Transcript Highlights:

• In many cases, farmers are still taxed at the higher property tax rate as if those acres were still in
• We also say that in many cases landowners are receiving some type of benefit, and I really appreciate
• That is not the case today. Senate File 2199. Senator Dibble offers the A2 amendment.
• In some instances, values were adjusted because of the easement; in other cases, they weren't.
• We think that's reasonable for this case.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , which is adjusted during a rate case on those assets, right?
• um which is adjusted during a rate case um which is adjusted during a rate<00:59:35.440> case
• In this case, I'll uh with the states.
• Well, in that particular case, I think that was a big factor.
• So, was it the case that when the you So, was it the case that when the you had<03:59:10.000> the<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, even in a negative case, where a relatively pessimistic case, distributions would increase
• as rosy as our as our base case as rosy as our as our base case expectation,<00:18:32.600> the
• <00:19:02.800> And substantially in our base case. And substantially in our base case.
• , even in a negative case, where a relatively<00:19:05.600> pessimistic<00:19:06.160> case,
• The beneficiaries in this case are kids. The beneficiaries in this case are kids.

Bills: HF3900, HF1849

Keywords: permanent school fund, school endowment fund, Minnesota constitutional amendment, school aid, public school funding, State Board of Investment, investment income, distributable amount, school districts, property taxes, income taxes, voter approval, ballot question, constitutional amendment 2026, education finance, fund perpetuity, purchasing power, trust lands, swamp lands, internal improvement land fund

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Representative Filer, Senator or Chairman Case and Senator Dockstader?
• Agopian. >> Thank you, Chairman Case.
• >> Thank<00:07:38.880> you,<00:07:39.120> Chairman<00:07:39.440> Case.
• Nick Agopian >> Thank you, Chairman Case.
• Chairman Case. >> I. >> Mr. Chairman, you have four I, one excused. >> Thank you very much.

Bills: HB0002, HB0022

Keywords: building permits, local government, residential construction, permit timelines, code compliance, municipal officers, recall election, petition requirements, local governance, voter participation, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's not the case.
• It is on a case-by-case basis.
• by case basis.
• And I hear there's case by case basis.
• cases that we handle, cases that we see, cases that we handle, but<02:09:51.119> if<02:09:51.280

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In our case, they're using other videos now to their advantage.
• again I have to start uh so any case again I have to start somewhere<00:57:07.760> I'm<00:57:
• I think I've laid out the case for this bill.
• I don't know how you separate the ballot from a recount, so it's super confusing in that case.
• boards of all the saus in my case boards of all the saus in my case there's<04:53:36.798> five

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 662, which would require public schools to include discussion of abortion procedures and show specified videos in health education classes. The prime sponsor argued the bill would ensure students receive medically accurate, age-appropriate, and nonpolitical information about abortion, saying the topic is important for informed decision-making and should be taught consistently statewide. He said the videos were intended for grades 9-12, that parents could opt out, and that the requirement was meant to supplement, not sway, students’ views. He also acknowledged the bill could be seen as limiting local control over curriculum and said the intent was to prevent the topic from being missed due to scheduling disruptions. Committee members questioned the sponsor about local control, the need for a video mandate, the source of his statistics, whether the bill could be biased or inflammatory, and whether the requirement should apply every year in high school. The sponsor said the videos were only a starting point, could be replaced by others, and were meant to be informational. He also said the bill was not intended to influence students’ decisions about abortion. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives of New Hampshire Right to Life and others who said students should be told the “truth” about abortion and its consequences. They emphasized graphic or emotionally difficult aspects of abortion and argued that young people need this information to make informed choices. Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised concerns about prescribing curriculum, eroding local control, and the appropriateness of the material for younger high school students. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association said the bill was overly prescriptive, that health education standards are already set by the State Board of Education, and that the topics in the bill are not part of the current standards. That witness recommended the committee consider retaining the bill for further work or making it less prescriptive. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• the case are newly technically eligible for expungement on a monthly basis and shield those cases as
• a monthly basis and shield those cases a monthly basis and shield those cases as<01:37:14.080>
• There are two evangelical churches in a case in Texas.
• There are two evangelical churches in a case in Texas.
• Churches in a case in Texas.

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Friday, March 20, 2026, 960, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened with 38 members present and a quorum, then began with an invocation and several ceremonial introductions. The chamber recognized pioneering women of the Maryland State Police for Women’s History Month, including the original six female graduates and other firsts in the department, and also introduced the day’s doctor and a student intern. The Senate agreed to journalize the remarks honoring the Maryland State Police guests. The body then took up several Finance Committee bills, adopting committee amendments and favorable reports without objection on Senate Bills 385, 387, 389, 753, 469, and 608, each of which was ordered printed for third reading. SB 385 concerns immunization, screening, and preventive-service recommendations and pharmacist administration; SB 387 restricts predatory pricing and use of personal data by food retailers and delivery services; SB 389 makes transit-oriented development changes; SB 753 addresses financial exploitation protections for seniors and vulnerable adults; SB 469 authorizes a Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund affordability program; and SB 608 requires coverage for pharmacogenomic testing. Senate Bill 626, dealing with birth certificate sex designation changes and related identification documents, was briefly set aside at the request of a senator seeking possible amendments, with the presiding officer agreeing to hold it until the next session. Senate Bill 739, a climate change, homeowners insurance, and emergency management study bill, was also introduced with one amendment and sparked debate over its scope and funding, including discussion of a $150,000 Strategic Energy Investment Fund allocation and whether the study would examine the General Assembly’s own climate policies. The transcript ends during that discussion, before any final action on SB 739.

Transcript Highlights:

• it's, uh, yeah, $5,000 per case, per court case. >> Okay. >> I have a question.
• the investigating officer for a case the investigating officer for a case involving<00:50:28.319
• good other alternatives uh in some cases good other alternatives uh in some cases to<01:37:32.239
• Uh and this number of cases already.
• Um, in a first offense, both cases result in a warning.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• PUC declined to take the case. In fact, PUC has no jurisdiction over the case.
• such cases in federal court.
• PUC has no jurisdiction over the case. PUC has no jurisdiction over the case.
• <00:12:04.160> the<00:12:04.320> case The case the court declined the case The case
• That's a Transource case.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In that case, I want to thank you for coming and bringing that to us.
• In that case, I want to thank you for coming and bringing that to us.
• Is that really the case?
• the very difficult special needs cases the very difficult special needs cases and<03:40:24.399><
• <03:57:34.760> the year too so the families most cases the year too so the families most cases

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 295, which would make school building aid funds non-lapsing/non-APS. Representative Cahill said the bill was intended to keep any unused building aid money available for future projects, potentially helping move projects up the priority list or provide a little more funding for school construction. Members asked about how much money has lapsed in past years, whether the education trust fund and building aid are separate, and whether any lapsing dollars could be used to pay down debt. Department of Education official Jim Carney said about $29.1 million would be available if building aid is funded to the $50 million maximum in FY26, confirmed that the fund currently lapses, and said the department would gather historical lapse data. Committee members also discussed whether a dedicated fund structure could achieve the same goal, and the chair noted that the education trust fund statute includes school building aid as one of its uses. No vote was taken; the hearing was closed and the committee said it would later hold a work session after receiving more information. The committee then took up HB 237, introduced by Representative Dan McGuire, which would prohibit the use of special education state funds and differentiated aid for students not receiving special education services. The New Hampshire School Boards Association, through Becky Wilson, opposed the bill as written, saying it was unclear, potentially unnecessary, and difficult to implement because adequacy and differentiated aid are distributed as part of a districtwide lump sum rather than as student-specific dollars. She explained that special education costs are embedded across district budgets, including staffing, training, transportation, and instruction, and that some staff and services benefit both special education and general education students. Wilson also said differentiated aid is not tied to a specific pupil and is used at the district’s discretion, though it is intended to support students with greater needs. Committee members pressed on whether the bill would require districts to track money by individual student, whether it could conflict with federal special education law, and whether it would affect least restrictive environment requirements. Wilson said making the funds student-specific could create privacy and accounting problems and could make it difficult to staff inclusive classrooms, though she did not give a definitive legal opinion on federal compliance. She agreed that students who are not eligible for special education would not be included in the separate catastrophic/special education aid reimbursement program. The discussion continued into the second section of the bill, with members exploring how adequacy aid and differentiated aid are used in practice, but no action was taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• ALSO READ THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH ARBITRATION HAVE ENDED UP WITH LIKE $500 IN SETTLEMENT CASES
• AGAIN TO BE BRIEF LESS THAN 1 PERCENT OF ALL OF OUR CASES ACTUALLY EVEN GO TO DOE.
• WE DO HAVE A PERCENTAGE THAT DO THAT AND IN MANY CASES THAT IS THE SETTLEMENT WHERE THE ATTORNEY AND
• FINDING THAT CITIZENS WANT MORE THAN 90 PERCENT OF THE TIME AND WHEN THE CASES WERE SETTLED LESS THAN
• THE TIME AND WHEN THE CASES WERE SETTLED LESS THAN 500 PERCENT WENT TO THE POLICYHOLDER.

Transcript Highlights:

• IT JUST CAN'T BE DONE BY ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIAL THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES IN THIS CASE THE DELAWARE
• TO DO SO THEY WOULD REPRESENT QUALIFIED UNNAMED BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST BUT THAT ENTITIES IN THE CASE
• THE AG IN ANOTHER STATE IN THIS CASE DELAWARE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COME AT US OR, FLORIDA BECAUSE THAT
• QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES THAT MAY RESIDE IN DELAWARE AND THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE
• ABOUT THE EXCLUSIVITY PORTION THAT GIVES THE FLORIDA AG THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT BENEFICIARIES IN THE CASE

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and study committees and in many cases and study committees and in many cases even<00:05:06.400>
• , reason that may or may not be the case, reason that may or may not be the case, but<01:35:56.480
• case. And I have the email from Databan. case. And I have the email from Databan.
• ,<03:50:47.760> I'm job, which they will in this case, I'm job, which they will in this case
• In any case, in order that actually 16.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• me here if you don't mind just in case. me here if you don't mind just in case.
• I currently have two recent cases.
• This in this case, it was Rockingham.
• goes all the way up many of these cases goes all the way up many of these cases go<01:22:52.880>
• And in against the worst case scenario.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But that's not the case.
• It might not be the case.
• And I want to that's not the case.
• Actuarially sound in this case.
• Is that the case? >> Uh, no, that's not the case. So, um, we're changing section 3 of the law.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• kind of case. kind of case.
• And so in any case, >> No.
• In year 2000, we had 397 cases. In 2024, we have 3,990 cases.
• In year 2000, we had 397 cases. In 2024, we have 3,990 cases.
• In year 2000, we had 397 cases. In 2024, we have 3,990 cases.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission met to approve the May 18, 2026 minutes and then focused on how SB 57’s special education cost study should inform HB 1099, which creates a separate study committee on residential placements and related education costs. Members discussed sending the commission’s minutes and findings to that new committee, noting the short timeline for its work and the need to be specific about unresolved issues so the new group does not duplicate the same questions. A major topic was the cost and responsibility for students placed at Spalding and similar residential programs, especially transportation and whether costs are paid through the Department of Education’s episode-of-treatment (EOT) fund, local districts, DHS, or Medicaid. Staff explained that for students with disabilities, EOT funds cover special education and transportation costs tied to the placement, while students without disabilities are handled through DHS care-management and best-interest meetings. Members raised concerns about whether some students at Spalding are receiving no schooling, whether transportation costs are substantial, and whether Medicaid reimbursement could offset some expenses. The commission also discussed confusion over district responsibility when students placed in residential programs attend school in another district, using Winnisquam as an example. Several members said the receiving district was not notified that DHHS-approved programs could bring in additional students and costs, and they suggested DHHS or its care-management entity should notify both the district of residence and the receiving district when a program is approved. The group agreed this notification issue, along with transportation funding, privacy concerns in Medicaid-to-schools billing, and the distinction between special education placements, EOT placements, and other voluntary residential placements, should be passed to the HB 1099 study committee for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• the there's some extra >> or in this case the there's some extra and<00:10:48.880> the<
• It includes both capital and certain operating expenditures for capital projects. >> Members, in case
• <00:15:06.399> Um building maintenance um in any case.
• Um building maintenance um in any case.
• And in many cases, those wetlands that we're replacing with are not really good wetlands.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I know in our case, our um advertise. I know in our case, our um advertise.
• Let's say some someone has a case and that case gets nross just completely and that case gets nross just
• case that arrested and it was a it was a case that went before the Mobile.
• . case. case.
• Case in point, vote against it. Case in point, vote against it.

Bills: HB 200, HB 541, HB 1803, HB 30, HB 175, HB 249, HB 721, HB 851, HB 897, HB 1128, HB 1904, HB 1916, HB 5560, HB 3071, HB 5627, HB 5435, HB 3913, HB 2921, HB 2695, HB 2688, HB 3045, HB 3483, HB 3673, HB 4213, HB 4226, HB 783, HB 4373, HB 4735, HB 5155, HB 5057, HB 4984, HB 4944, HB 4813, HB 5339, HB 5196, HB 5033, HB 4853, HB 3486, HB 4211, HB 74, HB 4670, HB 4730, HB 4743, HB 4603, HB 4463, HB 3892, HB 4139, HB 4752, HB 4520, HB 4517, HB 4486, HB 4437, HB 4426, HB 4396, HB 4263, HB 3487, HB 3418, HB 2284, HB 2266, HB 2229, HB 4912, HB 2189, HB 4506, HB 5269, HB 5224, HB 5195, HB 3317, HB 4166, HB 3947, HB 3358, HB 3370, HB 4438, HB 3745, HB 3602, HB 3697, HB 2001, HB 1968, HB 3371, HB 3909, HCR 7, SB 1744, SB 1364, SB 1316, HB 2026, HB 3302, HB 3368, HB 1639, HB 5652, HB 4655, HB 5654, HB 5658, HB 5656, HB 4894, HB 4996, HB 5088, HB 5650, HB 4464, HB 3751, HB 5665, HB 5661, HB 1237, HB 2802, HB 5437, HB 2703, HB 5666, HB 5667, HCR 113, HCR 86, SB 2196, SB 463, SB 856, SB 1245, SB 1169, SB 509, SB 985, SB 305, SB 552, HB 1535, HB 123, HB 1804, HB 426, HB 1773, HB 1871, HB 2035, HB 2492, HB 1411, HB 4753, HB 4666, HB 4529, HB 1499, HB 1610, HB 2028, HB 1506, HB 886, HB 3546, HB 796, HB 223, HB 3556, HB 2448, HB 4638, HB 111, HB 180, HB 1027, HB 1178, HB 610, HB 1277, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 5342, HB 4885, HB 4751, HB 4530, HB 4488, HB 2149, HB 2071, HB 2282, HB 2248, HB 2243, HB 2522, HB 2310, HB 2513, HB 2300, HB 1902, HB 1813, HB 3719, HB 4284, HB 3743, HB 3778, HB 5153, HB 5147, HB 4877, HB 4850, HB 3261, HB 3005, HB 3033, HB 2849, HB 2967, HB 3531, HB 1768, HB 333, HB 2914, HB 2613, HB 3717, HB 3704, HB 2697, HB 3801, HB 3099, HB 3488, HB 3477, HB 3466, HB 3396, HB 3469, HB 2594, HB 2776, HB 2564, HB 2298, HB 5331, HB 5646, HB 5247, HB 5323, HB 4384, HB 3896, HB 4014, HB 3627, HB 3594, HB 2524, HB 510, HB 561, HB 5111, HB 5446, HB 1181, HB 3963, HB 2785, HB 1661, HB 2460, HB 200, HB 541, HB 1803, HB 30, HB 175, HB 249, HB 721, HB 851, HB 897, HB 1128, HB 1904, HB 1916, HB 5560, HB 3071, HB 5627, HB 5435, HB 3913, HB 2921, HB 2695, HB 2688, HB 3045, HB 3483, HB 3673, HB 4213, HB 4226, HB 783, HB 4373, HB 4735, HB 5155, HB 5057, HB 4984, HB 4944, HB 4813, HB 5339, HB 5196, HB 5033, HB 4853, HB 3486, HB 4211, HB 74, HB 4670, HB 4730, HB 4743, HB 4603, HB 4463, HB 3892, HB 4139, HB 4752, HB 4520, HB 4517, HB 4486, HB 4437, HB 4426, HB 4396, HB 4263, HB 3487, HB 3418, HB 2284, HB 2266, HB 2229, HB 4912, HB 2189, HB 4506, HB 5269, HB 5224, HB 5195, HB 3317, HB 4166, HB 3947, HB 3358, HB 3370, HB 4438, HB 3745, HB 3602, HB 3697, HB 2001, HB 1968, HB 3371, HB 3909, HCR 98, HCR 92, HCR 126, HCR 7

Keywords: juvenile offenders, parole eligibility, youth justice, criminal justice reform, inmate rehabilitation, direct patient care, healthcare, physicians, medical services, insurance regulation, dentist, dental hygienist, interstate practice, licensure, compact privilege, public health, military members, disaster relief, tax rates, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• In most cases, a presuming parents.
• She said they have many cases of case law that basically say the Supreme Court gives deference to the
• She said they have many cases of case law that basically say the Supreme Court gives deference to the
• She said there are many cases of case law that basically say the Supreme Court gives deference to the
• In any case I appreciate the clarity.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh and that was the case this year.
• Um, so 20, 30 years in some cases.
• Um, so 20, 30 years in some cases.
• Um so 20 30 years in some cases. away. Um so 20 30 years in some cases.
• but almost in all cases, not all cases, but almost in all cases, not all cases, but almost<01:35:

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The meeting opened with a quorum call, the Pledge of Allegiance, a prayer, and approval of the prior meeting minutes. The first presentation was from Bo Craycraft of the Judicial Form Retirement System, who gave an update on investment performance, asset allocation, cash flow, and projected employer costs. He reported strong fiscal year 2025 investment results, with both the legislative and judicial retirement plans outperforming their actuarial assumed rates of return and benchmarks, driven largely by U.S. equity performance. He also noted the plans remained near their target asset allocation and continued to experience negative cash flow, though he said that was manageable in context of strong asset growth. Craycraft then discussed a recent experience study and actuarial assumption changes, especially a revised salary growth assumption and a higher cash balance interest credit rate. He said these changes increased projected employer costs, with contributions rising from about $700,000 to a projected $2 million in later years, though he expected the eventual 2025 valuation and investment gains to reduce that estimate. Members asked about mortality assumptions, the impact of the experience study on liabilities, and the sharp increase in the judicial plan’s projected employer cost. Craycraft explained that the increase was driven mainly by the updated assumptions and that no other major plan changes were involved. At the chair’s request, Craycraft also addressed the recent rise in Medicare Advantage premiums for the plan’s health coverage, saying the 2025 increase was largely tied to Part D changes and the Inflation Reduction Act and had been about 45%, but that future growth was expected to be under 5%. After his presentation, the committee moved to the Kentucky Public Pensions Authority update, where the next speaker began by saying the funds had exceeded actuarial assumed returns for the fiscal year.