Transcript Highlights:

• The biggest change from conference, really, there weren't a lot of changes.
• Not a lot of big changes there, but some of the changes that we did adopt were quite significant.
• Because of the changes in H.R. 1.
• So again, two changes made in committee, no changes on the floor.
• They did make one change.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the prior day’s journal by a 107-1 roll call vote. Members then spent a substantial portion of the morning introducing guests, including family members, students, interns, nonprofit representatives, a park ranger recognized for life-saving work, and legislative staff being honored for service or graduation. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate refusals to concur on several amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on House Bill 2818. The main floor debate centered on the conference committee report for House Bill 2002, the K-12 education budget. The budget chair explained that the report maintained record-level overall funding for the foundation formula but changed the mix of funding sources, including a reduction in capital commission dollars and use of blind pension funds, with possible later ARPA dollars to offset shortfalls. Several members argued the bill still underfunded schools by about $190 million and raised concerns about relying on projected or one-time funds; others defended the budget as meeting or exceeding constitutional requirements and noted record spending per pupil and recent increases in education funding. A substitute motion to send the bill back to conference failed 62-89, and the conference report was then adopted 83-68; the bill was subsequently third read and passed 83-68. The House then adopted and passed House Bill 2003, the higher education budget, by 119-28 on adoption and 109-32 on third reading. Debate there focused on restoring the governor’s recommended funding while directing higher education institutions to develop a new performance-based funding formula by the end of the year. Members generally described the compromise as a step toward a more sustainable model while preserving current funding levels. Next, House Bill 2004, covering the Departments of Revenue and Transportation, was adopted 128-21 and passed 127-27; discussion highlighted transportation funding, rural roads, and a small local safety appropriation that had already been addressed by MoDOT. The House then began debate on House Bill 2005, the Office of Administration budget, with members emphasizing IT accountability, state employee functions, and ongoing technology consolidation/deconsolidation issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to take a few minutes to walk through the changes, major changes, and explain how they will
• This change will ensure that bills get moved quickly.
• That is a change from where we are now.
• I also want to point out that in these rules, there's a change, and a change that's very positive, relative
• We can't go back and change that.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate first adopted three congratulatory resolutions recognizing the retirements of Dolores Hayes, Lisa Audet, and Kate Fitzpatrick. It then handled several procedural matters, including suspending Joint Rule 12 to refer a sick leave bank bill for a Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office employee to the Committee on Public Service and referring House petitions to their respective committees. The chamber also adopted a conference report on the joint rules for the 2025-2026 session after remarks from Senators Creem, Tarr, Lovely, and Fattman emphasizing transparency, public access, recorded votes, longer notice for hearings and conference reports, remote participation, and periodic review of the rules. The report was accepted by a 40-0 roll call. The Senate then took up the bill strengthening health care protections in the Commonwealth, Senate No. 2538, commonly described as Shield Act 2.0. Senator Friedman and others argued the bill was needed to protect reproductive and gender-affirming care from out-of-state and federal interference, to limit disclosure of sensitive information, to create a state-level EMTALA-style protection for emergency care and active labor, and to strengthen privacy and licensing protections for providers and institutions. Senators Cyr, Lovely, and Fattman also spoke in support, framing the bill as a response to recent federal and state threats and as an extension of Massachusetts’ prior shield-law work. The chamber considered numerous amendments. Several were rejected, including amendments by Senators Finegold and Keenan and multiple Tarr amendments on topics such as medical records, consistency with existing law, and public health data collection. Some amendments were adopted, including a Montigny amendment on health-connected data disclosure, a Brownsberger amendment further protecting privacy for reproductive and gender-affirming care, a Rauch amendment clarifying protections for patients in active labor, a Tarr amendment removing an exemption for data from personal tracking devices, and a Rodrigues corrective amendment. After the amendments, the Ways and Means substitute was adopted, the bill was ordered to a third reading, and it then passed to be engrossed by a 37-3 roll call. At the end of the session, the Senate adopted a memorial adjournment in honor of former Senate Majority Leader Louis P. Bertinazi. The Governor also filed a message submitting a bill to build resilience for Massachusetts communities, authorizing future capital spending for energy and environmental affairs, which was referred to the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. The Senate then adopted an order to meet again the following Monday at 1 p.m. and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's changing. So, let's start at the beginning. What facilitated this change?
• It's changing. So, let's start at the beginning. What facilitated this change?
• , Security around the capital has changed, Security around the capital has changed, leading<00:04
• It's changing. So, let's capital today. It's changing.
• What facilitated this<00:05:03.440> change?

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The program opened the 2026 Senate session with tributes to Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, her husband Mark, and others lost or injured during the interim, including Senator John Hoffman, who returned to the floor after surviving an attack. Senators repeatedly framed the session around courage, grief, civil discourse, and a commitment to govern despite heightened fear and political violence. The Capitol itself has changed in response, with locked doors, new security systems, more law enforcement presence, and new visitor guidelines. A major segment focused on Capitol security. Senator Bonnie Westlin said the Axtell report, commissioned by the Department of Public Safety, was the basis for new screening measures and identified weapon screening as the top priority. She said the goal is to create a safer perimeter for members, staff, and the thousands of annual visitors, while keeping access workable through single entry points and Evolv screening machines. She also discussed Senate restrictions on guns in the gallery, possible future legislation to ban guns on the Capitol complex, encrypted badges, internal access controls, and behavioral threat assessments. She noted some recommendations will require funding, with the Department of Administration seeking about $41 million. The program also highlighted the Senate fiscal review, described as a nonpartisan summary of the enacted budget that is being moved toward a more interactive web format. Another segment featured Senator Eric Lucero on affordable housing and home ownership. He said the Minnesota Housing workforce and affordable home ownership program is intended to increase owner-occupied housing supply, but argued that 123 homes built statewide is not enough to address the shortage. Lucero blamed regulation and permitting delays for higher costs, said Minnesota homes can cost $50,000 to $150,000 more than comparable homes in neighboring states, and said he will continue pushing for regulatory rollbacks to make home ownership more attainable.

Transcript Highlights:

• And these trends are not expected to change. So our funding system has to change.
• That's a change.
• That's a change.
• The number would not change, and the number would not change for the reasons that you gave.
• The number would not change and the number would not change for the reasons that you gave.

Summary: The committee first heard the proposed Pre-K-12 education budget for fiscal year 2025-26, totaling $34.7 billion. The chair highlighted major increases for the FEFP, including $29.6 billion for public schools and K-12 scholarships, a $984 million year-over-year increase, along with higher per-FTE funding, $4 billion for the Family Empowerment Scholarship, $431.4 million for VPK, funding for school safety, the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, school hardening, Jewish day school security, and an education enrollment stabilization fund. With no public comment, the committee adopted a motion for staff technical corrections and then approved the budget proposal as a recommendation to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee then considered SB 1402 on dropout retrieval programs. The bill expands eligibility so any individual who has withdrawn from high school may enroll in dropout retrieval services and clarifies how school grades are calculated for virtual instruction providers that offer those services. An amendment clarifying the grading calculation was adopted, and the committee reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee took up SPB 7030 on educational scholarship programs, a broad measure addressing school choice funding and administration. The bill would fund the Family Empowerment Scholarship as a separate categorical, expand the education stabilization fund, create fall and spring application windows, require a single scholarship application and more documentation, assign student IDs, standardize payment timing to monthly installments, require continued eligibility verification, and add Level 2 background checks for providers receiving state funds. Members raised questions about background-check enforcement, payment timing, data sharing, and the impact on homeschool and private-school families. Public testimony included support from school-choice advocates and concerns from private-school representatives about added regulatory burdens and deadlines. The committee adopted the bill as a committee bill and reported it favorably, with Senator Osgood voting no. Finally, the committee considered SB 508 on the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program, which requires private schools to disclose in writing what accommodations, modifications, and services they will provide to students with existing plans such as IEPs, EEPs, 504 plans, or ELL plans before enrollment. An amendment was adopted to require public schools to consult with private schools about equitable services. Testimony was mixed: supporters said the bill would give parents needed information for informed choice, while private-school representatives said the language could be burdensome and vague. The committee reported the bill favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• His expertise is in climate change and clean energy.
• We can stay a leader in climate change in New Mexico.
• Climate change and also the commitments of many other states.
• I mean, climate change is here every day.
• If there are changes that need to be made in this, okay.

Transcript Highlights:

• They did not offer any of these changes at that time, and I think that the changes they're suggesting
• They did not offer any of these changes at that time, and I think that the changes they're suggesting
• Questions from the senators. changes which are very extensive to say changes which are very extensive
• What<01:07:18.079> changed?
• We changed that.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:11:27.320> on and consider some some uh changes on and consider some some uh changes on
• These are changes on waivers, changes on state plan amendments, and we are left on the other side of
• <01:17:36.400> on<01:17:37.199> uh changes on on waivers changes on uh changes on on
• Changes.
• you consider making additional changes you consider making additional changes to<01:40:32.000>

Keywords: Meeting start 00:06:05 Roll Call 00:06:33 HB 152 Discussion 00:07:55 HB 152 PHS 2 Vote 00:10:12 HB 545 Discussion HB 545 PHS 1 Vote 00:13:47 HB 606 Discussion 00:15:15 HB 606 Vote 00:16:32 HJR 30 Discussion HJR Vote 00:19:07 HJR 32 Discussion 00:20:25 HJR 32 PHS 1 Vote 00:23:11 HJR 34 Discussion 00:25:04 HJR 34 PHS 1 Vote 00:28:50 HJR 46 Discussion 00:30:09 HJR 46 Vote 00:34:15 HJR 53 Discussion 00:35:40 HJR 53 Vote 00:38:55 HJR 54 Discussion 00:40:15 HJR 54 Vote 00:40:50 HB 546 Discussion 00:42:15 HB 546 PHS 1 Vote 00:46:15 HB 605 Discussion 00:47:38 HB 605 PHS 1 Vote 00:52:10 HB 694 Discussion 00:53:46 HB 694 Vote 01:07:47 HB 695 Discussion Only 01:10:20, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Appropriations and Revenue met on February 25 and considered a series of bills and joint resolutions, mostly involving appropriations, capital projects, and local infrastructure funding. The committee first adopted PHS 2 and passed House Bill 152, which creates a Medicaid supplemental payment program for public ground ambulance providers; the sponsor said the substitute ensures no state general fund dollars will be used and that local agencies must identify a funding source for any required match. HB 152 was reported favorably on a 20-0 vote. The committee also passed House Bill 545, the annual claims bill, after members confirmed all executive-branch claims were included; it was reported favorably on a 21-0 vote. House Bill 606, requiring reporting for general obligation bonds, also passed unanimously and was reported favorably. The committee then took up several joint resolutions tied to capital and infrastructure spending. House Joint Resolution 30, concerning water projects, was described as implementing ranked projects under the Waters program administered by KIA and was reported favorably on a 21-0 vote. House Joint Resolution 32, concerning school facilities construction, was amended by PHS 1 and advanced after discussion referencing the Auditor’s report and questions about a Johnson County Schools expenditure; it also passed 21-0. House Joint Resolution 34, relating to contingent appropriations for KCTCS, was amended by PHS 1 and advanced after testimony outlining three projects in Somerset, Jefferson Community and Technical College, and Glasgow; it passed 21-0. House Joint Resolution 46, for local road projects, was described as funding the highest-scoring local road requests from a larger pool of applications and passed 21-0. The committee also advanced House Joint Resolution 53, authorizing release of funds for KSU’s Health Sciences Center project, after KSU officials said the building is needed for nursing and allied health programs and promised a business plan report by November 1, 2025; it passed 21-0. House Joint Resolution 54, authorizing funds related to the State Fair Board, also passed unanimously. Later, the committee considered House Bill 546, which revises the local roads and streets program by adding a DOT-developed scoring system, monthly reporting, a match requirement, and a $500,000 project cap; members asked about the cap and were told larger projects should be handled through other mechanisms. HB 546 was reported favorably on a 21-0 vote. Finally, House Bill 605, a technical corrections and update bill for the local economic relief grant program, was amended by PHS 1 and discussed as expanding eligibility, including to the Delta Regional Authority and certain local-affiliated applicants; the transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 605.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their changes.
• in case, and I agree with those changes.
• > in not changed. shouldn't be changed in not changed. shouldn't be changed in that.<01:39:26.000
• Senate to um make things uh change Senate to um make things uh change certain<01:40:58.639> days
• amendment also makes a change amendment also makes a change uh<01:41:19.199> that<01:41:20.239

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's an additional technical change. And maybe, is that a technical change, or is that a...
• Is a chair a technical change? What is a technical change?
• And they come in and say we were gonna make a technical change to the building and/or a technical change
• And we'll see that change completely.
• Changes just for the legislature.

Transcript Highlights:

• I see a big change. Yeah.
• I see a big change. Thank amendment? I see a big change. Thank you.<00:07:26.479> Yeah.
• It makes no changes to that. standard. It makes no changes to that.
• Changes in my apologies. the language. Changes in my apologies.
• That doesn't change those rules.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:30.440> on here experts in some of the changes on here experts in some of the changes
• Nothing has changed about that.
• Okay, but there's no changes in... I thought you mentioned he mentioned section seven change those.
• Okay, but there's no changes in... I thought you mentioned he mentioned section seven change those.
• Okay, but there's no changes in... I thought you mentioned he mentioned section seven change those.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Education met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 68, which was presented by Kentucky Department of Education staff as a cleanup measure to reduce duplicative or outdated reporting requirements. The bill, as amended by a committee substitute, would streamline reporting on local wellness policies, school breakfast programs, school budgets, audits, and school nutrition assessments, while preserving existing requirements to adopt wellness and physical activity policies and maintain audit obligations. Members asked whether removing reporting on physical activity and related topics would weaken oversight; KDE responded that districts would still have to adopt the policies and be reviewed under federal nutrition monitoring, but the state reports were often incomplete, hard to compare, and not especially useful. The committee adopted the substitute and passed SB 68 unanimously. The committee then heard Senate Bill 207, the School Innovation Act, sponsored by Senator West. The bill would create an optional program allowing school districts to apply to the Kentucky Board of Education for waivers from certain administrative regulations and establish three-year “schools of innovation,” potentially with third-party partners, to give struggling schools more flexibility and a fresh start. Senator West said the model was inspired by a visit to a school of innovation in South Carolina and by examples from South Carolina and Indiana, and he argued that the bill would let districts try new approaches without mandating participation. He also said existing “district of innovation” language in statute is a relic and that the bill would replace it with a school-based model. Committee members asked about fiscal impact, eligibility, and whether the bill was limited to failing schools. Senator West said the fiscal note was indeterminate because participation is voluntary and could range from none to many districts, but he expected little direct budget change and possible outside philanthropic funding if a district chose to participate. He said the bill does not limit participation to the bottom 5% of schools and would be left to local district discretion. Members also raised whether high-performing or specialized schools could use the model; West said yes, if a district chose. Supportive testimony emphasized that the bill could reduce burdensome oversight and allow schools more flexibility to innovate. The discussion ended with continued questions and no final action recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there those wishing to vote or change their vote?
• Are there those wishing to vote or change their vote?
• Are there those wishing to vote or change their vote?
• Will there be any changes? No changes. I declare the bill to have passed as an emergency.
• Are there those wishing to vote or change the vote?

Bills: HB2268, HB3000, HB3043, HB3066, HB3078, HB3143, HB3144, HB3244, HB3298, HB3320, HB3467, HB3321, HB3329, HB3431, HB3464, HB3499, HB3500, HB3586, HB3590, HB3650, HB3671, HB3695, HB3700, HB3701, HB3764, HB3767, HB3834, HB3931, HB3934, HB3940, HB3944, HB3979, HB3985, HB4113, HB4294, HB4302, HB4317, HB4324, HB4359, HB4426, HB4427, HB4430, HB4431, HB4434, HJR1077, SR42, SR35, HJR1023, HB1225, HB1374, HB1381, HB1590, HB1675, HB2153

Keywords: HB2268, Oklahoma Health Care Authority, OHCA, appropriation, General Revenue Fund, PACE, Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, elderly care, aging Oklahomans, long-term care, Medicaid, health care funding, provider reimbursement, rate increase, low-income seniors, senior services, integrated care, emergency measure, cosmetology, barbering

Transcript Highlights:

• He said that after the review, agencies would have to take action: no change, a technical change, a substantive
• change, or repeal of the rule, based on the review results.
• legislation, where changes are underlined or struck through.
• That is how the changes would need to be presented to the public when the agencies look to make changes
• Also, with technical changes, it would identify when technical changes had in fact occurred, where right

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee met on February 3, 2025, with a quorum present and took up three main items. First, the committee considered a large set of recommended objections to Agency for Health Care Administration rules, all centered on sunset provisions stating the rules would expire after five years. AHCA asked for another deferral while it reviewed the rules, arguing the sunset language was a form of self-restraint rather than an invalid exercise of rulemaking authority. Committee leadership disagreed that further delay would resolve the issue and moved to a single vote covering all objections. The motion passed by roll call, and the committee informed AHCA that an objection would be filed unless the agency amended the rules within 30 days. The committee then heard an informational briefing from the Department of Environmental Protection on its Outstanding Florida Springs rule and stormwater rule. DEP explained that it did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory cost for the springs rule because the proposed standards largely mirror existing water management district rules and the Central Florida Water Initiative framework, so DEP said there was no new regulatory burden. Members asked about permit authority, costs, and whether the rules were functionally different from prior rules. DEP maintained the rules set minimum standards and did not add costs beyond what regulated parties were already doing. DEP also described implementation of the stormwater rule adopted under the 2020 Clean Waterways Act and later ratified by the Legislature in 2024. DEP said the rule was the product of years of workshops and technical advisory committee meetings, and that the final version included lower-cost alternatives, grandfathering, and phased implementation. DEP estimated the rule’s cost at about $2,600 per acre in the revised CERC, while industry witnesses said the real cost could be much higher, especially if land costs are included. A home builders representative argued the estimate understated impacts, while a stormwater engineer said the rule gives more flexible, performance-based tools and could become more cost-effective over time. Finally, Senator Graal presented proposed Chapter 120 changes in SB 108, aimed at tightening and modernizing rulemaking. The proposal would require five-year rule reviews, annual agency reporting, faster notice of proposed rulemaking after authorizing legislation, electronic filing, public access to incorporated materials, clearer tracking of technical changes, and limits on how long rules can remain pending ratification. Members discussed whether the Legislature should be more specific in statutes about rulemaking deadlines and whether agencies should be more accountable when rules stall. No formal action was taken on the Chapter 120 proposals, and the committee adjourned after discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• piece of paper and say these changes piece of paper and say these changes that<00:34:30.159>
• And even in today's world, if there is such a thing as moderate change contracts, a change order.
• change orders, upgrades, whatever. change orders, upgrades, whatever.
• So there needs to be a change.
• “So there needs to be a change.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• secondhand um all of those uh changes secondhand um all of those uh changes have<00:11:50.360>
• Hopefully that will change.
• the um the sh or it does does change the um the sh or it does change<00:53:12.280> and<00:53:
• You know, times have changed, uses have changed, needs have changed.
• :18.080> changed<01:20:18.960> we uses have changed needs have changed we uses have changed

Bills: HF1746, HF2585, HF1159, HF2574, HF2839, HF157, HF158, HF160, HF338, HF512

Keywords: Oakdale, tax increment financing, local government, funding, urban development, tax increment, St. Paul, redevelopment, housing authority, housing trust fund, low-income housing, property taxation, Minnesota statutes, vacant property, housing, commercial to residential conversion, Minneapolis, urban redevelopment, public parks, tax capacity

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think there's any changes. I think that's all there is for changes on that.
• think there's any changes. think there's any changes.
• Is that the change? Is that the change?
• Not much of a change in line 33.
• changes, with a couple of changes.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 751 reviewed amendment 2026-1904H page by page, focusing on open enrollment rules, capacity definitions, statewide enrollment limits, denial criteria, transportation, and funding. Members discussed clarifying that districts may set capacity at zero if they truly have no room, creating a statewide enrollment cap of 500 that can increase by 25% if it reaches 90% utilization, and exempting seats already used by open enrollment students before October 1, 2026. They also discussed how the Department of Education would allocate seats through rulemaking, while local districts would still set capacity, with grandfathered seats preserved where districts already allow open enrollment. A substantial portion of the meeting centered on when districts may deny open enrollment applications. The amendment would allow denials for reasons such as chronic absenteeism or disciplinary history, while requiring districts to consider whether those issues are tied to disability, McKinney-Vento status, foster care, or bullying. Members emphasized that such factors are to be considered, not used as the sole basis for rejection, and noted that the bill separately prohibits receiving schools from accepting or rejecting applicants based on pupil needs, special education needs, disability, aptitude, or athletic achievement. There was also discussion of whether interdistrict transfers should count toward open enrollment capacity, with a suggestion that a carve-out may be needed. The committee also reviewed provisions on program-specific capacity, continuous enrollment, and transportation. It was explained that capacity can apply to a school, grade, program, or class, including CTE programs, and that students may be denied if a specific program is full or if they do not meet prerequisites. The group clarified that open enrollment pupils would maintain continuous enrollment without reapplying, though there was concern about how that would work if district capacity changes over time. Transportation would generally be the parent’s responsibility unless required by an IEP or 504 plan, though students may use an existing bus route if seats are available and the receiving district allows it. On funding, the committee noted that the amendment changes the earlier HB 751 approach and instead ties open enrollment funding to base adequacy, differentiated aid, and an additional grant modeled on charter school funding, with dates removed at the department’s request. Members also raised concerns about how open enrollment would interact with existing tuition agreements and whether districts could use the new pathway to alter or pressure those arrangements. Department staff said districts would still be required to maintain a school of record and provide an adequate education free of charge outside the open enrollment program, and that if open enrollment enrollment became unusually large relative to district adequacy enrollment, the issue could be brought to the state board. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:25.759> at oversight that doesn't change at oversight that doesn't change at all all
• will I guess change will I guess change the<00:24:19.200> perception<00:24:19.919> and
• > change<00:24:53.679> the<00:24:53.760> way going to dramatically change the way
• Going to be this sort of change is really a corporate change for the three existing organizations
• doesn't change doesn't change so<00:49:04.480> um<00:49:04.720> that<00:49:04.880>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The work session focused on HB 54, which would allow New Hampshire’s alternative treatment centers to operate for profit. Chair David Nagel opened by identifying the main concerns: whether members agreed with the bill conceptually, whether the proposal could be shaped to avoid a gubernatorial veto, and whether it could lead to “big cannabis” taking over. He also emphasized that the bill would not change the existing oversight structure, which remained under RSA 126-X. Representative Wendy Thomas said the governor’s objections in past sessions appeared to center on the state’s preference for a state-run model and broader policy concerns, but no one present knew the current governor’s position. Several speakers argued the bill was primarily about financing and access, not expanding the number of dispensaries. Matt Simon of Granite Leaf Cannabis said the current nonprofit structure makes it difficult to raise capital, pay down debt, and open additional access points, and that the bill would be a corporate restructuring rather than a change in day-to-day regulation. Brandon Pollock of TASCAL Wellness said medical cannabis programs in most other states are for-profit, and that New Hampshire’s nonprofit requirement has left ATCs burdened with high-interest debt and higher prices that push patients to Maine, Vermont, or the street market. He said converting to for-profit status could allow conventional financing, lower prices, and help keep patients in the regulated program. Members also discussed whether for-profit ownership would invite outside corporate control. Witnesses said the bill would not open the market to new operators, would not change advertising rules, and would include restrictions on ownership transfers for a period of time; “foreign corporation” was explained as an out-of-state entity. One speaker noted that the bill is similar to earlier versions that passed both chambers with strong support but never became law. No vote was taken during the work session; the discussion was informational and aimed at addressing concerns before the bill moved forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• those changes centralized as much as I could.
• The biggest change with that was in South Florida.
• And if you're making changes in Southeast Florida to comply with state law and the changes in state law
• , you can make other changes there in an effort to do...
• And if you're making changes in Southeast Florida to comply with state law and the changes in state law

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Past session, the parameters changed.
• around us, whether you like it or not, it's changing rapidly.
• Things change. So, yes, to your point, it is something to...
• And within the last five years, there's a 5% change overall.
• at potential changes.

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum, approved the March 17, 2026 minutes, and heard a lengthy update from Tax Commissioner Brian Croshys on property tax relief programs. He reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting increased relief after House Bill 1158 and House Bill 1176, but also discussing how some households “income adjust out” of eligibility over time. Members asked about indexing income thresholds, expanding eligibility by age alone, simplifying administration, county-level notices, and whether the county and state systems could be streamlined. Croshys said the programs are heavily used, largely administered at the county level, and that the department is still refining compliance and reporting; he also said there were no material findings or overarching concerns in the latest review. The committee agreed more detailed PRC information would likely come back in a September meeting, and the chair announced an afternoon recess for lunch before later reconvening. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase report, the zero-growth report, and a statistical report on property values and tax levies by class. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and identified counties and cities with the largest percentage changes in growth or decline. She also summarized recent trends: agricultural values remain relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed values have risen over the last five years; in 2025, residential property accounted for the largest share of statewide property tax levies, followed by commercial, agriculture, and centrally assessed property. Committee members asked about unusual zero-growth figures, the effect of annexation and land-use changes, and whether the 3% levy cap was forcing political subdivisions to use reserves or defer spending. Myers said many counties complied by using reserves, delaying capital projects, or limiting increases, and that some counties had not used their full cap. The committee then moved to the stripper oil extraction tax exemption. Commissioner Croshys reviewed the state’s oil tax structure and estimated the revenue impact of keeping stripper wells exempt from extraction tax while still paying production tax. He said the exemption saves operators hundreds of millions of dollars over a biennium, while the state still collects production tax on those wells. He also discussed projected impacts if the exemption were changed for future wells and noted that future outcomes depend on oil prices, production declines, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly explained the historical difference between the 35-barrel and 30-barrel thresholds for certain wells, citing differences in completion costs and lateral lengths. The committee then heard from EERC CEO Charles Gorecki, who presented an analysis of oil well life cycles and said most oil is produced before wells reach stripper status, but that refracturing or other reinvestment can significantly extend production and keep wells above the threshold for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• Why is the intent to make such major changes to this program?
• Like, you know, what kind of changes are they going to see?
• So the change by the Todd decision actually changed that, or throughout the program there have been others
• What if we change those time limitations and eliminate those cases?
• the associated legislative change.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on State Administration heard presentations on the Department of Industrial Relations’ labor-related budget items, with the main focus on proposed trailer bill language to reform the Subsequent Injury Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) and a related budget change proposal for staffing. DIR said SIBTF has grown far beyond its original purpose, citing the 2020 Todd decision, expanded eligibility based on chronic or asymptomatic conditions, and a backlog that has grown to more than 30,000 pending cases. The administration argued the reforms would restore guardrails, reduce liabilities and employer assessments, and speed processing for severely injured workers; the LAO said the proposal was largely consistent with its prior recommendations. Members raised concerns about using trailer bill language for major policy changes, the retroactive application to open cases, and the impact on workers already in the queue, while supporters from employer groups and public agencies backed the proposal as necessary to control costs and restore sustainability. Public comment was split, with injured-worker advocates opposing the retroactive changes and business/public employer representatives supporting the reforms. The committee then heard the SIBTF workload request, which would phase in 177 positions over five years at a cost of $36.5 million, including staff for the Division of Workers’ Compensation, the Office of the Director Legal Unit, and administrative support. DIR said the additional staffing is intended to address very high caseloads and reduce processing times, but emphasized that the request assumes the reform package is adopted; LAO agreed the staffing increase made sense if paired with reforms. Members asked about vacancy rates, current staffing, and whether the workload request would become the new normal, and DIR said it would monitor caseload trends and adjust future requests as needed. Finally, the committee received an update on the California Workplace Outreach Program (CWOP), which DIR described as a partnership with community-based organizations to educate workers and help employers comply with labor laws. DIR reported that CWOP has reached 1.75 million workers and employers and made 8 million touchpoints since 2020, with the current round awarding $50.7 million to 87 partners for a two-year period through June 2027. Members and public commenters highlighted the program’s role in reaching immigrant, farmworker, janitorial, nail salon, and other vulnerable communities, and several speakers urged continued funding at $30 million per year for five years. No votes were taken during the hearing.