Transcript Highlights:

• to cut local needs, local citizen input needs to pay for these shifts.
• that we need. that we need. >> All<00:24:52.559> right.
• and who needs the most vulnerable who are in need of this food right now.
• need us most.
• need more food. need more food.

Bills: HF45, HF1148, HF3624, HF3586, HF777

Keywords: HF45, Lake Benton, capital investment, bonding bill, state bonds, bond proceeds fund, Public Facilities Authority, public infrastructure, sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, utility replacement, U.S. Highway 75, road reconstruction, municipal infrastructure, local government grant, Minnesota bonding, capital appropriation, food insecurity, prepared meals

Transcript Highlights:

• I just need entry level.
• You know, we need a lot more of it. We know that We need for those.
• We know we need more funding in math.
• So we need to address this. We need to make sure we have the funding.
• We need you to help build New Mexico.

Transcript Highlights:

• I need a motion. No. Moved by Hogan, seconded by S.
• I need a motion. No. Moved by Hogan, seconded by S. I need a motion.
• office don't need to specifically. clarification that OMB and the Attorney General's office don't need
• So I may need Ms.
• Yeah, and that kind of answers my question of, do we need this? Why do we need this?

Summary: The task force approved the March 25, 2026 minutes as amended, striking language about contracting with a security vendor. Members then reviewed a draft bill on concessions procurement (LC 27.0161), which would raise the competitive solicitation threshold from $25,000 to $50,000, allow requests for proposals in addition to bids, update language for vending and merchandising machines, and clarify where concession proceeds are deposited. OMB explained the bill and said it was open to further changes, including language to address artificial fragmentation, clarify which government entities are covered, and possibly set contract-length limits. Members raised questions about whether the bill would apply to school districts, park districts, airports, and other political subdivisions, and about whether concession agreements could direct proceeds to nonprofits or other secondary recipients; OMB said the statute is intended to require proceeds to go to the government entity’s operating fund or general fund. OMB also reported on other survey suggestions. It said a proposed general authority for agencies to create pre-qualified architect/engineering vendor pools would not move forward, because the existing authority is best limited to high-volume agencies. On legal notices, OMB said it had made progress with the North Dakota Newspaper Association on modernizing online notices, improving ADA compliance, and discussing rate and definition changes. On click-through agreements, OMB and the Attorney General’s office concluded no statutory change was needed after revising internal guidance; the $20,000 threshold was described as a practical cutoff for adhesive, nonnegotiable software terms. OMB also said issues raised by the Center for Distance Education on alternate procurements and food/beverage expenditures had been resolved through policy clarification. The University System gave a brief update on its collaboration with OMB and said it was continuing to review concessions, surplus property, and capital project statutes with all institutions involved. The task force then discussed a draft bill on requirements for new or expanded spending, intended to require agencies to identify program purpose, needs, alternatives, success measures, and budget details, and to report on outcomes over time. Members and staff debated whether OMB or Legislative Council should collect and report the information, how much should be real-time versus periodic, and whether the bill should include full implementation costs for pilot programs. Legislative Council staff said the new program evaluation division is still being built out, that staffing remains limited, and that the office plans to continue working with OMB and the executive branch to refine the proposal before the next meeting. No final action was taken on the draft bills beyond directing further work and follow-up for the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Being extensively in need of additional funding.
• If we need to have the department...
• I just know I've heard a lot of school districts saying we need to address this and we need a bigger
• do what we need to do; you know, that may not be near as much percentage... ...what we need to do.
• at least following up on administering special needs.

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• There needs to be guardrails in place, and we need to put those guardrails in place if this policy is
• I don’t need confidentiality.
• So I need some guardrails in here. I need to ensure our children are protected.
• I need to ensure our employees are protected.
• They need, or at least access to the information that they need, to do the jobs that they were elected

Bills: S0824, S1170, S1620, S1738, S7036

Keywords: school district, real property, inventory, land use, education, video monitoring, safety, special education, parental rights, public education, school board rights, transparency, employment conditions, nondisclosure agreements, educational facilities, student safety, teacher accountability, physical plant, school design, construction standards

Summary: The Education Pre-K-12 Committee considered several K-12 bills and resolutions. SJR 1104, by Senator Massullo, would place on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment protecting voluntary religious expression in public schools; supporters said it simply codifies existing law and protects student and employee rights, while opponents warned it could entrench religious pressure and exclusion. The resolution was reported favorably. The committee also heard SB 1738, by Senator Yarborough, on educational facilities; an amendment removed crime-prevention-through-environmental-design language and adjusted transparency/safe-space provisions, and the bill was reported favorably as amended. SB 824, by Senator Truenow, was amended into a transparency measure requiring districts to submit annual reports on unimproved land holdings to DOE, and it was reported favorably. Appointments in tabs 7 and 8 were recommended for confirmation. The committee then took up SPB 7036, a comprehensive education package by Chair Simon. The bill would expand educational emergency triggers, adjust Title I withholding uses, align charter school rules with school improvement processes, update safety and early learning provisions, expand literacy and math interventions, and revise educator pipeline policies. Members raised concerns about a provision that could allow the state to develop instructional materials; Simon said that section was still being considered and would need guardrails. The committee adopted a motion to submit the bill as a committee bill, and it was reported favorably. SB 1620, by Senator Leak, proposed a “school board members’ bill of rights” giving board members direct access to district documents and staff, limiting district attorneys’ dual representation, strengthening nepotism rules, and prohibiting nondisclosure agreements. Volusia County school board members and others testified both for and against the bill, with supporters citing transparency and accountability and opponents warning about confidentiality, staff pressure, and undermining the superintendent’s authority. The bill was reported favorably. Finally, SB 1170, by Senator Calatayud, as amended, would allow parents of students in self-contained ESE classrooms to request cameras, with district policies governing review, notice, timelines, and appeals. Parents, advocates, and educators testified strongly in support, while one witness opposed it as an unfunded mandate. The committee reported the bill favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• They need something in the back door.
• The people need so much. Next would be a proponent. Or last name?
• And we need our focus on what it.
• whatever they need to do, but it 100%. whatever they need to do, but it 100%.
• need to have<00:22:19.280> a<00:22:19.600> CA.

Bills: HB180

Keywords: education, county superintendent, appointed, elected officials, Conecuh County, local control, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to look at those case studies; we need to trace back and see what's going on with those children
• We definitely need to get more.
• So I think we need to be ambitious about these timelines, and when there's a real need for an extension
• need to be lower.
• I, too, think that we need to hear from CYFD, but I think we also need to hear from the Department of

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the VA needs reform.
• We need... We create a claim that then needs to be worked and it goes into our existing inventory.
• We need to restore, you're right, accountability. We need to make.
• We need to leverage. We need to flatline our management. We need to flatline organizations.
• We need to streamline mission. We need systems that can do what we need them to do.

Bills: SB124, SB201, SB275, SB410, SB478, SB607, SB610, SB611, SB654, SB702, SB787, SB831, SB892

Keywords: Department of Veterans Affairs, disciplinary procedures, accountability, personnel actions, whistleblower protection, cancer, military, aircrew, veterans, health study, toxins, morbidity, mortality, service members, mental health, community care, accessibility, treatment programs, substance abuse, appointments

Summary: During the meeting, various members engaged in extensive discussions surrounding 15 proposed bills related to veterans' affairs. Notably, concerns regarding recent VA workforce changes sparked debates, particularly about potential cuts and their implications for veterans' care and benefits. Chairman Moran emphasized the need for thoughtful reforms and coordination with stakeholders, urging responsible measures to prevent negatively impacting service delivery. The meeting highlighted a significant bipartisan effort to enhance veterans' access to essential health services, particularly in light of recent challenges faced by the VA workforce. Senator Blumenthal's assertions about the urgent plight of veterans due to cuts in personnel drew strong reactions, showcasing the deep concern among committee members regarding the current state of veteran services.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I don't need to have it sit in my cash reserves until I have a need for it.
• We need to make sure we have the capacity to pick up anybody that needs that ride.
• We need to make sure we have the capacity to pick up anybody that needs that ride.
• that you need to learn.
• that you need to learn.

Summary: The committee met as a study subcommittee on fixed-route public transportation and first approved the December 11 minutes. It then heard detailed presentations from transit leaders in Grand Forks, Bismarck/Mandan, and Fargo about their systems, including route structures, paratransit service, ridership trends, fare changes, funding sources, fleet replacement needs, and operational challenges. Grand Forks described Cities Area Transit’s 17 routes, university shuttle service, expanded paratransit coverage, a 2025 fare increase, and rising costs for labor, fuel, parts, and new buses. Bismarck/Mandan’s Bisman Transit outlined its fixed-route and paratransit operations, recent service expansions approved for April 1, fare structure, ridership recovery since COVID, and major funding streams including mill levies, federal grants, and new local sales tax revenue. Fargo’s MATBUS representative emphasized the importance of continued state support for urban fixed-route transit. Members asked extensive questions about cost per ride, fare increases, school transportation, veteran service partnerships, app-based ticketing, local funding formulas, and whether ride-share or microtransit could replace fixed routes. Transit officials said fixed-route service remains essential because it provides reliable capacity, supports jobs and access to services, and preserves federal funding tied to public transit operations. They also said paratransit is costly but necessary for riders with disabilities, and that vehicle and maintenance costs have risen sharply. Minot’s transit superintendent added context on the state’s existing transit aid formula, explaining that it is weighted more toward rural and paratransit providers and that urban fixed-route systems are seeking a separate, dedicated funding source rather than changes to the current formula. The committee also heard public testimony from North Dakota Protection & Advocacy supporting both fixed-route and paratransit service for disabled riders, and from Minot staff on refurbished buses, CDL driver recruitment, and why the agency is not pursuing full electric buses. Near the end, members discussed whether to recommend additional state funding for the four urban fixed-route systems. A motion passed to have Legislative Council prepare a summary of the subcommittee’s activities for inclusion in the Government Finance Committee’s report to Legislative Management. Members then continued discussing possible recommendations, including a separate funding source for urban fixed-route transit and whether the four urban systems should meet to develop a proposed amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need only 1 or 2 of this size to supply the needs of Oklahoma. And we have 2,500 more.
• Spoiler needs. What Kyabbelca needs? And so we opened that up to cover any of those areas of law.
• Do you need somebody to specifically handle YO cases, or do you need a deprived prosecutor?
• We actually need 408.
• So, we need to raise that 5.5%.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need your help.
• We need flood gauges to trigger sirens, and we need people to understand, with public education, what
• Going on, but we need a government program.
• You need to go out in the hall. It's okay.
• The voices that you need to hear are not just from parents; you need to hear from the children who are

Bills: HB48, HB 66, HB 68, HB71, HB75, HB164, HB171, HB254, SB 3, SB 18, HB123, HB149, HB117

Keywords: HB 48, Texas alert notification systems, emergency alerts, public warning systems, alert fatigue, notification fatigue, Texas Division of Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, DPS alerts, emergency management, State of Texas Emergency Assistance Registry, STEAR, disaster notifications, weather alerts, Amber Alert, Silver Alert, Blue Alert, missing persons alerts, accessible alerts, hearing impaired

Transcript Highlights:

• That's all you would need to do.
• And you think we need them, is that correct?
• And then maybe we can, if we need to phase out— And then maybe we can, if we need to phase out the Louisiana
• There's no need to do that.
• Why do we need Texas? Why do we need ODG? You've got the question yourself.

Summary: The House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee met on May 7, 2026, and first deferred several measures, including House Bill 460, Senate Bill 322, Senate Bill 32, Senate Bill 22, and House Bill 561. The committee then took up House Bill 819 by Chairman Cruz, which would replace Louisiana’s current workers’ compensation medical treatment schedule with the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG) by MCG as the primary guideline, while keeping the existing variance and appeal process. Cruz and MCG representative Troy Prevo argued that ODG is more comprehensive, updated more frequently, and used in many states, and said it could reduce delays, disability duration, and costs. Dr. Jason Picard, the state medical director, testified that Louisiana already uses ODG as a secondary reference in many cases because the state schedule lacks coverage for some body parts and treatments, and said the bill would not otherwise change the appeals process or care delivery. Committee members focused heavily on whether the bill would delay care or improve it. Several members questioned the private-company nature of ODG, the $400 annual subscription cost, and whether Louisiana doctors would be forced to rely on an out-of-state guideline. Rep. Glorioso and others raised concerns about preauthorization delays and proposed amendments to create tacit approval when treatment follows the schedule, require payment within 30 days, and make the carrier prove by clear and convincing evidence that care was not medically necessary to challenge it. Chairman Cruz said he was willing to work with those ideas, and the committee also discussed adding an on-ramp or legacy language so current patients would not be disrupted. Opposition testimony came from injured-worker advocates and representatives of medical and labor groups, including Joseph Jola St. and Robin Krumholt. They argued that Louisiana’s current guidelines are already working, that rates have fallen over time, and that the real problem is delay in approval rather than the content of the schedule. They said ODG is overly rigid, cost-driven, and can lead to denials that shift costs to workers, Medicaid, or private health insurance. They urged the committee to keep Louisiana’s existing system and instead adopt tacit approval under current law. The bill was still under discussion at the close of the transcript, with amendments being read and no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe we need to look into that.
• Some of them need permits.
• The subpoenas doesn't, you don't need to go to a judge. You don't need to go to court.
• I yelled at the officers, 'He didn't need force. He needed help.'
• He didn't need force. He needed help. But instead of helping him, they arrested me.

Summary: The committee heard multiple bills, with extensive discussion focused on short-term rental regulation, street vending, park/public safety financing, transit-oriented housing fees, and demographic data collection. SB 346 would require short-term rental platforms to provide local governments with listing addresses and related information to help collect transient occupancy taxes and enforce local ordinances; supporters argued cities and counties need the data to identify unlicensed operators and recover taxes, while opposition from platforms raised privacy and due process concerns and said administrative subpoenas already exist. The bill was amended and passed 7-0 to the Judiciary Committee. SB 635, the Street Vendor Business Protection Act, sought to protect street vendors’ personal information from being shared in ways that could expose them to federal immigration enforcement; supporters described raids and fear in vendor communities, and the bill passed 6-1 to Public Safety. SB 499 would clarify that certain park and recreation facilities designated in local safety or hazard mitigation plans can qualify for fee deferral exemptions when they serve emergency or public safety functions; supporters said parks can serve as fire buffers, evacuation sites, and recovery hubs, while some housing advocates sought a clearer nexus to development impacts. The bill passed as amended 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 358, which would modernize traffic impact fee rules to better reflect lower automobile trip generation for walkable, transit-oriented housing, drew support from housing and transportation advocates and passed 8-0 to Appropriations. SB 515, aimed at improving demographic data collection and reporting by local governments and state entities, passed to Appropriations on a 4-0 vote. The committee also took up SB 276, presented by Assembly Member Stefani on behalf of Senator Wiener, which would allow San Francisco to create a permit-and-enforcement system for the sale of commonly stolen goods on sidewalks. Supporters said the measure is needed to address fencing operations and protect legitimate vendors, while emphasizing it is narrowly targeted and not aimed at food vendors or permitted sellers. The transcript ends during testimony on SB 276, with supporters from the Mission street vendor community and San Francisco Public Works describing enforcement problems and the need for clearer rules and city resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:46.079> to and local elected officials need to and local elected officials need to
• I do agree with you that we need density, but we need it in the areas where it's appropriate and the
• to stress that uh that I think we need to stress that uh that I think we need to<00:31:52.639>
• c><00:37:38.079> take um I also understand the need uh to take um I also understand the need uh
• Any other members needing to record a vote?

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:15 Roll Call 00:25 HB 403 Discussion 02:11 HB 403 Vote 03:08 HB 555 Discussion 04:55 HB 555 Vote 08:42 HB 321 Discussion 10:55 HB 321 Vote 13:22 HB 18 Discussion 15:21 HB 18 Vote 35:10 HB 85 Discussion 39:08 HB 85 Vote 46:40 HB 371 Discussion 49:22 HB 371 Vote 52:03 Adjournment 53:48, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Local Government met with a quorum and took up several bills, mostly focused on local planning, zoning, and municipal administration. House Bill 403, a simple measure giving coroners a six-month grace period to complete continuing education, was presented by Rep. Deanna Gordon with testimony from Madison County Coroner Jimmy Cornelson and received unanimous support. House Bill 555, a technical bill affecting audit deadlines and flexibility for small cities and certain expo center audit arrangements, was explained by JD Cheney of the Kentucky League of Cities; he said it would help about 97 cities comply with audit requirements and allow more flexibility when municipalities are making good-faith efforts. The committee approved HB 555 on a roll call vote, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee and others in favor, and reported it favorably to the House floor. House Bill 321, also presented with JD Cheney and Rep. DJ Johnson, would expand the time for planning commission and board of adjustment members to complete orientation and continuing education, with a focus on housing supply and accessibility. Supporters said it would help recruit more members and concentrate training on land-use impacts on housing; Rep. Roarx and others discussed Louisville Metro’s planning process, while Rep. Brown and Rep. Fleming raised concerns about infrastructure and long-range planning. The committee passed HB 321 favorably after roll call, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee. House Bill 18 drew the most extended debate. Sponsor Rep. John Hodgson said the committee substitute would create incentives for infill development in urban areas and extend a moratorium on zoning district classification changes for two more years, arguing that local elected officials should have more control over major density changes and that unelected boards were approving projects without adequate infrastructure review. Opponents, including Liam Gallagher of Americans for Prosperity Kentucky and several members, argued the bill would restrict housing development, interfere with property rights, and limit Louisville Metro’s ability to update its Land Development Code; supporters countered that the bill would not stop development but would require elected officials to weigh in and address traffic and infrastructure concerns. After discussion, the committee approved HB 18 as amended by the substitute and reported it favorably to the House floor, with several members explaining their votes and some opposing the moratorium on local zoning changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Hunters need far more.
• There is also a list of important needs.
• We do need to set our priorities in the state, and I think voices need to be heard as we do that, but
• There is, the need is great. There's no doubt.
• And so I think locally, as an individual, we need that to meet these needs.

Summary: The Senate Revenue and Tax Committee met to consider Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senator Jonathan Dismang, which continues the state’s long-running effort to reduce Arkansas income tax rates. Dismang said the bill would lower the personal income tax rate retroactive to January 1, 2026 and delay the corporate income tax change until the following January, bringing the rate down from 7% to 3.7%. He also said the bill would use existing surplus funds and estimated that a person making $65,000 would see their effective tax burden reduced by about 45% compared with earlier rates. The committee heard several witnesses in opposition, including a United Methodist pastor/social worker, a parent describing her son’s disability and need for supported living services, representatives from Arkansas Appleseed and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and a Marshallese community advocate. They argued that Arkansas should preserve revenue for public schools, health care, food assistance, housing, rural hospitals, early childhood education, and disability services, and said the tax cuts would disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers while providing little relief to working families. Several speakers cited low state spending relative to national averages and warned that further cuts would worsen existing service gaps. In closing, Dismang and other supporters said the state can be both compassionate and competitive, that no essential services would be cut by the bill, and that Arkansas has continued to grow revenue despite prior tax reductions. Members emphasized balancing service funding with economic competitiveness and noted the legislature’s focus on lower-income tax brackets in earlier reforms. The committee then voted to do pass SB1, and the bill was approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Hunters needed far more.
• There is also a list of important needs.
• We do need to set our priorities in the state, and I think voices need to be heard as we do that.
• The need is great. There's no doubt.
• And so I think locally as an individual, we need that to meet these needs.

Summary: The Senate Revenue and Tax Committee considered Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senator Jonathan Dismang, which would continue Arkansas’s phased income tax reductions, lowering the personal income tax rate to 3.7% and delaying the corporate income tax change until the following January. Dismang said the bill was part of a long-running effort begun in 2013 to reduce rates using conservative budgeting and surplus revenue, and he estimated the change would reduce the effective tax burden for a person making $65,000 by about 45%. Committee members supporting the bill emphasized that the measure would not cut state services and argued Arkansas should balance competitiveness with funding essential programs. Several speakers opposed the bill, including a clergy member/social worker, a parent advocating for disability services, representatives from Arkansas Appleseed and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and a community advocate from the Arkansas Coalition of Marshallese. They argued the state should preserve revenue for public schools, health care, housing, food assistance, early childhood education, and supported living services, citing underfunded schools, a waitlist for pre-K, hospital and child care pressures, and the needs of low-income and vulnerable residents. Some speakers said the tax cuts would disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers while providing little relief to working families. In closing, Dismang said Arkansas could be both compassionate and competitive and that no essential services would be cut because the state is operating with a surplus. After discussion, Senator Dismang moved do pass, Senator Petty seconded, and the committee approved SB 1 by voice vote. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we need to let a this in house? Do we need to let a contract?
• prioritized needs. prioritized needs.
• >> We need a second. >> We need a second.
• they need employees. they need employees.
• advanced notice that's usually needed. advanced notice that's usually needed.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division 3 work session opened on February 13, 2026, with the chair outlining the committee’s advisory role and the possible motions available under House Rule 45. The committee then took up House Bill 1569, concerning the Philbrook Center/state hospital campus property, and heard extensive testimony from Commissioner Charlie Arlinghouse. He explained that the property is currently one parcel and state law prevents subdivision unless a separate Senate bill, identified as SB 572, is enacted to fix the legal issue. He said HB 2 directed the sale of the property but did not address subdivision or marketing details, and he characterized the $5 million revenue estimate as speculative. He also said the state would first offer the property to the city or county, which he viewed as the most practical buyer and potential partner for any subdivision work. Members asked whether the building should be retained for transitional housing or sold, what would happen after July 1, 2026, and whether other vacant state buildings could absorb the current occupants. Arlinghouse said there are no firm plans for the building if it is not sold, and that HHS would remain until a sale occurs. He described the building as not especially historic or attractive and noted plumbing issues, while also acknowledging HHS’s view that it could serve as transitional housing. He said there is no reserve stock of office space, that the state already rents substantial office space in Concord, and that some nearby state buildings are either under renovation or only partially usable. He also said the Executive Council would have to approve any sale and that moving costs are usually not budgeted in advance, leaving the using agency to absorb them. Several members raised concerns about relying on asset sales to balance the budget, citing past examples where projected real estate revenue did not materialize on schedule. Arlinghouse agreed that one-time revenue should generally be used for one-time expenses, but said the state sometimes has legitimate reasons to sell assets and that such decisions depend on the state’s needs. He estimated the state rents roughly 100,000 square feet of office space in Concord at about $25 per square foot, and said he would provide a more exact figure later. In response to a question about whether the state should include a right of first refusal if the property is later resold, he said that idea had not been considered but could make sense, especially if the buyer is the city or county. No votes were taken during this portion of the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• lot and and we need this in Minnesota. lot and and we need this in Minnesota.
• We need to get this right."
• We need to get this right."
• "We need to get this done." "We need to get this done."
• <02:36:48.560> schools<02:36:49.040> need building but we need schools need building

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House began with a resolution recognizing May 15, 2026, as Peace Officer Memorial Day and the week of May 10-16 as Police Week in Minnesota. Members read a series of “whereas” clauses honoring fallen peace officers, including three names added to the memorial this year, and thanking the thousands of officers serving across the state. The resolution was adopted without objection, and the chamber also received a Rules and Legislative Administration report placing several bills on the calendar for the day. The main floor action was on House File 4252, the higher education finance and policy conference committee report. Supporters said the bill includes funding for identification verification systems in the MNSCU system to combat enrollment fraud, money to cover a shortfall in Fostering Independence grants for foster youth, and a small appropriation for trees at Bemidji State University. Several members praised the public conference committee process and the bipartisan work behind the bill. Others criticized the bill for not addressing the larger state grant shortfall and raised concerns about how grant dollars are allocated. The House adopted the conference report and repassed the bill 101-33. The House then concurred in Senate amendments to House File 3825, a public safety vehicle bill that also carried a package of scope-of-practice and licensing changes. Members described provisions affecting acupuncture, athletic trainers, massage therapy, mortuary science, music therapy, social work title protection, pharmacist prescribing, physical therapy, and advanced practice nursing. Supporters argued the changes improve access, affordability, workforce flexibility, and patient care, while one member warned that some scope expansions were insufficiently scrutinized and could harm the health care system. After debate, the House agreed to the Senate amendments and moved the bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to be able to need a balance.
• There's some that need to go big, there's some that need to go small, but...
• What do we need to do?
• I guess we need We don't need to make a motion. We'll just do it, right? >> Sure.
• I guess we need We don't need to make a I guess we need We don't need to make a motion.<03:19:50.920>

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><00:42:36.359> open<00:42:36.800> the<00:42:37.160> the so we need the we need
• the open the the so we need the we need the open the the warrant<00:42:37.640> language<00:42
• warrant language for sure yeah you need warrant language for sure yeah you need that<00:42:39.760
• the things which you may see as a need the things which you may see as a need under<03:14:13.160
• a program to begin with you don't need a program to begin with you don't need to<03:22:35.960>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.