Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:31.680> is I would look subdivision 3 I think is I would look subdivision 3 I think
• I think my concern, though, Mr.
• I think my concern, though, Mr.
• Um, I think the subdivision three part of the I think is an improvement over the the amendment be you
• I mean, I think that is helpful.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You think about some of the great evolutions of enlightenment and thought through history, and I think
• So I think one of the things I've done in my work to be a ... for students, and I don't think we pay
• way it's designed that way I think way it's designed that way I think controlling<00:09:43.640><
• <00:10:15.279> them ination I think one of them ination I think one of them is<00:10:17.360
• resources and you are thinking declining resources and you are thinking about<00:15:47.040> how

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The forum focused on the University of Minnesota system’s future, with candidates largely agreeing that the five campuses should remain distinct while working more closely together. Speakers emphasized the land-grant mission, the importance of serving Greater Minnesota, and the need for each campus to have a clear value proposition tied to local communities. Several suggested stronger cross-campus partnerships, more use of technology, and more seamless student pathways between campuses, while also noting enrollment declines and the need to preserve campus identities. A second major topic was public trust in higher education and the perceived value of a college degree. Candidates pointed to rising tuition, student debt, and concerns about post-graduation job prospects as key challenges. Proposed responses included better storytelling about university outcomes, stronger partnerships with schools, legislators, and communities, more targeted fundraising and commercialization of research, and clearer evidence of return on investment for students and families. The discussion then turned to athletics, where most candidates described sports as the university’s “front door” but said academics must remain the priority. They raised NIL, revenue sharing, and the need to keep athletics funding separate from core university funding, while also recognizing athletics’ role in campus culture and student recruitment. In later questions, candidates discussed why they sought regent service and how to support diversity, equity, and inclusion, with responses stressing access, belonging, open debate, and meeting students where they are. No formal votes or actions were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that's critical.
• when you think many years and I think when you think about<01:34:08.760> how<01:34:08.920>
• think which I think is many issues I think which I think is very<01:34:30.000> important<01:34
• So I think that's critical.
• how I'll think the basis to I think how I'll think about<01:50:27.960> decision-<01:50:28.320

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• floor, I think, early when we get back. floor, I think, early when we get back.
• And I think we have to think about HCMC in relationship to those other hospitals.
• Yeah, I think<00:09:39.120> Senator<00:09:39.520> Champion think Senator Champion think
• It did end in a rough way and I think It did end in a rough way and I think there's<00:09:44.800
• think that we are going to come back. think that we are going to come back.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: Senate leadership said members were working through a fast-paced, intense session before a break, with many committee hearings still scheduled and about 27 bills expected to be heard that day. The leader highlighted several priorities for when lawmakers return, including an independent Inspector General proposal, additional anti-fraud measures, and packages on gun violence prevention and the Metro Surge response. The Metro Surge package was described as roughly 11 bills dealing with masks in essential spaces, aid obligations for federal agents, civil-rights/Bivens issues, and BCA participation in investigations; the broader gun violence package includes school safety, mental health, an assault-weapons ban, and a ban on high-capacity magazines, though it still awaited Finance Committee action. The leader also said bonding remains a high priority and that the Senate plans to continue moving policy quickly after the break. On budget matters, the leader said supplemental funding is needed for Capitol and Senate building security, largely because of increased personnel and overtime costs. He also said HCMC needs a short-term financing step because it is under financial pressure, but that the issue points to broader instability in Minnesota’s hospital system, especially as other hospitals may face difficulties related to HR1. Other budget-related items mentioned included housing support, rental and heating assistance, energy assistance, small business aid, health care, and food support, with some governor-proposed tax and spending ideas possibly left out because they are not affordable. The leader said the Senate is still working on fraud legislation, including the Inspector General proposal and related enforcement and oversight measures, and expects House differences to be worked out in conference committee. He described the House as a question mark and said the two chambers are moving at different paces, but he hopes to resolve differences and send bills to the governor. He also noted a rough end to the Senate Jobs Committee, said Senator Champion is considering next steps, and said Senator Mohamed and other DFL members had sent the Attorney General’s anti-fraud bill through a different committee path. He added that legislator safety is a growing concern because members from both parties are receiving threats, and he is working with counsel on possible responses. On guns in the Capitol, he said the issue reflects broader divisions and that current law allows permitted carry after screening, though he is frustrated by those using the issue to provoke emotion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is important, I think.
• I think it's awesome.
• I mean, I think that's— I think we would endorse that.
• So I just think it's, you know, I don't think we should kill them.
• So I think that's two things to think about. I don't know unless Ms.

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think there's a lot of social stigma. I think that's a big thing here culturally.
• And I think people are more open. I think the housing industry in general...
• And so as we're thinking of this model, I really think we shouldn't use the word, And so as we're thinking
• I think you're totally right. I think you're totally correct.
• And I think, too, I think that, I think that, I think that... Housing.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related proposals and policy ideas. One speaker urged changes to the welfare property tax exemption for affordable housing, arguing that annual income recertifications are outdated and burdensome, and proposing a one-time qualification at move-in, streamlined monitoring through TCAC or HCD, and continued exemption protection for projects that remain in compliance. The witness said rising insurance costs and administrative burdens are hurting cash flow and threatening the viability of affordable housing operations. A major portion of the meeting focused on social housing and the SB 555 study. HCD described its ongoing study process, including public engagement with residents, practitioners, and experts, and noted that California already has many building blocks for social housing, such as public land tools, long-term affordability mechanisms, community land trusts, and tenant protections. Community land trust and housing policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action, expanded public subsidy, tax abatements, public land, and simplified financing, and they emphasized the need to reframe the concept for the “missing middle” and middle-class households to build broader political support. Committee members discussed stigma around “social housing,” the need for a rebrand, and the possibility of a pilot program, especially on excess public land. The committee also heard a proposal for a certified professional plan-check system modeled on Vancouver, Canada. The presenter said California’s permitting delays, inconsistent reviews, and staffing shortages add cost and uncertainty even for streamlined projects, and proposed allowing state-certified private professionals to perform plan checks and inspections under state oversight while local governments retain zoning and enforcement authority. Members discussed local control concerns, infrastructure costs, and the need to reduce delays and uncertainty in the entitlement process. Finally, the committee heard testimony supporting changes to HCD loan disbursement so funds can be used during construction rather than only after completion. Witnesses said this would reduce interest costs, improve feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes with existing funding. The discussion also referenced AB 1053 as the vehicle for implementing that approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think there's a lot of social stigma. I think that's a big thing here culturally.
• I think there's a lot of social stigma. I think that's a big thing here culturally.
• And I think people are more open. I think the housing industry in general...
• I think you're totally right. I think you're totally correct.
• And I think, too, I think that, I think that, I think that, Housing.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-finance and permitting reforms aimed at making affordable and middle-income housing projects “pencil.” The first panel focused on the welfare property tax exemption, with witnesses arguing that annual recertifications are outdated, burdensome, and costly for both residents and operators. They urged streamlining by aligning eligibility rules with TCAC or HCD monitoring, allowing one-time qualification at occupancy, and preserving exemptions for projects that remain in compliance, especially as insurance costs and operating deficits are rising sharply. A major portion of the meeting centered on social housing and community land trusts under SB 555. HCD described the state’s ongoing study, due by December 31, 2026 and to be included in the 2027 annual report, and outlined public engagement already completed with residents and practitioners. Community land trust and policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action beyond the study, including expanded tax abatements, public land use, soft loans, and simpler capital stacks. They emphasized that the model should include mixed-income and “missing middle” households, and several members discussed the stigma around the term “social housing,” suggesting a rebrand toward generational or multi-generational housing to broaden public support. The committee also discussed a proposed certified professional program modeled on Vancouver, Canada, to speed plan checks and inspections by allowing state-certified private professionals to perform certain code-compliance functions under local oversight. The witness said this would reduce delays, repeated reviews, and cost overruns while preserving local authority over zoning and enforcement. Members raised concerns about local control, infrastructure costs, and political resistance, but expressed interest in exploring a pilot and further recommendations. In the final panel, housing advocates supported allowing HCD loan funds to be disbursed during construction rather than only after completion. They said this would reduce interest costs, improve project feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes without new appropriations. Members agreed the current system is fragmented and outdated, and several speakers and legislators repeatedly called for streamlined, more flexible financing and permitting tools to support housing production.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so you're saying you think yes. I think, I mean, I think they're so interrelated.
• I don't think this is going to go away. No, I don't think so.
• Don't you think?
• I think if I can clarify a little bit, I think what Senator Peterson is thinking through is what kind
• I don’t think so. Jennifer suggests. Do you? I don’t think so.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The meeting focused on ethics guidance for legislators’ official newsletters and social media posts about a major tax bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members and staff debated whether existing board guidance, which allowed comments on legislation previously before the legislature, should also apply to social media and to the current biennium rather than only the immediately preceding session. Several members argued that legislators should be able to state how they voted on the bill and discuss it as part of their legislative record, while others stressed that using state resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure is prohibited and that posts could become an indirect appeal to voters. The discussion also covered whether there should be a bright-line cutoff tied to the primary election date, after which official communications should stop discussing the bill if it is now a ballot measure. Staff and members raised concerns about tone, tenor, and proximity to the election, and whether official social media, caucus communications, and newsletters should be treated differently. One motion to extend the prior rule to the full biennium and apply it to social media failed. A second motion then passed establishing the primary date as a date certain for monitoring these discussions, with the understanding that official communications should be more limited after that point. Members noted that personal social media and campaign resources remain separate from official legislative resources. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered, before a brief break and executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> What do you think? Uh, Mr. McGn, what do you think?
• McGn, what do you<00:30:13.679> think? you think? you think?
• . think. think.
• I yeah, I think >> I think they're buddies.
• >> I<01:30:40.320> I<01:30:40.639> think >> I I think >> I I think >

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• President Davis, and to me I think this is obvious, but I think any time I think it is absolutely certain
• I don't think I am.
• But what I think, what I think— Speech is not violence, but what I think would be the most effective
• I think that's true.
• That's what I think. But I think we will, I mean, I hope we will. That's what I think.

Summary: The joint Senate and House Select Committee on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education convened for its first public hearing, adopted its proposed rules without objection, and framed the hearing as an organizational, invited-testimony-only session. Members repeatedly condemned political violence and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, saying the committee was created in response to concerns about civil discourse, intimidation, and hostility on college campuses. Several members emphasized that the goal was not to suppress speech but to protect open expression while maintaining order, due process, and institutional accountability. The first witness, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Commissioner Wyn Rosser, outlined implementation of Senate Bill 37. He described the General Education Advisory Committee, which is reviewing broad core-curriculum knowledge and skills and may recommend reducing the current 42-hour core, while leaving review of specific courses to individual institutions. He also explained the new Office of the Ombudsman, the board’s role in supporting it, and existing training and certification requirements for governing board members. Members asked about enforcement tools, transparency, and whether the ombudsman would investigate complaints involving censorship, retaliation, or political bias; Rosser said some enforcement exists in certain laws, but he deferred on the exact scope of the ombudsman’s investigatory authority and on issues outside the agency’s role. University of Texas at Austin President Jim Davis testified that UT Austin supports free speech, academic freedom, and civil discourse, and he described three areas of focus: speech on campus grounds, classroom discourse, and how people treat one another. He said the university enforces time, place, and manner rules, expects professors to present alternative views on controversial topics, and has created internal reporting and appeal processes for students and faculty. Members questioned him about heckler’s veto incidents, protests, off-campus participants, complaints about professors, hate speech, and whether the university would protect speakers and students from disruption or unfair targeting. Davis said the university would not tolerate disruptions, would use due process and factual review, and is working to align campus practices with the new law and regents’ expectations. Ricky Adam Jr. of Turning Point USA’s Club America described the group’s campus and high-school organizing, praised Charlie Kirk’s approach to open debate, and said the organization is expanding in Texas. He raised concerns about school administrators and a counselor at an Early College High School in Killeen allegedly interfering with a student club and withholding footage, and committee members said they would seek information and, if necessary, use legislative process to investigate. Members from both chambers reiterated support for free speech, criticized political violence and campus suppression of viewpoints, and stressed that future hearings would continue examining implementation and enforcement issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> this guess I I think personally I think this guess I I think personally I think this is<01:06:
• think it's sad that something I think think it's sad that something I think they<01:18:14.159>
• think you're I think I I hear you and I think you're I think you're<01:23:49.360> right<01:23
• Vol all right I think think we're up to Vol all right I think think we're up to the<01:29:55.119
• <01:37:28.719> of think I said no and I wasn't thinking of think I said no and I wasn't thinking

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 313 and, on motion by Representative Perez, voted to retain the bill because members felt it needed further work and was not ready for final action. The motion passed 18-0, and no further action was taken on the bill. House Bill 391, an anti-SLAPP measure, was then discussed; supporters said it addressed a real problem and should move forward, while opponents raised concerns that it was too broad, could affect criminal cases, and might create procedural complications. The committee voted 18-0 to retain HB 391 as well, and it was placed on consent. The committee next considered House Bill 462, establishing a cause of action for unwarranted video imaging of residential properties. Representative McFarland moved OTP, saying the bill raised First Amendment and property-rights concerns. The motion passed 18-0, and the bill was also placed on consent. The committee then turned to House Bill 509, which would require reporting on forfeitures. Supporters argued the information was useful for future legislation, while opponents said the reporting would be costly, duplicative, and potentially split data across fiscal years. The committee voted 11-7 to recommend OTP, with a minority of members opposed. House Bill 520, authorizing Department of Education hearing officers to issue subpoenas, drew the most extended debate. Supporters argued DOE needed the same tools other agencies have, while opponents said DOE already had access to needed information, the Attorney General could handle subpoenas, and the bill would create an unbalanced process and raise due process and student-record concerns. Representative Tur offered Amendment 0842H to shift subpoena power from DOE hearing officers to the Attorney General; after debate, the amendment failed 10-8. The transcript cuts off as the committee begins the roll call on the underlying bill after rejecting the amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I think when we talk about the general constituent, a general property owner, they think property
• They think what they pay.
• But I also think there's going to be a massive education program, which I think is necessary and good
• But I also think there's going to be a massive education program, which I think is necessary and good
• I think...

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes held its first meeting with opening remarks from the co-chairs and ranking member framing the committee’s task as developing property tax legislation for next session. Staff then gave a high-level overview of Florida property taxes, explaining how ad valorem taxes work, the roles of property appraisers, tax collectors, taxing authorities, value adjustment boards, and the Department of Revenue, and reviewing key concepts such as just value, assessed value, exemptions, taxable value, millage rates, homestead exemptions, Save Our Homes, and portability. The presentation also emphasized that property tax law is largely rooted in the Florida Constitution and that local governments choose millage rates, which affects collections. No public comment was taken. The committee then discussed five Speaker-proposed concepts. Proposal 1 would require cities, counties, and special districts to hold a referendum on eliminating property taxes on homestead properties; members raised concerns about local funding, public safety, special districts, renters, and the need for extensive voter education, with some suggesting countywide elections or town halls instead. Proposal 2 would create a new $500,000 homestead exemption for non-school taxes and a $1 million exemption for seniors 65+ or long-term homesteaders; members split between seeing it as meaningful relief for seniors and warning it could devastate local tax bases, especially in lower-value or rural counties, while also potentially trapping older homeowners in place. Proposal 3 would authorize the Legislature to raise homestead exemptions by general law; some liked the flexibility, but others worried about statewide one-size-fits-all impacts, political difficulty in reversing changes, and the need for local revenue replacement. Proposal 4 would change assessment caps for homestead and non-homestead property; several members said it would not provide enough relief and could shift burdens to rental properties and non-homestead owners. Proposal 5, eliminating foreclosure on homestead property for tax liens, drew the strongest opposition, with members saying it would undermine lien priority, mortgage and title systems, and incentives to pay taxes. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly stressed the need to understand local fiscal impacts, including police, fire, infrastructure, and other services funded by property taxes, and to consider alternative revenue sources or offsets if taxes are reduced. The co-chairs said the committee is still in the information-gathering stage, that all ideas remain on the table, and that members should do “homework” by meeting with local taxing authorities and learning how property taxes are set and spent in their districts. The meeting ended with no votes on the proposals and adjournment after a motion to rise.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so you're saying you think yes. I think they're so interrelated.
• I don't think this is going to go away. No, I don't think so.
• Don't you think?
• As Jennifer's scouring 180, I think if I can clarify a little bit, I think what Senator Peterson is thinking
• I don’t think so. Jennifer suggests. Do you? I don’t think so.

Summary: The meeting focused on whether legislators and legislative staff may use official resources, including newsletters and social media, to comment on a bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members discussed older ethics guidance allowing comments on legislation previously before the legislature, but questioned whether that rule still applies to modern social media posts and to ballot measures, especially when the language is strong or could be seen as an indirect appeal to voters. Several members argued that once a bill becomes a ballot measure, using state resources to advocate for or against it is prohibited, while others emphasized the importance of allowing officials to explain their votes and speak to their legislative record. The group debated possible guardrails, including whether comments should be limited to the bill itself, whether tone and timing should matter, and whether the rule should apply only to members not subject to election-year restrictions. One motion proposed extending the prior ethics guidance from the immediately preceding legislative session to the full biennium and applying it to social media, but that motion failed. Members then shifted toward a brighter-line approach tied to the primary election date, with discussion that after the primary officials should not use state resources to talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to ballot challenge. A second motion to use the primary date as the cutoff for monitoring these discussions was made, seconded, and passed. The chair then noted that officials are still free to speak on personal or campaign accounts, and to respond to questions, but the board’s guidance would help distinguish permissible official communications from campaign-like advocacy. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think that's going to be our priority, but I think you will see limited expenditures.
• I think Dr. Becker has talked >> concern. I think Dr.
• >> I think so.
• I think they're get it to you.
• >> I think so.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The governor discussed Minnesota’s budget outlook ahead of a supplemental budget release next month, saying the state remains financially strong but should be cautious because of federal uncertainty and a structural imbalance in spending. He said the administration’s approach will be measured, with limited new spending and possibly modest revenue measures, while prioritizing a bonding bill and maintaining the state’s AAA bond rating, reserves, and middle-class tax cuts. He also praised the 2023 legislative session and bipartisan cooperation as the basis for the state’s current position. A major topic was spending growth in special education and the broader human services system. The governor said special education is a fundamental service the state is legally and morally obligated to provide, but costs need to be managed more efficiently. He pointed to legacy IT systems in the Department of Human Services and county service delivery as expensive, antiquated, and error-prone, and said the state needs a multi-year modernization plan and continued reorganization. He argued that reforms such as prepayment verification and other fraud controls should reduce costs without cutting services. The governor also addressed federal actions affecting Medicaid and other programs, sharply criticizing efforts to withhold funds and claims of widespread fraud. He said Minnesota’s Medicaid error rate is lower than the national average and argued that the federal government’s approach would harm children, pregnant women, and seniors without improving fraud prevention. He also said the state’s gun violence prevention and fraud-fighting packages are expected to be relatively close to budget neutral. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken in the meeting, which was primarily a press availability and Q&A.

Transcript Highlights:

• So those I think are good.
• And I think I think I'm grateful.
• And I think you're here.
• Well, I think, Mr.
• And I think, well, we have...

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Committee met to discuss possible changes to North Dakota’s higher education funding formula, with a particular focus on separating the UND School of Medicine and Health Sciences MD program from the general formula. Dr. Jenkins outlined several options for the MD program, including a fixed-funding model, a hybrid model, or keeping it in the formula, and emphasized the need to preserve strong support for medical education while making future funding clearer. He also discussed efforts to increase the share of North Dakota students in the MD program through ND85, expanded recruiting, early acceptance pathways, MCAT prep, a four-plus-one program, and the Primary Care Accelerated Track, along with future cost pressures such as AI licensing and residency growth. The committee then reviewed a simplified funding model from the University System Office that would base funding more heavily on student FTE, credentials awarded, and a few incentive factors such as small institution and research adjustments. Members questioned the use of placeholder numbers, the lack of a clear methodology for the small institution and research factors, and whether the model would adequately account for differences among institutions, high-cost programs, and graduate education. Several members raised concerns that arbitrary factors would be hard to defend politically and could distort funding or create competition between schools, while others said the exercise was useful as a starting point for discussion. Alex presented a second alternative that kept the current SIP-code structure but increased CTE weighting, added a progressive economic size factor, and separated out the MD program. His model also added an on-campus face-to-face headcount component and a credentials component, with the intent of rewarding in-person enrollment and completions. Members questioned the use of headcount instead of FTE, how hybrid, online, dual-credit, and off-campus students would be treated, and why face-to-face enrollment was weighted more heavily than completion. No formal votes or final actions were taken; the committee instead continued discussion and asked members to provide direction on which elements, if any, should be developed further.

Transcript Highlights:

• And, you know, I think about market conditions. I think about labor.
• And, you know, I think about market conditions. I think about labor.
• So you think of the service industry, you think of the retail sector, you think of the building trades
• And so when you think...
• I don't think I have enough. I think we might have it already. Thank you.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate and House Ways and Means chairs opened the FY 2027 consensus revenue hearing by emphasizing the need for a balanced, fiscally responsible budget amid federal funding cuts, health care cost pressures, and uncertainty around the federal tax law changes referred to as OB3. They also noted the state’s current revenue performance is slightly above benchmark and paid tribute to the late Representative Anne Margaret Ferranti. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorkowitz echoed the call for caution, saying Massachusetts has protected core services while building reserves and that the FY27 budget process begins with a careful revenue estimate. Department of Revenue Commissioner Jeff Snyder, along with DOR staff, presented FY26 and FY27 tax forecasts and identified major drivers and risks: OB3’s negative impact on state revenue, surtax collections, labor market conditions, capital gains, and corporate/business excise taxes. DOR estimated OB3 would reduce FY26 revenue by about $664 million and FY27 by about $282 million, while surtax and capital gains were expected to remain strong in FY26 but soften in FY27. Members questioned the outlook for surtax, capital gains, and the potential fiscal effect of a ballot question reducing the income tax rate from 5% to 4%; DOR said that proposal could cost roughly $4.2 billion to $4.8 billion annually, with a smaller but still significant impact in FY27 because of phase-in timing. Treasurer Deb Goldberg testified next on the stabilization fund, lottery, PRIM, unclaimed property, and the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. She reported the rainy day fund at about $8.1 billion, said the lottery was on track for $1.5 billion in FY26 net profit and projected $1.25 billion in FY27, and highlighted that iLottery is expected to launch in summer 2026 with revenue beginning in FY27 and dedicated to child care initiatives. She also described strong PRIM performance and record unclaimed property returns, while members asked about the child care use of iLottery revenue, multilingual outreach, and the economic impact of expanded liquor licensing. Mass Taxpayers Foundation President Doug Howgate and Tufts’ Evan Horowitz then offered differing revenue outlooks and policy warnings. Howgate projected modest growth, cautioned against overusing reserves for ongoing obligations, and urged caution on federal tax conformity changes and health care spending pressures. Horowitz projected higher FY26 and FY27 revenues than other witnesses, warned that the surtax and capital gains make the tax system more volatile, and said a 4% income tax ballot question could reduce FY27 revenues by roughly $800 million to $1 billion. He also flagged the rent control ballot question as a potential risk to municipal finance and suggested the state consider giving a permanent home to the independent revenue model used by Alan Clayton-Matthews.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do think I do agree with you that the document does reflect consensus and compromise, and I think it
• I think it can... By 36 states, including ours, by 46 nations, I think it can be confusing.
• I think Jill may even get us going.
• And I think it will be confusing, not just to me, but I think it will be confusing for the people and
• In number one, I think we should—I didn't write it, but I think we should add about...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism met to hear testimony from Chief James Hicks of the Natick Police Department, who chairs the Municipal Police Training Committee, and Chief Thomas Fowler of the Salisbury Police Department. They described the statewide civil-rights-officer model for hate-crime response, the HEART Unit, and MPTC training authority under POST, and urged the commission to recommend incorporating the IHRA definition of antisemitism into police training and to fund that effort. Commissioners asked about how law enforcement should handle antisemitic incidents that may not rise to crimes, the 2022 Mapping Project, masking during protests, and the role of HART; the chiefs said departments can update training quickly, that every department should have a trained civil-rights officer, and that HART’s expertise should be integrated statewide. The commission also approved the October 16, 2025 minutes after correcting an initial procedural error. The rest of the meeting focused on the draft report, especially the prefatory statement and the definition section. Commissioners broadly praised the report’s scope and the chairs’ work, but offered many edits aimed at tightening language, reducing advocacy tone, and clarifying the “Massachusetts way” of combating antisemitism. Several members wanted stronger emphasis on Massachusetts values, education, moral leadership, and the distinction between hate incidents, hate crimes, and statutory offenses; others urged clearer references to constitutional protections, First Amendment limits, and Attorney General review of legal statements. There was also discussion of whether to keep or remove references to alternative definitions of antisemitism: some commissioners argued that only the IHRA definition should be centered, while others said acknowledging other definitions was factually important and would reflect the range of testimony. Commissioners also raised specific substantive edits for later sections, including adding examples such as the 2022 Mapping Project, strengthening language on online intimidation, academic boycotts, and divestment campaigns, and clarifying that some conduct may be hateful even if lawful. In the higher education section, members praised recommendations on mandatory training, bystander intervention, trauma-informed responses, mental health supports, and campus climate surveys, while suggesting a few technical edits and additional best-practice examples. No final votes were taken on the draft report during this portion; the chairs said they would incorporate feedback into a revised draft before the remaining meetings and eventual vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and I think the the a carveout.
• there and and that got me to thinking there and and that got me to thinking about<00:19:32.960><
• I think aging population is the correct terminology? Okay. Um, I think we're all aging.
• Um I think we're all aging. So I Okay. Um I think we're all aging.
• So I think support.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the previous meeting minutes and then reviewed a draft preliminary report on long-term managed care. The chair explained the report is intended to frame issues and outline legislative options, not make a final recommendation, especially given unresolved questions about the federal One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3). The report’s key issues included the current financing of county and private nursing homes through Medicaid rates, ProShare, MQUIP, and related funding mechanisms, and the concern that those payments could be affected or eliminated under a managed care model. Members also discussed managed care organizations’ role in Medicaid and cited other states’ experiences, noting examples of savings in Florida and Tennessee but higher costs in California. One member raised Indiana as another important comparison, and the committee agreed to add it to the report’s state examples. The committee also reviewed sections on dual eligibility, D-SNP, PACE, and CFI waivers. The chair raised concerns about whether OB3 creates incentives for states to move toward D-SNP and whether federal changes could affect provider taxes, state-directed payments, and intergovernmental transfers. Henry Litman, the state Medicaid director, said he would confirm details on D-SNP incentives and explained that ProShare is based on certified public expenditure rather than an IGT, while county cap financing is the relevant intergovernmental transfer issue. He said IGTs are not going away and that the main risk is whether current financing mechanisms could be preserved if the state later changed course. Members discussed the possibility of a waiver not being granted or renewed and the high fiscal impact that could have on counties and property taxes. The committee then discussed the population that any long-term managed care model should cover. Members agreed that there is no appetite to move developmental disability or acquired brain disorder populations into long-term managed care at this time, and the chair changed the report’s terminology from “elderly” to “aging population.” The chair also noted that the status quo option should reflect the recent shift toward home and community-based services and reduced nursing home utilization since earlier county reports. The report’s four policy options were summarized as: maintain the status quo; pursue D-SNP for dual eligibles, with DHHS potentially submitting an application as early as 2027; adopt an HCBS carveout; or move fully to managed care for the aging population. No final policy recommendation was made, and the committee discussed making edits to the draft before circulation, including adding Indiana, clarifying OB3-related issues, and changing the report title from “final” to “preliminary” or “interim.”

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that's it.
• I think that's it. If you have soon. I think that's it.
• Representative Weber, I think that's a really interesting approach and I think I think it's um particularly
• Representative Weber, I think that's a really interesting approach and I think I think it's um particularly
• Representative Weber, I think that's a really interesting approach and I think I think it's um particularly

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first accepted the minutes from the April 4 meeting, then moved to a discussion of potential audit topics and follow-up on prior performance audits. Christine Young, Director of Audits, and Jay Henry, performance audit supervisor, walked members through a spreadsheet showing the status of roughly 30 performance audit reports from the past 10 years, including the number of observations, whether agencies concurred, how many observations were fully addressed, and when each report was last updated. They explained that “fully addressed” only means the agency addressed the observations it agreed with, and that some reports include rejoinders when the audit office disagrees with an agency’s response. Members also discussed how some audits have been updated and others have not, including an example from the prescription drug monitoring program, which moved from the Board of Pharmacy/OPLC to HHS and was recently updated after staff contacted HHS. A major focus was the mental health workforce licensing audit, which was described as having little or no follow-up in the spreadsheet. Several members said this was especially concerning given the ongoing mental health crisis and argued that the committee should require a response. The committee agreed to start by sending letters to the chairs of the boards listed under that audit, asking the chair or designee to appear at the next meeting or respond in writing about what has been done and what remains unresolved. Members noted that the current process is voluntary and self-reported, which can lead to long delays or no response, especially for boards that meet only monthly and may have changed membership or leadership since the audit was issued. The committee also discussed other audit follow-up issues, including the liquor commission division of enforcement and licensing, which staff said was farther along than its percentage suggested, and a recently released human rights report that was not yet due for update. Members raised the possibility of using future budget reviews to ask agencies what they have done about old audit findings. In addition, the committee briefly discussed future audit topics, including a possible audit of local school districts related to special education, and staff explained that the statute allows the LBA to audit a limited number of non-state entities over a five-year period. The motion to authorize the chair and LBA to draft and send letters to the mental health workforce licensing boards passed by show of hands with one abstention. The next meeting was tentatively set for June 6 in State House 100, with staff to confirm the room and schedule.

Transcript Highlights:

• He thinks the state needs that.
• I think under C, we've got it. And then D1, nuclear power. I think, yeah. Okay.
• I don't think it's a good idea.
• I think Martin may have... I think I'm not opposed to it.
• Yeah, I think...

Summary: The meeting focused on finalizing recommendations from the Delaware Nuclear Energy Task Force, with most of the discussion centered on how the state should organize itself to evaluate and potentially pursue nuclear power. Public commenters strongly supported nuclear energy, emphasizing energy reliability, economic competitiveness, data center demand, and the need for Delaware to act quickly. Several speakers argued that Delaware is falling behind neighboring states and should not delay if it wants to attract developers and preserve access to federal tax incentives. Members then worked through revisions to the recommendations, especially the section on state actions moving forward. There was broad agreement that Delaware needs a clearly empowered leadership structure, but disagreement over the best form: a cabinet-level energy agency, an expanded existing agency such as DENREC, a dedicated coordinator, an expanded Sustainable Energy Utility, or a separate quasi-independent authority. Some members favored a nimble, one-off entity with bonding and financing authority; others cautioned against creating a new body outside state government and stressed the need for coordination with existing agencies, public oversight, and cost discipline. The group also discussed adding responsibilities such as site identification, public engagement, coordination with PJM and federal agencies, and financing tools, while removing or folding in items that seemed duplicative or too broad. The committee also revised earlier modules to broaden the focus from small modular reactors to nuclear power more generally, while keeping the task force’s original SMR work in view. Members agreed to keep recommendations on state and local regulatory readiness, financial mechanisms, permitting coordination, and public engagement, and to add a recommendation for Delaware to participate as an observer in the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative through NASEO and NARUC. The committee approved the revised Module Four recommendations by vote, with one abstention from Tom Noyes. Minutes from the prior meeting were also approved with minor corrections.