Transcript Highlights:

• the approach of preparing now by dedicating funding to the health care authority for workers, for contracts
• of page 5, line 25, over to page 6, 3 million It's appropriated to the health care authority to contract
• the years beyond that to see how, perhaps, if we can keep it hopefully We can, how there may be modifications

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><02:10:20.960><c> and</c><02:10:21.199><c> the</c> contract can enter a contract and the contract
• </c> contracts all of that and it takes time. contracts all of that and it takes time.
• It's right in the contract. established. It's right in the contract.
• to be contracts.
• Thank you. be contracts. So in this case it was it be contracts.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee continued work on Senate Bill 297 and a new amendment dealing with pooled risk management programs and whether they should be regulated under the insurance department. Lisa Duket, executive director of SchoolCare, testified at length that the draft language could allow co-mingling of public entity risk funds, could trigger producer-licensing requirements for staff who are not actually brokers, and may not fit public entity risk pools because they are not insurance companies. She also raised concerns about the March 1 reporting deadline, the proposed uniform accounting language, aggregate excess insurance, examination costs being charged to the program, and confidentiality provisions that she argued may conflict with right-to-know principles for public entities. She urged the committee to slow down and consider a study committee or more time for review, saying the regulated entities were not adequately involved in drafting the proposal. Chairman Hunt and the department responded that the bill is intended to create a licensure-based regulatory model, similar to other licensed industries, and that the pooled risk management program would be exempt from producer licensing while anyone else selling or negotiating such coverage would need a producer license. The department said failure to comply would be handled through an administrative licensing process, with denial or nonrenewal of a license and appeal through the department process. On the reporting deadline, the department said March 1 is a standard filing date used for financial analysis and that the filing can be the most recent annual report, regardless of fiscal year end. They also explained that the confidentiality language was taken from existing RSA 5B, that aggregate excess insurance was included as a solvency measure, and that the draft was intended to preserve familiar language while adapting it for pooled risk programs. The discussion did not include a final vote or formal action on the bill in the portion provided. The committee appeared to be compiling follow-up questions for the insurance department and considering whether additional revisions or a slower process would be needed before moving the bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:10:45.679><c> with</c> premiums for nonprofits contracted with premiums for nonprofits contracted
• <01:20:53.840><c> who</c> contract with nonprofit partners who contract with nonprofit partners who will
• </c> condition of contracting with the state. condition of contracting with the state.
• </c> third party doctrine wipes away contract third party doctrine wipes away contract and<03:44:25.760
• Well, right now the through contract?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1067-FN, which would formalize and expand mental health courts in New Hampshire and create a grant-based funding structure for them. Representative Mark Pearson, the prime sponsor, described the bill as a bipartisan, compassionate, and cost-effective approach that would connect people with mental illness to treatment and supervision instead of incarceration, while still holding them accountable. He said the proposal was developed with input from the judicial branch, law enforcement, corrections, mental health organizations, and others, and emphasized that local courts could tailor programs to their needs. Committee members questioned the bill’s fiscal note, whether the legislature had previously studied the issue, how the program would be funded, and whether the bill should more explicitly address treatment, prevention, and data collection. Representative Buzz Sher, who helped develop the bill, explained how mental health courts work, including referral, clinical and public-safety assessments, case management, goal-setting, and graduation from the program. He said existing New Hampshire mental health courts are mostly partial and county-funded, and that the bill would formalize them, set standards, and allow grant funding. He also cited data from Georgia and New Hampshire suggesting significant savings from reduced incarceration and related costs. Members also raised concerns about due process, whether people not formally charged could be swept into the system, and whether individuals with violent offenses or domestic violence histories could be diverted inappropriately. Sher responded that only people already in the criminal justice process are eligible and that courts use safety assessments to screen out most violent cases. The committee requested that Sher file supporting financial data from other jurisdictions, and he agreed to do so. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• contractual negotiations, which means that we are infringing upon fundamental rights to freely consent and contract
• Representatives Jackson and Wright and also Senators Amabile and Michaelson Jenet, concerning modifications
• </c><01:22:07.440><c> of</c> House Bill 1076 by Representatives Paschal and Lindsay concerning modifications

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:10:45.679><c> with</c> premiums for nonprofits contracted with premiums for nonprofits contracted
• </c> condition of contracting with the state. condition of contracting with the state.
• Can you put it in your control through contract?
• Well, right now the through contract?
• </c><03:59:53.360><c> So</c> all of it subject to contract. So all of it subject to contract.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Nowadays, you know, a big contract.
• This is not by any measure a regular real estate contract or even a regular contract for services with
• </c><01:25:37.120><c> for</c> contract or even a regular contract for contract or even a regular contract
• Uh and don't sign a 20-year contract.
• So if it's an estate contract.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I think that that is violating But I think that that is violating people rights to be able to contract
• and people rights to be able to contract and people rights to be able to contract and go to work.

Bills: SJR 4, SJR 40, SJR 81, SCR 37, SCR 39, SB 22, SB 32, SB 33, SB 36, SB 38, SB 95, SB 209, SB 249, SB 311, SB 326, SB 365, SB 458, SB 609, SB 660, SB 664, SB 693, SB 732, SB 745, SB 760, SB 762, SB 779, SB 783, SB 785, SB 868, SB 871, SB 883, SB 921, SB 955, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1008, SB 1057, SB 1067, SB 1151, SB 1171, SB 1210, SB 1255, SB 1265, SB 1267, SB 1271, SB 1307, SB 1313, SB 1316, SB 1318, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1365, SB 1426, SB 1470, SB 1484, SB 1494, SB 1559, SB 1592, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1637, SB 1677, SB 1706, SB 1758, SB 1762, SB 1786, SB 1809, SB 1818, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1871, SB 1967, SB 2064, SB 2077, SB 2112, SB 2148, SB 2320, SB 2406, SB 2407, SJR 36, SJR 81, SJR 50, SJR 4, SJR 40, SJR 27, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SB 921, SB 609, SB 660, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 1008, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1877, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 731, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 1371, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 2064, SB 868, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 37, SJR 39, SCR 1, SCR 27, SCR 32, SCR 42, SCR 6, SB 2232, SB 819, SB 2078, SB 2252, SB 1962, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1577, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 1030, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 2411, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 34, SB 1261, SJR 81, SB 32, SB 458, SB 664, SB 693, SB 868, SB 1008, SB 1267, SB 1307, SB 1321, SB 1484, SB 1637, SB 1809, SB 1822, SB 2064, SB 2112, SB 2320, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 609, SB 660, SB 921, SB 779, SB 1470, SR 388, SB 3042, SB 440, SB 2876, SB 3042, SB 440, SB 2876

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, emergency powers, legislative authority, governor powers, disaster management, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes

Bills: SJR4, SJR40, SJR81, SCR37, SCR39, SB22, SB32, SB33, SB36, SB38, SB95, SB209, SB249, SB311, SB326, SB365, SB458, SB609, SB660, SB664, SB693, SB732, SB745, SB760, SB762, SB779, SB783, SB785, SB868, SB871, SB883, SB921, SB955, SB993, SB996, SB1008, SB1057, SB1067, SB1151, SB1171, SB1210, SB1255, SB1265, SB1267, SB1271, SB1307, SB1313, SB1316, SB1318, SB1321, SB1332, SB1365, SB1426, SB1470, SB1484, SB1494, SB1559, SB1592, SB1596, SB1598, SB1637, SB1677, SB1706, SB1758, SB1762, SB1786, SB1809, SB1818, SB1822, SB1841, SB1871, SB1967, SB2064, SB2077, SB2112, SB2148, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SJR36, SJR81, SJR50, SJR4, SJR40, SJR27, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SB921, SB609, SB660, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB955, SB957, SB541, SB266, SB1415, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB1062, SB711, SB746, SB1404, SB1448, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB667, SB1059, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1484, SB1273, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1841, SB1008, SB2016, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB860, SB993, SB693, SB1537, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB984, SB619, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1877, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB731, SB268, SB1822, SB1589, SB397, SB1058, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB508, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB1371, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB1809, SB1080, SB745, SB826, SB989, SB1320, SB1437, SB2320, SB2289, SB1171, SB664, SB1637, SB2064, SB868, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB883, SB249, SB1318, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB365, SB1067, SB1786, SB326, SB1401, SB1592, SB1728, SB1265, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1559, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1677, SB95, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB871, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1316, SB1314, SB1313, SB1426, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB1871, SB36, SB855, SB1233, SB760, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB762, SB1271, SB1818, SB605, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB1967, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SJR39, SCR1, SCR27, SCR32, SCR42, SCR6, SB2232, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, emergency powers, legislative authority, governor powers, disaster management, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes

Transcript Highlights:

• These modifications simply make a strong law stronger and ensure it continues to protect Minnesota communities
• These modifications<00:07:38.040><c> simply</c><00:07:38.320><c> make</c><00:07:38.480><c> a</c><00:07
• :38.520><c> strong</c><00:07:39.080><c> a</c> modifications simply make a strong a modifications simply

Bills: HF3771, HF3658, HF3453, HF3358, HF1775

Keywords: disaster assistance, contingency account, Minnesota emergency management, public safety, state disaster aid, FEMA, federal cost-share, emergency relief, natural disaster, budget report, appropriations report, management and budget, local governments, utility cooperatives, public works, infrastructure repair, chapter 12B, chapter 12A, emergency management, disaster recovery

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 1064, by Representatives Jackson and Rydin and Senators Mabrey and Mlet, concerning modifications
• Senator<00:51:30.720><c> Mlet</c><00:51:31.119><c> concerning</c><00:51:31.440><c> modifications</c><
• 00:51:31.839><c> to</c> Senator Mlet concerning modifications to Senator Mlet concerning modifications

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And also to adopt the amendment proposed in HHFTC's testimony to allow for a waiver or modification of
• c><01:57:13.440><c> a</c><01:57:13.599><c> waiver</c><01:57:13.920><c> or</c><01:57:14.080><c> modification
• </c><01:57:14.639><c> of</c> to allow for a waiver or modification of to allow for a waiver or modification

Bills: HB1604, HB1713, HB1722, HB2270, HB2401, HB2515, HB1979, HB1593, HB1743, HB2122, HB1756, HB1837, HB1729

Keywords: agriculture, housing, workforce, land use, zoning, public-private partnerships, tax credit, school impact fees, impact fee exemption, school facilities authority, residential development, housing shortage, affordable housing, infill housing, land dedication, fee in lieu, school construction, developer exactions, fair share contributions, education contribution agreement

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1604, which would create an agricultural workforce housing group within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to address shortages of farmworker housing. The department said it supported the bill’s intent but emphasized that the group’s early work should focus on gathering data and surveying farm operators to assess actual demand, to avoid “mission creep.” Testimony from the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Housing Hawaii’s Future, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce was in support, with one witness suggesting a housing advocacy nonprofit be added to the working group for balance. The committee then discussed HB 1713 on school impact fees, which would clarify exemptions for certain affordable housing projects and exempt new residential developments of fewer than 100 units. The Attorney General’s office said the bill should define “low to moderate income households” because that term is not defined in chapter 302A. HHFDC, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and others supported the measure, arguing it would reduce administrative burden and remove barriers to housing. Members questioned whether the bill should instead repeal the school impact fee entirely; supporters said they also favored full repeal but viewed this bill as a more feasible step. The School Facilities Authority also explained that about $28 million in school impact fees had been collected across four districts and none had yet been spent, and discussed how recent nexus requirements limit how the funds can be used. HB 1722, relating to residential condominiums, drew extensive testimony and questioning. HCDA supported the bill and explained that it amends the 99-year leasehold pilot program created by Act 97 of 2023 by reducing owner-occupancy restrictions from 100% of units to 60%, allowing some rental or subleasing flexibility for the owner-occupied units, and permitting up to 40% of units to be sold to qualified residents after being on the market for more than 60 days. HCDA said the original restrictions, combined with rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and competition from nearby projects, made the pilot project difficult to market and finance; it said the changes are needed to make the project feasible and competitive. Supporters including AP Hawaii, Kila LLC, and project representatives said the amendments would help make the demonstration project in Kakaʻako viable. Some members raised concerns that the changes could weaken long-term affordability and questioned why certain ownership language was being deleted if rentals would still be restricted. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Draheim has talked about what he was thinking about and why he felt this was an important modification
• again, I can— and why he felt this was an important um and why he felt this was an important um modification
• 53.440><c> Any</c><00:20:54.080><c> thoughts</c><00:20:54.400><c> from</c><00:20:54.640><c> the</c> modification
• Any thoughts from the modification.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• inability to have the resources meet the needs of the students through our previous offsets or modifications
• inability to have the resources meet the needs of the students through our previous offsets or modifications
• inability to have the resources meet the needs of the students through our previous offsets or modifications
• Modifications that save the program um about 79 million per biennium. Thank you, Miss Lori.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee reviewed differences among the Governor’s, House, and Senate proposals for state grant parameter changes and their effects on state grant spending, North Star Promise spending, and average student awards. Nonpartisan staff explained that the proposals use different combinations of parameter changes, with the Governor’s and Senate plans modeled to avoid or minimize rationing, while the House plan would require rationing to balance the program. Staff reported projected biennium balances of a positive $29.836 million for the Governor’s proposal, a negative $60.758 million for the House proposal without rationing, a positive $994,000 for the House proposal with rationing, and a positive $3.623 million for the Senate proposal; North Star Promise balances also varied, with the Senate showing a positive balance and the Governor and House with rationing showing negative balances. Staff also said the Senate proposal would extend availability of the state grant appropriation and suspend surplus procedures through fiscal year 2029, allowing the balance to carry forward. The committee then focused on the House-only tuition and fee cap provision, which would limit the tuition recognized for state grant purposes for four-year programs to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities level, with 1% annual increases in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. House members said the cap was intended to address rising tuition, especially at the University of Minnesota, and to produce savings in the state grant program. The governor’s office confirmed the provision was not included in the Governor’s bill. Representatives from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Private College Council opposed the cap, arguing it would reduce awards for low-income students and shift costs to students rather than address underlying tuition pressures; they also said it could discourage enrollment at higher-cost institutions. Supporters from Minnesota State argued the cap would improve fairness because students at lower-tuition institutions are effectively capped lower, while students at more expensive institutions receive larger awards, and they said the legislature should intervene in a variable that has grown substantially over time. Committee members questioned how the cap would work and whether it was tied to the Twin Cities campus rate. Testifiers clarified that the state grant formula is tied to the University of Minnesota level, but because Minnesota State institutions are below that level, the cap effectively limits their students to their own lower tuition while allowing higher awards at the University of Minnesota and private colleges. No formal vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue with item-by-item review of the remaining parameter changes and hear additional testimony from agencies and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation does not include any adjustments to aircraft registration rates along with the modification
• 00:05:19.520><c> along</c><00:05:19.759><c> with</c><00:05:19.919><c> the</c><00:05:20.160><c> modification
• </c><00:05:20.800><c> to</c> rates along with the modification to rates along with the modification to

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• kind of that, but I'm just wondering if in addition to purple marking, if there could be a simple modification
• purple marking if there could be a purple marking if there could be a simple<01:32:39.000><c> modification
• > just</c><01:32:39.760><c> of</c><01:32:40.159><c> denoting</c><01:32:40.560><c> a</c> simple modification
• just of denoting a simple modification just of denoting a shape<01:32:41.440><c> of</c><01:32:41.600

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Really, I want to know about health issues, but I also want to know if there are effect modifications
• <00:35:56.560><c> effect</c> want to know if there are effect want to know if there are effect modifications
• <00:35:57.440><c> with</c> modifications with modifications with um<00:35:59.520><c> ethnicity</c><00

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint informational briefing focused on restricted use pesticides in Hawaiʻi, with Senate and House members opening the meeting and explaining that the session was intended to hear expert presentations and community concerns. Fern Holland outlined the background for the briefing, describing how restricted use pesticides differ from general-use products, why state-level regulation matters, and how community advocates have sought disclosure and protections for years. She summarized 2019 reporting data, saying a small number of users accounted for most reported use, with especially heavy application in North Central Oʻahu and on the west side of Kauaʻi. She highlighted concerns about applications near schools, homes, and coastlines, and identified 1,3-dichloropropene and metam sodium as among the heaviest-used fumigants. She also noted concerns about highly hazardous pesticides, some banned in other countries, and the lack of research on long-term combined exposure to multiple pesticides. Greg Takashima of the Hawaiʻi Department of Agriculture described the department’s pesticide program and regulatory authority under FIFRA and state law. He explained the distinction between general-use and restricted use pesticides, the certification requirements for applicators, and the department’s role in tracking RUPs from sale through use. He reviewed the branch’s functions in enforcement, education and certification, registration and technical review, and laboratory analysis, including inspections, complaint response, market surveillance, product registration, groundwater review, and outreach on drift reduction and integrated pest management. He also noted staffing and funding limitations, saying the branch lacks a toxicologist and long-term monitoring capacity, and compared Hawaiʻi’s resources to California’s much larger pesticide regulatory program. Takashima thanked the legislature for passing Act 231 the prior year and said the department supports the measure as it moves forward this session. Dr. Lee, speaking for the Hawaiʻi chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and as a former member of the Kauaʻi Joint Fact-Finding Task Force, said pediatric guidance has shifted from focusing on acute poisoning to recognizing chronic low-level pesticide exposure as a concern. He cited AAP publications linking pesticide exposure to cancer, brain tumors, leukemia, birth outcomes, neurobehavioral effects, and asthma, and said pediatricians are now encouraged to advise families on reducing exposure and to support right-to-know measures and buffer zones around schools and public gathering places. He also described the Kauaʻi task force’s work, saying it found the west side of the island to be an unhealthy community but could not prove causation because of missing drift, geospatial, and biomarker data. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational, questions were held until after presentations, and the department expressed support for Act 231.

Transcript Highlights:

• had eight in which we approved additional funding, we approved additional resources, and made modifications
• and</c><01:05:17.880><c> made</c> additional resources and made additional resources and made modifications
• <c> policy</c><01:05:19.520><c> during</c><01:05:19.880><c> that</c><01:05:20.079><c> time</c> modifications
• to policy during that time modifications to policy during that time so<01:05:21.160><c> we</c><01:05

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Director Hansen said there is not a provision requiring any type of retrofitting or modification to an
• or<00:46:31.880><c> any</c><00:46:32.160><c> type</c><00:46:32.359><c> of</c><00:46:32.559><c> modification
• </c><00:46:33.240><c> to</c><00:46:33.440><c> an</c> or any type of modification to an or any type of
• modification to an existing<00:46:34.599><c> uh</c><00:46:34.680><c> machine</c><00:46:35.240><c> this

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Assembly Bill 2033 by Assembly Member Papan, an act relating to public contracts.
• I rise today to present AB 2033, which authorizes general law cities to have job order contracts for
• It reminds me of the proliferation of all these call centers and contracts.
• Really, this is calling for a contract for an NGO to provide these services.
• And so we ended up spending nearly $5 million on this contract for zero.

Summary: The Assembly met in session, established a quorum, approved dispensing with the previous day’s journal, and then took up a long third-reading file. Early procedural actions included moving AB 1589 to the inactive file and continuing reconsideration items. The chamber then considered a series of bills largely focused on immigration enforcement, detention, worker protections, child care, voting access, and related public services. Several immigration-related measures passed, including AB 2393 on damages for false imprisonment/arrest, AB 1994 on an immigrant victims’ rights and resources card, AB 1929 on health plan investment disclosures, AB 1633 imposing a tax on for-profit detention facilities, AB 1650 requiring decals on rental vehicles used for enforcement, AB 1655 protecting CalWORKs benefits when a child is detained, and AB 1896 disqualifying people who participated in immigration enforcement from certain public employment. AB 2230, which would bar immigration enforcement near polling places and child care facilities, also passed after extensive debate. Supporters framed these bills as accountability and protection for vulnerable communities; opponents argued they targeted federal law enforcement, were unnecessary, or raised constitutional concerns. AB 1851 on statewide school mental-health guidance also passed unanimously. After the midday recess, the Assembly returned and continued with more bills tied to immigration impacts and child welfare. AB 2379 passed with urgency, requiring child care providers to be informed of constitutional rights and trained on protections when confronted by immigration enforcement. AB 2460 passed to update school behavioral-health referral protocols for students affected by immigration enforcement trauma. AB 2495 passed to expand prohibitions on employer immigration-related threats, and AB 2662 was presented as a way for California to monitor and document federal enforcement actions and report on their community impacts. Throughout the day, the floor featured repeated exchanges over whether the bills addressed real problems or were political messaging, but the measures that came to a vote generally advanced with majority support.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's in their contracts that they're required to have it.
• It's in their contracts that they're required to have it.
• It's in their contracts that they're required to have it.
• It's in their contracts that they're required to have it.
• It's in their contracts that they're required to have it.

Bills: HF3217, HF2252

Keywords: bioindustrial facilities, economic development, renewable energy, advanced biofuels, state funding, HF2252, Minnesota bonding, volume cap, private activity bonds, tax-exempt bonds, public facility bonds, public facilities pool, unified pool, bond allocation, municipal finance, bond cap, housing bonds, residential rental projects, manufacturing bonds, enterprise zone bonds