Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and it has been a long process.
• That process is a multi-step competitive process, and it was launched early in 2025 with the release
• That process is a multi-step competitive process, and it was launched early in 2025 with the release
• Conditions related to budget amendments.
• And the grants management<00:25:10.960> process. management process. management process.

Bills: HF3426, HF3428

Keywords: natural resources, environment, sustainability, conservation, outdoor recreation, land acquisition, real property, trust fund, commissioner approval, Department of Natural Resources, DNR, conservation easement, land purchase, state land, public lands, property acquisition, value assessment, tax assessed value, Metropolitan Council, Board of Water and Soil Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand what the process is, but I open that for discussion or consideration.
• I understand what the process is, but I open that for discussion or consideration.
• is, but I I understand what the process is, but I open<00:15:42.640> that<00:15:42.840> for
• <00:52:37.440> Um pass a budget. Um pass a budget.
• Uh, yes, we're getting a ... we're in the process of getting that pink card from the commissioner.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process to work its way through and see if we can make the desired changes within the budget.
• <00:22:12.000> process in this area within the budget process in this area within the budget
• We could certainly work with the House in their phase of the budgeting process to move this amendment
• We could certainly work with the House in their phase of the budgeting process to move this amendment
• and the procedures of how the budget process moves through on addressing this very important issue.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in the health and human services budget in the health and human services budget and<00:06:04.560
• chips for uh our legislative process. chips for uh our legislative process.
• So in all based in budgets.
• It'll now be a 10-year or 14-year process. It'll now be a 10-year or 14-year process.
• That was the process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the budget cut. the budget cut.
• the budget.
• We subject them to the same budget process that everyone goes through.
• We subject them to the same budget We subject them to the same budget process<00:57:59.359> that
• budget. These are fine. budget. These are fine. Concur.

Keywords: 10am HB 1 & HB 2, 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference for HB 1 and HB 2 reviewed the side-by-side budget comparison and began working through agreed and disputed items. Members first confirmed that grayed-out items were already settled and discussed a process for making later technical and intent changes, especially to true up abolished positions after additional decisions were made. They then moved through several budget sections, including judicial branch reductions, retirement systems, the Department of Justice, the Human Rights Commission, liquor enforcement, corrections, and the Department of Information Technology. Several items were agreed to or treated as settled package items, including the judicial branch position, the Department of Justice reduction, the Human Rights Commission item being held until related HB 2 language is finalized, the Housing Appeals Board being moved into the Board of Tax and Land Appeals, and the Office of Child Advocate. The committee also agreed to update the House bill language as needed based on HB 2 decisions, and to keep certain IT support rows in place unless related boards and commissions are eliminated. The effective date remained July 1, 2025, with no change. The main unresolved discussion centered on the retirement systems budget, where the Senate defended a large increase for deferred IT security and investment-function improvements, while the House argued the increase was too large and favored a back-of-the-budget cut. The Senate said the funds would support strategic IT and investment changes and would remain in the trust if cut, while the House emphasized the size of the increase and suggested a compromise. The committee ultimately retained the Senate position on retirement systems for the moment and said it would return to the issue later. On corrections and liquor enforcement, the committee described a negotiated back-of-the-budget cut structure, including a $10 million cut for corrections with some restoration of POS offices and administrative aides, and a liquor enforcement cut that was treated as part of a broader package. The Department of Safety item related to commercial enforcement and motor vehicle inspections was held for later discussion. The meeting ended with several items agreed, several held for coordination with HB 2, and some major budget questions still open.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lines 25 to 32 track the activity both for the governor's budget and for the Senate's budget in the health
• and for uh the governor's budget and for uh the senate's<00:02:59.840> budget<00:03:00.800>
• <00:10:20.000> since Services budget since Services budget since um<00:10:22.720> um
• > poses know the budget forecast poses know the budget forecast poses challenges<00:52:55.520>
• throughout the budget horizon. throughout the budget horizon.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• governor's budget governor's budget recommendations<00:03:15.799> I'm<00:03:16.000> here
• in the budget in the budget proposal<00:04:17.759> these<00:04:17.959> include<00:
• <00:04:38.320> will proposals included in the budget will proposals included in the budget
• Minnesota has made yet this budget Minnesota has made yet this budget dismantles<00:05:25.880>
• Yet this budget proposal uses nursing homes to balance the budget, which leaves us with the question:

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Committee on Human Services Finance and Policy met to approve prior minutes and then take public testimony on the governor’s budget recommendations for human services. The chair explained the hearing format and noted that DHS declined to testify. Much of the testimony focused on proposed reductions or caps affecting disability waiver services, nursing homes, and elderly waiver programs, as well as related fee and tax changes in the budget. Representatives of ARM argued that the governor’s proposal would cap inflationary adjustments at 2%, limit rate exceptions, cap billable days, and restrict individualized home supports, which they said would worsen workforce shortages, reduce wages for direct support professionals, and destabilize disability services. They said the package would cut about $600 million over four years and could lead to group home closures, higher turnover, and families losing access to local homes and services. Committee members asked about real-world impacts and future rate adjustments, and ARM responded that providers have already planned around expected 2026 rates, so a cap would create immediate budget and staffing problems. Long-Term Care Imperative testified against nursing home-related cuts, saying the budget would cap future rate increases, limit health insurance costs in rate setting, phase out closure-related agreements and incentives, and fail to fully fund the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board. They estimated the nursing home provisions could amount to a $218 million cut over four years, or roughly $350 million when combined with other underfunding, and said every nursing home and bed in Minnesota would be affected. They also criticized the lack of an inflation factor in Elderly Waiver, a proposed 54% increase in assisted living fees, and possible changes to provider-assessed fine and penalty funds. Members asked about staffing and bed availability, and the testifiers said reduced funding would likely force more beds out of service. A later testifier, Dan Andre of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, raised concerns about the DHS budget’s proposed increase in the HMO surcharge and about carving pharmacy and non-emergency medical transportation benefits out of managed care. He argued the tax increase would raise premiums for fully insured and Medicare supplement enrollees and that managed care coordination helps members access care and medications. The hearing also included one unrelated, disruptive testimony about the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and other agencies, which the chair redirected back to the human services budget. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mooney, what was the original schedule for the construction process?
• Did we capture some additional transition funding in this budget—the 2026 recommended budget?
• I know that at 3:00, that’s when the parole process is happening.
• . ...in relation to this process.
• That's exactly where I'm driving to from the budget standpoint.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• about the process that has happened. about the process that has happened.
• We're not talking about school district budgets, right? Those budgets would not change.
• about school district budgets, right? about school district budgets, right?
• this particular budget. this particular budget.
• "Except in the sense that the SAU budget would no longer be a part of the local budget.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It comes out of our budget.
• Um, the current projected budget is $3.2 billion. Do you have any updated projected budget?
• Um, the current projected budget is $3.2 billion. Do you have any updated projected budget?
• <01:36:46.239> hole budget hole budget hole >> in<01:36:47.199> our<01:36:47.520>
• budgets. There is that much fraud. budgets. There is that much fraud.

Bills: HF3694, HF3844, HF4006, HF3785, HF3849, HF4102, HF3441, HF3507, HF3562

Keywords: transportation, tow trucks, variable message signs, road safety, emergency service, optometrist, window glazing, motor vehicle regulations, medical prescriptions, transportation safety, infrastructure, construction, appropriation, state project, motorized bicycles, motorcycles, electric vehicles, transportation regulations, safety standards, dealer license

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh it includes the the budget bill.
• into the budget bill. into the budget bill.
• particular piece of the budget bill." particular piece of the budget bill."
• things look bad in the um in the budget things look bad in the um in the budget process<00:38:42.400
• And so I'm actually very budget.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Environment and Agriculture Committee met in executive session on SB 302, a bill requiring background checks for solid waste facility owners. The chair announced a staffing change, noting Representative Comtois was no longer vice chair and Representative Barber would serve in that role. The chair then explained that the committee had before it an amendment incorporating Senator Pearl’s updated language and additional technical changes requested by DEES Director Whimsat for FBI background-check requirements, and a separate amendment offered by Representative Patenza that would add language from the budget bill relating to a site evaluation committee, moratorium provisions, and harms-and-benefits language. Representative Patenza argued that the governor’s solid waste and site evaluation language had been developed over years with the committee, the governor’s office, and DEES, and should be moved into a standalone bill so it would not be lost if the budget failed. She said she had been told by Senator Roseford that the budget language would be placed into a separate House bill, and several members supported having a standalone vehicle as a backup. Representative Bixby, Haskins, Gruber, and others said they favored keeping the work alive in a separate bill, while Representative Scully said he disliked non-germane amendments and would vote only for the base bill and the chair’s amendment. Representative Barber asked for clarification on why the amendment was considered non-germane, and the chair and Representative Patenza explained that the budget-related policy had not had a separate public hearing. Members discussed legislative procedure, including whether the committee should recess to allow a hearing on the non-germane amendment and then return to act on SB 302. After discussion, the committee took a show of hands and overwhelmingly favored recessing the executive session to Tuesday, May 13 at 10:00 a.m. in LOB room 301-303, so a separate hearing could be held on Representative Patenza’s amendment before further action on SB 302.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, we were given a budget shortfall.
• By the position and the way they process their claims.
• There will always be a person there to oversee that process.
• I think sometimes you have to look at the process.
• Thought process, and perhaps you can have people thinking about this.

Transcript Highlights:

• I, I like being on this committee because it's my field of expertise and study, which is public budget
• , budgeting and finance.
• Uh, we're budgeted for 77, and our new budget, which kicks in in July, is expected to have 80 individuals
• We are not a state budgeted entity.
• So we're at the very beginnings of, uh, the integration process itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:34.799> in between some of the the processes in between some of the the processes in
• But of course now uh the the process.
• <00:35:54.800> in can speak to um kind of our process in can speak to um kind of our process
• So, that's probably where where budget.
• I department runs a very lean budget.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The conference committee received a nonpartisan walkthrough of the House and Senate side-by-side for higher education-related legislation, with staff identifying Senate-only, House-only, identical, and technical-difference provisions. Topics included paid blood donation leave for Minnesota State employees, a revised higher education attainment goal, athletic fee restrictions, developmental course disclosures, American Indian Scholars Program eligibility, protections and definitions for pregnant and parenting students, online program management contracts, student aid reporting, work-study and dual training grants, private and out-of-state postsecondary education regulation, private career school licensing and data privacy, college savings plan changes, and several University of Minnesota-related provisions. House-only items also included an unemployment insurance aid adjustment, a $1.5 million ongoing appropriation for an identity verification system to combat enrollment fraud, and $5,000 for Bemidji State University reforestation; Senate-only items included Board of Regents appointment language, limits on for-profit control of medical school curriculum, and reporting on for-profit funding in medical education. After the walkthrough, the committee moved to adopt the same and similar provisions and direct staff to make technical corrections. A senator asked about proposed adjustments to the pregnant and parenting student language, and the chair said amendments would be considered after adopting the same and similar provisions. The motion to adopt prevailed. During public testimony, Sydney Spre of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees supported the Senate’s paid blood donation leave language, saying it would create parity for Minnesota State employees and encourage blood and plasma donation. Commissioner Dennis Olsen of the Office of Higher Education thanked the committee for adopting most of the agency’s proposed language and said he was available to help clarify remaining differences. In response to questions, he explained the Senate’s higher education attainment goal proposal, saying it would extend and broaden the existing goal, raise the target from 70% to 75%, expand the age range, and use additional metrics and partner agencies; he also said the overall attainment rate had been 63.5 under the prior goal. The transcript ends as the commissioner was being asked whether the proposal would require additional appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, this act covers both a budget and a policy request. Our budget is what I'll cover first.
• , and we have a process here.
• , and we have a process here.
• Got the process wrong. apologize. Got the process wrong.
• budget. Uh-huh. budget. Uh-huh.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• amounts into the SNAP budget. amounts into the SNAP budget.
• However, the public the budget for SNAP.
• We fiat SNAP budget before approval.
• uh budgets. uh budgets.
• <00:20:54.400> the services folks just to process the services folks just to process the paperwork

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And importantly, the majority of the budget of the budget...
• But this is not a simple matter under these budget conditions.
• But first of all, going to the loan conversation, I have seen that the process, or read that the process
• Ultimately, this is about more than budgets and policies.
• But anyway, so that's the fundamental process.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• budget um the<00:15:14.880> governor's<00:15:15.880> uh<00:15:16.040> budget<00:
• It's a year-long process.
• the DNR through the allocation process the DNR through the allocation process we<00:32:01.639>
• They process all those payments.
• or they can go through a whole process or they can go through a whole process and<00:46:33.480><

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Legacy Finance Committee held its first meeting of the session, with members and staff introducing themselves and the chair emphasizing the committee’s role in overseeing Minnesota’s Legacy Amendment funds. The committee then received an overview of the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund from Mary Davis. She explained that the fund receives 19.75% of the 1% sales tax, is constitutionally limited to arts education, arts access, and preserving Minnesota history and cultural heritage, and is not a guaranteed base for prior recipients. She reviewed major recipients and statutory requirements, including the Minnesota State Arts Board’s 47% share, funding for the Historical Society, libraries, humanities and cultural organizations, public media, and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. She also noted the 5% reserve requirement, reporting obligations, and a 2023 legislative directive to improve access through free or reduced admission and outreach to households regardless of income. The committee next heard from Janelle Taylor on the natural resources funds, focusing on the Clean Water Fund and Parks and Trails Fund. She said the Clean Water Fund receives 33% of Legacy revenues and must be used to protect, enhance, and restore water quality and protect groundwater, with at least 5% dedicated to drinking water sources. She described the Clean Water Council’s recommendation process and said most of the money goes to Board of Water and Soil Resources projects, with additional funding for PCA and DNR monitoring. In response to a question about Hastings and PFAS contamination, she said the legislature could appropriate clean water money if the project fits the constitutional criteria and protects drinking water sources. For the Parks and Trails Fund, she explained it receives 14.25% of Legacy revenues and is allocated under the long-standing 40-40-20 split: 40% to state parks and trails, 40% to metropolitan regional parks and trails, and 20% to Greater Minnesota regional parks and trails. House Fiscal Analysis staff then reviewed the reserve requirement and available balances, noting that each Legacy fund must keep a 5% reserve to protect against forecast changes. For the upcoming biennium, they cited approximately $327.229 million available for the Outdoor Heritage Fund, $184.73 million for the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, and $133.13 million for the Parks and Trails Fund, with the Clean Water Fund total discussed earlier at about $311 million. Members briefly discussed the importance of the reserve and the zero-base nature of the funds. The committee then moved on to an overview of the Outdoor Heritage Fund and Outdoor Heritage Council from Mark Johnson and Joe Pelco, who explained that the fund was approved by voters in 2008, lasts 25 years, receives about one-third of the 3/8 of 1% sales tax, and is used to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. They described the council’s statutory role, the small grants program for projects from $5,000 to $500,000, and the annual recommendation process, but no votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:03:44.640> process<01:03:45.039> of<01:03:45.319> of was a bium uh budget
• process of of was a bium uh budget process of of seeking<01:03:46.000> funding<01:03:46.400><
• <01:04:04.720> in<01:04:04.839> it process because the grant process in it process
• This is a process.
• A health care directive is a process that is signed outside of any court process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:24:27.679> process of where we are in the budgeting process of where we are in the budgeting
• I'd like to make a motion to retain this bill for inclusion in the normal budget process.
• I think we are close enough to the end of the budget process that nobody is going to forget.
• <01:52:13.520> process enough to the end of the budget process enough to the end of the budget
• Chair, could you remind us, is this in the budget? I think it's actually in the budget.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 713, which would require mile markers on Route 112, the Kancamagus Highway. The sponsor and DOT testimony described the road as a heavily traveled but isolated corridor with little or no cell or radio service, frequent accidents and breakdowns, and serious public-safety problems when emergency responders cannot quickly locate incidents. Members discussed where markers should be placed, how frequently they should appear, whether both sides of the road should be marked, and the potential cost; DOT said the project could be done with federal funds and might be combined with other work to reduce mobilization costs. The committee agreed the bill was straightforward and voted OTP 18-0, with discussion that a friendly amendment might be offered later to refine the language. The committee then heard HB 563, concerning calculation of adequate education grants. Testimony explained that the bill would add fiscal capacity disparity aid in FY 27 and increase the special education differentiated aid factor, while also reducing extraordinary needs grants so the overall fiscal impact would be net neutral. Members noted the changes were limited to the second year because of the budget process and school district ballot timing. Supporters argued the fiscal capacity aid would help property-poor towns and should be expanded, while others emphasized the bill’s budget-neutral structure. The committee voted to retain HB 563 for further consideration in the budget process. Finally, the committee opened HB 675, which would limit the authority of school districts to make certain appropriations. A Derry resident and former local official testified in favor, arguing that property taxes are too high, that school spending has outpaced town-side tax caps, and that local voters should have more control over school budgets. Committee members questioned whether the issue should instead be handled locally through existing processes or broader governance changes, and one member noted the state’s constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education. The discussion continued, but no final action on HB 675 was taken in the portion provided.