Transcript Highlights:

• <01:49:17.440><c> if</c><01:49:17.679><c> if</c><01:49:17.760><c> he</c><01:49:17.920><c> gave</c><01
• c><01:49:22.440><c> the</c><01:49:22.520><c> money</c><01:49:22.719><c> money</c><01:49:23.119><c> we
• the</c><01:49:24.480><c> money</c><01:49:24.880><c> that</c><01:49:25.320><c> the</c><01:49:25.560><c
• ><c> 10</c><01:49:28.000><c> um</c><01:49:28.360><c> was</c><01:49:28.599><c> not</c><01:49:29.199><c
• ><c> you</c><01:49:35.000><c> did</c><01:49:35.159><c> you</c><01:49:35.400><c> ask</c><01:49:35.599>

Summary: The committee heard budget testimony first from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Director Tommy Johnson outlined short-term goals to reduce overcrowding, improve living and working conditions, fill vacancies, expand mental health services, and update the correctional master plan. He said the department is still dealing with severe overcrowding at facilities such as OCCC and HCCC, with 947 people at OCCC against a design capacity of 628, and noted 938 inmates are currently housed on the mainland because of temporary repairs at Halawa. He also reported progress on staffing, saying the correctional officer vacancy rate has dropped from 34.3% to 24% through expanded recruitment. The department’s major budget request was $30 million for planning and design for a new Old Triple C project, along with other requests for re-entry services, identification documents, security systems, radios, sink-toilet modules, and trauma-informed care. Members asked about the timing and scope of the OCCC project, courtroom space in new facilities, and the department’s plan to use the funding to improve re-entry and reduce recidivism. The committee then heard from the Department of Law Enforcement on a wide range of priorities. The department described requests to expand agricultural crime enforcement, traffic enforcement, illegal fireworks enforcement, and facilities such as a police building at the DKI airport, a state training center, and new police facilities in central and Leeward Oahu. It also discussed a major IT request for a statewide law enforcement and critical infrastructure notification platform, plus funding for grants management, the Wahiawa Civic Center and court complex, the prescription monitoring program, narcotics enforcement operations, and the narcotics lab. A significant portion of the discussion focused on a proposed traffic enforcement program for commercial vehicle inspections, speeding, and DUI enforcement, which the department said would be funded with federal dollars and would operate concurrently with county police. Committee members questioned whether the effort duplicated county jurisdiction and how the program would be trained and staffed. Members also pressed the department on salary disparities for deputy sheriffs and related vacancies, and the department said the administration was working on a supplemental agreement and placeholder funding to address the issue. Additional discussion covered agricultural crime staffing, the Silver Alert program, and expansion of the forensic lab to handle explosives, firearms, and related evidence. No votes were taken in the portion provided, and the meeting moved from the corrections presentation to the law enforcement budget review with questions and answers throughout.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:49:01.600><c> new</c><01:49:02.080><c> that</c><01:49:02.320><c> we</c><01:49:02.560><c> we</
• plan and<01:49:09.600><c> it</c><01:49:09.920><c> was</c><01:49:10.239><c> with</c><01:49:10.480><c>
• The<01:49:15.040><c> seventh</c><01:49:15.360><c> area</c><01:49:15.760><c> was</c><01:49:16.000><c>
• So we<01:49:21.360><c> filled</c><01:49:21.679><c> our</c><01:49:21.920><c> public</c><01:49:22.159><
• </c><01:49:25.119><c> our</c><01:49:25.440><c> brand</c><01:49:25.760><c> manager</c><01:49:26.639><c

Summary: The joint House Committee on Tourism and Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism held an informational briefing on the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s interim action plans, current projects, contract updates, destination management action plans, and state auditor findings. Interim CEO Caroline Anderson described her role as temporary and said she was focused on identifying problems, gathering information, communicating with stakeholders, and implementing solutions. She said HTA is now operating as a typical state agency subject to state controls, but noted that HTA’s work often involves nontraditional programs that can create process errors. She also said she had directed staff to review the auditor’s findings on the destination management action plan process and that the review was posted publicly. A major topic was the search for a permanent CEO and the agency’s restructuring under SB 1571. HTA board chair Tata Po said he hoped to select a CEO within about four months, with three to six finalists expected in roughly two to two-and-a-half months, and said the job description would largely remain the same except for compensation and reporting changes under the new law. Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism representatives explained that HTA’s board is now advisory and does not approve the budget, while DBEDT retains budget authority. They also said HTA is working with the governor’s office and DBEDT on contract and budget transitions, including a possible shift to a calendar-year process so grantees and contractors have more certainty. Members pressed HTA on staffing, oversight, and accountability, especially around the destination stewardship team and the CNHA/Kilohana and HVCB contracts. HTA said the destination stewardship team supports destination management and product development, including workforce development, sports, and implementation of destination management action plans, and that staff provide direction to contractors rather than simply handing work over to them. Anderson said the stewardship team had 11 people and that the destination management side covered about 15 contracts, while the branding side had three managers overseeing nine contracts. She said the agency had 47 contracts overall and that the major contracts included CNHA/Kilohana and HVCB. Several members criticized HTA’s management history, questioned staffing qualifications and compensation, and expressed concern that the agency had lost public trust. No votes or formal actions were taken during the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Could<00:49:53.920><c> you</c><00:49:54.160><c> comment</c><00:49:54.400><c> on</c><00:49:54.640><c>
• </c><01:49:02.320><c> So,</c><01:49:02.560><c> it</c><01:49:02.719><c> has</c><01:49:02.880><c> to</c
• </c><01:49:04.000><c> Was</c><01:49:04.400><c> my</c><01:49:04.800><c> original</c><01:49:05.199><c>
• You<01:49:34.719><c> can't</c><01:49:34.880><c> just</c><01:49:35.199><c> approve</c><01:49:35.679><c
• </c><01:49:38.159><c> and</c><01:49:38.320><c> and</c><01:49:38.400><c> and</c><01:49:38.960><c> I</c

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Summary: The committee convened for a day of public hearings on nine bills, with plans to later execute several early bills and possibly additional measures under House Rule 44. Chair Diane Pauer outlined time limits for sponsors and testimony, announced a lunch break around noon, and noted substitute members would be arriving later. The first hearing was on House Bill 1107, which would allow municipal budget committees to have one to three alternate members. Representative Valon, the prime sponsor, said the bill was intended to help towns like Epping deal with quorum problems during the compressed budget season and noted that alternates are common on other local boards. The New Hampshire Municipal Association testified in support, saying the bill would increase flexibility and help fill seats. Committee members raised concerns about whether alternates should be elected, how they would be selected, whether they would be sufficiently informed to vote, and whether the bill’s one-year term language and rescission provisions were clear. The sponsor and NHMA said the process would be consistent with other local boards, that alternates would typically be appointed after elections, and that they would follow up on possible statutory clarification. The hearing closed with six remote supporters, one paper supporter, and no opposition reported. The committee then heard House Bill 1118, sponsored by Representative Colby, which would raise the daily amount municipal employees may hold before remitting funds to the treasurer from the current $1,500 limit to $3,500. Colby said the existing thresholds are outdated, have not been updated in about 20 years, and create burdens for smaller towns that must make frequent bank deposits, sometimes far from town offices. She said the bill would improve efficiency and allow staff to focus more on serving residents, while still allowing municipalities to keep lower limits if they choose. Members asked about how the remittance process works in practice, what amounts municipalities typically collect, and whether the change reflected a broader trend of updating cash-handling thresholds. The sponsor explained that the bill only changes the dollar thresholds in the relevant statutes and does not require municipalities to adopt the higher limit. The transcript cuts off before any final action on HB 1118 is reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• you</c><00:49:14.079><c> you</c><00:49:14.400><c> could</c><00:49:14.559><c> argue</c><00:49:14.960>
• :49:17.680><c> isn't</c><00:49:17.920><c> in</c><00:49:18.079><c> the</c><00:49:18.240><c> operating<
• </c><00:49:27.760><c> we</c><00:49:27.920><c> we</c><00:49:28.319><c> see</c><00:49:28.480><c> that.
• </c><00:49:38.640><c> Uh,</c><00:49:39.760><c> to</c><00:49:40.000><c> me,</c><00:49:40.160><c> this<
• <00:49:46.079><c> body</c><00:49:46.319><c> from</c><00:49:46.559><c> prohibiting</c><00:49:47.200><c

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Transcript Highlights:

• :03.359><c> Woodson,</c><00:49:03.839><c> Vice</c><00:49:04.000><c> Chair</c><00:49:04.160><c> Lica,<
• </c><00:49:09.440><c> We</c><00:49:09.760><c> stand</c><00:49:10.160><c> in</c><00:49:10.480><c> support
• </c><00:49:15.040><c> And</c><00:49:15.200><c> I'd</c><00:49:15.440><c> like</c><00:49:15.520><c> to<
• </c><00:49:19.680><c> bill</c><00:49:19.920><c> helps</c><00:49:20.240><c> to</c> workforce that this
• Highly qualified eel public prek<00:49:23.839><c> teachers</c><00:49:24.640><c> have</c><00:49:24.800

Summary: The committee on Education met on March 19 and moved through several bills under time pressure, hearing mostly brief testimony. SB 2024 SD2 and SB 896 SD2, both concerning public-private partnerships for charter school facilities, drew support from the Department of Education, the Charter School Commission, White Kids Can, and Hawaii Technology Academy. DOE said any P3 model should apply only to charter schools on private land and not affect public schools on DOE land. Supporters argued the approach could speed construction, reduce costs, and keep public money in public assets, while UPW and HGA raised concerns about privatization. In response, SFA said the intent was to mirror the existing conversion charter school model, with public ownership of assets and unionized staff, and noted some regions have waited years for schools. SB 2613 SD1 on TMK transfers was heard next. DOE said the bill had originally been supported as part of the governor’s package but was amended to require DOE to convey lands for 13 libraries on DOE property, which DOE said would create “donut holes” in campuses and was unnecessary because existing agreements already govern library use. The State Public Library System supported the bill, saying it has long coexisted with DOE but needs clearer separation and more reliable control over its sites. The Attorney General’s office said the library system currently lacks express statutory authority to own real property and flagged implementation issues because some of the affected parcels are not currently owned by DOE. Committee members questioned both sides about current agreements, communication, and how the bill would change operations. SB 494 SD2, concerning charter school audits, received comments from the Charter School Commission, which said the bill was redundant because charter schools already undergo annual audits during the term of their contracts. The Office of the Auditor was also present. SB 2391 SD2, relating to automatic pay increases for teachers, drew strong opposition from the Office of Collective Bargaining, which said step movement and longevity increases are negotiated in each contract and do not automatically carry over when a contract expires; it warned the bill could affect upcoming negotiations with HSTA. HSTA and several other supporters argued the bill would standardize annual step movement, improve retention, and reflect existing contract language. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Forge builds<04:49:15.360><c> upon</c><04:49:15.600><c> the</c><04:49:15.840><c> successful</c><04:49
• <07:49:09.440><c> mark</c><07:49:09.760><c> on</c><07:49:10.000><c> the</c><07:49:10.240><c> state</c
• He was<07:49:19.440><c> a</c><07:49:19.680><c> conservative</c><07:49:20.478><c> and</c><07:49:20.718
• , as I said, Bill and<07:49:29.040><c> I</c><07:49:29.200><c> had</c><07:49:29.360><c> the</c><07:49:
• I was<07:49:35.920><c> a</c><07:49:36.080><c> junior</c><07:49:36.398><c> member,</c><07:49:37.040><c

Transcript Highlights:

• :49:29.599><c> that</c><00:49:29.920><c> bill</c><00:49:30.160><c> in</c><00:49:30.400><c> in</c> and
• Anytime<00:49:34.079><c> I</c><00:49:34.400><c> hear</c><00:49:34.640><c> the</c><00:49:34.880><c> words
• Yeah,<00:49:42.000><c> I</c><00:49:42.240><c> think</c><00:49:42.400><c> that</c><00:49:42.880><c> we
• </c><01:49:46.639><c> It</c><01:49:46.880><c> is</c><01:49:47.520><c> we</c><01:49:47.760><c> had</c>
• </c><01:49:58.320><c> We</c><01:49:58.560><c> have</c><01:49:58.639><c> all</c><01:49:58.800><c> this

Committee: House Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• And um so<01:49:39.920><c> uh</c><01:49:40.000><c> we're</c><01:49:40.320><c> going</c><01:49:40.480>
• </c><01:49:47.119><c> Um</c><01:49:48.000><c> and</c><01:49:48.400><c> I</c><01:49:48.800><c> I</c><01
• ><c> a</c><01:49:58.080><c> little</c><01:49:58.239><c> dig</c><01:49:58.639><c> at</c><01:49:58.880>
• ><c> be</c><02:49:06.160><c> elected</c><02:49:06.640><c> in</c><02:49:07.120><c> November</c><02:49:
• 02:49:09.600><c> the</c><02:49:09.920><c> 2930</c><02:49:10.880><c> school</c><02:49:11.200><c> year.

Summary: The meeting focused on reviewing and amending draft minutes and then discussing a draft report on SAU consolidation and school administration efficiency. Members first corrected a disputed statement in the minutes about who starts charter schools, and agreed to mark it as disputed. They also noted a donation figure mentioned in the meeting but not reflected in the notes, and then approved the minutes as amended. The committee then reviewed supporting materials, including a Census Bureau education spending table and a 1993 report on eliminating SAUs. The chair argued New Hampshire ranks very high in administrative spending and used that as evidence for reducing administrative costs. Other members pushed back, noting that education costs are largely borne locally and that the committee should stay focused on its charge. Several members also objected to characterizations of SAU boards and to relying heavily on an old report or on the School District Governance Association’s proposal. The draft report itself drew repeated edits. Members objected to language suggesting the testimony from associations was simply that change was not needed, and proposed more neutral wording about concerns over the impacts of changes. There was also disagreement over a proposed model in which a county-level school administrator would be elected; some members said that would be inappropriate and premature, while others argued the committee had not yet fully developed a consolidation model. The discussion ended with a call from some members for more time and for a future joint legislative committee to continue refining any proposal before legislation is introduced.

Transcript Highlights:

• often<00:49:46.799><c> the</c><00:49:46.920><c> folks</c><00:49:47.160><c> on</c><00:49:47.319><c> the
• ><c> they're</c><00:49:49.319><c> like</c><00:49:49.520><c> well</c><00:49:49.680><c> there</c><00:49
• :50.680><c> or</c><00:49:51.280><c> you</c><00:49:51.400><c> know</c><00:49:51.599><c> the</c><00:49:
• um and<00:49:57.559><c> so</c><00:49:58.079><c> I</c><00:49:58.200><c> think</c><00:49:58.480><c> it
• not 120<01:49:43.280><c> days</c><01:49:43.760><c> but</c><01:49:43.920><c> why</c><01:49:44.080><c>

Committee: Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• 49:06.479><c> those</c><02:49:06.800><c> people</c><02:49:07.520><c> that</c><02:49:07.840><c> we</c>
• figure this<02:49:13.120><c> out</c><02:49:13.520><c> because</c><02:49:14.000><c> really</c><02:49:
• </c><02:49:17.200><c> Maybe</c><02:49:17.520><c> we're</c><02:49:17.680><c> just</c><02:49:17.920><c>
• <02:49:18.960><c> best</c><02:49:19.120><c> of</c><02:49:19.279><c> our</c><02:49:19.520><c> ability<
• maybe</c><02:49:20.560><c> we</c><02:49:20.880><c> need</c><02:49:20.960><c> to</c><02:49:21.439><c>

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• c> if</c><03:49:04.680><c> you</c><03:49:04.880><c> look</c><03:49:05.199><c> on</c><03:49:05.359><c>
• </c><03:49:18.560><c> 6</c><03:49:19.479><c> so</c><03:49:19.680><c> that</c><03:49:19.800><c> is</c>
• /c><03:49:21.680><c> a</c><03:49:21.800><c> big</c><03:49:22.000><c> discrepancy</c><03:49:22.479><c>
• </c><03:49:34.199><c> so</c><03:49:34.359><c> it</c><03:49:34.439><c> was</c><03:49:34.720><c> there<
• 49:41.479><c> treasure</c><03:49:41.880><c> put</c><03:49:42.040><c> it</c><03:49:42.239><c> back</c>

Summary: The committee first reviewed House Bill 1, focusing on the legislative branch budget, especially the Senate and House lines. Members discussed that the Senate’s fiscal year 2025 adjusted authorized amount was higher than 2024 actual spending, largely due to personnel, benefits, and travel, and one member proposed a $500,000 annual cut. Staff explained that any reduction would need to be allocated across specific line items such as personnel, benefits, and travel, and noted that the Senate budget is entirely General Funds. After discussion of how the adjusted authorized figures were calculated and why the branch no longer staffs some joint committees as it once did, the committee moved on without taking a vote on that section. The committee then heard a detailed presentation from the New Hampshire Retirement System. NHRS officials described their statutory administrative budget, which is funded through the retirement trust rather than the General Fund, and said the FY 2026-2027 increase is driven by IT modernization, cybersecurity, a new strategic plan, and additional staff positions. They also reviewed the system’s funding progress, clean audit opinions, investment performance, and changes to asset allocation, while noting that several recent pension-related laws required major database changes. Members questioned the large increase in salaries and benefits, the need for new employees versus contractors, the purpose of training costs, and the source of the Group Two benefit funding. NHRS said the governor’s budget includes General Funds for Group Two benefit changes, with $5 million in FY 2026 and $27.9 million in FY 2027, and that the figures reflect the governor’s recommendation and related HB 2 provisions. Committee members also asked about employer and employee contribution rates for Group Two police and fire members, which NHRS said were not included in the budget document but were about 31.2% for police and 30.35% for fire, with employee shares around 11.55% and 11.8%. The committee did not make a decision on the NHRS budget during this exchange and indicated it would review the details further before returning to it later. The committee then heard from the Community Development Finance Authority on the State Treasury Department budget line for the required state match to administer the federal Community Development Block Grant program. CDFA explained that its $280,000 annual request for FY 2026 and FY 2027, totaling $560,000, supports administration, technical assistance, contracting, and monitoring of roughly $19 million in annual federal CDBG funds. Members asked about the leverage of the state match, oversight of projects, staffing, and grant prioritization. CDFA said it has 18 employees, uses public hearings and a scoring system to prioritize awards, and conducts both desk and on-site monitoring, with annual audits to ensure compliance. No vote was taken on the CDFA item in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• :00.960><c> but</c><00:49:01.280><c> uh</c><00:49:01.400><c> what</c><00:49:01.559><c> this</c><00:49
• Dees and the<00:49:08.680><c> director</c><00:49:09.079><c> said</c><00:49:09.400><c> that</c><00:49:
• putting it together<00:49:23.640><c> and</c><00:49:23.960><c> again</c><00:49:24.240><c> I</c><00:49
• done in<00:49:27.480><c> bringing</c><00:49:27.880><c> this</c><00:49:28.079><c> amendment</c><00:49
• c><00:49:46.920><c> that</c><00:49:47.079><c> two</c><00:49:47.280><c> or</c><00:49:47.400><c> more</

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee opened by noting member absences and then reviewed the governor’s HB 2 trailer bill language creating a solid waste site evaluation committee. The chair explained that Finance would want the committee’s input on the proposal and also announced a temporary change to the committee’s schedule, with additional Wednesday meetings planned around school vacation. The committee then moved into a work session on several bills. On HB 150, Representative Ktoa offered a simple amendment changing food-processing language from “washed and rinsed” to “cleaned and sanitized” in the processing area. Members agreed the change better matched food safety practice, and the committee indicated support for advancing the bill. On HB 307, dealing with homestead food production areas, members discussed proposed amendment language that would add clearer sanitary requirements, including handwashing access, sanitary storage, sanitizable food-contact surfaces, and pest exclusion. The committee also discussed whether to replace “potentially hazardous food” with “time temperature control safe food,” but several members favored keeping the existing term because it is already well defined in food safety law. The bill was held for further amendment work rather than being executed immediately. The committee spent substantial time on solid waste legislation. For HB 479, members recalled a prior plan for a letter to the solid waste working group and agreed to proceed with the bill in executive session, with an offer of drafting help from Representative Bixby. For HB 77, which would require DES to establish site-specific setback distances for proposed new landfills, Representative Penza said his amendment was not ready yet but was close, and the bill was left for further discussion. The most detailed discussion was on HB 2115, which would require landfill permit applicants to submit a report on the project’s harms and benefits. Representative Germana explained an amendment that would replace section one, expand the list of benefits to include economic potential and infrastructure improvements, and set up a third-party review process in which the applicant submits a list of reviewers, DES screens the list, and the commissioner selects a reviewer if no agreement is reached within 60 days. Members asked about who could serve as contractors, whether they had to be local, and how DES would judge qualifications; the response was that environmental engineering and similar firms could be used, local or outside the community, and that the process would remain somewhat flexible. Representative H. Haskins asked whether the legislature or subcommittee would be formally notified of preliminary review problems, and the chair said no additional notification process would be built in beyond existing practice. The committee planned to continue work on the bills in upcoming executive sessions, including after school break.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:49:11.760><c> when</c><00:49:11.880><c> they</c><00:49:12.000><c> audit</c><00:49:12.240><c>
• If<00:49:13.320><c> you</c><00:49:13.400><c> have</c><00:49:13.480><c> a</c><00:49:13.520><c> surprise
• </c><00:49:36.800><c> H</c><00:49:37.040><c> Grace</c><00:49:37.520><c> for</c><00:49:37.640><c> the<
• We support<00:49:39.880><c> this</c><00:49:40.120><c> bill</c><00:49:40.360><c> as</c><00:49:40.480><
• c> it</c><00:49:40.560><c> came</c><00:49:40.840><c> to</c><00:49:40.960><c> you</c><00:49:41.120><c>

Committee: Senate Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:49:05.520><c> that</c><00:49:05.839><c> work</c><00:49:06.079><c> very</c><00:49:06.224><c> [snorts
• ] well and<00:49:07.760><c> I</c><00:49:08.079><c> don't</c><00:49:08.240><c> want</c><00:49:08.400><
• c> them</c><00:49:08.640><c> to</c><00:49:08.800><c> be</c><00:49:09.040><c> forced</c><00:49:09.440>
• . that that<00:49:12.079><c> would</c><00:49:12.319><c> not</c><00:49:13.280><c> uh</c><00:49:13.440>
• </c><00:49:19.040><c> Uh</c><00:49:19.520><c> you</c><00:49:19.760><c> know,</c><00:49:19.839><c> the

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• And he looked<00:49:47.760><c> at</c><00:49:47.880><c> this</c><00:49:48.080><c> and</c><00:49:48.200
• </c><00:49:50.320><c> The</c><00:49:51.040><c> The</c><00:49:51.560><c> fact</c><00:49:51.880><c> of<
• <00:49:52.840><c> they'd</c><00:49:53.080><c> passed</c><00:49:53.480><c> it</c><00:49:53.600><c> and
• ><c> governor</c><00:49:54.080><c> was</c><00:49:54.240><c> going</c><00:49:54.560><c> to</c><00:49:54.640
• Peter.<00:49:57.480><c> So,</c><00:49:57.720><c> Joe</c><00:49:58.480><c> decided</c><00:49:58.920><c

Bills: HF1458 , HF2063 , HF2164 , HF1377 , HF927 , HF1059 , HF1910 , HF2232

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:49:05.319><c> isn't</c><00:49:05.559><c> a</c><00:49:05.720><c> good</c><00:49:05.880><c> Bill
• this isn't a good Bill I'm just asking<00:49:06.880><c> us</c><00:49:07.000><c> to</c><00:49:07.200>
• <c> maybe</c><00:49:07.760><c> think</c><00:49:08.000><c> about</c><00:49:08.359><c> that</c><00:49:08.799
• :09.119><c> doesn't</c><00:49:09.440><c> get</c><00:49:09.559><c> to</c><00:49:09.720><c> participate
• ><c> them</c><00:49:20.079><c> had</c><00:49:20.200><c> ever</c><00:49:20.359><c> even</c><00:49:20.520

Summary: The committee took up House File 169, which would change the tax structure for charitable gambling. Representative Robbins offered and the committee adopted the A1 author’s amendment, described as a technical correction to ensure sports-themed tip boards are not inadvertently taxed under the bill. Robbins then presented the bill as a way to replace the current tiered combined net receipts tax on charitable gambling with a flat 5% rate, arguing charities were being overtaxed and that prior promises of relief had not been fully delivered. Chair Stevenson pushed back on several of Robbins’ factual claims, correcting the record on the status of E-pull tabs, the share of charitable gambling revenue they represent, and the amount of tax relief already enacted in 2023 and 2024. He said E-tabs were not eliminated, that the revenue split between paper pull tabs and E-tabs is closer to 45/55, and that charities had already received a $15 million tax cut plus savings from reduced developer fees. Robbins responded that the changes still significantly reduced revenue and that the bill was intended as a middle-ground approach. Testimony largely came from charitable gambling and veterans groups in support of the bill. Rachel Jenner of Allied Charities of Minnesota said nearly 1,000 charities depend on charitable gambling, cited high taxes and fees, and said many organizations were seeing revenue declines after the new E-pull tab rules took effect. Dr. Christy Jano of the American Legion Department of Minnesota said charitable gambling funds support veterans, youth, and community programs, and that a flat 5% tax would help posts continue those efforts. Members asked about the size of the revenue drops and how much gambling proceeds go to overhead and operating costs; Jenner said the losses varied by organization and that it was too early to know the long-term effect, while Jano said some expenses are used for property taxes and building upkeep. The committee then moved on to additional testimony, including Tim Angstrom, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• they<00:49:01.600><c> have</c><00:49:01.840><c> federal</c><00:49:02.200><c> information,</c><00:49:
• So, that's<00:49:12.080><c> that's</c><00:49:12.360><c> my</c><00:49:12.800><c> my</c><00:49:12.920><
• And<01:49:08.680><c> I'm</c><01:49:08.840><c> really</c><01:49:09.280><c> proud</c><01:49:09.800><c>
• <01:49:13.880><c> it</c><01:49:14.040><c> is</c><01:49:14.160><c> report</c><01:49:14.560><c> number<
• The clerk<01:49:16.280><c> will</c><01:49:16.360><c> read</c><01:49:16.520><c> the</c><01:49:16.600><

Transcript Highlights:

• :41.920><c> as</c><00:49:42.160><c> a</c><00:49:42.319><c> general</c><00:49:43.119><c> uh</c><00:49:
• 49:48.079><c> know,</c><00:49:48.240><c> some</c><00:49:48.720><c> some</c><00:49:49.040><c> of</c><00
• </c><00:49:50.160><c> and</c><00:49:50.880><c> and</c><00:49:51.200><c> I</c><00:49:51.359><c> would<
• get<00:49:53.280><c> behind</c><00:49:53.599><c> those</c><00:49:53.839><c> concepts</c><00:49:54.160
• &gt;&gt; Okay.<00:49:58.800><c> If</c><00:49:59.200><c> the</c><00:49:59.440><c> bill</c><00:49:59.680

Bills: HB0108 , HB0039 , HB0091 , HB0070

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:49:47.520><c> Do</c><00:49:47.680><c> they</c><00:49:47.839><c> have</c><00:49:47.920><c> any
• </c> We're<00:49:52.319><c> getting</c><00:49:52.480><c> a</c><00:49:52.720><c> shake</c><00:49:52.960
• :49:54.400><c> that</c><00:49:55.040><c> information</c><00:49:55.359><c> is</c><00:49:55.520><c> not
• ><c> Chair</c><00:49:56.319><c> Gomez,</c><00:49:57.680><c> it</c><00:49:57.839><c> sounds</c><00:49:
• to</c><00:49:58.800><c> sign</c><00:49:59.040><c> on</c><00:49:59.200><c> to</c><00:49:59.359><c> my

Summary: The committee took up House File 3117, which would impose an excise tax on social media companies based on Minnesota monthly users and data-mining activity, and adopted an A1 amendment that added clarifying language identifying social media platforms. Chair Gomez described the bill as a way to tax companies profiting from data mining and social media use, citing concerns about child bullying, misinformation, and wealth concentration. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the 2025 taxes bill. Supporters testified that the measure would help raise revenue from a highly profitable industry and better align the tax code with the social costs of data collection and social media use. Pastor Julie Thompson, MAPE representative Tanner Fritzinger, Council Member Sue Bud, and Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota all backed the bill, arguing that social media companies extract value from users’ data, contribute to mental health and social harms, and should pay more toward public needs. Bernstein also framed the tax as a way to broaden the tax base and fund schools and other services. Opponents warned that the bill could sweep in local broadcasters, newspapers, and other businesses that use digital platforms and collect some user data, and that costs would likely be passed on to consumers. Wendy Pollson of the Minnesota Broadcasters Association said the definitions were too broad and could unintentionally include local media. Deb Peters, speaking for Americans for Digital Opportunity, argued the tax would raise costs for small businesses and consumers, create legal risks, and amount to double taxation. Several members echoed concerns about regressivity, administration, and whether the bill actually addresses online bullying or data privacy, while supporters said it is a first step toward taxing a new, lightly taxed industry.

Transcript Highlights:

• > the</c><00:49:01.640><c> list</c><00:49:01.880><c> can</c><00:49:02.079><c> still</c><00:49:02.319>
• 49:03.839><c> and</c><00:49:04.000><c> not</c><00:49:04.160><c> on</c><00:49:04.359><c> that</c> for
• ><00:49:05.040><c> we</c><00:49:05.160><c> would</c><00:49:05.319><c> urge</c><00:49:05.799><c> the</
• ><c> known</c><00:49:08.040><c> things</c><00:49:08.359><c> that</c><00:49:08.480><c> should</c><00:49
• ><c> that</c><00:49:12.480><c> ability</c><00:49:12.920><c> and</c><00:49:13.599><c> I</c><00:49:13.880

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy