Video & Transcript : 'sewer line' :
Page 104 of 500
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- Line 13, a new line at the end. Okay, yes. Thank you.
- On line 21 and 22, 19 and 20, line number 11, does it...
- Line 40. Line 40, page 1 of the act.
- What line is that? It's in no line because it doesn't appear.
- Page two, line 18, I believe. Or 20. Page two, line 21, I believe.
Committee:
Joint Legislative Council
Summary:
The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail.
For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6.
The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Conference Committee on HF2446 5/9/25
Transcript Highlights:
- Line 17 is related to the FY26.
- Line 53 is an appropriations.
- So, starting on line 82... On line 83, this is a House-only provision.
- So for the starting on line 82.
- </c> seen on lines 102. seen on lines 102.
Summary:
The Agriculture Conference Committee met for an initial organizational and comparison session on House File 2446, the agriculture broadband and rural development bill. Members introduced themselves, noted that no conference target had yet been set, and agreed to begin with a side-by-side review of House and Senate positions. No oral testimony was taken; instead, the chair listed written testimony submitted by a wide range of agricultural, environmental, local government, food bank, and industry groups.
Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the major funding differences. Both bills included some shared items such as operating adjustments, wolf and elk damage compensation, and certain technical changes, but they differed on several major appropriations. The House generally proposed larger increases for meat inspection, local food purchasing, and the Board of Animal Health, and added items such as county inspector grants, biofertilizer innovation, a biosolids/PFAS-related study, a soil health study, broadband installation study funding, an Agri Works program, an Agri Support program, a milk grant program, and several House-only transfers and grants. The Senate included items such as a climate coordinator position, biofuel-related reductions and policy changes, livestock processing funding, farm-to-school and urban agriculture changes, MARL funding, cottage foods licensing updates, and several Senate-only pass-through grants and transfers. Staff also noted differences in the agriculture emergency account transfer approach and in how the two bodies handled the Second Harvest Heartland and related food distribution provisions.
House Research then reviewed the policy language differences in the bill. The House language included provisions allowing more flexible use of grant administration funds, unpaid prior-year claims, county inspector grants, and updates tied to its own policy article, while the Senate language included the climate coordinator, PFAS-related commercialization language, cooperative development grant permissive language, and other Senate policy changes. The committee did not take any votes or final actions at this meeting; the session was informational and focused on identifying differences for later negotiation.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Conference Committee on H.F. 2432 - Judiciary Omnibus - 05/10/25
Transcript Highlights:
- ><c> lines</c> Article 2, R20, line 17.
- , lines 93.22 to 100.29, on page R13, lines 102.13 to 103.13, and on page R75, line 96.10, which is the
- :41.760><c> on</c><00:13:42.040><c> line</c> 100.29 on line 100.29 on line R13<00:13:44.880><c> on</c
- </c> lines 24.15 to 25.2. lines 24.15 to 25.2.
- So I'm looking at line 36.5. contracted. So I'm looking at line 36.5.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- The Senate comparable line is on line 291. I'll talk about it when I get there.
- </c> 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.
Committee:
Senate Finance
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- <c> another</c><00:07:52.319><c> line</c> This line interacts with another line This line interacts with
- </c> that line. that line.
- Line bianium.
- Line 124 is uh the line that I bianium.
- On line 257 is related to an unspent. On line 257 is related to an earlier<00:24:16.960><c> line.
Committee:
Senate Education Finance
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Public Safety Committee Meeting - 2025-04-08
Public Safety Finance and Policy
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
Committee:
House Public Safety Finance and Policy
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
House - Appropriations and Finance Feb 4th, 2025
House Appropriations & Finance
Transcript Highlights:
- We'll go line by line through that with the LFC and the DFA analyst.
- Page 6, line 56 and line 57.
- Then line 72, I just want to compare that with line 22.
- Line 95, my first.
- I've got a couple of lines that I'm interested in: Line 265 on page 23 and Line 266. on 24 and line 269
Committee:
House House Appropriations & Finance
NM
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.
Committees:
Senate Senate Finance , Senate House Appropriations & Finance
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
NM
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.
Committee:
Senate Senate Finance
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Conference Committee on SF 3472: Extending health care premium reinsurance program - 03/28/33
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><c> for</c><00:03:31.840><c> the</c> um on line 10 is a line for the um on line 10 is a
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.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Floor Session Feb 24th, 2025
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- We have the Metro C line and the Metro D line.
- I won't name the line because it's a commuter line, but it's a lot different than the light rail line
- We have two existing light rail lines operational today: the existing Green Line and Blue Line.
- I have to first reiterate that the Green Line is not the Blue Line.
- But again, this bill is not the Blue Line—or sorry, this bill is the Blue Line; it's not the Green Line
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Minnesota House public safety committee unveils $14 million supplemental budget bill 4/14/26
Transcript Highlights:
- Uh, on line 40 we have transfers.
- So, on the top line, was handed out.
- Uh, we begin on line finance with an E.
- On line 32 the peace officer entails.
- Uh on line 40 we have<00:04:08.000><c> transfers</c><00:04:08.959><c> on</c><00:04:09.200><c> line</c
Summary:
The committee took up House File 1082 as a vehicle for the public safety finance bill and laid it over without taking official action. Staff walked through the DE6 amendment, which combines funding and policy provisions from several bills. The spreadsheet and bill summary showed appropriations for non-fatal shooting clearance grants, a domestic violence task force, a first responder uniform ID task force, and an increase to the Philando Castile training reimbursement fund, along with felony-related policy changes involving impersonating a police officer, medical facility security, theft from a vulnerable adult, and grooming offenses. The amendment also includes a $12 million transfer to the Minnesota victims of crime account, bringing the DE6 total to about $15.443 million for the biennium, with additional tail costs.
Testimony focused heavily on the need to stabilize crime victim services funding. Katie Kramer of Violence Free Minnesota, speaking for multiple crime victims coalitions, urged support for the $12 million transfer, warning that flat funding and inflation have already forced program cuts, staff reductions, and service limits, and that a 20% cut could eliminate programs in rural areas. Tina Bronson of Alexandra House gave a similar account, describing how years of flat funding had reduced staff and programs and saying another cut would mean fewer advocates, longer waits, and less access for survivors. Both witnesses argued that victim services are an essential part of public safety and asked lawmakers to maintain existing services rather than expand them.
In member discussion, the chair said the $12 million was intended as one-time funding to keep victim services at roughly prior-year levels and explained that the money would be distributed through the existing competitive grant process. A member asked about the grooming language and whether it could affect teenage relationships; nonpartisan staff clarified that the school-related offense applies only when there is a position of authority, and that existing criminal sexual conduct law already addresses age-differential situations. Members and the chair closed by describing the package as bipartisan and expressing appreciation for the committee’s work, with the chair noting the bill was being laid over for later consideration.
AR
Arkansas 2026 Regular Session
EDUCATION COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE Mar 10th, 2026
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.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Task Force on Homeowners and Commercial Property Insurance 12/3/25
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Surplus lines come in.
- </c> That's a surplus line, right? Mhm. That's a surplus line, right? Mhm.
- </c><01:33:05.600><c> And</c><01:33:05.840><c> so</c> surplus lines. And so surplus lines.
- . >> That's why surplus lines exist. >> That's why surplus lines exist.
- ><c> lines.
AR
Arkansas 2026 Regular Session
EDUCATION COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE Mar 10th, 2026
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.
NM
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.
Committees:
Senate Senate Finance , Senate House Appropriations & Finance
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- I'll continue on line 22.
- through every line—just let’s do a real top line.
- So lines 189 through 2115...” “Line 190 is the largest line.
- </c><01:09:21.440><c> this</c> uh line 190 is the largest line this uh line 190 is the largest line this
- That starts on line 159.
Committee:
House Education Finance
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- Lines<00:10:07.960><c> 5.5</c><00:10:08.720><c> to</c><00:10:08.800><c> 5.22</c> Lines 5.5 to 5.22 Lines
- Line<00:22:53.000><c> 310</c><00:22:54.320><c> um</c> Line 310 um Line 310 um would<00:22:56.000><c>
- Line<00:25:03.960><c> 342</c> Line 342 Line 342 Um<00:25:06.600><c> this</c><00:25:06.800><c> is</c><
- On<00:30:23.920><c> line</c> On line On line >> [clears throat] >> [clears throat] >>
- On<00:36:23.480><c> line</c><00:36:23.800><c> 543,</c> On line 543, On line 543, there<00:36:25.800><
Committee:
Senate Finance
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- </c> to a more detailed line item review. to a more detailed line item review.
- On line eliminated.
- Um, along those same lines, line budget.
- Um, along those same lines, line 100,<00:17:10.240><c> lines</c><00:17:11.039><c> 130</c><00:17:11.360
- Um on line eliminated.
Committee:
Senate Higher Education
AR
Arkansas 2026 1st Special Session
EDUCATION COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE Mar 10th, 2026
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.