Transcript Highlights:

• > is<00:21:29.080> uh, composite water tower is uh, composite water tower is uh, substantially
• less uh, expensive uh, substantially less uh, expensive uh, over<00:21:32.080> the<00:21:32.320
• That's why we think it's very important that the legislature make a substantial investment in replacing
• and consistent funding from substantial and consistent funding from the<01:08:35.080> state.
• that the legislature make a substantial that the legislature make a substantial investment<01:08

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Substantially equal in amount.
• And this allows for projects that are actively and substantially underway to be able to be granted the
• And this allows for projects that are actively and substantially underway to be able to be granted the
• And this allows for projects that are actively and substantially underway to be able to be granted the
• And this allows for projects that are actively and substantially underway to be able to be granted the

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The need for these evaluations has increased substantially over the last five years, with some state
• The need for these evaluations has increased substantially over the last five years, with some state
• The need for these evaluations has increased substantially over the last five years, with some state
• The need for these evaluations has increased substantially over the last five years, with some state
• The need for these evaluations has increased substantially over the last five years, with some state

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's case law, Texas Supreme Court case. law that very clearly substantiates that that it is allowed
• What is the justification for requiring proof of substantial disruption in daily routine when evaluating
• And I saw substantial changes between the original bill and the committee's substitution and I appreciate
• In the committee substitute, there was the language that required the suffering to cause a substantial
• disruption in your daily life or your daily routine and now will be a substantial disruption in your

Bills: SCR37, SB60, SB226, SB231, SB264, SB387, SB570, SB596, SB651, SB769, SB855, SB863, SB991, SB1079, SB1085, SB1151, SB1191, SB1214, SB1243, SB1247, SB1314, SB1364, SB1372, SB1401, SB1409, SB1504, SB1522, SB1625, SB1662, SB1663, SB1728, SB1759, SB1762, SB1804, SB1818, SB1838, SB1839, SB1851, SB1855, SB1872, SB1873, SB1874, SB1877, SB1879, SB1901, SB1919, SB1921, SB1923, SB1936, SB1937, SB1968, SB1977, SB2034, SB2053, SB2066, SB2077, SB2124, SB2143, SB2166, SB2180, SB2204, SB2231, SB2237, SB2243, SB2321, SB2569, SJR39, SJR68, SCR29, SCR42, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB37, SB75, SB217, SB240, SB331, SB393, SB505, SB530, SB546, SB552, SB584, SB586, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB762, SB769, SB825, SB844, SB870, SB884, SB926, SB964, SB1080, SB1099, SB1150, SB1177, SB1184, SB1261, SB1262, SB1314, SB1325, SB1364, SB1398, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1577, SB1596, SB1620, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1760, SB1789, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1851, SB1868, SB1870, SB1901, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2010, SB2023, SB2024, SB2037, SB2051, SB2052, SB2056, SB2066, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2226, SB2252, SB2323, SB2361, SB2368, SB2405, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SB2949, SB1, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB1596, SB33, SB505, SB37, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB2420, SB1860, SB1314, SB1398, SB855, SB2425, SB2037, SB1759, SB1924, SB1818, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, HJR4, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601

Keywords: SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes, supply chain resilience, global commerce, exports, LNG, liquefied natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum, agriculture, manufacturing, economic development, trade policy, foreign policy, diplomatic engagement

Transcript Highlights:

• Just real quick, I want to support this bill, but I'm concerned with the word 'substantial.'
• 'Substantial' seems high.
• 'Substantial' is used throughout the detention and removal standards. What does it mean?
• What do you mean, substantial? What is the legal significance of that standard?
• Like, there's a substantial danger, and that's why you would remove.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with the most detailed discussion focused on AB 316, AB 251, AB 474, AB 1201, AB 464, and AB 614. AB 316 would prevent AI developers or deployers from arguing in civil cases that an AI system’s alleged autonomy absolves them of responsibility. Supporters framed it as a narrow guardrail to protect families, especially children, from harms like dangerous chatbots and deepfakes; opponents, including TechNet and the Chamber of Progress, raised concerns about possible strict-liability implications. The bill was moved out of committee to Privacy and Consumer Protection. AB 251 would let judges lower the burden of proof in elder abuse cases when a skilled nursing facility or RCFE intentionally destroys evidence. Supporters said the measure is needed because elder abuse victims are often unable to testify and records are vulnerable to spoliation, while opponents argued existing sanctions are sufficient and warned of more litigation. The bill passed, with committee members emphasizing the vulnerability of elder abuse victims. AB 474 sought to expand nonprofit home-sharing programs, including tax incentives for low-income homeowners and changes to housing law and lodger rules. Supporters said it would help older adults and low-income Californians avoid homelessness, but several members and the California Apartment Association raised concerns about removing lodger-law protections for homeowners; the author committed to keep working on the issue. The bill passed to Human Services. AB 1201 would give courts discretion to provide family reunification services to parents with certain violent felony convictions, rather than applying an automatic bypass. Supporters from Starting Over Inc. described personal experiences with permanent family separation and argued the bill would give parents a fair chance when the conviction is unrelated to child safety. Some members supported the measure but questioned whether domestic violence histories should be treated differently; the author said the bill still allows courts to deny services when reunification would endanger a child. The bill passed to Human Services. AB 464 addressed sexual abuse and retaliation in state prisons by extending reporting time after release, adding 90-day monitoring after reports, barring rehiring of confirmed abusers, and strengthening reporting and anti-retaliation rules. Survivors testified about abuse, retaliation, and failures in CDCR’s response; the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 614 would standardize the Government Claims Act filing deadline at one year for all claims. The author and supporters argued the current six-month deadline for injury and wrongful death claims is too short for victims to learn the process, find counsel, and gather evidence, while businesses often get a full year. A civil rights attorney and a family member of a deceased jail detainee testified in support, describing how the current deadline can block meritorious claims. The bill was presented for committee consideration as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is substantial property damage that has been threatened, and under this bill... and Walmart can
• /c><00:27:13.799> property<00:27:14.240> damage<00:27:14.520> that that is substantial
• property damage that that is substantial property damage that has<00:27:14.799> been<00:27:14.960
• and made a finding that the person's failure to exercise reasonable control or supervision was a substantial
• and made a finding that the person's failure to exercise reasonable control or supervision was a substantial

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 669, sponsored by Representative Smith, which was presented as a response to a September shooting incident in his district that led to school closures and missed instructional days. Smith said the bill was intended to help school districts recover lost days caused by extraordinary emergencies and not to set a broad precedent. Members asked whether districts had adjusted calendars to make up time, and Smith said many had already extended days or moved calendars into June. The committee then voted to pass House Bill 669, with all members present voting yes. The committee next heard House Bill 621, as amended by a committee substitute that removed a homeschooling-related section and left only the school-threat provisions. The bill would allow courts to impose a fine on parents when a child is adjudicated for terroristic threatening if law enforcement incurred excessive costs, and it would require a mental health assessment for the child. Representative Duvall and Officer Steve Chappelle supported the measure, arguing that online school threats spread fear, disrupt attendance, pull law-enforcement resources from other schools, and should create more parental accountability. Representative Riley also supported the accountability goal, citing lost instructional time and a recent student suicide tied to online issues. Several members raised concerns about the bill’s scope and due process. Representative Josh Callaway questioned why this offense should be the starting point for parental fines and warned about a slippery slope in holding parents liable for children’s crimes. Representative Willner said the bill seemed more like a judiciary issue, questioned whether punishment can make parents better parents, and asked about diversion programs and the meaning of the detention language. Representative Tipton pointed to existing statutes on mental health assessments and terroristic threatening penalties, and said the committee substitute would alleviate many concerns. Scott West, speaking for Kentucky Policy and the Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, argued that the mandatory detention language would remove judicial discretion and that the parental fine provision could conflict with existing due process protections requiring notice, a hearing, and a finding that lack of supervision was a substantial factor in the child’s delinquency. The transcript does not show a final vote on House Bill 621 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, when the department substantiates abuse and publishes its findings on its transparency website
• SB 991 simply ensures that when abuse is substantiated, the department communicates those findings more
• We've seen substantial reductions in that. Sorry, was there another part of your question?
• I think you can see that in some of the data: Ventura County had a substantial reduction.
• Siskiyou County had a substantial reduction.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's substantial investment coming in here.
• When I say substantial investment, capital investment.
• 00:42:32.520> in There's substantial investment coming in There's substantial investment coming
• When I say substantial investment, here.
• When I say substantial investment, capital<00:42:35.520> investment.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a roll call establishing a quorum. The chamber approved the prior journal, excused absent senators, and received a House message noting passage of several House bills, including House Bill 1 despite the governor’s veto. The clerk also reported committee recommendations on a number of House bills, which were placed on the calendar, and new resolutions were introduced recognizing Chloe Yates, student wellness and physical activity in schools, and the Kentucky State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program. The main floor action centered on House Bill 1, which implements the Federal Education Opportunity Program in Kentucky. Supporters argued the measure would bring federal tax-credit dollars into Kentucky to expand educational opportunities for students and families at no cost to the state budget, while opponents urged sustaining the governor’s veto and raised concerns about accountability and the bill’s structure. After debate, the Senate voted 31-5 to override the veto, and House Bill 1 was finally passed notwithstanding the governor’s veto. The Senate then took up Senate Bill 183 on proxy advisory services. The House committee substitute exempted certain nonprofits with less than $500,000 in annual gross revenue from proxy advisor services from the bill’s cause-of-action provisions while preserving attorney general enforcement authority. The chamber concurred with the House substitute and then passed the bill as amended. Senators also passed Senate Bill 263, the School of Innovation cleanup bill, which makes technical changes, requires KDE support for waiver applications, and creates a pilot project for three schools of innovation with proposed matching grants. Senate Bill 281 on grandparent visitation was also adopted with committee substitute and passed unanimously after discussion focused on balancing grandparents’ access with parental rights and existing case law. Later, the Senate began consideration of Senate Bill 324 on the film industry credit, with the sponsor describing technical changes and expanded provisions to support film, video, gaming, and related production activity in Kentucky.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:52:49.920> whether available to it to substantiate whether available to it to substantiate
• hours, right, it'd be very difficult within that 72 hours to produce the records necessary to substantiate
• 00:56:53.440> to to produce the records necessary to to produce the records necessary to substantiate
• your<00:56:55.040> citizenship<00:56:55.680> status<00:56:56.400> in substantiate
• your citizenship status in substantiate your citizenship status in court<00:56:57.040> even<00

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Fostering a conservation ethic in our community has reduced our per capita consumption substantially
• In the Permian Basin, we see substantially more water than oil.
• Again, we could recover approximately 50% of that, which could yield substantial amount of flow, um,
• It would be extremely beneficial to have substantial flows of fresh water into the Pecos which could
• So in summary on slide 11, uh, just big picture, we've got substantial opportunity with significant flow

Transcript Highlights:

• Fostering a conservation ethic in our community has reduced our per capita. consumption substantially
• In the Permian Basin, we see... substantially more water than oil.
• of some challenges especially in the Rio Grande Valley it would be extremely beneficial to have substantial
• In summary, on slide 11, just big picture, we've got substantial opportunity.
• which includes a report that we did with the Baker Institute at Rice University, points to some substantial

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Repealing the rule at this midpoint of the compliance year is unnecessary and will not provide any substantial
• Repealing the rule at this midpoint of the compliance year is unnecessary and will not provide any substantial
• Repealing the rule at this midpoint of the compliance year is unnecessary and will not provide any substantial
• Repealing the rule at this midpoint of the compliance year is unnecessary and will not provide any substantial
• the data set if it is substantially the data set if it is substantially impacting<00:36:59.599><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• land and homes is so big in this work that the cost of capital, even for a short-term loan, is substantial
• land and homes is so big in this work that the cost of capital, even for a short-term loan, is substantial
• land and homes is so big in this work that the cost of capital, even for a short-term loan, is substantial
• land and homes is so big in this work that the cost of capital, even for a short-term loan, is substantial
• The cost of capital, even for a short-term loan, is substantial and is less money going toward our work

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing on a series of housing bills. HB 1432 and HB 1428 drew support from HHFDC, and HB 1428 also received testimony from Hawaiian Community Assets, which said housing counseling funding is needed to meet demand for financial education tied to affordable housing, and that such counseling can help reduce evictions, prevent foreclosure, and stabilize households. HB 833 on community land trusts received broad support from HHFDC, county housing officials, community land trust representatives, and a local developer; testimony emphasized keeping housing affordable in perpetuity, but also asked for clearer access to financing, longer repayment terms, and inclusion of additional land trusts in the bill. Peter Savio argued that community land trusts are the best way to control demand and keep housing tied to local incomes. The committee also heard HB 19 on the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund, which HHFDC said should be made permanent because the pilot has been successful, with 81 units in the program and $7.4 million of the $10 million allocation already committed. HHFDC said the fund helps stalled for-sale projects by providing state equity that revolved back when homes are sold. HB 529 and HB 432 were also heard; HB 432 would create a subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund for projects above 60% AMI, and HHFDC said this would help finance housing for households at 65% and 80% AMI. The bill drew support from several housing, business, and industry groups. Several other housing measures were discussed with mixed testimony. HB 419 had HHFDC support, Limby Hawaiʻi opposition, and support from the Grassroot Institute and others; members asked about whether councils approve these projects in one or multiple readings. HB 527 and HB 416 also drew a mix of support and opposition, with questions focused on county approval timelines and whether state-financed projects would still go through normal local review. HB 417 on the rental housing revolving fund prompted questions about how it differs from the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund and whether it should be more flexible for mixed rental and for-sale projects. HB 418’s proposed working group was noted as potentially unnecessary because HHFDC said a public working group was already being formed. HB 1411 on housing preference raised questions about what happens if a recipient changes jobs, and HB 374 drew an Attorney General’s Office recommendation to remove a duration requirement to avoid possible constitutional travel issues. HB 373 and HB 1492 were also heard, with strong testimony from Peter Savio in favor of a broader trust-based model for affordable housing. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, I have substantiation documentation here on substantiating that I'd like to share with the committee
• Yes, I have substantiation documentation here on substantiating that I'd like to share with the committee
• Yes, I have substantiation documentation here on substantiating that I'd like to share with the committee
• Yes, I have substantiation documentation here on substantiating that I'd like to share with the committee

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first took up HB 428, with Philip Sherman of the Building Code Review Board presenting a detailed amendment intended to reorganize building-code statutes and limit local changes. He said the proposal would move code-related provisions into RSA 155-A, preserve municipalities’ ability to adopt and administer local enforcement mechanisms and additional non-state codes such as housing or property maintenance codes, but prohibit technical amendments to the State Building Code. He also explained that local administrative functions like permits, fees, certificates of occupancy, plan review, and staffing would remain local, while any local ordinance would still need BCRB confirmation. Members discussed the distinction between administrative and technical amendments, the need to keep fire-code provisions separate, and a date error in the draft’s submission deadline; Sherman suggested the effective-date language should be corrected to reference July 1, 2024. The committee did not vote on the amendment and instead agreed to circulate the draft and revisit it in a later subcommittee meeting before bringing it to the full committee. The discussion then shifted to fire-code issues, with State Fire Marshal Sean Tumi explaining that fire-code-related provisions should be cleaned up in the fire-code statutes and that the state should restrict technical local amendments while possibly allowing limited administrative local standards for transparency and operational consistency. He gave examples such as driveway access, sprinkler connections, key boxes, and other fire-system details that could benefit from local standardization if clearly disclosed. He noted that a separate Senate bill, SB 94, may be a more appropriate vehicle for some of the fire-code language. The chair again emphasized the need for further review and scheduled another subcommittee meeting before the matter would go to the full committee. The committee then began HB 244, and Sherman introduced it as a cleanup of the older municipal-building-code provisions scattered through the RSA 67X series. He said the bill would consolidate and update those references, continuing the effort to align municipal enforcement and appeals provisions with the statewide building-code structure. The transcript cuts off before any further action or vote on HB 244.

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides for enhanced penalties if the acts result in death or substantial bodily injury, kidnapping
• general must certify in writing the prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial
• There's bodily injury that bumps up substantially to $10,000 and not more than 10 years or both, and
• But racial, religious, hostility need not be the sole or substantial reason for the defendant's conduct
• The damage does not have to be substantial or permanent under the most basic version of that statute.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Anti-Semitism met to focus on the role of law enforcement in responding to anti-Semitic incidents. After approving amended minutes, the chair opened with remarks emphasizing that the Commission would confront anti-Semitism from any political direction and outlined the day’s agenda: extremist activity trends, hate-crime statutes, intergovernmental coordination, and security funding. The first presentation came from Ben Pott of the ADL Center on Extremism, who described rising extremist propaganda and anti-Semitic incidents nationally and in Massachusetts, highlighting groups such as NSC-131, GDL, and Patriot Front. He said these groups increasingly use anti-Zionist language, public disruptions, and online platforms to spread hate, and recommended prosecution where possible, civil litigation, education about symbols and tactics, and community reporting to law enforcement and ADL. Assistant District Attorney David Solvin then reviewed federal and Massachusetts hate-crime laws, including federal civil-rights and hate-crime statutes and state provisions for civil-rights violations, assault and battery to intimidate, religious vandalism, terroristic threats, and criminal harassment. He explained that many of these laws enhance penalties based on bias motivation, but some do not create standalone offenses or qualify as dangerousness predicates under current law. Commissioners pressed him on hypothetical fact patterns involving anti-Semitic slurs, symbols, and attacks, as well as on the limits of existing law for pretrial detention and the need for better data collection. Solvin said more training, better reporting, and possible legislative updates could improve enforcement, and he noted pending bills that would require more regular hate-crime reporting and expand protected classes. Detective Lieutenant Ryan Cepiel of the State Police Anti-Terrorism Unit and HART described the unit’s creation in 2023, its role in implementing prior hate-crime task force recommendations, and its work with local, state, federal, and community partners. He said HART has trained civil-rights officers, developed recruit and in-service curricula, created resource pamphlets and a Teams page, and is building a GIS-based reporting portal to improve tracking and victim support. Cepiel reported a year-over-year rise in reported anti-Semitic hate crimes in Massachusetts, while noting that current numbers are incomplete because reporting is inconsistent and there is no mandate for local departments to notify HART. Commissioners discussed underreporting, rural versus eastern Massachusetts coverage, the need for more officers and training, and the importance of making victims feel safe coming forward. The meeting ended with agreement that better data, training, and coordination are needed to address the rise in anti-Semitic hate and bias incidents.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other states have been able to substantially reduce their error rates.
• Those contributed substantially.
• And so there's just been pretty substantial reductions.
• But we are preparing for some pretty substantial changes ahead in the reconciliation bill.
• But less than 1% is quite a substantial amount of money.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's a substantial wide berth for somebody that's new in the business.
• So there's a substantial wide berth for somebody that's new in the business.
• Like Danielle said, when we did this with vaping, they received a pretty substantial wide berth.
• So there's a substantial wide berth for somebody that's new in the business.
• There's a substantial wide berth for somebody that's new in the business.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up several liquor-related bills. Senate Bill 24, allowing students under 21 to taste wine in educational settings, drew no opposition or amendment and was reported out 6-0. Senate Bill 79, authorizing self-pour automated systems under the liquor commission, also faced no opposition and was voted ought to pass 6-0. Senate Bill 80, shifting licensing, auditing, and enforcement for wholesale and retail e-cigarette sales to the liquor commission, prompted discussion about whether the change would add cost; members heard that the liquor commission already handles similar enforcement and that the change was meant to address nonreporting. It was voted ought to pass 6-0. The committee then discussed Senate Bill 87, concerning alcohol service in salons, barbershops, and spas. Members and staff focused on how to limit the amount served, whether to require recordkeeping, and privacy concerns about tracking what patrons drank. The discussion settled on removing references to alcohol type and quantity and keeping only patron records, with the understanding that the agency would set the details by rule. The bill was not formally amended at the meeting, but members agreed an amendment would be drafted for the following week; the bill itself was reported ought to pass with that amendment to be determined. Finally, the committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 245, the EMS No Surprises Act and System Stabilization Act. The sponsor, Senator Suprena, said the bill would prohibit balance billing for emergency ambulance calls and unscheduled transfers, while setting reimbursement at either locally set public rates or 325% of Medicare. She explained that the proposal was based on national work on ground ambulance billing and was intended to stabilize struggling EMS providers. Committee members sought clarification that the bill did not eliminate balance billing for non-emergency transfers, and the sponsor confirmed it did not. A second witness, Jerry Stringham, testified in support, citing his reimbursement background.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've enacted substantial zoning changes.
• We've enacted substantial zoning changes.
• We've enacted substantial zoning changes.
• We've enacted substantial zoning changes.
• We've enacted substantial zoning changes.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• of information from contractors, and it requires us to put in a lot of information. been paying substantially
• less for the been paying substantially less for the exact<00:09:23.200> same<00:09:23.640>
• :10:10.279> follow We're starting to build it out with our vendors, and it will make it substantially
• 39.360> for<00:10:39.639> vendors<00:10:40.200> to<00:10:40.360> be substantially
• easier for vendors to be substantially easier for vendors to be able<00:10:40.680> to<00:10:40.880

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As you start to add all these costs together, all of a sudden the price tag becomes substantial.
• We've seen some of those costs raised substantially, and originally it was always the intent of enabling
• innocuous, but as you start to add all these costs together, all of a sudden the price tag becomes substantial
• commercial property, owns farmland, the increase in real estate taxes in recent years has been substantial
• commercial property, owns farmland, the increase in real estate taxes in recent years has been substantial

Keywords: 1187, senate, all