Transcript Highlights:

• It's retroactive pay, but you're still asking a low-income...
• It's retroactive pay, but you're still asking a low-income IHSS provider to provide care for free.
• Then the social worker is supposed to go back in and, retroactively, based on that Medi-Cal eligibility
• This is... providers do not receive retroactive payment because the person may not renew after the 90
• retro, retro, people and then retroactively approving them and getting all these reimbursements retro

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the governor’s IHSS budget proposals and then took public testimony from the administration, LAO, county representatives, labor, consumer advocates, and an aging/disability advocacy group. The administration described IHSS as a large Medi-Cal long-term services program serving more than 900,000 recipients and proposed three changes: shifting some growth costs tied to authorized hours per case to counties, eliminating the statewide backup provider system, and aligning IHSS terminations with Medi-Cal terminations. The administration also discussed the earlier CFCO reassessment penalty change for counties and said overdue reassessments had dropped significantly. LAO said the governor’s overall IHSS cost estimates appeared reasonable, but raised concerns about the hours-per-case cost shift, including unclear root causes for growth, limited county control over statewide averages, and uncertainty about the eventual savings. County Welfare Directors Association, SEIU, and consumer/advocacy witnesses opposed the hours cost shift, arguing counties use state tools, the proposal would pressure counties to cut services, and it could harm older adults and people with disabilities by increasing institutionalization and shifting costs elsewhere. The chair and members repeatedly questioned the rationale for the proposal, the lack of a defined baseline, and whether the current assessment tools or MOE structure should instead be revisited. On the backup provider system, the administration said the program is underused and costly to administer relative to service spending, while LAO suggested the Legislature consider whether administrative costs could be reduced instead of eliminating it. County, labor, and consumer witnesses opposed the cut, saying the system is a critical emergency safety net even if utilization is low, especially for rural areas and people with complex needs. Members also asked about data quality, county backup systems, and whether consumers know the program exists. On the Medi-Cal/IHSS alignment proposal, the administration said automation would stop General Fund-only spending when recipients lose Medi-Cal and restore IHSS automatically when Medi-Cal is regained; LAO and others noted the proposal had been rejected before and urged better notices and safeguards. Witnesses warned that automatic termination could create gaps in care and unpaid work for providers, while the department said counties already manually terminate in some cases and that automation is ready if approved. No votes were taken in the excerpt, and the chair indicated the committee would continue with public comment and later items before a hard adjournment time.

Transcript Highlights:

• question is if in the future they do pass an additional referendum, is there a way for this to retroactively
• And we're simply asking that those sales tax, if that is approved by the voters, be retroactively applied
• And we're simply asking that those sales tax, if that is approved by the voters, be retroactively applied
• And we're simply asking that those sales tax, if that is approved by the voters, be retroactively applied
• <01:03:37.200> applied by the voters be retroactively applied by the voters be retroactively

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So $160,000 for retroactive physical security costs, yet you've still got March through June 2026 for
• So we're not reviewing the $160,000 retroactive physical security costs? Correct.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Joint Legislative Budget Committee approved the January 29, 2026 minutes and then took up a Secretary of State budget transfer tied to unused funds from the U.S. Congressional District 7 special election line item. JLBC staff explained that $2.49 million would be transferred to the operating budget, including $500,000 for 2026 primary and general election costs, $240,000 for Secretary of State physical security costs from March through June 2026, and $1.7 million for county-related expenses, including $1 million for the state’s voter registration database share. Staff said the request was smaller than the Secretary of State’s original $2.9 million request because it excluded $200,000 for future database replacement planning and $160,000 in already-incurred security costs. The Secretary of State’s representative said the security funding covered physical security measures and presence at public events, but declined to provide operational details in open session for safety reasons. Members questioned the size and purpose of the security request, the status of communications with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding voter rolls, and whether litigation costs related to that dispute were being tracked. The Secretary of State’s representative said the office had been in active communication with federal officials and had participated in virtual meetings, but could not discuss litigation details or confirm face-to-face DOJ meetings. One member asked for a written or verbal list of meetings and another requested ongoing litigation cost information, expressing concern about spending on legal disputes. The representative said none of the transferred special-election funds would be used for litigation and that the office would discuss budget questions further if needed. The vice chair said the issue had been discussed for months and noted dissatisfaction with the office’s response to DOJ and voter-roll issues, but said the transfer was still needed. He moved a favorable review of the item with provisions requiring monthly expenditure reports to JLBC staff beginning April 15, 2026, and prohibiting the transferred money from being used for contracts with individuals. The transcript cuts off before the full vote or any additional provisions were completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• And lastly, and most excitingly, we made the legislation around Transfer on Death deeds retroactive,
• And we intended for it to be retroactive, but mistakenly didn't.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I should have asked this preliminarily: Is this retroactive?
• I do not believe it is retroactive. No. So, follow-up?

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and temporarily postponed SB 480 before taking up four bills. SB 282, relating to home service warranty association finance requirements, was explained as aligning Florida’s home warranty solvency rules with the framework already adopted for motor vehicle extended warranties. Two amendments were adopted: one correcting a cross-reference tied to the $100 million net worth option and another making a technical title change. A representative of the Florida Service Agreement Association waived in support, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee then considered two proposed committee bills preserving public records exemptions. SB 7008 would continue the exemption for certain records held by the Office of Financial Regulation related to financial technology sandbox applications, with staff explaining the exemption is narrow and intended to protect proprietary information. SPB 7010 would continue the exemption for sensitive records held by the Department of Financial Services when acting as receiver for an insolvent insurer, including policyholder personal information, claim data, and trade secrets; staff said the exemption mirrors existing protections and allows consumers to request their own information. Both measures were moved as committee bills and reported favorably. Finally, SB 592 revising the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program was heard. The bill narrows eligibility to certain condominiums, changes owner approval from unanimous consent to 75%, and clarifies eligible roof mitigation techniques. Two amendments were adopted: one requiring the grant work to match the initial inspection report and comply with inspection requirements, and another limiting grants to work that results in a mitigation discount. Testimony was supportive, including from home inspectors and AARP Florida, and senators praised the program’s benefits for hardening homes and lowering insurance costs. SB 592 was reported favorably, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the retroactive one to cover the circumstance. >> Senator Fateh. >> No.
• This is the retroactive one to cover the circumstance. >> Senator Fateh. >> No.
• This is the retroactive one to cover the circumstance. >> Senator Fateh. >> No.
• This is the retroactive one to cover the circumstance. >> Senator Fateh. >> No.
• This is the retroactive one to cover the circumstance. >> Senator Fateh. >> No.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Resolution 51 by Paxton proposes a constitutional amendment protecting children by allowing for retroactive
• Resolution 51 by Paxton proposes a constitutional amendment protecting children by allowing for retroactive

Bills: SJR36, SB26, SJR3, SJR48, SJR50, SJR51, SCR15, SCR17, SB3, SB5, SB12, SB18, SB1001, SB1002, SB1003, SB1004, SB1005, SB1006, SB1007, SB1008, SB1009, SB1010, SB1011, SB1012, SB1013, SB1014, SB1015, SB1016, SB1017, SB1018, SB1019, SB1020, SB1021, SB1022, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1026, SB1027, SB1028, SB1029, SB1030, SB1031, SB1032, SB1033, SB1034, SB1035, SB1036, SB1037, SB1038, SB1039, SB1040, SB1041, SB1042, SB1043, SB1044, SB1045, SB1046, SB1049, SB1050, SB1051, SB1052, SB1053, SB1054, SB1055, SB1056, SB1057, SB1058, SB1059, SB1060, SB1061, SB1062, SB1063, SB1064, SB1065, SB1066, SB1067, SB1068, SB1069, SB1070, SB1071, SB1072, SB1073, SB1074, SB1075, SB1076, SB1077, SB1078, SB1079, SB1080, SB1081, SB1082, SB1083, SB1084, SB1085, SB1086, SB1087, SB1088, SB1089, SB1090, SB1091, SB1092, SB1093, SB1094, SB1095, SB1096, SB1097, SB1098, SB1099, SB1100, SB1101, SB1102, SB1103, SB1104, SB1105, SB1106, SB1107, SB1108, SB1109, SB1110, SB1111, SB1112, SB1113, SB1114, SB1115, SB1116, SB1117, SB1118, SB1119, SB1120, SB1121, SB1122, SB1123, SB1124, SB1125, SB1126, SB1127, SB1128, SB1129, SB1130, SB1131, SB1132, SB1133, SB1134, SB1135, SB1136, SB1137, SB1138, SB1139, SB1140, SB1141, SB1142, SB1143, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1149, SB1150, SB1565

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, severance tax, oil and gas, Texas STRONG fund, economic stabilization, public health, property tax relief

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill and its retroactive nature takes away the property rights that I purchased.
• This bill and its retroactive n rights.
• This bill and its retroactive n nature<00:08:59.839> takes<00:09:00.160> away<00:09:01.120
• And so some of those amendments are prospective and others are retroactive.
• and others are retroactive. and others are retroactive.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up Senate File 1750, an HOA/common interest community reform bill, and first adopted the DE9 amendment after the chair moved it to put the bill in the form the author wanted. The bill was described by supporters as a consumer and homeowner protection measure intended to add transparency, dispute-resolution rights, conflict-of-interest rules, and limits on fees and late charges in Minnesota HOAs, which supporters said have grown rapidly and are not adequately covered by current law. Supporters, including legal aid, the Minnesota Home Ownership Center, and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity, said the bill responds to longstanding complaints about HOA abuse, lack of transparency, escalating attorney fees, foreclosure-related problems, and management-company conflicts of interest. They argued the revised bill reflects extensive stakeholder work and would help homeowners resolve disputes without costly escalation while improving fairness and accountability. Opponents, including attorneys and representatives of HOA management interests, argued the bill is too rigid and one-size-fits-all, would raise costs for all homeowners, and could make associations harder to govern. They said fee caps, contract restrictions, procurement mandates, and dispute procedures would increase assessments, reduce flexibility, discourage board service, and create more legal and administrative burden, especially for smaller or financially strained communities. No final vote on the bill itself was taken in the portion provided; the bill was laid over for possible inclusion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, and so retroactivity, I think, is an important issue here, because you have heard, as this bill
• is coming through, that it has a retroactive...
• That it is retroactive.
• The retroactivity provision is another problematic issue. Every class action is putative.
• And I am a little concerned about this retroactivity. I'm not sure how that could be fixed.

Summary: The committee first considered CS/SB 1434 on infill redevelopment. A late-filed strike-all amendment narrowed eligibility to certain contaminated or brownfield properties in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, added adjacency and density/intensity limits, and excluded agricultural land, park land, land outside the urban growth boundary, and land near military installations. The amendment was adopted without opposition, and the bill was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote, with limited support and opposition noted in waived appearance forms. Members then took up CS/CS/SB 212 on sexual offenders and sexual predators. The strike-all added public swimming pools and related child-centered locations to residency and presence restrictions. Testimony was sharply divided: proponents argued the bill would help protect children and law enforcement, while opponents, including treatment experts and homelessness advocates, said there was no empirical evidence the restrictions reduce abuse and warned of retroactive punishment and increased homelessness. The amendment was adopted, and the bill passed 8-1. The committee also approved CS/CS/SB 686 on agricultural enclaves after an amendment allowing certain enclaves adjacent to interstates to be developed for commercial, industrial, or single-family residential uses and clarifying exclusions for protected areas. Opponents argued it would weaken zoning and comprehensive plans, while supporters framed it as a property-rights measure; the bill was reported favorably 10-0. SB 554 on nonprofit corporations, a technical update to nonprofit law modeled on prior for-profit corporate revisions, also passed unanimously after supportive waived testimony. Later, the committee approved SB 1338 on charitable giving, which creates a donor remedy for endowment restrictions and limits state reporting burdens on certain regulated or exempt organizations; members discussed cy pres and the sponsor said further changes would be worked out later. CS/SB 532 on court fees was amended to let clerks retain all collections above revenue projections rather than half, with supporters saying clerks have been underfunded for years; it passed 10-0. The committee also favorably reported SB 218 on land use regulations, which restores normal land-use authority to counties not affected by recent hurricanes, and CS/SB 692 on cybersecurity standards and liability, which creates a presumption against liability for entities that comply with cybersecurity frameworks and reporting requirements; the cybersecurity bill drew concerns about retroactivity and the adequacy of compliance incentives but passed 9-2.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, and so retroactivity, I think, is an important issue here, because you have heard, as this bill
• is coming through, that it is retroactive.
• The retroactivity provision is another problematic issue. Every class action is putative.
• The retroactivity provision is another problematic issue. Every class action is putative.
• And I am a little concerned about this retroactivity. I'm not sure how that could be fixed.

Bills: S0212, S0218, S0442, S0460, S0532, S0554, S0644, S0686, S0692, S1054, S1106, S1128, S1134, S1138, S1338, S1434, S1506, S1620, S1748

Keywords: sexual offender, sexual predator, sex offender registry, child protection, residency restriction, loitering, proximity restriction, public swimming pool, school safety, child care facility, day care center, park, playground, conditional release, probation, community control, warrantless arrest, background check, registry screening, minor victims

Summary: The committee first considered SB 1434 on infill redevelopment. A late-filed strike-all amendment narrowed eligibility criteria, including environmental and adjacency requirements, density and intensity limits, and exclusions for certain lands and military areas. The amendment was adopted without opposition, and the bill then passed favorably on an 8-0 vote, with testimony both for and against from advocacy groups. Members then heard several bills related to criminal justice, land use, and local government operations. SB 212 on sexual offenders and sexual predators was amended to add public swimming pools and related restricted-location provisions; the committee heard extensive opposition testimony arguing the bill lacked empirical support and could worsen homelessness and burden families, while supporters said it would reduce temptation and improve safety. The amended bill passed 8-1. SB 686 on agricultural enclaves also received a strike-all amendment clarifying development allowances near interstates and protected-area non-preemption; after opposition from a county Republican committee and support from housing and business groups, it passed 10-0. SB 554 updating nonprofit corporation law, SB 1338 on charitable giving and endowment restrictions, SB 532 on court fee retention by clerks, and SB 218 on land use regulations after hurricanes all passed favorably, each with little or no opposition. The committee also approved SB 692 on cybersecurity standards and liability after debate over whether the bill created enough compliance incentives and whether its liability presumption should apply retroactively; supporters said it would encourage adoption of cybersecurity frameworks, while opponents warned it could weaken local standards and create litigation issues. The bill passed 9-2. SB 1138 on qualified contractors was amended to preserve local government authority while allowing licensed professionals to conduct limited pre-application reviews, and it passed 11-0. Finally, SJR 1104 on religious expression in public schools passed 8-3 after extensive public testimony and debate, with supporters saying it would enshrine existing protections in the Constitution and opponents warning it would favor majority religions and increase bullying and litigation. The committee then took up SB 1106 on requiring state agencies and instructional materials to use “Judea and Samaria” instead of “West Bank,” with the sponsor arguing it reflected historical truth and opponents saying it erased Palestinian identity and inserted the state into an international naming dispute; the transcript ends during public testimony on that bill before any vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The answer is you just pay a sort of late fee and it's retroactive to the time of your last filing.
• It's a few bucks and then retroactively you're reinstated. And that was my next question.
• c><01:24:13.840> fee<01:24:14.800> and<01:24:15.199> it's<01:24:15.600> retroactive
• <01:24:16.480> to sort of late fee and it's retroactive to sort of late fee and it's retroactive
• <01:24:40.480> you're few bucks and then retroactively you're few bucks and then retroactively

Bills: HF1151, HF1239, HF1240, HF2020, HF2514, HF2515, HF2451

Keywords: Compensation Council, salaries, state officials, judicial compensation, legislative process, public funds, misuse, law enforcement, accountability, state government, legislative auditor, compliance, transparency, retirement benefits, health insurance, dependents, state employees, Medicare, legislative studies, government oversight

Transcript Highlights:

• That would be retroactive?
• That would be retroactive?
• That would be retroactive?
• That would be retroactive?
• can you maybe help us be retroactive can you maybe help us look<00:48:11.920> at<00:48:12.200

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Starting July 1, when we fill out our new reports, they're going to retroactively take half of our interest
• Chairman, I would just encourage you to, one, not retroactively apply the law, and number two, don't
• And so, yeah, I mean, I think it's first of all, it's wrong to retroactively apply it. That...
• But you can't retroactively do it, and that's what's about to happen when we fill out our state reports
• So, I mean, if we can have the argument about equity all we want, but it's never fair to retroactively

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I have concerns with the retroactivity. ...replaced some very old assets at the time.
• So I have concerns with the retroactivity of this. Prospectively, I get it, right?
• This is not good practice when you go retroactively.
• I want to echo what you said, Chair, because I agree with you on the retroactivity piece.
• Before adopting an unprecedented retroactive liability framework, policymakers should fully understand

Keywords: 1146, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 2966 would impose a lifetime punishment on my son, retroactively altering the terms of his plea agreement
• HB 2966 removes judicial discretion and applies retroactively, replacing individualized assessment with
• The first concern is the retroactivity. I do not think that's constitutional.
• people cannot be terminated early from probation, that would have to happen prospectively and not retroactively

Bills: HB2047, HB2136, HB2198, HB2411, HB2662, HB2966, HB2970

Keywords: forcible entry, detainer, writ of restitution, criminal trespass, judgment enforcement, civil terrorism, disorderly conduct, vandalism, political activism, public order, subversion, government security, criminal records, sealing records, civil rights, expungement, rehabilitation, coerced abortion, abortion-inducing drugs, felony

Summary: The committee heard several bills dealing with criminal penalties, probation, record sealing, fraud jurisdiction, reproductive coercion, and family court evidence. HB 2047 would elevate trespass after service of a writ of restitution from third-degree to first-degree criminal trespass; supporters, including the Arizona Constables Association, said the current misdemeanor classification leads law enforcement to deprioritize unsafe eviction-related situations. The bill passed with a do pass recommendation on a 6-2 vote. HB 2136 would create offenses for civil terrorism and subversion, expand racketeering predicates, and increase penalties for certain coordinated disorderly conduct and highway obstruction; supporters said it targets organized intimidation and violent disruption, while opponents from the ACLU and immigrant-rights groups argued it is vague, viewpoint-discriminatory, and would chill protest. After extensive debate over January 6th, ICE protests, and Arizona protest examples, it also received a do pass recommendation, 6-3. HB 2970 would clarify that Arizona can prosecute fraudulent schemes and artifice even if every act occurred outside a single county or subdivision, so long as there is an Arizona nexus. The sponsor said local law enforcement and the FBI often decline smaller mortgage-fraud cases because the bank is out of state; opponents said existing law already provides jurisdiction and warned of forum shopping. The bill passed 6-3. HB 2411 would make secretly administering abortion-inducing drugs to a pregnant woman without her knowledge or consent a class 2 felony; supporters framed it as a protection against coercion and abuse, while opponents said existing assault laws already cover the conduct and warned about unintended effects on access to miscarriage care. It also passed 6-3. HB 2198 would allow people convicted of petty offenses to petition to seal their records immediately after completing their sentence. Supporters described it as a cleanup measure to extend sealing relief to minor offenses like truancy or low-level misdemeanors, and the bill passed unanimously. HB 2966 would prohibit early termination of probation for people convicted of dangerous crimes against children; the sponsor argued that child victims should not have to repeatedly return to court, while opponents raised ex post facto concerns, juvenile-offender issues, and resource burdens. After testimony from victims, defense advocates, and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, it passed 5-4. Finally, HB 2662 would tighten expert-evidence standards in parenting-time cases involving alleged domestic violence or abuse by requiring qualified experts, empirically supported methods, and excluding polygraph-type evidence; the sponsor and a domestic violence advocate said it would reduce reliance on junk science in family court.

Transcript Highlights:

• And when we do finish the rule promulgation process in spring, it'll be retroactive back.
• And will it be retroactive to the date of the legislation implementation?
• And will it be retroactive to the date of the legislation implementation?
• So the providers would not have to wait for any retroactive approval process. Thank you.

Summary: The Senate Health Policy Committee received updates from the Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Health on implementation of 2024 health care laws. AHCA reviewed progress on workforce and reimbursement measures in Senate Bill 7016 and related bills, including FRAME and TEACH funding, graduate medical education reporting, behavioral health teaching hospitals, acute hospital care at home, advanced birth centers, non-emergent care access plans, and rural emergency hospitals. Agency officials said several programs are already operational or have begun payments, while others are still in rulemaking, federal approval, or report-preparation stages. Senators asked about timing, funding reversion concerns, and whether appropriated dollars would be spent on schedule, especially for behavioral health teaching hospitals and the new birth center category. The Department of Health then reported on practitioner licensure and public health programs. MQA described implementation of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, the Mobile Act licensure pathway, massage therapy enforcement changes, background screening expansion, liposuction safety requirements, pharmacist HIV post-exposure prophylaxis authority, and chiropractic dry needling. Public health staff updated the committee on FRAME and dental loan repayment, the Sinati screening grant program, the cancer research and innovation changes, the health care innovation council and loan program, the pediatric rare disease grant program, telehealth maternity care expansion, newborn screening for congenital CMV, the sickle cell registry and grants, and the swimming lesson voucher program. Members focused questions on how practitioners were being recruited to underserved areas, the pace of licensure approvals, and whether new programs were on track to use appropriated funds. The committee also heard a lengthy update from the Office of Medical Marijuana Use. The director reported more than 900,000 qualified patients, real-time seed-to-sale tracking now integrated across most dispensaries and labs, and ongoing compliance work on product testing, advertising, diversion, and patient safety. Senators questioned the decline in qualified physicians, how THC potency is labeled and verified, and what the agency can do about diversion to non-patients. The director said the office relies on complaints, inspections, lab audits, and coordination with law enforcement, and that patients can be suspended if violations are confirmed.

Transcript Highlights:

• eliminates the program, completely guts the program, and not only does that going forward, but retroactively
• There's never been, in our recollection, an instance where benefits were awarded retroactively.
• There's never been legislation or a budget action that would eliminate benefits retroactively, and that's

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee met as a subcommittee at first because a quorum was not initially present, then later established a quorum and heard several bills. The main special-order item was AB 1795 (Gibson), which would create statewide standards for testing, inspection, and remediation of wildfire smoke damage in homes, with CalEPA and public health agencies developing science-based standards and insurers required to follow new claims-handling timelines. Supporters, including Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and wildfire survivors, said the bill would bring consistency and safety; insurers and consumer groups generally supported the concept but sought further amendments on scope, standards, and claim handling. The committee voted do pass as amended and refer AB 1795 to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also considered AB 1576 (Ortega) on the Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund, which would make changes intended to reduce litigation and employer assessments while preserving the program’s purpose of encouraging hiring of workers with prior disabilities. Labor-side witnesses supported the bill as a reform step, while business, public entity, and insurance groups opposed it, arguing it did not address the core structural problems and that a trailer bill was a better vehicle for broader reform. AB 1576 was voted do pass to Appropriations, with the roll held open. AB 1931 (Papan) would create an optional limited-lines license for utilities to offer home protection products for repairs to appliances and utility service lines. Support came from HomeServe, utilities, and industry groups, who said the bill would clarify current law and add consumer protections such as training, disclosures, and a free-look period; there was no opposition in the room. The committee passed AB 1931 to Appropriations. AB 2361 (Pacheco) would limit vicarious liability for peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing platforms like Turo while preserving insurance coverage requirements; supporters said it would align California with other states, while consumer attorneys opposed it as reducing accountability and consumer recovery. The committee passed AB 2361 as amended to Appropriations. AB 2098 (Kalra), heard later, would require employers to allow leave for workers to attend treatment for occupational injuries during work hours, subject to notice and business-necessity limits; labor groups supported it and business and insurance groups sought narrower standards. It was also voted do pass to Appropriations. The committee then completed roll-call add-ons and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• it is or isn't retroactive it is or isn't retroactive uh<04:07:13.920> then<04:07:14.239>
• . retroactively. retroactively.
• I think it's the presumption is that the statute would not be retroactive.
• I think it's about the retroactivity.
• So it would be would not be retroactive.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• The retroactive imposing of the change of vesting raises some questions we might ask, such as: what if
• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• They made similar changes but did not make them retroactive.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Municipal and County Government Committee held public hearings on House Bill 471 and House Bill 373. HB 471 would create a temporary commission to study growth, traffic, planning, and land use issues in a group of southern New Hampshire towns, with possible recommendations on regional planning commission boundaries or coordination. Representative Perez said the bill was requested by Londonderry residents and local officials, and Eric Power of Brookline testified in support, saying the towns share corridor and development issues that cross regional planning commission lines. Several members questioned whether existing law already allows towns to form regional planning commissions under RSA 364:6, whether the bill should be broader, and whether the town list should include additional communities. The hearing closed with testimony counts reported as two in support and three opposed on remote sign-in, plus one opposed and one in support on the blue sheet. HB 373, sponsored by Representative Diane Powers, would revise RSA 41:11-a on town property leases. Powers said current law is too restrictive because leases over five years require repeated town votes, which she argued is impractical for long-term arrangements. She cited examples from Hampton and Brookline, including long-term road and property leases, and said she had found multiple similar cases. The bill would keep select board authority for leases under one year, allow a legislative body to authorize a specific longer lease by a three-fifths ballot vote, and preserve the existing five-year blanket leasing authority with a three-fifths vote, while keeping existing leases valid if authority is later rescinded. Eric Power testified in support, describing recurring lease renewals in Brookline and saying longer terms are needed for projects such as housing, cell towers, and solar arrays. Members asked about the change from a simple town vote to a three-fifths threshold and whether the bill duplicates existing mechanisms; Powers said the higher threshold was intended because the leases involve long-term commitments. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described.

Transcript Highlights:

• that can allow you to go retroactively that can allow you to go retroactively back<02:02:21.520>
• So, it is retroactive. Madam Chair, Colonel Smith.
• So, it is retroactive. Madam Chair, Colonel Smith.
• So, it is retroactive. Madam Chair, Colonel Smith.
• Good morning, Madam Chair. retroactive. And so if if there is a retroactive.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all