Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, is that the case, sir? Yes, it is.
• Uh, is that the case, sir? Yes, it is.
• Uh, is that the case, sir? Yes, it is.
• studies one more followup in the case studies one more followup in the case that<00:43:10.640>
• <00:43:37.440> but front of me right now on this case but front of me right now on this case

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:15 Roll Call 00:25 HB 403 Discussion 02:11 HB 403 Vote 03:08 HB 555 Discussion 04:55 HB 555 Vote 08:42 HB 321 Discussion 10:55 HB 321 Vote 13:22 HB 18 Discussion 15:21 HB 18 Vote 35:10 HB 85 Discussion 39:08 HB 85 Vote 46:40 HB 371 Discussion 49:22 HB 371 Vote 52:03 Adjournment 53:48, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Local Government met with a quorum and took up several bills, mostly focused on local planning, zoning, and municipal administration. House Bill 403, a simple measure giving coroners a six-month grace period to complete continuing education, was presented by Rep. Deanna Gordon with testimony from Madison County Coroner Jimmy Cornelson and received unanimous support. House Bill 555, a technical bill affecting audit deadlines and flexibility for small cities and certain expo center audit arrangements, was explained by JD Cheney of the Kentucky League of Cities; he said it would help about 97 cities comply with audit requirements and allow more flexibility when municipalities are making good-faith efforts. The committee approved HB 555 on a roll call vote, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee and others in favor, and reported it favorably to the House floor. House Bill 321, also presented with JD Cheney and Rep. DJ Johnson, would expand the time for planning commission and board of adjustment members to complete orientation and continuing education, with a focus on housing supply and accessibility. Supporters said it would help recruit more members and concentrate training on land-use impacts on housing; Rep. Roarx and others discussed Louisville Metro’s planning process, while Rep. Brown and Rep. Fleming raised concerns about infrastructure and long-range planning. The committee passed HB 321 favorably after roll call, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee. House Bill 18 drew the most extended debate. Sponsor Rep. John Hodgson said the committee substitute would create incentives for infill development in urban areas and extend a moratorium on zoning district classification changes for two more years, arguing that local elected officials should have more control over major density changes and that unelected boards were approving projects without adequate infrastructure review. Opponents, including Liam Gallagher of Americans for Prosperity Kentucky and several members, argued the bill would restrict housing development, interfere with property rights, and limit Louisville Metro’s ability to update its Land Development Code; supporters countered that the bill would not stop development but would require elected officials to weigh in and address traffic and infrastructure concerns. After discussion, the committee approved HB 18 as amended by the substitute and reported it favorably to the House floor, with several members explaining their votes and some opposing the moratorium on local zoning changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• of cases, and y'all provided funding to the courts to sort of help get through those cases.
• And then, lastly, some case processing support for the courts. So those have been the key issues.
• Now there is a structured process that a parole case walks through the system.
• ...or figures or data on how many clemency cases you investigated, how many were denied, and how many
• Courts were closed in some cases.

Summary: The committee met to hear an overview of the Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice budget area and then received performance-measure presentations from the Department of Corrections, the Commission on Offender Review, and the Department of Juvenile Justice. Staff reviewed the roughly $7.4 billion criminal justice and judiciary budget, noting major funding areas such as corrections, law enforcement, victim services, courts, and due process, along with recent investments in prison health care, security equipment, fentanyl enforcement, court staffing, and juvenile justice salaries and education programs. Secretary Dixon of the Department of Corrections described staffing and population pressures, including growth in inmate population, overtime-driven deficits, and the opening of additional housing units. He emphasized the department’s use of performance measures and highlighted reforms such as incentivized prisons, administrative management units, reentry planning, faith-based programs, and expanded education and vocational training. Members asked about teacher hiring, public defender pay parity, fentanyl funding, staffing capacity, and the role of the National Guard; Dixon said teacher vacancies had improved, public defenders had received comparable pay increases, fentanyl funding would be addressed further by FDLE, and the Guard had helped stabilize staffing. The Commission on Offender Review reported on parole, conditional release, addiction recovery supervision, and revocations, saying its recidivism/success rates had improved over a three-year measurement period. Senator Rouson pressed the commission on clemency and pardons, saying that work was omitted from the presentation and asking for backlog and case data; the commission said it did not have those figures on hand and would follow up. The committee also discussed a conditional medical release pilot study, and members questioned the report’s conclusion that no suitable elderly inmate population could be identified, asking what criteria were used and whether stakeholders were consulted. Secretary Hall of the Department of Juvenile Justice outlined the agency’s prevention-to-residential continuum and its emphasis on education, data-driven decision-making, and evidence-based programming. He said salary increases had reduced vacancies, juvenile arrests and residential commitments had fallen sharply over time, and tools such as civil citations, risk assessments, and quality-improvement reviews were being used to guide placements and services. Hall also described the department’s use of dashboards, monthly data check-ins, and the dispositional matrix to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in that case, yeah, it may be 98. So, in that case, yeah, it may be 98.
• <01:54:52.960> Some<01:54:53.280> case<01:54:53.520> types but not all case
• Some case types but not all case types.
• But you could make the decision to not put it on this kind of case or that kind of case if you thought
• <02:01:44.560> or to not put it on this kind of case or to not put it on this kind of case

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a handout comparing House Bill 2 to current retirement law and walked through the bill section by section with staff from the retirement system. The discussion focused on vesting, earnable compensation, average final compensation, compensation-over-base limits, special duty pay, normal retirement age, re-retirement, and maximum benefit rules for Group 2/Tier B members. Staff explained that some provisions would restore pre-2011 rules, including counting certain end-of-career payments such as unused sick and vacation time in earnable compensation and reducing the AFC averaging period from five years back to three. They also described how the bill would eliminate the current cap on compensation over base, which mainly affects overtime, and noted that the actuarial cost of the AFC-related changes is interrelated rather than easily broken out by feature. A separate discussion covered the special duty pay limitation, which currently applies to Tier A and would be removed under the governor’s bill for both Tier A and Tier B members after their vested buy date. Staff said the actuary estimated that removing the special duty limitation would increase costs by about $13.9 million. Members also asked about the practical difference between overtime and special duty, with staff explaining that special duty generally involves work for a private third party, often police detail work, while overtime depends more on staffing and scheduling. The committee also reviewed the normal retirement age changes for Tier B and the possibility that some members would need to work longer to reach the new vested buy date. Members raised concerns about an ambiguity in the bill that could allow already-retired Tier B members to return to work, then re-retire and claim the higher benefits, or allow vested deferred members to stop working and wait for the new vested buy date. Staff said the governor’s office did not intend to allow that result and requested clarifying language, noting that the bill as drafted does not expressly prohibit it. The committee also discussed part-time and seasonal work after retirement, with staff explaining that such work generally does not restore membership unless the person takes a full-time position requiring enrollment. Finally, the committee reviewed the maximum benefit provisions and noted that HB 2 in the current year does not change the maximum benefit date or include the 1.5% annual escalator that had been part of the 2023 proposal, making the current bill more costly than the earlier version.

Transcript Highlights:

• a specific case or anything?
• So, in that case, how does that happen? So, in that case, how does that happen?
• >> or an upcoming rate case. >> or an upcoming rate case. >> Okay.
• rate case."
• > um Eversource's case and UNATIL's case um Eversource's case and UNATIL's case um demonstrating<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But obviously that’s not the case today.
• But obviously that’s not the case today.
• The Austin case, just to clarify a little bit, that case regarded educational benefits.
• bit that case regarded um educational bit that case regarded um educational benefits<01:03:36.520
• <01:37:43.159> except case except case except insolvency<01:37:45.639> that's<01:37:45.880

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, which would add ski, snowboard, and boat wax containing PFAS to the state’s consumer-product restrictions. The sponsor argued the product is already banned in many places, has PFAS-free alternatives, and is used in ways that can directly contaminate water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and said the bill was a simple extension of prior PFAS legislation. A witness also described a personal experience where a liquid ski wax disappeared from the market and later returned, likely because of PFAS concerns. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167 without a vote. The committee then opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett said the bill was modeled on New Jersey law and intended to let student-athletes earn compensation from NIL without losing institutional scholarships, while also requiring licensed representation and setting limits on certain endorsements. He described the measure as proactive because NIL rules are evolving and could create conflicts among schools and future lawsuits. Members questioned whether the bill should apply to two-year institutions, whether it should exclude firearms and weapons, and whether the scholarship protections would cover need-based or academic aid as well as athletic scholarships. Moffett said the scholarship language was intended to protect scholarships generally, but not need-based aid specifically, and he acknowledged discomfort with some of the endorsement restrictions. Public testimony on HB 312 was mixed. One supporter, a former Division III athlete and coach, backed the bill but urged removal of a section allowing institutions or athletic bodies to use an athlete’s NIL without compensation, arguing most New Hampshire athletes do not receive NIL money and should not have to work extra jobs to cover basic expenses. The chair also raised concerns about the bill’s contractual and identity-rights implications, referencing prior committee work on a J.D. Salinger-related identity case and noting the committee had previously declined to get involved in similar contractual disputes. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• In this case, the big blue we look at.
• by case.
• <00:33:18.080> by<00:33:18.320> case pay the board members um uh case by case pay the
• board members um uh case by case and<00:33:19.200> so<00:33:19.360> we<00:33:19.799>
• The Superior Court costs us even for the most complicated cases about $1,500 a case.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was a House budget briefing focused on the overall state budget and the first of three divisions. The presenter reviewed the size and structure of the budget, noting that the state had eliminated the interest and dividends tax and still balanced the budget. He explained the major spending categories in the general fund and total budget, emphasizing that health and human services and education remain the largest areas, while transportation is largely self-funded. He also walked through the revenue picture, including business taxes, insurance taxes, court fees, communications taxes, and Medicaid recoveries, and said the remaining interest and dividends tax revenue reflected late payments from prior assessments. Members asked about the size of the tax cut from eliminating the interest and dividends tax, federal funding stability, and why Medicaid was being reduced if federal support was expected to remain steady. The response was that the lost revenue would have been about $200 million absent repeal, and that the budget gap was addressed through many small cuts across departments. On federal funds, the presenter said most aid is tied to multi-year grants and that core programs such as Medicare and Medicaid were expected to remain relatively stable, though some federal reductions could occur. He also said some agency reductions came from eliminating long-vacant, funded positions and from expected lapses. The discussion then moved into Division One, which covers smaller and miscellaneous agencies. The division made cuts to the governor’s office, eliminated a temporary position at the Governor’s Commission on Disability, reduced Department of Information Technology spending through a back-of-budget cut, and found savings in Administrative Services. It also delayed maintenance at the Sununu Youth Services Center, stopped advertising for paid family medical leave, changed retiree health insurance funding, and consolidated several personnel-related boards into one. The division eliminated the Commission on Aging and the Office of the Child Advocate, made a temporary special education advocate position permanent, reduced the Secretary of State’s budget, kept municipal rooms-and-meals distributions flat, and made changes to the retirement system, including $55 million to improve Group 2 retirement benefits and a new retirement structure for future state hires. The judicial branch was also asked to find savings and received two additional judges because of expected caseload increases from other eliminations.

Transcript Highlights:

• mean, ultimately knowing in that case mean, ultimately knowing in that case that<00:46:43.839>
• Now not the case.
• Now not the case.
• Now not the case.
• <01:21:19.520> So now not the not the case. So now not the not the case.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , just to give you an example, in case, just to give you an example, in our<00:49:32.960> case,
• Um but case managers were your LEA reps.
• your LEA is separate from your case your LEA is separate from your case manager<01:42:20.880>
• In some cases, giving a district that uses case managers or special ed teachers as our LEA, I do it for
• when a parent comes in there's a case when a parent comes in there's a case manager<01:43:29.840

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its second meeting on House Bill 742, which would require catastrophic special education aid to be drawn from the education trust fund, and discussed whether to also examine differentiated aid within the adequacy formula. The chair said the committee had previously heard from HHS/Medicaid officials and now wanted to hear from local special education directors about how the aid system works in practice, including billing, training, data collection, and whether districts handle claims consistently. Members also referenced Arkansas as a possible comparison state and said they hoped to develop ideas by November to address the current funding process. Committee members focused on the current special education aid thresholds and the impact of proration. The chair described the existing formula as requiring districts to absorb costs up to 3.5 times the state average per student, with the state paying 80% from 3.5 times through 10 times and paying above that, and said FY25 appropriated about $34 million while actual claims were about $50.1 million, leaving roughly a $16 million shortfall that caused proration. Members also raised the possibility of lowering the threshold to 2.5 times and asked how that would affect the number of eligible students and costs. Another member asked about how districts decide whether services are education-related or medical-related and how Medicaid or private insurance reimbursement affects later state aid claims. District representatives from Boothby Therapy Services, Bedford, and Guilford introduced themselves and described their roles. Guilford’s director said the district tracks students with paraprofessional support, nurses, transportation, or specialized programming, uses a data system to log every service touchpoint, and tries to maximize both Medicaid and special education aid; she said a lower threshold would likely capture all students with paras or nurses and that rising staffing and service costs would increase the number of students over the cap. Bedford’s assistant director said the district uses a different system, tracks roughly 60 to 80 students a year, and pursues Medicaid and special education aid simultaneously but does not pursue private insurance if it would affect FAPE; she said reducing the threshold to 2.5 times would likely double the number of qualifying students. Members asked follow-up questions about software, data entry, and how districts decide whether to bill Medicaid or seek state catastrophic aid, and the directors explained that their systems log services by staff type and student, with some districts using the same data for both Medicaid and state reimbursement claims.

Transcript Highlights:

• We urge it in every case.
• We urge it in every case.
• We urge it in every case.
• We urge it in every case.
• differently in those cases. differently in those cases.

Bills: HF4906, HF3971, HF4777, HF2109, HF2988

Keywords: property tax, tax refund, taxpayer relief, Minnesota taxation, one-time payment, taxation, property valuation, Tax Court, evidentiary standards, Minnesota Statutes, disparity reduction, aid payments, local government, funding, Fillmore County, education funding, managed forest land, classification, forest management plan, agricultural land

Summary: The committee first approved the April 9 minutes, then took up House File 2988, which would extend for eight more years a sales tax exemption tied to Minnesota State High School League tournament ticket revenue that is funneled into the league’s foundation and returned to schools as grants. Chair Youakim and Executive Director Eric Martins said the program sends more than $1.1 million annually back to schools for activity fee reductions, scholarships, coaching and training, AEDs, late buses, and other school needs, with over 98% of funds going directly to schools. Representative Huot and others spoke in support, while Representative Robinson questioned the structure and suggested the state could instead simply reduce ticket prices and not tax the tickets. The committee laid HF 2988 over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill. The committee then heard House File 4906, as amended, which would create a one-time property tax refund in calendar year 2026 for owners of residential homesteads and the homestead portion of agricultural property, funded by a $4 billion appropriation in fiscal year 2027. The bill includes a clawback for delinquent taxpayers and offsets to ensure no one receives more in property tax refunds than they paid. A House Research staffer said the Department of Revenue viewed the refund as potentially taxable, while House Research said it likely should be treated as a recovery of prior taxes, and the two would follow up. The bill was introduced with testimony from Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota and Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project, both of whom opposed it, arguing it would create a large budget hole, force future cuts, and disproportionately benefit homeowners while excluding renters and lower-income Minnesotans. Several members also raised concerns. Representative Hewitt said the state should prioritize public safety, rural EMS, and safety-net hospitals rather than a large rebate, and Representative Youakim argued the money would be better spent on longer-term property tax relief and education funding. Representative Hollins said the proposal would worsen racial and wealth inequities because homeownership is lower among communities of color and renters would get nothing. In response, the author and supporters said the bill is meant to put money back into people’s budgets and that individuals should be able to decide how to use their own money. The discussion continued with questions about the bill’s size and fiscal impact, but no final action on HF 4906 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:12.560> daily We decide cases and controversies daily We decide cases and controversies
• the case. the case.
• separate case and pay that filing fee. separate case and pay that filing fee.
• Um they are and malreatment cases.
• case. Thank you. case. Thank you.

Bills: HF3874, HF3875, HF3378

Keywords: judicial funding, Chief Justice security, fiscal year 2028, court system, judicial branch, judiciary, court notices, restitution, child protection, publication process, human services, Optum reports, data privacy, transparency, legislative oversight, 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the March 3 minutes and then heard a presentation from the Minnesota Judicial Branch on House File 3874, which was laid over for possible inclusion in a finance bill. State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba and Chief Judge Michael Fritz testified in support of a supplemental funding request focused on judicial branch safety and security, along with funding to cover the employer share of Minnesota Paid Leave costs. Shorba said the branch is seeking help because it did not receive funding for paid leave in the last session and is having to hold positions open to absorb the cost. The safety and security request included five parts: personal data protection for judges and court administrators, home security, two additional staff positions for threat assessment and coordination, security for the chief justice at public events, and a revived courthouse security grant program for counties. Testimony emphasized rising threats and incidents involving judges and court staff, including examples of doxing, home surveillance, and threats involving litigants, and cited increases in reported incidents, threats, and disturbances. Fritz said the branch’s current response system is stretched and that more law-enforcement-trained staff would improve coordination and response. Members questioned why the judicial branch should receive state funding for paid leave when private employers must absorb the cost, and Shorba responded that the branch was excluded from end-of-session funding decisions and that the mandate should be funded for all branches of government. Members also asked about the threat-response process and whether local law enforcement should be used more directly. Another concern raised was whether State Patrol troopers assigned to judicial security would have the training needed for criminal-code enforcement, and Shorba said the branch is discussing that issue with the State Patrol. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Court cases take time, and a lot of these court cases are ongoing.
• Court cases take time, and a lot of these court cases are ongoing.
• Court cases take time, and a lot of these court cases are ongoing.
• Court cases take time, and a lot of these court cases are ongoing.
• Court cases take time, and a lot of these court cases are ongoing.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , but not in all cases.
• used inappropriately in all cases used inappropriately in all cases and<00:17:53.840> this
• correct that came up really in one case correct that came up really in one case and<01:12:12.320
• In any case, almost every case, it's preferable to have a member participating remotely and voting and
• > it's<01:29:27.480> it's in any case almost every case it's it's in any case almost every

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met in executive session and first corrected a procedural issue by revoting on House Bills 98 and 164, which had already been reported out unanimously. HB 98, concerning professional limited liability company assistant managers, was again voted ought to pass by a 16-0 roll call and placed on the consent calendar. HB 164, concerning local records, was reopened because of a fiscal note amendment; the committee adopted Amendment 2025-0087 unanimously and then voted ought to pass as amended 17-0. Because HB 164 goes to Finance, it will not go on consent, and the chair asked for the updated report that night. The committee then took up HR 6, a resolution condemning the judicial doctrine of disparate impact. Representative Manos moved inexpedient to legislate, arguing the resolution overreached because disparate impact is a judicial doctrine and the legislature cannot bind the courts. Representative Cordelli also supported ITL, citing drafting problems and the need for substantial revision, including an outdated reference to the New Hampshire governor. The committee voted 15-2 to ITL the resolution, and it was placed on consent; the chair asked for the report by the end of the day and noted there would be no minority report. Finally, the committee discussed HB 111, which extends the right-to-know ombudsman position. Representative Kuttab offered an amendment to address concerns raised in testimony about discouraging use of the office and shifting attorney-fee burdens; the amendment was adopted 16-1. The committee then voted 15-2 to ought to pass as amended. Supporters said the ombudsman saves money by reducing court filings and should be continued, while opponents argued the office needs restructuring and that additional funding was not justified. The bill will go to Finance, and the chair requested the report by the end of the day. The committee also began discussion of HB 66 and related bills on right-to-know access, with the chair outlining a proposed amendment to limit remote records requests to people with a New Hampshire connection, but no final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as I said, in every case, benefiting your employer is not ipso facto a benefit to you because you
• If that's not the case, if what Chris Stanley did when he approved the change to EEC's subcontract was
• The board is free to interpret the law as written to the facts of this case.
• , and as a matter of law, this case should be decided in her favor.
• Case, then a fact-finding evidentiary hearing would be warranted.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• in most cases.
• in most cases.
• Any cases?
• This is not the case.
• This is not the case.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 56, which would require social media platforms to display a warning label about potential mental health harms from prolonged use, with amendments shortening the initial warning and allowing immediate access to the platform. The author and supporters, including a parent who lost a daughter to suicide and a therapist, argued that social media contributes to teen anxiety, self-harm, and other harms and that families need clearer public health information. Opponents from tech and civil liberties groups argued the bill would be ineffective, burdensome, and likely unconstitutional, saying it would create warning fatigue and should be replaced by more targeted tools and digital literacy measures. Several members discussed emergency access concerns, language access, and whether the warning should be more actionable; the bill was moved on a 9-0 vote to the Judiciary Committee. The committee then took up AB 358, which would amend CalECPA to allow law enforcement, with the victim’s consent, to inspect certain abandoned tracking or surveillance devices found in a victim’s home, vehicle, or personal property without first obtaining a warrant. The author and a San Diego prosecutor said the bill is narrowly tailored to devices used solely for spying and is intended to help stalking and domestic violence survivors act quickly before evidence is lost. Opponents from EFF and the ACLU warned the bill would weaken warrant protections, create a loophole around CalECPA, and reduce transparency and accountability. Members debated Fourth Amendment issues, abandonment, and the practical need for rapid access; the bill passed the committee on a 9-0 vote to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 1137, which builds on last year’s CSAM reporting law by allowing any user to report child sexual abuse material, requiring clearer reporting mechanisms, adding human review in some cases, and mandating third-party audits and public reporting. Supporters, including survivor advocates and a parent of a child victim, said the bill would reduce the burden on survivors and improve removal of abusive content. Tech industry opponents said they support the goal but objected to the human-review mandate, public audit disclosures, and enforcement provisions, arguing they could create security risks and compliance burdens. Members generally supported the bill’s intent but raised questions about audit frequency and human review; the bill was moved on call with seven votes at the time of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's relating to rural area cases.
• Because I would like to research that case.
• Because I would like to research that case.
• So thank you for giving me the case cites, and I'd like to get the additional case cites from you.
• No, I don't know that that's the case.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It’s relating to rural area cases.
• So thank you for giving me the case cites, and I'd like to get the additional case cites from you.
• No, I don't know that that's the case.
• No, I don't know that that's the case.
• No, I don't know that that's the case.

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first to a felony of the third; in the case of aggravated
• At 15, this juvenile was able to be charged with murder in the robbery case, but not in the case where
• In some cases, information may develop after the 60-day time limit.
• In some cases, information may develop after the 60 days.
• An officer arrests someone in a case on January 1st of 2025.

Summary: The Senate convened with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several recognitions, including guests from Miami Northwestern Senior High School, Clay County, and others. Senators also observed a moment of silence for Pope Francis. After routine announcements, the chamber moved to the special order calendar and took up a long series of bills, often substituting House companions for Senate bills before final passage. Among the measures approved were bills creating an expedited DNA testing grant program for local law enforcement, adding aggravating factors in capital cases involving gatherings for religious, school, or government activities, requiring state health coverage for fertility preservation services for cancer patients, authorizing indemnification for commuter rail providers, prohibiting abandonment of migrant vessels in Florida waters, and creating new specialty license plates. The Senate also passed bills on Alzheimer’s awareness, relocating the Council on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys to Florida Memorial University, charter schools, sex offender registration, utility worker protections, juvenile justice, student mental health reporting, foster home licensure transfers, water access facilities, Florida Virtual School, school readiness, sexual images involving children, tampering with electronic monitoring devices, certified recovery residences, the FSU Election Law Center, the Office of Faith and Community, and bonuses for county property appraiser employees. Several other bills were temporarily postponed, including measures on social media use by minors, veterans’ nursing homes, Parkinson’s disease, mental health and substance use disorders, education, educator preparation, officers injured in the line of duty, school social workers, and Brownfields. Debate was especially extensive on the Office of Faith and Community bill, where an amendment to bar political activity by office staff was offered but failed 13-23 after arguments over election-related communications and the scope of existing law. The certified recovery residences bill also drew notable debate, with supporters emphasizing housing as essential to recovery and opponents raising concerns about implementation and local control. Most other bills passed with little or no opposition, though a few drew dissenting votes, including the capital aggravating factors bill, charter schools, and the Office of Faith and Community measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• If it is a case of um...
• <00:32:13.919> work exactly this would be our case work exactly this would be our case work
• <00:32:16.720> to after filing or when we open a case to after filing or when we open a case
• I don't see it as increasing cases for the division, like OCA.
• It may have created more cases.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on House Bill 553, which concerns the definitions of child abuse and neglect in RSA 169-C, including psychological maltreatment and the rebuttable presumption of harm. The chair and members emphasized that the bill is intended to clarify definitions rather than create punishments, and they discussed concerns that had arisen after the bill’s earlier drafting. Representative Eimon stated his view that the bill is constitutional, citing case law, and members noted that amendment 114 would restore language refined by the prior study committee and address trauma-informed wording, especially around substance use disorder and newborns. A major portion of the discussion focused on whether the bill could be read to treat ordinary parental discipline or disagreements with a child—such as grounding, taking away car keys or a phone, or refusing gender-affirming care—as abuse or neglect. DCF Deputy Director Jen Ross explained that screeners look at the nature of the allegation and whether the parent’s conduct is likely to cause serious psychological or emotional harm; she said routine discipline or prudent parenting would not be screened in, while persistent ridiculing, terrorizing, bullying, isolating, threats, or similar conduct could qualify. She also said that denial of gender-affirming care, by itself, would not be treated as neglect, but the agency would consider the full context and any resulting harm or need for mental health care. DCF General Counsel Susan Larby added that the legislature’s earlier definition of psychological maltreatment and related policy already focus on pervasive emotionally abusive behavior, and that the bill is meant to make the statute more understandable and transparent, not to change the core neglect standard. She and other speakers said the goal is to identify serious harm and provide services, not to remove children for ordinary parental decisions. Lisa Massio of the Office of the Child Advocate said the bill and related placement language are intended to preserve family unity and fill gaps where courts have interpreted neglect too narrowly or inconsistently. Members also discussed a proposed concise analysis from Representative Maral and asked about CPSW qualifications and training; DCF said staff generally have backgrounds in human services, social work, psychology, or education and receive a 12-week Core Academy on policy, law, investigations, and family engagement. No vote was taken in the portion provided, and members indicated they wanted to continue refining the amendment before sending anything to the Office of Legislative Services.

Transcript Highlights:

• If all units are running at once, which isn't always the case, but often can be the case, the data center's
• And again, these are only in the worst case. If the monitors show bad numbers, that's what the...
• So it provided direction to us to develop a business case analysis, identify use cases, do a technical
• We're looking at two very site-specific cases that I'll get to.
• Okay, yeah, but we can take it back to the team and see if there's a use case we can evaluate.

Summary: The committee met in Grand Forks, approved the February 26 minutes by voice vote, and recessed for a tour of Minnkota Power Cooperative before hearing presentations on large energy consumers and related infrastructure issues. The first presentation, from the North Dakota Transmission Authority, focused on the need for better local decision-making tools for counties, townships, and planning and zoning boards facing major projects such as transmission lines, pipelines, data centers, wind, solar, and large-scale agriculture. The speaker urged more objective, data-driven analysis, noted that local officials often have limited time and resources, and said the state should support training and tools through groups like the League of Cities and the Association of Counties. Members asked about proactive outreach, data center ordinances, and how to avoid subsidizing large loads or causing reliability problems. The Division of Air Quality then discussed environmental oversight of data centers, emphasizing that North Dakota’s air remains among the cleanest in the country and that the agency’s role is limited to air, water discharge, stormwater, and waste—not zoning or water use. The presentation explained that data centers generally have low direct emissions but may rely on diesel backup generators when the grid is unavailable, which creates air-quality concerns; the department said it is requiring air monitors at some projects to collect real-world data and guide future decisions. Members asked about generator emissions, misinformation, monitoring costs, and staffing succession, and the agency said permit applicants pay for the monitors while the state handles some QA work. The Department of Water Resources followed with an overview of North Dakota water law and data center water use. The director explained the state’s prior-appropriation system, the public-interest review for permits, and the large overall water supply available from groundwater and the Missouri River. He said most proposed data centers use closed-loop cooling systems and generally request relatively small amounts of water compared with other uses such as power plants, irrigation, and oilfield operations, and that even a worst-case data center scenario would use only a tiny fraction of Missouri River flow. Questions focused on downstream impacts and comparisons to fracking water use, and the director said the state’s use is too small to materially affect downstream users. Later, McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd-Erickson testified online about data center zoning and permitting. He asked the committee to have Legislative Council gather information on how other states handle data center permitting and to keep the topic on the interim agenda. He argued that local zoning should remain local, but said counties lack the technical and legal resources to manage complex reclamation or bonding requirements and that state-level enabling legislation may be more appropriate. He also recommended eliminating tax incentives for data centers. The committee chair said staff would prepare a document on other states’ zoning and permitting approaches. After a lunch recess, the committee reconvened at the EERC, where CEO Charles Gorecki gave an overview of the center’s 75 years of work and its role in oil and gas, carbon management, and other energy technologies, highlighting enhanced oil recovery and carbon dioxide utilization as major opportunities for future production and tax revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• It might be a different person, like their waiver case manager or their ongoing case manager.
• manager or their I'm sorry, their case manager or their I'm sorry, their ongoing<00:14:01.519> case
• Sometimes it's the ongoing case manager.
• To funds in some cases and not in all.
• <00:31:55.679> let's increase the rate in which case let's increase the rate in which case

Keywords: 1183, house