Transcript Highlights:

• I think we just received notice that the new fiscal note came in, maybe hot off the press, on the fiscal
• I believe an amended fiscal note has been requested, but Mr. Walls—uh, Mr.
• in the original fiscal note.
• <00:01:22.159> note believe an amendment amended fiscal note believe an amendment amended
• was being pulled to add in rulemaking costs, which were in the original fiscal note.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• fiscal note.
• The fiscal note was completed before Ways.
• note.
• Due to the procedural irregularities and not having the fiscal note when it was moved out of committee
• not having the fiscal note when it was not having the fiscal note when it was moved<00:02:38.120

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Miss Bur, do you want to come and go through real quickly fiscal note implications?
• Um, the fiscal note for Senate File 3407 was completed by the departments of labor and industry, commerce
• <00:01:58.240> note<00:01:58.479> fiscal implications?
• 00:02:12.959> the<00:02:13.280> fiscal<00:02:13.680> note<00:02:14.000> for
• Um the fiscal note for Senate committee.

Bills: SF1832

Keywords: economic development, small business, workforce training, grants, entrepreneurship, equity, community support, 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One, there's no fiscal note, right, with this. There's no monetary implication.
• Do you know what the fiscal note would be for taxing nobody?
• So it's a total fiscal note per biennum of $33 million.
• There's a fiscal note on the bill that just came out, and I disagree with it.
• I always love these fiscal notes.

Transcript Highlights:

• According to fiscal note, this would be a revenue reduction.
• Chairman, members of the committee, I was just reviewing the fiscal note. No, Mr.
• So, Levi, yesterday there were some questions about the fiscal note, and I was wondering if a new fiscal
• Chairman and members of the committee, PERS did submit a new fiscal note.
• of the fiscal note.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to consider four policy bills and discussed a possible later return to handle DOCR amendments and budget work. They first took up HB 1327, funding for the Agricultural Diversification and Development Fund, and adopted an amendment striking language that would have capped up to $10 million for agricultural infrastructure grants to political subdivisions. The bill was then passed as amended on a 22-0 vote, with Rep. Belts assigned as carrier. Next, the committee considered SB 2256, the Research Technology Park grant. Rep. Stemen offered an amendment reducing the appropriation amounts from the original figures to $10 million and $5 million levels, citing available funding; the amendment passed 19-3. The bill then passed as amended 22-0, and Rep. Stemen agreed to carry it. The committee then debated SB 2093, which combined a retired peace officers/surviving spouses benefit with an added income tax reduction. Rep. Munson moved to remove the income tax portion, and the committee agreed 17-4. The remaining peace officer benefit portion was then passed as amended 21-0, with Rep. Kempenich carrying it. Finally, the committee considered HB 2160, changing the state health plan from grandfathered to non-grandfathered status. Members discussed cost shifting, employee retention, out-of-pocket exposure, and the updated fiscal note; the committee adopted an amendment updating the appropriation figures to match the current PERS/Deloitte analysis, then passed the bill as amended 15-7-1, with Rep. Worry originally the carrier.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:10.320> are that the fiscal note says that we are that the fiscal note says that we
• /c> the state of the fiscal note um many of the state of the fiscal note um many of our<00:20:58.600>
• 59.600> technology our fiscal notes on science technology our fiscal notes on science technology
• chairman the fiscal note as I mentioned chairman the fiscal note as I mentioned tried<00:24:19.320
• families the fiscal note States as much families the fiscal note States as much the<01:46:30.560

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 224, which would redirect most money from New Hampshire’s renewable energy fund back to electric ratepayers. The bill sponsor argued the measure would lower energy costs, noting recent utility rate increases and estimating annual savings of roughly $2.5 million to $7.3 million for ratepayers. Supporters said the fund has accumulated money that should be returned to customers rather than used for subsidies, and they emphasized that the state has already rebated similar funds from RGGI for years. Opponents, including Rep. Kat McGee, argued the renewable energy fund is a successful, nonlapsing dedicated fund that supports local clean-energy projects, energy resilience, emissions reductions, and private investment. McGee said the fiscal note overstated the benefit of rebates and understated the loss of investment, claiming the average annual rebate would amount to less than $10 per customer while the program has helped leverage significant private dollars and nearly 10,000 projects. She urged the committee to reject the bill as a poor deal for the state and ratepayers. Committee members questioned the fiscal note, the size of the rebate, whether the bill would set a precedent for other dedicated funds, and whether the program’s incentives amount to picking winners and losers. The Department of Energy testified neutrally, explaining how the renewable energy fund works, including renewable energy credits, alternative compliance payments, and the fund’s use for renewable energy initiatives. No vote was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Did you ever update the fiscal note?
• Did you ever update the fiscal note?
• We did update the fiscal note in terms of what our update has and what the fiscal note reflects.
• We did update the<00:38:20.320> fiscal<00:38:20.800> note the fiscal note the fiscal note
• > had uh fiscal note reflects, we had uh fiscal note reflects, we had estimated<00:38:32.000>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the fiscal note? the fiscal note?
• the fiscal note, please. the fiscal note, please.
• the fiscal note.
• Uh the fiscal note the fiscal note.
• <01:06:26.640> note of this and a changing fiscal note of this and a changing fiscal note

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division 3 work session opened with routine announcements, including new and absent members, a tribute to former chair Rep. Jess Edwards, and an explanation that Division 3 is advisory and will make recommendations to full Finance. Chair Mooney also distributed a self-created index to the budget binder and reviewed the committee’s options under House Rule 45. Members discussed scheduling a future visit to the Veterans Home in Tilton, with several October dates unavailable, and the chair said she would circulate possible dates. The committee also reviewed the second-year budget context and sources of funding, including surplus monies, existing and new revenue streams, grants, reappropriations, and the rainy day fund. The committee then took up several retained bills and repeatedly heard that their substance had already been addressed in the budget. House Bill 519, funding the Waypoint Youth and Young Adult Shelter, was moved ITL and passed 10-0. House Bill 547, county reimbursement funds, was also moved ITL and passed 10-0 after members noted the reimbursement had been included in HB 2. House Bill 570, repealing the prescription drug affordability board, was moved ITL and passed 10-0, with minority members saying they still believed the board had value but acknowledging the repeal had already occurred in HB 2. House Bill 704, concerning caregiver respite and senior volunteer programs, received the most discussion. Mr. Ripple explained that most items were already funded or suspended in the budget, leaving only the senior volunteer grant program unfunded. Chair Mooney offered amendment 2963H to fund the RSVP program at $180,000 for one year, contingent on surplus funds, and DHHS witnesses explained that RSVP is a federally funded AmeriCorps program that would be added to existing state licensing structures. The amendment was adopted unanimously, and the bill was reported ought to pass as amended on a 10-0 vote. The committee then heard House Bill 751, which would require licensure of outpatient substance use disorder treatment facilities and create an ombudsman-related complaint process. DHHS witnesses said the bill had been narrowed substantially from an earlier certification model with multiple positions and IT costs to a licensing model using existing department infrastructure, reducing the fiscal note to $211,000 for one position. They also said the ombudsman section was no longer needed because licensed facilities would fall under existing oversight. Members questioned how many facilities exist and whether licensing fees would cover costs; DHHS said it did not know the full provider landscape and that licensing revenue across the board does not cover the department’s costs. Rep. Daniels then proposed amendment 2964H to form a study committee because of the remaining questions and lack of a clear revenue stream, and the committee was still discussing that amendment when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, while we do not have a fiscal note for our House File 4609, there is a fiscal note, um, for 7038,
• This will come back to the fiscal note.
• <00:56:32.360> issue, And that's a fiscal note issue, And that's a fiscal note issue, not<
• there is a fiscal note on this, correct? there is a fiscal note on this, correct?
• But I did send the fiscal note to Mr.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 4609, the Minnesota Building Families Act, and laid it over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill. The bill would require insurance coverage for infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF-related care, and the author emphasized that it would not change Minnesota’s current surrogacy laws. She also noted the bill already contains a religious exemption and clarified that it had been referred through commerce but came to health first because of reviser delays. Supporters testified that infertility is common and financially devastating, describing personal experiences with miscarriages, cancer-related fertility loss, and large out-of-pocket costs such as second mortgages, retirement withdrawals, and fundraising. A physician testified that infertility is a disease, that delays in care can worsen outcomes, and that insurance coverage can improve health outcomes and reduce multiple births and costs. Supporters also argued that fertility coverage is already offered by some large employers and in other states without major premium increases. Opponents, including representatives of the Minnesota Catholic Conference and Minnesota Family Council, argued the bill would subsidize IVF and potentially surrogacy, which they said raises ethical concerns about embryos, commodification, and exploitation of women. They urged the committee to vote no and instead support restorative reproductive medicine or other approaches that address underlying causes of infertility. In member discussion, some legislators expressed sympathy for families affected by infertility and miscarriage but raised concerns about insurance costs, success rates, and the need for guardrails; others noted adoption as another way families are built. No vote was taken beyond laying the bill over.

Transcript Highlights:

• /c> >> we don't have a fiscal note at all and >> we don't have a fiscal note at all and we
• Um, we did prepare a fiscal note.
• Uh, no, this bill did not get a fiscal note and I think that's there's no fiscal note attached to it.
• Um, so fiscal note attached to it.
• <03:22:24.239> Um, request for a fiscal note. Um, request for a fiscal note.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the fiscal note or impact of this? It's just shy of $8 million. Okay.
• Just to clarify, this would add to the fiscal note, not keep it the same, and then divvy up the pie in
• The fiscal note, Mr.
• The fiscal note, Mr.
• Plus note, we're adjourned.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met with a quorum present and first approved the minutes from the previous meeting. It then took up House Bill 5510, which was amended to incorporate provisions modernizing Alcohol Beverage Control licensing and fees and to treat low-proof spirits more like beer, including a $1.25 per gallon tax. The committee adopted the strike-and-insert amendment and reported the bill to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation. The committee next considered a major education funding bill, Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill 5453. After counsel explained the proposed block-grant school funding structure and supplemental aid for special education, members discussed whether charter schools should be included. The committee adopted an amendment to include charter school students in the special education funding provisions, then adopted another amendment removing certain outdated staffing ratio and administrator limitations effective July 1, 2027. The amended bill was then reported to the full Senate. The committee also took up House Bill 5412, dealing with multi-year contracts for educational materials with technology licensing components and science-of-reading training for K-5 teachers. Members amended the bill to clarify contract language, extend the training timeline, change “endorsement” to “training,” and require charter school teachers to participate. The amended bill was reported to the full Senate. House Bill 4006, focused on aerospace and advanced manufacturing development, was explained as creating grant and workforce programs tied to aerospace investment and jobs. The committee adopted a strike-and-insert amendment that changed the funding mechanism and other details, then reported the amended bill to the full Senate. Committee Substitute for House Bill 4009 was also amended to shift from the portable benefits concept to a broader workforce-readiness package, including a microcredential program and expansion of the apprenticeship tax credit to all apprenticeship programs; it too was reported to the full Senate. Finally, House Bill 4004, the Recharge West Virginia Act, was explained as a reimbursement program for employers training employees who earn upskill credentials and receive wage increases. The committee adopted an amendment raising the annual employer reimbursement cap from $50,000 to $100,000, then reported the amended bill to the full Senate. The meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• state so I'm looking at the fiscal state so I'm looking at the fiscal note<00:13:21.519> and<
• necessarily show up on our fiscal necessarily show up on our fiscal notes<00:16:28.079> um
• Jen did a wonderful job with the fiscal note on it, and as you'll see within the fiscal note, it would
• fiscal note on it job with the um uh the fiscal note on it and<00:22:18.480> as<00:22:18.600>
• <00:23:16.360> note go for it both um so the fiscal note go for it both um so the fiscal note

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 129, which would redefine “evidence-based” in public education. The Department of Education testified that the bill’s definition would conflict with federal definitions and be very restrictive, potentially affecting a wide range of instructional methods, curriculum materials, teacher training, civics requirements, suicide prevention training, and other programs. The department said the bill could force a broad overhaul of school practices, create local implementation burdens, and require at least one new state position, with a fiscal note estimating roughly $118,000 in FY 2026 rising in later years. Members also raised concerns about possible impacts on federal pass-through funding and whether the bill was workable. Representative Papovich moved to retain HB 129, and the motion passed 7-0. The committee then heard HB 133, a Department of Safety/DMV bill involving follow-up when a person votes using an out-of-state license or non-driver ID and then does not obtain a New Hampshire credential within the statutory timeframe. DMV officials said the bill would require a $40,000 technology upgrade plus a new full-time position, and that the fiscal note did not include postage or fully account for the manual work needed to match records, send notices, and review responses. They said the proposal also raised broader tracking issues because it would apply not only to voters but to anyone who had not obtained a New Hampshire license within 60 days, and they questioned whether DMV was the proper agency to make those inquiries. Committee members pressed the department on how the 60-day clock would be determined, whether the bill could amount to a kind of poll tax or raise privacy concerns, and whether voter ID cards or other exceptions would avoid that problem. The department explained that New Hampshire offers a free voter identification card through town clerks for people without a license or state ID, but said the bill did not exempt those cards and that the DMV would still be asked to investigate status after voting. Officials also said the bill would be difficult to enforce, that some cases would be ambiguous, and that any response from the DMV would likely amount to a request for information rather than an enforceable consequence. No vote on HB 133 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, because that's going to be a big part of the fiscal note.
• So if we just did a separate fiscal note on fire and we did a separate fiscal note on ambulance, and
• We'll do a fiscal note on fire, do a fiscal note on ambulance.
• We'll do a fiscal note on fire, do a fiscal note on ambulance.
• We'll try to put some fiscal notes together and go from there.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee was called to order, a quorum was established, and the minutes from the prior meeting were approved. The first major presentation came from Montana Public Employees Retirement System executive director William Hollahan, who gave an overview of Montana’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Compensation Act plan. He explained that the plan covers volunteer firefighters in unincorporated areas, is funded by 5% of state fire insurance premium taxes, and currently serves 228 departments with about 2,936 active members and 1,242 retirees. He described eligibility rules, annual training and reporting requirements, benefit levels for partial and full pensions, disability, death, medical, and funeral benefits, and said the plan is actuarially sound with roughly $60 million in assets and a funded ratio slightly above 100%. Committee members asked about prior-service credit, whether EMS personnel are included, the effect on recruitment and retention, and whether expanding coverage would require a funding analysis; Hollahan said prior service is not credited, EMS is not currently included, and any expansion would need financial review. Tim Walleen of Workforce Safety and Insurance then presented a draft North Dakota workers’ compensation solution for volunteer firefighters and volunteer EMS personnel. He explained that volunteer responders are already covered by workers’ comp for medical and wage-loss benefits, but the proposal would set a minimum annual wage of $30,000 for calculating wage-loss benefits for qualifying volunteers, with the benefit paid at two-thirds of that amount. Representative Porter suggested tying the volunteer definition to existing code rather than a fixed dollar amount, and Walleen agreed. Questions focused on whether search and rescue or other volunteer emergency services could be included, whether departments would face new paperwork, and whether volunteer organizations can already elect coverage; Walleen said there would be no additional paperwork and that volunteer coverage is already available. The committee also heard from volunteer fire service representatives and the state fire marshal. An Oakes-area firefighter, Mr. Olson, testified that small departments are struggling with retention, communication, and administrative burdens, especially around separate bookkeeping and funding rules for donated or fundraising money, and he said departments need clearer guidance from the state. State Fire Marshal Dr. Matthew Clark introduced himself and outlined a broader effort to improve education, support, and coordination for fire departments, including a planned 10% audit of certificates of existence beginning in 2027, more outreach through his office, and better assistance with training, reporting, and grant access. He said his office is authorized under current law to provide these services, but the role has been vague and underused. Finally, Arnagard Rural Fire District Chief Rick Schreiber testified in favor of new recruitment and retention ideas, including retirement-style benefits, health insurance, tax incentives, scholarships, grants, and more remote or regional training. He said volunteer departments are losing members, that local tax and donation funds are already stretched, and that any new retirement or incentive program should be sustainable and likely involve a mix of state and local support.

Transcript Highlights:

• It has a fiscal impact of $2.4 million in fiscal year 2029.
• It has a fiscal impact of $70,000 in fiscal year 2027 and $70,000 each year afterwards for a total fiscal
• in fiscal years 2028 and 2029.
• impact in fiscal 2026 and 2027, and fiscal 2028 and 2029.
• However, it starts in fiscal 2029, whereas in the original bill it started in fiscal 2020.

Bills: HF2730, HF2257, HF2768, HF1932, HF2437

Keywords: local government debt, municipal bonds, county bonds, capital improvements, public financing, bond issuance, public hearing, notice period, bond guarantee, Minnesota Public Facilities Authority, volume cap, private activity bonds, housing finance, residential rental bonds, LIHTC, low-income housing tax credits, redevelopment, courthouse financing, jail financing, law enforcement center

Transcript Highlights:

• Fiscal 2027.
• And it's not that they're going to be able to achieve victory in fiscal year '29, or I'm sorry, fiscal
• That '28 penalty will be based on the lower of your fiscal '25 or fiscal '26 error rate.
• Or fiscal '26 error rate.
• We're only talking fiscal years.

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 from the State General Fund to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor said it was a repeat of last year’s request and was intended as a backup if the seven Colorado River basin states cannot reach a new agreement. Arizona Department of Water Resources staff testified in support, explaining the state’s role in ongoing Colorado River negotiations and distinguishing the litigation fund from the executive’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 17-1 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which appropriates $100,000 to ADWR for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expands the mapping effort beyond state trust lands to private lands. The committee adopted Chairman Livingston’s amendment, which extended the coordination timeline to one year, broadened the agencies involved, and revised language on site eligibility and the definition of stormwater. The sponsor said the bill would help identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge, while ADWR testified neutral, supporting the mapping work but raising a concern about language tied to appropriable surface water because that is a legal determination for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148 was then heard, proposing to give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, with requirements for specifying purposes and allowing agencies to spend such funds if the legislature does not act. An amendment excluded university and Board of Regents research grants from the bill’s scope, which the chair said was intended to avoid implementation problems. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, and members discussed the large amount of federal pass-through funding Arizona receives. The amended bill passed 11-7. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, the impact of federal tax conformity, state employee health insurance costs, SNAP administrative and error-rate costs under H.R. 1, developmental disabilities and AHCCCS growth, and K-12/ESA funding trends. Members repeatedly criticized the executive budget for funding some ongoing costs on a one-year basis and expressed concern about rising caseloads and supplemental needs. No formal action was taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's why on the fiscal note you see that reduction in general fund dollars is that...
• I'm looking at the fiscal note, so...
• So that $1,500,000, you know, it's referenced here in a fiscal note, but it really doesn't show up.
• The fiscal note on this bill estimates a reduction of $340,000 for the upcoming biennium.
• The fiscal note on the bill estimates a reduction of $310,000 for the upcoming biennium.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review fiscal aspects of House Bills 1417 and 1425, both part of a broader criminal justice reentry package. HB 1417 would eliminate the $35 public defender application fee and end court-ordered reimbursement of indigent defense costs, while also removing the $55 monthly community supervision fee. Testimony from the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents and the Department of Corrections said the bill would replace lost revenue with general fund appropriations of about $310,000 for indigent defense and $1.5 million for supervision fees, and that the fees are rarely collected and can hinder reentry. Representative Clemene said the bill is intended to reduce barriers to successful community reintegration and improve data and supervision practices. HB 1425 would create and fund front-end diversion, deflection, and pretrial services programs. Supporters described it as allowing prosecutors and local jurisdictions to divert appropriate low-level offenders from prosecution, establish deflection programs for people with behavioral health needs, and expand pretrial services. The bill includes a pilot program in three counties, a $1 million appropriation to DOCR for one FTE and contracts with local providers, $750,000 to DHS for treatment services, and $55,000 for a study of pretrial services cost savings. Committee members asked several questions about how the pilot counties would be chosen, how the consultant study would be procured, and what services the DHS funds would cover. The committee also heard House Bill 1603, which would provide a $500,000 matching grant for Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act compliance, with $100,000 available to each of North Dakota’s five tribes if matched. Sponsor testimony said the funds would support a Historical Society NAGPRA compliance committee and help catalog and repatriate human remains and cultural items in coordination with tribes. After questions about the federal mandate and the difficulty of identifying artifacts, the committee voted 4-0 to give HB 1603 a do-pass recommendation, with Senator Meyer assigned to carry it forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• The projected balance at the end of fiscal years 26-27 appears under the lowest horizontal line.
• inflation consists of the estimated cost to maintain current service levels, and it's important to note
• line items we would expect to end fiscal line items we would expect to end fiscal Year's Year's
• There is significant uncertainty surrounding trade, fiscal, and immigration policies.
• We have the benefit of a strong foundation of fiscal planning in Minnesota.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget presented the February 2025 budget and economic forecast, with Commissioner Aon Campbell, State Economist Anthony Becker, and Budget Director Anam Mingi outlining updated revenue, spending, and long-term balance projections. The state’s FY 2026-27 general fund outlook remains positive but weaker than in November, with an ending balance of $456 million, down $160 million from the prior forecast. Looking ahead, the planning years FY 2028-29 show a projected deficit of just under $6 billion, driven largely by spending growth outpacing revenues. Officials emphasized that discretionary inflation is a major factor in the forecast, but also noted that those amounts are not automatically appropriated and would require legislative action. Becker said the national outlook has changed since November, with higher expected inflation, higher interest rates for longer, and slower growth in later years. He highlighted uncertainty around tariffs, trade policy, immigration policy, federal spending, and possible changes to tax and debt-ceiling policy, all of which could affect Minnesota’s economy and revenues. Minnesota’s labor market remains tight, with low unemployment and rising wages, and the revenue forecast was revised upward overall for FY 2026-27, including higher income and sales tax receipts, though corporate tax revenue was slightly lower than previously projected. Mingi said projected general fund spending is up $79 million in FY 2026-27 and $960 million in FY 2028-29 compared with November. The largest increases are in education and health and human services, especially due to inflation, higher pupil counts, special education costs, long-term care, and higher Medical Assistance spending. She noted that higher utilization of weight-loss drugs also raises Medicaid costs, and that a smaller assumed bonding bill helps offset some debt service costs. The commissioner and staff repeatedly warned that federal policy changes, especially possible Medicaid reductions, pose a major risk; they said Minnesota could face billions in lost federal funding, including a potential $2.4 billion hit if the enhanced Medicaid match for adults without children were eliminated. No votes or legislative actions were taken in the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Jumping to page three, the fiscal note shows the Metropolitan Council's portion of the fiscal note.
• And those assumptions are spelled out later in the fiscal note.
• Assumptions are spelled out later in the fiscal note.
• I've seen the fiscal note, you just heard about it.
• It fiscal note, you just heard about it.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <07:47:42.878> fiscal<07:47:43.280> note, In fiscal year, in this fiscal note, In fiscal
• /c> it said in the fiscal note when I had it said in the fiscal note when I had this<07:47:59.120>
• Like I say, this has had six renditions of the fiscal note and... ...six renditions of the fiscal note
• So, I encourage you to flip to page 13 of the most recent fiscal note of the many fiscal notes that there
• So again, I went and got a fiscal note on this.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That is $229,000 in fiscal year 26 and $247,000 in fiscal year 27 and ongoing.
• On line 107, we have the fiscal note for the sealing of judicial property records, House File 2127, and
• and $731,314,000 in fiscal 27.
• Thank you very much. employees from the original fiscal note employees from the original fiscal note
• On line 107, we have the fiscal note<00:08:14.000> for<00:08:14.639> the<00:08:15.360><

Bills: HF2300

Keywords: 1183, house