Transcript Highlights:

• somewhere that's a lot thicker that code somewhere that's a lot thicker that code somewhere that's a
• section they're under a different code section they're under a different code section that was part
• deals with but you section of the code deals with but you section of the code deals with but you do
• section counties lumped into this code section counties lumped into this code section have a separate
• code section for have a separate code section for have a separate code section for nuisance that was

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• DNR commissioner to sell certain lands.
• ,<00:10:35.040> the review by the DNR Commissioner, the review by the DNR Commissioner, the
• 20:45.280> County<00:20:45.600> are commissioners in Itasca County are commissioners in
• Assistant Commissioner Mr.
• :08.960> DNR Bob Meyer Assistant Commissioner DNR Bob Meyer Assistant Commissioner DNR again.<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're extending the repeal order on this code section for another five years.
• However, the board itself is made up of the commissioner of insurance, state fire coordinator, state
• sections forward for is brings the code sections forward for what's<00:32:03.039> known<00:32
• So we brought these code sections forward to work on this, and then what we did in Judiciary A, which
• . commissioner. commissioner.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 216, 3 February, 2026; 1:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first heard a proposal to consolidate small or outdated Treasury and agency accounts into pooled investment accounts so idle balances could earn interest and administrative costs could be reduced. Senator DuPree asked whether the change would also eliminate old accounts, and the sponsor said it would close outdated accounts and move funds where they could earn interest. The committee then voted title sufficient, do pass. Senate Bill 2694, described as the biomarker bill, would require mandatory biomarker testing for diagnosis, treatment, management, and monitoring of certain conditions when supported by medical and scientific evidence and nationally recognized clinical guidelines. The bill would apply to health insurance policies written in the state after September 1, 2026, require written reasons for denials, and include reporting requirements back to the Legislature. The sponsor estimated a total cost of about $5.2 million, with roughly $1 million as the state share, and the committee voted title sufficient, do pass. The committee then took up the ARPA bill, which would accelerate the spending deadline from December 31 to September 30 and create three buckets for remaining funds: $100 million for MDOT, about $62 million for lost revenue to help offset insurance costs, and any additional funds to be handled by DFA under the governor’s discretion within ARPA rules. Senators asked about lists of projects, the risk of rushing money out the door, and whether local city and county projects could be repurposed; sponsors said the bill is aimed at keeping funds from being returned to Washington and that projects already in process should be nudged to completion, while unused funds could be clawed back after missed reporting or reimbursement requests. The committee also discussed prior technical problems with some completed projects and said those cases would likely require separate legislative action. The committee voted title sufficient, do pass, committee sub. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 2578, which creates a small municipality match fund to help cities under 10,000 population meet the 20% local match needed for discretionary federal and state grants. The chair clarified that the bill establishes the fund but does not create a funding source, and the sponsor confirmed that point. The committee then voted title sufficient, do pass.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, and that process started back in 2017.
• It's outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, and that process started back in 2017.
• the code of f regulations I could uh the code of f regulations I could uh bore<00:22:56.039> you
• That's what the amendment does. quite self-explanatory a commissioner quite self-explanatory a commissioner
• relating to uh one of our commissioners relating to uh one of our commissioners uh<01:31:35.880>

Bills: HF2446, HF2878, HF2667, HF1795, HF2683, HF2916

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

Transcript Highlights:

• give you $2,000 based upon your zip code give you $2,000 based upon your zip code to<00:11:31.680
• <00:24:28.400> So, because of uh fire code issues. So, because of uh fire code issues.
• commissioner of the Department<00:51:38.400> of<00:51:38.640> Transportation.
• Chairman, and thank you, Commissioner.
• commissioner indicated that the commissioner indicated that the application<02:15:26.719> of<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The work session focused first on SP 492, a bill intended to give the New Hampshire Department of Military Affairs and Veterans Services authority to lease or license property for housing and related uses. Major General David Mikolitis testified that the bill is aimed at addressing affordable housing for junior enlisted service members, especially those assigned to Pease Air National Guard Base who currently face long commutes because of the Seacoast housing shortage. He said the most likely uses would be converting limited barracks space in Pembroke or Stratford into apartment-style or extended-stay housing, and possibly allowing office/co-op space for federal civilians, though he emphasized the primary purpose is housing for junior ranks. He also said any development would likely be done by a private developer through an RFP, with costs borne by the developer rather than the department. Committee members asked about whether the bill could apply to commercial uses, how taxes would work, whether revenues would go into the general fund, and whether the concept could be expanded statewide. Mikolitis said the intent was housing only, not commercial development like a Starbucks, and that any developed property would be taxable locally rather than remain tax-exempt. He said revenues would go into a dedicated Veteran Services Property Fund and be used for facilities, not the general fund. He also explained that the department has about 20 armories statewide but sees only a few viable locations for this concept, mainly Pembroke, Stratford, and possibly one other site, because the goal is to serve personnel within roughly a 45-minute drive of Pease. He noted that a proposed seven-acre parcel near Pease had already been approved by the Pease Development Authority but still needed FAA approval, and he was not optimistic about using that land for housing because of contamination and redevelopment costs. Committee discussion ended with members indicating support for OTP, but the chair said the vote would have to wait until 11 o'clock and then closed the work session on SP 492. The committee then opened a work session on SP 627 and heard testimony from Jim Jelbert, owner of CJ Bus Lines and chair of the legislature’s transportation council, who spoke in support of the bill. Jelbert argued that the measure would allow New Hampshire to raise tolls and generate significant revenue for the 10-year highway plan without directly taxing citizens, and said the money could address congestion and safety problems, including work on I-93 in Manchester and other statewide projects. He estimated the bill could generate substantial revenue over time and said toll credits could help leverage federal matching funds. He also said improved roads would benefit businesses like his by reducing vehicle wear and improving efficiency. The transcript cuts off before any committee action on SP 627 is recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• That section is Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code.
• <00:34:23.320> in under Section 117 of the code in under Section 117 of the code in addition
• But in this specific case, the IRS code, the Internal Revenue Code, says that scholarship payment to
• <00:48:49.920> the this specific case the IRS code the this specific case the IRS code the
• > that Internal Revenue code says that Internal Revenue code says that scholarship<00:48:53.000

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a public hearing on HB 402, a bill dealing with whether Education Freedom Account (EFA) payments should be described in state law as not constituting taxable income. The bill sponsor argued that the current statute is misleading because New Hampshire should not imply a federal tax result, and said the bill would remove that language and could also be amended to clarify that families should consult tax advisors. He emphasized that the measure was not intended to impose a state tax on EFAs, but to avoid giving inaccurate advice about possible federal tax liability. Testimony was divided. A retired representative and a tax preparer both opposed the bill, saying EFA payments are already treated consistently with IRS rules and that the bill would create confusion, administrative burden, and possible tax consequences for low- and moderate-income families. They argued the bill is a solution in search of a problem and warned that requiring 1099s could add costs for the scholarship organization and recipients. A tax attorney supported the bill’s repeal of the state language, saying New Hampshire should not put tax advice into statute and that the current wording is inaccurate because federal law, not state law, controls taxability. He cited IRS Section 117 and Publication 970, explaining that only some scholarship-like payments are tax-free and that many EFA-eligible expenses may not qualify for federal exemption. Members asked questions about what would be misleading, whether the bill was trying to tax EFAs, and the cost of issuing 1099s. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly said the bill was not a state tax on voucher payments, but a clarification about federal tax treatment. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This funding because the agency rulemaking we finished in December led by Commissioner Wright.
• Christy, commissioner, always great to see you as a commissioner.
• Commissioner, it seems that the more we invest in this program, the bigger the problem gets.
• Any of our commissioners? Commissioners are in the room.
• Senator Hinojosa, I wanted to just address some questions you posed to Commissioner.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the code of conduct. the code of conduct.
• It's titled the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct for New Hampshire educators.
• I, so this is an educator code of conduct, not a parental code of conduct.
• That is in the front of the code of conduct book by Commissioner Frank Edelblut.
• the code of conduct book by Commissioner the code of conduct book by Commissioner Frank<00:46:59.400

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It said code read called Edward Eastland's phone.
• In some of our daycares, in some of the codes in the health and safety codes, if they have one death,
• Explain Code Red. Great question. Code Red is a trade name. Code Red is a reverse telephone system.
• And we put it in code and how we're supposed to train those.
• Isn't that required by the Texas Administrative Code?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The commissioner of Education?
• In other words, if the OCA doesn't agree with the commissioner of the DOE, couldn't the DOE commissioner
• <01:07:05.240> you built according to the energy code you built according to the energy code
• <01:34:01.639> of policy of the commissioner of policy of the commissioner of doe<01:34:03.719
• <01:39:41.880> the Commissioners the Commissioners the Commissioners<01:39:43.920> are<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Assistant Commissioner, thank you, Chair. Thank you for the question.
• legislatively assistant commissioner legislatively assistant commissioner thank<00:15:43.560>
• just want to thank the commissioner just want to thank the commissioner commissioner<00:51:40.640
• would just review that QR code.
• Okay, thank you very much. just review that um QR code and then just review that um QR code and then

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• codes.
• Energy conservation codes?
• and construction code, whether that be from the electric code or mechanical code, if those are things
• So right now the Codes Council can consider a... such code mandate that economically reasonable energy
• enforcement of a violation of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or local building codes,

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Housing, Construction and Community Development Committee met with quorum present and considered a full agenda of housing, code enforcement, and rent regulation bills, many of which had passed the Senate in prior years. Early measures included a statewide residential rental registry (S.912), penalties and reporting for vacant and abandoned properties (S.925), and extending tenant response time for major capital improvement rent increase applications (S.1461). The committee also advanced several code-enforcement and fire/building-code bills, including measures to expand remedies for Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code violations (S.3406), increase the Secretary of State’s code enforcement powers (S.4165 and S.4534), and authorize investigations into code administration and enforcement (S.4535). Members raised concerns about local fiscal impacts, the scope of state authority, contractor use, and whether the bills adequately define or limit “imminent threat” and related enforcement powers. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on S.4852, which would require the Codes Council to review and act on updates to international model codes within 18 months. Senators debated whether the bill would speed up code adoption or, as some feared, weaken economic reasonableness considerations by striking the word “economically” from the statutory standard. Supporters said the bill was intended to ensure prompt review of widely used model codes and noted other statutory safeguards remain in place; opponents worried about reduced attention to cost and practical impacts, especially amid housing and utility capacity constraints. The committee also discussed S.6368A, requiring complainants to receive copies of compliance orders issued after code complaints, and S.6600B, mandating inspections of certain non-fireproof buildings in New York City. Additional bills advanced included standards for all-gender bathroom design and construction (S.7131A), compensation for required code-enforcement personnel training (S.7159), and audits of individual apartment improvements in rent-regulated units (S.8046A). Several measures were reported to Finance, while others were reported to the floor. Throughout the meeting, votes were largely along expected lines, with some members voting negative or “without recommendation” on the more expansive code-enforcement bills. No bill was defeated, and all items on the agenda were reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is this something that we need to get the procurement code office involved with?
• The ethics code and the procurement code already does have overlaps, and I hope we're able to work cooperatively
• of the ethics code stating that the contracts will be focused within the ethics code.
• So there is some within the ethics code.
• commissioners. So yeah, thank you. commissioners. So yeah, thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 1525, which would appropriate funds to counties to open more voter service centers for in-person voting, provide money to the Office of Elections to print and mail the voter information guide to all registered voters, and support a public outreach campaign to increase voter participation. The Office of Elections supported the bill and estimated costs of a little over $2 million to print and mail the guide and about $178,000 for outreach, noting it spent about $441,000 on election advertising in 2024. Testimony from advocacy groups including Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, Common Cause Hawaii, and Indivisible Hawaii strongly supported the measure, emphasizing access for neighbor island voters, people with disabilities, new voters, and voters who need ballot assistance. County election officials from Honolulu, Maui, and Kauai provided comments or testimony that were more cautious. They said additional funding would be welcome, but staffing and logistics remain major constraints, especially for election-day service centers. Honolulu’s city clerk said funding alone would not necessarily solve long lines, while Maui’s county clerk explained that voter service centers require trained seasonal employees, extensive training, and the ability to handle many ballot styles. Maui also described its current pop-up sites, including Hana, as expensive but necessary for remote communities, and said the county is already running at bare minimum staffing. Members asked questions about who decides how many service centers are opened, how staffing is handled, and whether there is a middle-ground model between the old precinct polling places and the current voter service center system. Honolulu explained that county clerks make those decisions under current law and that the county has tried pop-up sites in addition to its main centers. The discussion also noted that in 2024 most voters used vote by mail, while a smaller number used early in-person voting or final-day service centers. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• AMENDMENT BAR CODE 197591 YOU ARE RECOGNIZED INTRODUCE THE AMENDMENT. >> Rep.
• AMONGST CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF TAXPAYERS ACCORDING TO AN ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• FLORIDA AND NOW IS SOLELY FOR THE PROMOTION OF RACING OF HORSES THE BILL ADOPTS THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
• I'M KELSEY JACKSON AND I SERVE AS THE TOWARDS DIRECTOR FOR THE JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• WE THINK THIS REPORT THEY ARE THE EXPERTS TO INFORM AND OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YOU KNOW ARE MAKING

Transcript Highlights:

• Many stakeholders ensure that this code protects homes of the future.
• the building code, we really use standards to assess... ...to note that throughout the building code,
• But that's where I just separate a standard from the code.
• And we would very much advocate that the code be set by the state.
• as well as defensible space codes.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation tools, with members and witnesses emphasizing that California’s wildfire losses, insurance costs, and affordability pressures require a broader strategy than the status quo. The chair framed the issue as a tipping point for the state and asked witnesses to discuss how to scale mitigation, improve coordination, and make programs more effective and sustainable. Early testimony from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety explained how embers, flames, structure density, and combustible materials drive community conflagrations, and described the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home standards, including a base “Prepared” level and an enhanced level. IBHS said California is ahead of other states but still needs standardized, verified mitigation, and noted research suggesting home hardening can reduce losses and improve insurability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office highlighted key policy questions for lawmakers, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. Members pressed for practical, lower-cost approaches, and witnesses repeatedly stressed that the first five feet around a home is critical, that many mitigation steps are DIY or relatively low-cost, and that financing will be necessary because many homeowners cannot afford full retrofits. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption challenge, not something the state can fully pay for, and recommended a blended model of education, low-interest loans, smaller grants, and insurance discounts to drive mass adoption. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council and Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described local programs using assessments, neighborhood-based Firewise efforts, grants, and resident participation, while also calling for better marketing, clearer standards, workforce development, and stronger links between mitigation and insurance benefits. In the later panels, Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal described the state’s layered approach: parcel-level hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation. Cal Fire said its defensible space inspection program needs ongoing funding and staffing to remain permanent, and the LAO said the proposal has merit but could be modified depending on budget conditions and alternative funding sources. Cal Fire also described a forthcoming defensible space financial assistance program focused on Zone Zero and vulnerable communities, estimating about $8,000 per home and roughly 3,125 homes served with the proposed funding. The State Fire Marshal clarified that local Zone Zero ordinances cannot be less restrictive than state minimum standards, though local governments have flexibility above that floor. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses returned to the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, consistent standards, targeted incentives, and sustained funding to move from pilot efforts to mass adoption.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many stakeholders ensure that this code protects...
• the building code, we really use standards to assist us, but our code is the minimum for the state.
• But that's where I just separate a standard from the code.
• And we would very much advocate that the code be set by the state.
• as well as defensible space codes.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:20.800> who's Commissioner Jeff Jeffrey Lundy who's Commissioner Jeff Jeffrey Lundy
• This bill establishes a two-code rate methodology to supplement the current reimbursement.
• 01:05:05.599> methodology<01:05:06.319> to a two code rate methodology to a two code rate
• <01:09:50.319> Um, proposes that two code methodology.
• Um, proposes that two code methodology.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the commissioner to perform the commissioner to perform pre-enrollment<00:36:52.480> risk
• <00:41:20.160> may providing that the commissioner may providing that the commissioner may
• Well, you know, as we've seen from Deputy Commissioner, slash interim commissioner, slash temporary commissioner
• <01:26:58.239> commissioner slash interim commissioner slash interim commissioner slashcomissioner
• commissioner slash temporary commissioner<01:27:04.080> Gandhi.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Here with me is Daniel Mota, a fellow county commissioner.
• Thank you, Commissioner. Next, Chairman.
• The procurement code is... you don't necessarily have to follow the procurement code.
• And if you're trying to move that along, you don't want to be involved with the procurement code.
• As you can see, most of this bill is everything that's exempt from the procurement code at this time.

Transcript Highlights:

• And familiar with in the criminal code.
• "Under the criminal code, but then somebody could come back and file an action under the civil code also
• Does the criminal code but then prosecuted or the criminal code but then prosecuted or then<00:52:35.359
• <01:03:38.960> Actually, in the federal code. Actually, in the federal code.
• code.

Bills: SF0087, SF0088, SF0092

Keywords: felony, law enforcement, police officer, criminal penalties, public safety, sex offender, child care facility, residency restrictions, criminal law, sex offenders, child care facilities, legislation, false claims, civil penalties, state accountability, whistleblower protection, fraud prevention, 916, all