Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate comparable line is on line 291. I'll talk about it when I get there.
• The Senate comparable is on line 291. The Senate comparable is on line 291.
• The first is an aeronautics line, line 12, in airport development and assistance.
• Um line 52 um is a couple lines.
• Um lines 336 and 337. Uh these are the Um lines 336 and 337.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in line.
• line 223 is the parks and trails fund. line 223 is the parks and trails fund.
• Uh, you'll see line 299.
• Uh, you'll see line 299.
• I do have concerns on line bill.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 2563, the Omnibus Legacy Bill, was presented as a roughly $779 million package funding projects across Minnesota through the four Legacy funds: Outdoor Heritage, Clean Water, Parks and Trails, and Arts and Cultural Heritage. Chairs Vang and McDonald described the bill as a responsible one-time spending measure with no ongoing base funding, emphasizing habitat restoration, water protection, parks and trails, and arts and cultural heritage. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the spreadsheet, explaining that the bill largely follows the recommendations of the relevant councils and governor, with some additions such as a Wilderness Inquiry partnership, an Ash River sewer extension, competitive grant funding, and several arts and history projects. Staff highlighted the major allocations and structure of the bill: Outdoor Heritage funding for land and habitat projects, Clean Water funding for water-quality work, Parks and Trails funding following the traditional 40-40-20 split, and Arts and Cultural Heritage funding for the State Arts Board, Minnesota Historical Society, Humanities Center, Indian Affairs Council, Department of Education, and other recipients. They also noted policy provisions requiring Clean Water Council recommendations to be broken out by fiscal year, requiring recent 990 forms for arts grantees, limiting arts funds from being used for capital construction except in specified cases, and extending a prior appropriation for the Sunni Lee memorial project. Members asked about land acquisition, the new 990 requirement, and reduced funding for children’s museums; chairs and staff responded that Outdoor Heritage includes land acquisition, the 990 is simply a documentation requirement, and children’s museum funding is lower because more money is now placed in a competitive grant pool. The chairs said the bill reflects compromise and an effort to keep the bill relatively clean of earmarks, while also noting that a Department of Revenue transfer of more than $31 million from legacy funds affected available funding and forced difficult choices. After discussion, the committee laid the bill over, with the chair noting it was also being done in honor of Representative Mary Murphy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Line 131 is for $104.6 million.
• On line 177, $20 million...
• I will point to line 192.
• I apologize, page 25, line 287.
• On line 90 and then line 313, you've got the same money.

Transcript Highlights:

• But just going down through the lines, the first rows through lines two through five show the revenue
• But just going down through the lines, the first rows through lines two through five show the revenue
• On line 10 is a line for the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association's administrative costs, and on
• On line 10 is a line for the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association's administrative costs, and on
• <00:03:31.599> for<00:03:31.840> the um on line 10 is a line for the um on line 10 is a

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a side-by-side comparison and fiscal analysis of Senate File 3472, a reinsurance-related bill affecting the premium security plan account, MinnesotaCare, and related health care funding. Staff explained the Senate and House versions of the bill, including how the Senate proposal extends reinsurance for five years and uses a projected $1.087 billion general fund transfer to fully fund claims and administrative costs through fiscal year 2028, while the House version conditions continuation of the program on federal approval of the state innovation waiver. The fiscal presentation also covered appropriations for MNsure, a mental health parity and substance abuse office, and House provisions for delivery reform and a public option study, along with a House transfer of $110.674 million to the health care access fund. Members debated the budget horizon and whether costs should be forecast beyond fiscal year 2025. Representative Schultz argued that the spreadsheet understated the broader fiscal impact of reinsurance and warned about future funding cliffs for MinnesotaCare and other health programs, while other members and staff noted that the state’s standard forecast ends in fiscal year 2025 and that the fiscal note only estimated reinsurance costs through the five-year extension. Supporters said reinsurance was the best available option to reduce premium increases, especially in rural areas, and some pointed to a public option as a longer-term alternative. Opponents argued reinsurance does not address underlying health care costs or deductibles and urged consideration of other reforms. House Research then walked through the policy differences. House-only provisions would change Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association board membership, require platinum plans in certain markets, expand postnatal coverage, require a prescription drug benefit in some plans, set a minimum actuarial value for MinnesotaCare, create an Office of Mental Health Parity and Substance Abuse Accountability, and direct reports on delivery reform and a public option. The shared provisions would extend the premium security program to 2027 and delay the transfer of remaining premium security plan funds to the health care access fund until 2029, with the House language again contingent on federal waiver approval. No formal vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair closed discussion after hearing no further questions and indicated members would be contacted about next steps.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, yeah, line number 42.
• On line 51, $2 million for that.
• 7, line 72.
• Pester, line 375, or sorry, line 375. Moving on to the next section, Mr.
• On line 377, apologies. On line 377, Mr.

Bills: SB193, SB132, SB35, SB145

Keywords: SB193, acequia, community ditch, irrigation works construction fund, water infrastructure, ditch infrastructure, irrigation, New Mexico water law, agricultural water, farmers, Rio Grande, acequia association, forest land protection revolving fund, state fund transfer, irrigation projects, SB132, DOIT, Department of Information Technology, software replacement, equipment replacement

Transcript Highlights:

• Lines<00:10:07.960> 5.5<00:10:08.720> to<00:10:08.800> 5.22 Lines 5.5 to 5.22 Lines
• Line<00:22:53.000> 310<00:22:54.320> um Line 310 um Line 310 um would<00:22:56.000>
• Line<00:25:03.960> 342 Line 342 Line 342 Um<00:25:06.600> this<00:25:06.800> is<
• On<00:30:23.920> line On line On line >> [clears throat] >> [clears throat] >>
• On<00:36:23.480> line<00:36:23.800> 543, On line 543, On line 543, there<00:36:25.800><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The line at the top is showing total spending on matrix lines from...
• The line at the top is showing total spending on matrix lines from foundation and other sources.
• The yellow line is showing expenditures on matrix line items from other funds, and you can see for all
• So the sum of the green and yellow line... ...matrix line items.
• The aides would be strictly a staffing line. The aides would be strictly a staffing line. Okay.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school spending is mapped to the adequacy matrix and how expenditures are split between foundation funds and other funding sources. Staff explained the methodology, district and school categories used for comparisons, and key findings for matrix spending, including that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix expenditures and that districts spend more per student than charter districts in most categories. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, trend data, and more detailed spending by district type, and staff agreed to provide follow-up information. The committee then reviewed non-matrix spending, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly in the matrix. Staff noted that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion and that superintendents consistently identified mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support as important needs not fully captured in the matrix. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, school safety, facilities spending, and whether some items such as food service should be included in adequacy calculations. Staff and Department of Education representatives explained that some expenditures are difficult to isolate because of coding and commingled funds, and that certain items are funded outside the matrix or through separate programs. In the final section, staff summarized total spending across matrix and non-matrix items, noting that districts spent more than the foundation amount per student and that most total spending was on matrix resources. They also highlighted data limitations, including two matrix lines that cannot be fully tracked through current accounting codes. The chair then proposed postponing the second part of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, with additional time set aside to address questions for both staff and the Department of Education. The committee agreed, and the meeting adjourned without any formal vote on policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• In line 26, Personnel Benefits, right? For internally that line?
• And on line 307, Mr.
• So, that's line one.
• So, that's line 6. Line 7, we're looking for a defense research sandbox.
• That is on line 31.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The line at the top is showing total spending on matrix lines from foundation and other sources.
• The green line...
• of the green and yellow lines.
• Athletic supplies on a separate line, transportation on a separate line. That's it.
• Athletic supplies on a separate line, transportation on a separate line. That's it.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• On line 90, we have their base, and on line 93.
• On line 110, that is their base of $16,027. On line 116, we have an operating adjustment.
• To that, we add on line 134.
• that line.
• On line 207, you see the base that was in the February forecast, and on line 208, the governor had spent

Transcript Highlights:

• 54.880> line insurance and compensation line insurance and compensation line $155,000<00:14:57.120
• Walls: Requested adjustments on line 287 and on line 289.
• <00:23:50.240> is<00:23:50.559> line into that account are lines is line into that
• And then if you look<01:02:44.000> on<01:02:44.319> line look on line look on line 2.27
• On what line? The left line. So, we see the amendment. Um, is it line 40.31?

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The conference committee met late on Friday evening to discuss the Public Safety and Judiciary budget agreement, beginning with a brief exchange among members about concerns that the executive branch had been delaying the committee’s work by waiting to approve legislative decisions. Members emphasized that the legislature should retain its independence while still allowing normal collaboration with the governor’s office. The committee then moved through several outstanding policy items and adopted them without opposition, including the A38 amendment addressing data-sharing concerns involving disability-related information, a study of firefighting services by the state fire marshal, and an A46 amendment governing access to unredacted portable recording system data in collision investigations, with guardrails on disclosure and use. The committee next reviewed the spreadsheet and budget targets. Fiscal staff explained the judiciary side of the agreement, including funding for court operating costs, a one-time Justice Partner Access Program appropriation, forensic exam rate increases, guardian ad litem funding, public defense, human rights, the competency attainment board, the cannabis expungement board, and fee increases for civil filings and motions. On the public safety side, staff described the target as well as the discretionary items funded, including nonprofit security grants, BCA staffing changes, fire marshal initiatives, a 10-year arson statute of limitations, prosecutor training grants, legal representation for children, E911 funding for critical infrastructure, Philando Castile Training Fund support, corrections-related savings from the Stillwater phased closure and sentence-to-serve elimination, a mandatory minimums task force, a victims of crime account transfer, a decommissioning study, in-service use-of-force training, and extensions of several expiring appropriations. The committee also noted a correction to a spreadsheet label related to the Stillwater closure item. After the spreadsheet walkthrough, the committee took testimony from Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and State Court Administrator Jeff Shorban on behalf of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Hudson thanked the committee for its work and said the agreement covers some unavoidable costs, including insurance, lease expenses, forensic examiner pay, and the new access system, but argued it does not adequately address the judiciary’s most urgent problem: staffing and judicial compensation. She said court employees are leaving for better-paying jobs, judicial salaries are frozen for two years, and applicant pools for judgeships have declined, especially in greater Minnesota. She also said the judicial branch was not meaningfully consulted on the budget target and urged lawmakers to recognize the courts as a constitutional obligation rather than a discretionary program.

Transcript Highlights:

• The line at the top is showing total spending on matrix lines from foundation and other sources.
• The green line...
• of the green and yellow line.
• Student support staff line.
• As far as the matrix line items, and so the two lines you mentioned...

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This amends the statutory line 1.18.
• Article 1 section 11 beginning on line Article 1 section 11 beginning on line 12.10<00:09:12.720
• The section also strikes language on lines 19.16 and lines 19.7, as that language already appears in
• already lines 19.7 as that language already appears<00:14:18.880> in<00:14:19.120> lines
• Article 2 section 6 beginning on line Article 2 section 6 beginning on line 19.18<00:14:30.079><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• appropriation and that's on line 70. appropriation and that's on line 70.
• on line 89. on line 89.
• So you can see that on line 150 funds. So you can see that on line 150 and<00:09:15.839> 159.
• on lines 335 and 336.
• blackout plate revenue um on line 499. blackout plate revenue um on line 499.

Bills: HF2438

Keywords: transportation finance, transportation policy, MnDOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan Council, highway funding, trunk highway fund, county state-aid highway fund, municipal state-aid street fund, state aid roads, local roads, bridge funding, road construction, transit funding, passenger rail, freight rail, aviation, airport development, safe routes to school

Transcript Highlights:

• Hey, on page 17, line 14, on your short line. Good.
• Hey, on page 17, line 14, on your short line tax credit, any owner or lessee of a rail siding, industrial
• It's page 17, line 14, 15, and 16. Okay.
• What did you think about my lessee comment earlier about short lines, leasing rail lines, and then getting
• a tax credit for repairing those lines when I think you just said that you've taken over lines from

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House Agriculture Committee first met in executive session on House Bill 2998. Members discussed a committee substitute that narrowed the bill to a study of the Upper Mississippi River Basin and the Rural Development Office, and extended the deadline to December 1, 2029. After questions about the cost and whether the proposed river-related project would work, the committee adopted the substitute and then voted the House Committee Substitute for HB 2998 do pass by a roll call of 21 ayes and 0 noes. The committee then held a public hearing on Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 913, which would extend a number of agricultural tax credits for five years and add a short-line railroad tax credit. Senator Curtis Gregory explained the bill as a continuation of existing programs such as the MAZBIDTA program, rolling stock credits, meat processing incentives, biodiesel and ethanol-related credits, and the new short-line railroad provision. He and supporters said the bill would provide certainty for agricultural investment, rural development, and railroad infrastructure, and several witnesses from farm, railroad, banking, business, and commodity groups testified in favor. Committee members asked detailed questions about how unused credits carry forward, how the rolling stock credit reimburses local political subdivisions, and whether the short-line railroad credit could benefit lessees or be transferred. Supporters said the rolling stock provision makes local governments whole rather than creating a double payment, and that the short-line credit is intended to help rehabilitate aging rail lines and spur economic development. Opponents argued that Missouri’s tax credit system is too large, lacks sufficient auditing, and imposes significant costs on the state budget; one witness said the bill could add tens of millions in fiscal impact and should not be funded. No vote was taken on SB 913 in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um so line 34 is the operating side.
• broadband line.
• <00:15:30.720> $220<00:15:31.440> at line $220 at line $220 at $850,000<00:15:33.519>
• Thank you, Miss Mullenback. on line 331 for PON research of $347,000 on line 331 for PON research of
• members, um below you'll see on line members, um below you'll see on line 338,<00:18:19.840>

Bills: HF2446, HF2563, HF2444

Keywords: agriculture finance, broadband development, Department of Agriculture, Board of Animal Health, Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Office of Broadband Development, food safety, food handler license, cottage food, home processed food, livestock dealer, meat packing company, milk marketer, milk marketing license, grain buyer, grain storage, beginning farmer, emerging farmer, farm down payment assistance, livestock investment grant

Transcript Highlights:

• May I see line 9-0-9?
• I'm Representative that line item—line 9 represents a new system.
• May I see line 9-0-9?
• I'm representative that line item line 9 represents a new system that's a new system that's That line
• So in line 3, we have a description of where that's going. What about in line 2?

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The meeting began as an informal education budget work group focused on reviewing a revised House Appropriations and Finance Committee scenario and flagging concerns rather than taking votes. Staff outlined the main changes from the LFC recommendation, including moving the statewide student information system appropriation, adding funding for the Black, Bilingual, Multicultural and Hispanic Education Act, universal school meals overrun costs, an evidence-based CTE pilot with a 50% local match, STEM network funding, wellness room pilots, Martinez-Yazzie action plan items, and changes to innovation zone and out-of-school time appropriations. A separate handout on the seven-year CTE pilot explained spending patterns, reversions, and possible federal maintenance-of-effort concerns if the state continues funding beyond a true pilot. Members then debated CTE extensively, with several arguing it improves attendance, graduation, and career readiness and should be sustained or expanded, especially in rural areas, while staff and others emphasized that much of the current funding has gone to general operational costs rather than intentional program design and that regional or matched funding models may be more effective. Members also discussed STEM and math initiatives, the need for more industry involvement, and whether the proposed match requirements would be too burdensome for smaller districts and BIE schools. The discussion also covered the Black, Hispanic, and Multilingual Education Acts and the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit. Some members stressed that the acts should be explicitly named in the budget language and not merely implied, while staff said the scenario reaffirms prior commitments by building the costs into agency operating budgets. Members raised concerns about charter school hold-harmless funding, declining enrollment, and the need to align spending with the needs of at-risk students. The work group ended the education portion without any votes, with staff noting they would incorporate the feedback and return with clarifications, including on CTE funding, the educational acts, and the charter hold-harmless item. The meeting then shifted to the child well-being and early childhood work group, where staff presented a revised Early Childhood Education and Care Department scenario. The proposal moved money toward child care assistance and early pre-K, kept the FIT program funding level unchanged, and used a mix of trust fund, TANF, federal, and operating-budget adjustments to close part of the gap between the executive and LFC recommendations. Members questioned the policy direction, especially the shift toward infant and toddler care and pre-K expansion, the impact on school-age child care, and the implications for continuity of care and provider costs. Staff explained that the scenario prioritizes younger children and at-risk families, includes language for a wage and career ladder, and would require legislation to raise the early childhood trust fund distribution cap from 500 to 525. Members also discussed a separate proposed CYFD pilot bill (HB 65), which would be distinct from ECECD funding. No votes were taken, and staff said they would return with more cost information on full pre-K plus wraparound care. A final work group reviewed C2 and Department of Information Technology-related appropriations. Staff compared the LFC and executive recommendations for new funding and reauthorizations, noting that the LFC generally limited new projects while the executive funded more. Members discussed several IT modernization requests, including the Secretary of State’s voter registration and election management systems, the Spaceport Authority, Game and Fish, the State Engineer’s WATERS system, ECECD’s FitKids and EPIC replacement discovery, and Aging and Long-Term Services’ enterprise system modernization. The main themes were whether to fund planning versus full replacement, how to avoid piecemeal spending, and whether new systems should wait for incoming leadership. The Secretary of State’s office said its system is nearing end of life and the planning funds would help prepare a realistic replacement request, while other agencies described aging infrastructure, cybersecurity risks, and the need for modernization. The work group did not vote on any of the items and ended with staff noting additional follow-up on funding needs and reauthorization details.

Transcript Highlights:

• Southwest light rail line is until the Southwest light rail line is complete<01:04:04.880> and
• The F Line in Representative Koegel's district is a bus rapid transit line, same specs as the Blue Line
• <01:16:11.679> line the cities along the blue line line the cities along the blue line line
• the Southwest line.
• the Southwest line.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, I'm on line 14.
• On line 16, this is our compensation line.
• It's line 66, Mr. Chair.
• It's Funded in line 66 in LESC and LFC, and it's funded in the executive on line 120.
• And that's line 98 on the.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I will make As we go line by line through the bill to areas that have been amended, but largely this
• Section 3 begins on line 3.20. Section 4 begins on line 4.15.
• Section 5 begins on line 4.29 and Section 7 begins on line 6.4.
• Article 3, Section 1 begins on line 20.17.
• Article 5, Sections 2 beginning on line 41.2 and then Section 3 beginning on line 41.16 clarifies That