workers a raise this budget session?

>> There's always an appetite to reward our talented, good people that do great work within within the constraints of what can we do and what will we do?

We'll have to see.

We were fortunate to be able to do a sizable raise a budget or two ago, and I was I was thankful and appreciative of that.

I haven't heard a lot of conversation around a raise in this budget for anyone, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.

>> What does this side think?

>> Well.

>> No, I was just going to say the Kentuckians depend on the government to do collectively what they can do for themselves.

When we started reducing the tax, we already didn't have enough money to fulfill on basic needs.

Now I would like to see I don't think there's 150,000 able bodied people on welfare.

That's not what my data shows me.

But I do believe that wherever there is fraud, get it out.

We are.

We stand with that.

But while you're doing it, don't punish people that are working two jobs to have their families thrive.

>> So to that point about what does the data say about the number of able bodied working age Kentuckians who are defrauding these welfare system?

What's the number?

>> The best estimate?

When I was doing all the welfare reform, the last five to 6 or 7 years, the best numbers that we we had was about 150,000.

The cabinet cannot give us the actual number of it.

There's data over that they haven't kept.

And in some of us, in some of our minds, intentionally hasn't kept for the past several years.

And I think that that's one thing that we're going to do this year is we're going to require accountability out of that Medicaid program.

We're going to ask for data that they have not kept before.

We're going to ask for more access to that data, which they haven't given us in the past.

And we're going to to hold them accountable in that, in that, in that way.

But as I said, the auditor with her report here recently just did it in her audit.

The Medicaid program is so expensive that her audit was was not a tremendously deep dive.

It just scratches the surface of that program.

And just in that audit, she found over $800 million of waste in that program.

That shows us that there is so much money that is being spent that we don't even know where it's going over there.

And as for us working and making sure that we don't punish people, that was the whole plan during those reforms that they would not pass with us in the House, was that we were wanting to make sure that those people were can continue to have those programs in place.

While we took we took out those who were abusing the system.

>> And the abuse of the system, some would say, is not just from the Medicaid beneficiaries, but from the Medicaid providers.

Right.

So is there an evaluation of maybe providers who were booking the system out of money unnecessarily and fraudulently?

>> My understanding is that we have a medicaid managed care model in Kentucky.

This was the result of what Governor Steve Beshear implemented.

And when you look at the trajectory of our cost, our cost has gone up substantially in Medicaid.

When you look at the benefits overall, the numbers are we're at $20 billion of Medicaid benefits annually.

Now, that's larger than our state budget is.

So that's a combination of both state and federal money flowing through the Mcos managed that on a per capita basis.

We pay them capitation rate per member per month.

The challenge is really are we getting the quality of outcomes that we want or not?

And I think that's an ongoing question.

We need to tackle.

>> The health outcomes.

>> Health outcomes.

There's still a fee for service model.

So a lot of the a lot of the providers, rightly so, are good minded people, but they paid get based on the number of tests they run, the number of visitations they have, the number of office visits, the number of prescriptions.

They write.

We need an outcomes based model as opposed to a fee for service model.

But it's been a long time transitioning performance.

>> Based funding.

>> Well, in.

>> Some ways, like higher education.

>> In some ways we do.

We do, we really do.

And and there are some elements of Kentucky medical delivery that are talking about that, but we just can't quite get there yet.

It's a substantial cost.

It's only rising.

It's only rising.

>> You know, we can get into the weeds on a lot of these issues here, but the fact remains that the federal government, the Congress, the president, they did not extend the subsidies for ACA, the affordable health care piece.

And now what do we have?

We have a situation that's going to be a crisis in Kentucky.

You're going to find that people are going to be up in terms of premiums they have to pay.

We're going to see and understand that there are going to be people that have to make choices, not to have insurance to cover them.

That's going to translate into people going to where to emergency rooms and so forth.

That's going to impact and translate back through the system as well.

And on top of that, you're going to have people that are out there that are not going to have access to health care where they would do it from a preventative standpoint with respect to going forward.

So a big chunk of the leverage that we would have in a state like Kentucky has been taken away by what the federal piece has taken into consideration.

Now, what does that mean?

That means that here where we are, we're going to either live with that or we're going to step in and moderate that somewhere.

That means we have to go back to questions of the budget and what we're going to contribute to moderate our our minimize that impact or whatever.

That's just one aspect of what we have.

And as we go on, we can talk about others.

But I'm interested in the comment about the legislation that you all put together that they did not pass.

I just was curious as to who they were that did not.

>> What legislation are you.

>> Talking about?

I was asked, that's why I'm asking.

What was that legislation?

Who was they?

>> Very large welfare reform package that we passed three years ago in the House that I carried in the House.

>> Okay.

And whose they.

>> Fully Partizan lines, fully Partizan lines did not have any help from the the Democratic Party.

>> You're talking about in the house.

>> In the house.

Okay.

Went to the Senate.

The bill was drastically changed in the Senate before it.

>> Came back.

But who is they that did not pass it in?

In who?

>> You know, they did not help us pass it.

>> You talking about in the Senate?

>> No, no, in the House.

>> What did the Senate do?

>> The Senate passed a very watered down version of the bill.

>> Okay.

I just want to I just want to make sure we understood what they see.

This is more complex than just being a the Republicans and the Democrats.

These are very complex issues.

We talk about them in very complex discussions that we have.

And there are many reasons for passing and not passing legislation, as you know.

But I don't think it was something that leaned against your ideas.

You thought it was good.

That's fine.

That's part of the process we undertake.

We're going to revisit that.

But I got to point out again, we got big challenges and I like I like what my colleague from the Senate referenced.

I think he's right.

I think we ought to celebrate those things that we have done together, and we have done them together.

Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, to get some good results as to where we are right now.

That's true.

But the fact of the matter is that we have challenges that we cannot close our eyes to.

And I'm not even suggesting that we will.

We won't, but we're going to have those challenges.

And that piece that happened when they did not extend those health care subsidies is going to be one that's going to negatively impact us in Kentucky.

>> Let's speak to that for just a moment.

So with some some foresight that the House and the Senate shared together, we created a new entity called Moab, the Medicaid Oversight Advisory Board.

Co-Chair, Fleming, co-chair Julie Raque Adams, both very talented and knowledgeable, made up of a bipartisan group of legislators from both the House and the Senate working on how do we get ahead of this Medicaid question?

So we've got a dedicated panel now, and the model we're following is actually the Pension Oversight Group.

If you remember our public pension oversight group, we saw the results of of of taking some talented legislators skilled in the area and focusing on the issue.

And we started that about a year ago with Moab, almost a year ago now.

And so I'm excited about us wrestling with the issue as best we can, because we're going to have issues after this one that we aren't even talking about yet.

AI, who knows what that's going to be like?

That's true.

We've got an AI task force, but I'm excited about Moab focusing and working on us finding a way to move from today.

We're almost 1 in 3 Kentuckians are on Medicaid.

It was 1 in 5 a few years ago, and now we're down to 1 in 3.

We've got to find a way to earn enough money and have enough quality of services at a at a nominal cost for us to deliver quality health care to these individuals.

>> And of course, they did issue their findings and recommendations.

And there are 12 key items that they point out.

So do you see any of those?

And without reciting all of those, those all are available online.

Do you see any of those being taken up in singular legislation or big omnibus bill?

>> I think it will be senior legislation because it's a little easier to to pick the low hanging fruit, move that forward through the process.

We've got some access to care issues across the Commonwealth.

>> What give us an example of a low hanging piece of fruit.

>> Well, I'm thinking I'm thinking if you look at the state health plan, that's one of the key places to go.

And we don't have a lot of conversations about the state health plan because everyone wants to target certain pieces.

But that state health plan is a guiding document that the cabinet has to file with the federal government for us to get Medicaid dollars to draw down.

When you look at how we define access, that's one example.

Access can be, sadly enough, someone who says they actually see patients in a region, but they don't.

Maybe they maybe they have office hours one day a month in a region, and that checks the box on access.

So the MCO then says, hey, there's access there.

They show it to the state.

The state says, hey, there's access there when there's really not.

We talk about workforce and getting people back to work.

Telehealth's a great example of that.

If we can have quality providers and folks that are in relationship with them doing telehealth in a way that covers the Commonwealth, and then when you have those specialty moments, you've actually got quality providers in the area.

One thing we've got to focus on is dental care.

We're headed toward no dentist seeing Medicaid patients.

It's it's a tragedy what we're how little we're paying these dentists to see Medicaid patients and a lot of Medicaid patients.

Dentists will tell you they'll schedule a visit and they won't show up.

So suddenly they've taken a slot.

There's no penalty for them not showing up.

And it's hard on these dental practices to do that.

So those are the sort of things we've got to address to be able to provide access to care across the Commonwealth.

>> Okay.

I want to move real quickly, Senator.

>> So if I may make sure that what we're talking about, those subsidies being continued as it relates to ACA, that's not the same thing as what we just got through talking about in terms of Medicaid situation.

>> Those are.

>> Different things that doesn't kick in until later on.

And but the fact of the matter is, that has nothing to do with what's going to happen to premiums that are getting ready to hit very soon.

And we're going to see the reaction that we're going to have to wrestle with that.

And the other thing is, and I think he's correct, we have to step up and meet those realities as they come up.

But it does not necessarily we're going to come up with the solution.

>> So does your caucus have a solution for the Affordable Care Act subsidies?

>> No, we have a bipartisan piece, as he pointed out, with Medicaid.

That's where we're going.

We don't know where that's going to end up.

But that's not the same thing as not the continuation of subsidies for ACA.

I don't want to conflate that.

We want to make sure we separate those issues.

>> And we may have a whole separate show and a whole separate hour just for that issue to dive a little bit more in.

So here's a question from Martin Rivers in Lexington.

How do legislators view the appropriate level of the budget reserve trust fund?

What is too low and what is too high?

Personally, he says, I've been told we should have about three months of savings just in case.

Does that sound on par with what you're doing?

>> That's very close.

10% is the target, 12% is a good, healthy number.

We'd like to be above both of those numbers.

And we are we're a little above $3 billion right now in that rainy day fund.

And so that reflects about a 20% number, what we've got to acknowledge.

And we're one of the few states that's done this.

And I'm thankful we have a lot of states took that influx of Covid relief funds and and built it into recurring expenses.

Not a good thing to do when you have one time monies and you're spending on recurring expenses.

So we've been fortunate in that we haven't done that.

And that's caused this, this rather healthy, rainy day fund that we want to hold on to.

We we together did about $2 billion of one time investments with those funds.

That rainy day fund was a little above $5 billion, which is almost too much money to keep out of the economy.

So we found some one time investments that we thought would generate revenue and help citizens across the Commonwealth.

And that included roads, buildings, things that we needed to do, infrastructure.

But great question.

I'm glad he's asked it because we struggle for years at zero, and zero is definitely not the right number, but 10% is the target.

>> Do you think it's too high?

No.

And should be maybe used to make some investments?

>> No.

I think the the rainy day fund is very important.

There's no question about it.

In fact, if you don't have a reserve or adequate reserve and you have catastrophes that take place and other kinds of things that are not foreseen, you're in a very bad situation.

So I think really don't have an issue with the rainy day fund.

I think it's important to have a a significant and substantive rainy day fund.

So I think I'm comfortable with that.

>> Okay.

This question from Patricia Doherty in Lexington regarding affordable housing.

So let's pivot back to that.

She asked, why are we not addressing large apartment complexes in our bigger cities that are charging about $1,400 for one bedroom units?

So when that's the other thing, access and affordability.

Speaker Mead about what can the General Assembly to address not just single family housing, but also these rental prices?

>> Well, like I said earlier, I think what we can do is we can work with local governments to help give them the tools necessary to expand and work on some of those things that I said earlier to reduce costs and building.

As for what is charged in rent, there's not a whole lot we can do.

I mean, the market determines that those landlords that own those buildings determine that there's not much that the government can do to interfere with that.

>> Yeah.

>> Well, one of the things we can do is the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.

That is like $290 a week.

And most young people are paying over 30% of their income for rent.

So we need to look at the programs that we are promoting and the legislation that we're passing, and pass legislation that will allow them to earn more money because they are working.

Most of them are working, some of them are working two jobs.

We've got to support their efforts.

The other thing we have to do is look at our most vulnerable, that 10%, because of what's happening in Washington, 10% of our veterans are eligible for Snap.

Hi.

How are you going to say take my life to defend America?

But I need food stamps.

We should be providing what they need.

So we need to look through a different lens and ask, what do people Kentuckians need to take care of their families?

>> Is there any appetite on this side of the table to raise the minimum wage from the current seven and a quarter that it's been for since 2009?

I believe.

>> Statutorily it's tied to the federal minimum wage.

Our state minimum wage is statutorily tied to the federal minimum wage.

And so let the market determine what allowable wage is at an unemployment rate a little below 4% here in Kentucky right now indicates that people are finding jobs.

People that want jobs are finding jobs.

We continue to have a workforce participation challenge, meaning there are more jobs out there than there are people seeking jobs.

Education is a key component of this conversation, too, though.

When you have skill sets and talents that you can shop multiple places because you're well educated and you've dedicated yourself to that hard work of getting that education and building those skills that make you valuable, you get paid more.

And that's a reflection of that.

>> I agree, I think the market drives that.

I mean, you're seeing right now, McDonald's paying $15 an hour chick fil A, the same.

You know, I own a couple of stores as well, and we're paying well above minimum wage because that's what the market has dictated right now.

>> Yeah.

So it's already happening.

The market is already handling this issue.

>> They say the reality is that that is true.

I believe what he just said there.

But not everyone is getting paid at a minimum wage level.

That's clearly not the case.

And tying ourselves to the federal piece actually ties us into what they say, what the market says.

Well, think about that just for a second.

What they're doing on the federal level is not necessarily what we need in Kentucky.

We need to pay people a wage.

Some people call it even a living wage with respect to that.

And I think that we are really passing let me say this.

We're not serving our constituency very well.

If we don't deal with things like the minimum wage, we must lift that.

People have challenges in their own homes because they don't have sufficient income to overcome the challenges that they have financially.

We need to raise the the wages.

>> In several other states have already raised the minimum wage.

But anytime you say something is tied to the federal government, we need to be worried because the federal government is taking actions that are actually harming Kentuckians.

So when they harm us and we say we're going to rely on that, that's not what they hired us to do.

We need to look differently and see what does the Kentucky family need and how can we provide that and do that thing.

>> So you are watching Kentucky tonight, and we're doing a preview of the 2026 Kentucky General Assembly and regular session session that starts tomorrow.

And of course, you can catch that coverage when they handle handle down the gavel tomorrow at 12 noon and the House and Senate.

You can watch that online and on air on KET.

If you are just joining us, there are several ways to also submit a question or comment.

The phone number that is on your screen.

But you can also reach out to us on X, formerly known as Twitter at Pub Affairs KET and also send us an email to KY tonight at ket.org.

This question from Jeff Sims from Caldwell County quote A large push is underway to engage the legislature in the shared responsibility and burden to counties for jails and jail costs.

How does the panel perceive progress on this crippling issue?

I think.

>> From from our standpoint, as in the House, we are looking for a regional approach anymore from jails.

Right now, we have counties coming to us asking for individual jails.

But I think if we if counties are going to to be able to offset the cost of that, they're going to have to do it on a regional basis.

And some of these counties are going to have to come together to form regional jails.

And then we at that point, we can look at what we can do at the General Assembly level to put together a package in order to do that.

>> But consolidation.

>> We also I would, I would, yes.

When you say consolidation, yes.

As far as county jails coming together to form regional jails there, right now we have about six different regions, four of which are extremely necessary right now for regional jails.

And those areas are from western Kentucky to eastern Kentucky and some in central.

They have all come together as 4 to 5, six counties in order to form those regional commissions to try to build those jails.

And that's how that is going to be the future for jails to do it on a regional level.

It's the same with with building industrial parks.

Right now.

We're having to do that at a regional level to compete, and that's that's the only way that we're going to be able to get costs down in all these areas is now to do it on, on a regional type agreement.

>> Any other comment on that before I yes.

>> I might, I might jump in.

I think there are two factors that we need to talk about specific to this jails conversation that we're going to see play out over the next couple of years.

One of those is the Kentucky Association of Counties is going to make this a priority conversation.

And the work they do is excellent work as it relates to policy development.

So I think we'll see a lead on it.

The second thing I want to talk about, and this is no disrespect toward Governor Beshear at all.

So don't take it that way.

Heading it off okay.

It's going to take the next executive.

This problem is going to be a multi-year problem to solve.

And if Keiko can get the next executive, whoever he or she may be, committed to this process of addressing jails across the Commonwealth, I think we could actually make some headway on this.

>> So you need to wait two years before there's a new executive order to do that.

>> I'm saying we can start laying the groundwork now.

We can start talking about phasing in and processes in the regional approach, but we need an executive that's going to be committed to roll their sleeves up to work on this.

And two years is not long enough.

>> So this question from Ohio County caller unknown ask both sides what each party is going to do to make life more affordable in Kentucky.

What specific actions or legislation is planned to help everyday Kentuckians?

Instead of engaging in partizan or culture wars?

People deserve a government, they say, focused on governing.

So I'll start with this side first.

What's your affordability plan other than raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour or something similar?

>> Well, let's, let's let's understand where we're operating.

When we started out, we started talking about the impact of the federal government and what it's done on Kentucky.

It makes it difficult for us to deal with the bottom half of Kentucky.

I'm just using the half when you have those kinds of dynamics that are taking place.

Kentucky is not contrary to recent dollars.

We've had a prosperous state.

I mean, a bunch of folks in Kentucky rely on those federal subsidies, for instance.

They also rely on SNAP, but they cut SNAP in 1.1 out of five people in Kentucky, by some estimates, are going hungry now before they did that.

So we have challenges that are there now.

When you say, how do we overcome that?

I think it's going to be difficult because we have to either cut services or are we going to have to step up and find sources of income that will take care of that which has been dumped onto our laps, or we're going to have to just go without.

And that's going to be the challenge.

And I think I don't have a ready answer for that.

And if someone has a ready answer for that, I want to hear it.

>> Is there a ready answer on this side?

>> So short term, I'm going to say that the things we need to focus on as it relates to cost of living and quality of life, energy costs are going to be one of the keys we've got to continue to address, because we're seeing some rise there that's uncomfortable.

It's beyond what it should be.

So I'm going to point to those energy costs as one of the keys.

I think the other short term key we've got to continue focusing on is job opportunities.

We've got to create competition in the workforce space so that a worker who may not be earning 12 or $14 an hour, but is earning 10 or 11, can find a job for 12, 14 and 16.

Those are the two immediate things we've got to do longer term.

I'm going to talk about something that's in House resolution one.

We've talked a lot about what the federal government.

>> That's the big beautiful bill.

>> The big bill that federal government did.

House resolution one also creates an opportunity we all need to be champions of.

And this is a longer term answer to a difficult short term question.

Immediate question.

And I know he's wanting a short term answer, but I want to talk about a long term thing that I think we should all champion.

And that's around scholarship granting organizations and the federal tax credit of $1,700.

That's going to be on the horizon in 2027.

And I'd like to champion that for just a second if I could, because this is going to be big for all of us.

The federal government is saying, would you rather send $1,700 to Washington, D.C.

or would you rather invest in a child's education in Kentucky?

I hope everybody chooses the child's education in Kentucky.

So in other words, if you're a taxpayer that owes $1,700 or more after 2027, you can write a check to a Kentucky scholarship granting organization that can help fund through public schools or private schools, the betterment of a student's education in Kentucky.

So let's all get on board to support that.

>> Even though Kentucky voters a couple of years ago resoundingly voted against those type of scholarship tax credits.

>> That's correct.

>> They did.

Now, this is a totally different question because we have no vote in it.

The federal government is saying these are the rules.

These are the rules.

>> And that creates the path.

>> That creates the path for funding laptops for kids in public schools, a tutor for a child in public school, after school tutoring, or a child that wants a scholarship to attend a private school.

All of those are going to be options and options on the table, and I think Kentuckians can spend Kentucky money better than Washington, D.C.

can spend.

>> Is that Senate Bill one?

>> We'll see.

>> Renee.

Renee, if I.

>> May.

>> Let me let me tell you, my friend Senator Gibbons knows I have tremendous respect for him.

We work together on many things.

We look forward to working together going forward.

As well as my friend Representative Mead, with respect to things that we have to do.

But that is not a response to what we're going to do to overcome what's been cut back from people.

That's going to drive up their rates in terms of insurance.

That's not going to deal with the question of what happens when you cut SNAP and 1 in 5 are going hungry anyway, and that money is not available.

It's short term, and I don't know what that means for the long term.

We don't know if it even evolved.

This is right upon us in 2020 2027, we will be visited by a reality with respect to cuts.

This situation right now as it relates to subsidies being cut off, that's already upon us.

The question is, what do we do to respond to that?

There are people that will suffer whether respects with respect to health care, with respect to food on their table, making choices that they don't have really good options.

What takes care of that?

But I have not heard that in that, in that response.

>> But to the point leader Neil, there will be some that will say there are kids who are suffering because they are relegated to go to failing schools, and that what this could do could open up an opportunity for them to get a better education and by extension, a larger life.

>> But that does not feed a person who is dealing with that.

Now, that does not take care of a person's health situation this year.

That is a crisis that forces them to go to E.R.

that does not solve the problem, because there's been a massive shift in wealth toward those who don't need it, away from those who are receiving the kinds of supports that they need to have a reasonable life or reasonable chance.

>> Do you view that bill, which could end up being Senate Bill one, or a number between 1 to 10, being exactly what you're saying?

Well, only benefits the upper income.

>> I just said that that does not answer the question.

I don't know.

I don't know how else to say it.

So that does not, if I may, let me finish.

Sure, sure.

That does not answer the question.

This is nothing short term about it, that's for sure.

In terms of dealing with a masses of people that are adversely affected by what we're talking about here, that does not mean that we don't do something like that.

I'm not saying that.

>> Because it can be a both.

>> And not either.

No, no, no, they don't equate that we can do good things that do not get us where we need to go.

The fact of the matter is, we need to deal with the challenges we have now.

We need to have things that are calculated to address it that does not address that.

>> I really enjoy the pushback and exchange with you because we do this a lot and good policy comes as a result of it.

So I predicated my answer on two pieces.

I said the immediate short term, we've got to deal with the concerns we have around energy costs.

We've got to do that.

>> I agree.

>> Short term.

We've also got to create these job opportunities for persons in the job market today to earn a better wage tomorrow, right away.

That's competition.

Those are the two immediate things I talked about.

You're an advocate for education.

I know you are.

That's my long term approach.

We're going to have this opportunity.

And Renee is exactly right.

We've got to continue investing in educating kids that are in all systems, the really good systems.

There's some great kids that can be pushed even harder there.

We've got some failing systems and maybe we have time to talk about those.

>> I'm hoping we'll get.

>> PBS and M.c.p.s.

And we've got to be able to to get those kids an opportunity to learn and advance as well.

>> A very quick retort.

I don't think we should not give the kids the opportunity to learn.

I did not say that.

I'm saying it does not deal with the crisis that we have now and the challenges we have now, and there's no way to take that and project that.

As to having a substantive, beneficial effect on people who are suffering.

What is happening right now, this year, right now, these health care costs are going to go sky high.

People are going to have to make choices.

They're going to have to do without.

It's going to adversely affect their health.

It's going to moderate and compromise the ability to deal with preventative care.

We're going to get out of the mold of that.

That is a crisis right now.

We also have the situation where people are hungry right now.

We can't we can't we you know, hunger is not one of those things.

You can go way out in the future and try to solve.

They're hungry right now.

We need to address that.

We're going to have to make decisions whether to pay money now to take to step in where the federal government has deprived us of the support that people rely on and deserve.

So these are things that we have to deal with.

Now, if I'm wrong about that, praise the Lord.

I love that, but I don't think I am.

And I think go ahead.

No, that's.

>> All right.

One more.

There are other things we can do.

We're not being creative.

For example, why not give working families similar tax breaks that we give large corporations?

So, for example, I know families that have paid their rent on time for 20 years and they don't get any mortgage breaks like we give homeowners.

There are things that could be done that we're not doing.

I think two sessions ago we cut free lunches for children out of the Kentucky school systems are we refuse to take the money from the federal government instead of feeding children.

Children have no place in this fight, and yet we put them at the center every time.

Do what we can do, how we can do it so people can have food, clothing, shelter and home.

And that's not our focus.

>> So is that one of the short term goals?

>> So let's dig.

>> Into that.

>> One of the concerns you've raised, which is around SNAP and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, we're seeing it's estimated a $47 million increase cost in Kentucky as a result of what the federal government has done, $47 million is the number that we've been told.

However that can be drawn down to zero if we if we get that failure rate right, if we avoid the penalties.

So there's there's some incentives there for us to do a better job of being more efficient at the state level and continue drawing down those benefits to feed those people.

I totally agree that when we have someone hungry, education is the last thing on their mind.

I'm proud of our communities that are stepping up and filling that need.

I was impressed by the community response during that period of the shutdown, when folks rallied and said, we're going to open up food banks and we're going to stuff them full.

My rural communities in the ninth Senate district super proud of the work that they did.

And I saw it across the Commonwealth.

So we've got a lot of great people that are dedicated to taking care of their neighbors still.

And that's the sort of resiliency that makes Kentucky the place to live.

>> So getting back to if I can interject here and include a comment, a question from Percy Stone in Harlan County, will the Community Engagement digital dashboard be brought back for Medicaid, which is a similar kind of action?

I think that came underneath the Ernie Fletcher administration.

This caller says.

>> Great question.

He has more depth of knowledge about it than I do.

I'm not certain that I know specifically what he's talking about.

>> Okay.

So is there a leader?

Neil, I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir.

Do you want to finish your thought about that before we do talk about with five minutes remaining, Jake and Fayette County Public Schools.

>> We have five minutes remaining.

I'm going to yield to you.

Except I want to say this.

I have not heard a response now that deals with the challenge and the crisis that we are now facing, relating to those people who had that will not have now and into the near future.

>> And I'll give this side one last opportunity to provide said response to that.

>> Well, as far as a lot of things that we've done are going are in the long term, of course, with creating the competition, David said.

With bringing jobs and job creation here and investment, all those things will take time to play out.

But when it comes to the things that we are immediately facing, those things have just come about within the last few months and we always seem when we come into session, we always come together, we always discuss those things, and we usually come to a solution by the time that we get mid to the end of the session.

And, and I'm sure that that is the way that we're going to approach it this time to work with all sides of the aisle.

>> All hope session Eve.

There you go.

There you go.

Okay.

Really quickly.

In four minutes remaining, we know that Republican leaders have really keyed in on the financial issues that are dealing with the state's two largest school districts, Jefferson County Public Schools and Fayette County Public Schools.

We know that Fayette County, the superintendent, has been under fire.

The board chair has been under fire, the superintendent under fire because of expenses, dealing with food and travel, etc.

that district faces a $16 million deficit.

$188 million deficit is in the face of the new superintendent there, Doctor Brian Yearwood for Jefferson County Public Schools.

What what should, in your view?

I'll start with House speaker David Meade Speaker Pro Tem, unless you want to be upgraded, I guess.

What is the temperature to get involved in those issues?

And we know, having heard some of the lawmakers who represent that, those areas say that there needs to be some involvement.

I think.

>> I think there's a lot of discussion that's going on.

I think as you you've seen, it's very concerning what has happened over there.

The public has lost faith in those elected officials and appointed officials in the school board.

And there is a lot of talk about possibly stepping in and doing something with that is just yet.

I don't know, but there's a lot of a lot of concern with it.

>> Senator Givens.

>> I think you're going to see legislation directed toward board oversight and the role of the boards.

I think you're also going to see.

>> The Supreme Court.

>> And the Supreme Court reversal.

We can still do those things.

They didn't say what we did was wrong.

They said the way the way they perceived we did it was wrong.

So we can address the board procedurally.

>> You can.

>> Procedurally, we can go back and do it again.

We certainly can.

And you may well see that.

I feel confident you'll see us redefine the role of the board.

I think you also may even see conversations.

>> Is that just for Jefferson County?

Because they also said it couldn't be a specific.

>> We will write it in such a way that it will fit any district that looks like Jefferson County.

>> Which would be Jefferson County.

>> It's the only one that looks like Jefferson County.

Listen.

>> We have the guidance of the Supreme Court on what they expect, and we're going to be following that.

You'll see that coming back.

You'll also see coming back.

Thank you for letting me finish.

>> I just ahead.

>> You'll also see us having a robust conversation about should these boards in these large districts be elected or should they be appointed?

We have large the Denver school District, for example.

Those are appointed boards, not elected boards.

And so we're going to have a rationale for.

>> Changing it and taking it out of the hands of the people to decide.

>> Elections are not working right now.

They're sure.

Why do you.

>> Say the elections aren't working?

>> Number one, financially, Jefferson County alone, financially is struggling, Fayette is struggling.

The failure rate to educate these young citizens, these future leaders in Jefferson County points to reason enough.

We've got to take a look at doing things differently, substantially differently.

>> All right.

>> Now, my friend.

>> You've got a minute, sir.

>> Now that my good friend has finished and he's allowed me to speak.

Thank you, my friend.

Look, the state should not be directing what happens on these local levels with respect to these boards.

We ought to be giving support to these boards.

We should be giving them the tools to create better results in outcomes.

We need to engage with them in terms of our advisory capacities, and lend them the supports that we need.

With respect to that, let me tell you, when we start doing that from the federal level, I mean the state level, and we try to determine how they're going to do their business down there, we're going to miss the mark.

I suspect we should allow them to do it.

They have the capacity to do it.

They got a new superintendent in Jefferson County.

We ought to give him the chance to perform and to deal with the challenges he's facing.

I don't know as much about Lexington, but I think that they ought to give them the opportunity to do that.

>> Okay.

We'll have to leave it there.

And maybe we pick this up next week, because our coverage of the 2026 Kentucky General Assembly continues next Monday night on Kentucky tonight, when we'll have different leaders who will talk about some of these topics and more.

And we do hope that you'll join us each week.

Night at 630 eastern, 530 central for Kentucky Edition, because we'll break down what's happening in your state government.

Until I see you again.

Take really good care.

So long.