Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:20.840> with that I have been in conversation with that I have been in conversation
• on this subject as well.
• Well, yeah, I don't know.
• The other thing that really didn't sit well with me is one of your testifiers said, well, it's just a
• one of the the most those conversations one of the the most powerful<01:42:54.159> conversations<

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• You've heard the conversation. You've heard the conversation.
• Well, I...
• The conversation allowed Mr. answer. The conversation allowed Mr.
• Lenseth as well. So, Tom Zoom and Ms. Lenseth as well.
• This is not the first or the last time we’re having this conversation. lower need and like, well, you

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that conversation goes back to what Chairman Dean was talking about earlier as well.
• Well water? Well, from the lake?
• Well, well water.
• Well, well from the low. the city of course can't it's that surface water well water well well from the
• What I would say as well is that as a coalition, we're a member-driven organization, and the conversations

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• this committee will be rejecting that item pending further conversations, as well as issue number 10
• , as well as issue number 10.
• So looking forward to further conversations on that. HR 1 as well.
• throughout the budget process as well.
• to be champions on this committee as well.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• place that the controls are working well place that the controls are working well um<00:05:14.960
• <00:07:37.680> we access why does this matter well we access why does this matter well we
• That's a legitimate conversation for all of us to have, and it's especially a legitimate conversation
• That's a legitimate conversation for all of us to have, and it's especially a legitimate conversation
• Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met on January 9, 2025, to focus on internal controls, fraud prevention, and legislative oversight of state agencies. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall explained Minnesota’s internal control framework, based on the GAO Green Book, and described five core controls: assigning responsibility, separating duties, restricting access, maintaining policies and procedures, and keeping records. She tied each control to examples from recent audits, including DHS’s Medicaid provider debt recovery, the Minnesota State Academies’ travel reimbursement issue, privileged access at the Minnesota State Lottery, missing mileage-verification procedures at the Board of Firefighter Training and Education, and weak documentation in the Board on Aging’s senior nutrition program. Deputy Legislative Auditor Jod Mson Rodriguez then presented a new follow-up report on implementation of prior recommendations from 2022 through 2024, including special reviews. She said the office gathers agency documentation, evaluates progress, and categorizes recommendations from implemented to not applicable, while noting that some items require more work to verify and that this reflects OLA capacity rather than agency performance. Examples included the Department of Commerce, where some policy changes were verified but further work would be needed to confirm consistent investigator compliance, and the Metropolitan Council, where more data analysis would be needed to determine whether bonus payments were properly earned. She also noted that a legislature-directed recommendation to require grant manager training had not been implemented. Overall, OLA reported that state agencies had implemented or partially implemented close to 70% of its recommendations, while the legislature had implemented or partially implemented about 40% of recommendations from the last three years. Members generally praised the office’s work and discussed how agencies respond after reports are issued. Senator Westrom raised concerns about a recent media report on alleged fraud in CCAP, and Randall said OLA was aware of the issue but could not discuss details. Senator Draheim asked about post-report agency engagement, and Randall and Rodriguez said follow-up varies, with some agencies seeking private meetings and others engaging less, but that the follow-up process often prompts further discussion and improvement.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I want to thank you for that patience as well.
• Well, thank you, Chair.
• Well, yes. Thank you. I appreciate that.
• Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, so much I want to say.
• So grateful to see that work in that space as well.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders said was the negotiated compromise with the Senate and was expected to move to the floor that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core services in the face of federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget framework and the likely floor bills, including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125. Department of Finance representative Eric Khali said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced approach and supported the modification in SB 122, while noting the package uses additional revenues and new spending to soften or reject some proposed cuts. Most of the discussion focused on major spending areas. Members and subcommittee chairs highlighted protections and additions for health care and human services, including rejecting the proposed Medi-Cal asset limit change, delaying premium increases, restoring clinic and dental funding, supporting distressed hospitals and county indigent care, and expanding county eligibility staffing to handle H.R. 1-related workload. Education members described record or expanded support for TK-12 schools, child care, special education, community colleges, teacher recruitment, and higher education, including a change to extend Cal Grant eligibility to age 30 for some community college students. Housing and homelessness funding was increased for HAP, multifamily housing, and the low-income housing tax credit, while public safety members pointed to investments in victims’ services, restorative justice, and prison closure savings. Several members also raised concerns or priorities tied to the budget deal. Some praised the package as a moral document that protects vulnerable Californians, immigrant communities, LGBTQ residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. Others noted unresolved issues, including the MCO tax’s impact on districts, the need for more support for local journalism, arts, biotech R&D incentives, transit and GGRF-related concerns, and the need for continued work on Prop. 98 and long-term fiscal resilience. The vice chair cautioned that despite the current progress, the state remains vulnerable to revenue volatility and warned that the budget should build more resilience against a possible downturn. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the committee was preparing the budget package for floor action and final negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so happy to um put it in as well.
• uh<00:04:42.800> punctuation Well, there's uh some uh punctuation Well, there's uh some uh
• that there's still ongoing conversations that there's still ongoing conversations with<00:07:31.199
• the record as conversations continue. the record as conversations continue.
• through key >> Well, we pretty well talked through key parts<00:12:47.279> of<00:12:47.440

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, this is concerning. So I appreciate all of the information today.
• Well, I kind of talk about the Medi-Cal program.
• , who would be facing this kind of issue as well.
• And I was just having this conversation a couple hours ago.
• Thank you for having this important conversation.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s Medi-Cal program and on community health effects from recent immigration enforcement actions. Committee leaders said H.R. 1 would sharply reduce federal funding, increase administrative burdens, and worsen access to care, especially for Medi-Cal enrollees, immigrant families, rural communities, and reproductive health patients. The second half of the hearing examined how ICE raids and related federal actions are creating fear, reducing clinic and emergency department use, and disrupting children’s access to schools and early childhood education. Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Bass outlined the main H.R. 1 provisions affecting Medi-Cal: work requirements, semiannual eligibility redeterminations, shorter retroactive coverage, new cost-sharing, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, reduced federal support for emergency and lawful immigrant coverage, and a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for prohibited abortion providers. She estimated millions could lose coverage, with tens of billions of dollars in federal funding at risk. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California warned the defunding provision could force clinic closures, service reductions, and loss of access to family planning, STI testing, and cancer screenings. The California Hospital Association said the financing changes could cut hospital revenue by tens of billions over 10 years and threaten access, especially for rural and safety-net hospitals. The Western Center on Law and Poverty argued the law would increase churn, paperwork, and uninsured rates, disproportionately harming working adults and people experiencing homelessness. Committee members asked about implementation timelines, notification systems, administrative costs, the effect on immigrant eligibility, and whether California could delay or mitigate some provisions. Bass said the state was still assessing federal guidance, planning county and provider outreach, and exploring a possible delay for work requirements and a transition period for provider-tax changes. Members also discussed how state budget actions may need to be revisited in light of H.R. 1, and how California might preserve access through state-only funding or other policy changes. In the second panel, CHIRLA, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and the Children’s Partnership described the health consequences of immigration enforcement. Speakers said raids and data-sharing fears are causing anxiety, trauma, and avoidance of care, with Los Angeles County reporting declines in emergency, urgent care, and clinic visits after enforcement actions. The Children’s Partnership said school and early childhood absences are rising in some communities and that enforcement is undermining children’s emotional well-being and access to education. Members asked for more data and discussed possible state protections, telehealth, mobile care, and legal and policy responses to reduce fear and preserve access to health and education services.

Transcript Highlights:

• associated with being an agency as well associated with being an agency as well as<00:04:38.960>
• <00:32:02.480> than invested in a child's well-being than invested in a child's well-being
• conversion conversion therapy<00:35:00.720> was<00:35:01.720> illegal<00:35:02.280>
• Well, what about these scared kids?
• Well, what about these scared kids?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And I welcome that conversation.
• Rob Callen, in my office, will be available for those conversations, as well as Chairman Creighton and
• We're having this conversation today because of the things we put in place, well-intended as they may
• I know all too well that feeling.
• Well, I mean, except that...

Bills: SB27, SB226, SB326, SB570, SB605, SB870, SB991, SB1871, SB1872, SB1873, SB1874, SB1924, SB1925

Keywords: residency, public schools, child safety placement, enrollment, education code, antisemitism, student conduct, education, disciplinary actions, Texas Education Code, truancy, attendance policy, chronic absenteeism, school attendance, student absence notifications, parent notification, home visit, attendance officer, truancy court, school district

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, and thank you for that.
• Well, thank you for that.
• They have to be the lowest number on bid day as well, right?
• , including we have to have the owner's agreement and the buy-in as well.
• Conversations and, and just from these conversations, I've got a few notes that I'm going to be checking

Summary: The committee held an interim study on retainage in public construction projects, with representatives from the Associated General Contractors of Oklahoma, the Subcontractors Association of Oklahoma, and construction firms discussing how retainage works and whether current law should be changed. AGC speakers said retainage is a statutory tool that helps ensure completion and closeout, and warned that eliminating it could create more problems by shifting leverage to owners or general contractors and leaving contractors with fewer remedies. Subcontractor representatives said retainage often functions as delayed profit, can tie up cash flow for one to two years, and can be especially burdensome for early-phase trades such as dirt work, concrete, and demolition. Several participants explained that retainage is typically withheld from monthly progress payments and paid at final closeout, with current law generally allowing retainage to drop from 5% to 2.5% after 50% completion on public projects. Subcontractors said that in practice they often still have to fight to get the reduced rate applied, and that some owners or construction managers do not follow the statute consistently. They also noted that bonding companies are a last resort but still an important enforcement tool, while AGC cautioned that bond claims and litigation are not ideal substitutes for a workable retainage process. The discussion focused on possible benchmarks or compromise approaches, including line-item or trade-specific release of retainage when work is complete, especially for demolition or other early-finish subcontractors. Committee members emphasized that owner, GC/CM, and subcontractor issues may need different solutions and that the study was intended to gather perspectives rather than produce immediate legislation. No vote was taken, and no formal action was announced.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we need future innovations in nuclear as well, certainly in terms of cost and the time it takes
• Well, we need future innovations in nuclear as well, certainly in terms of cost and the time it takes
• know we've had a lot of conversation know we've had a lot of conversation about<00:54:31.599>
• <00:55:54.280> you say can we start the conversation you say can we start the conversation
• the switch of having the conversation the switch of having the conversation thank<00:57:20.400><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• cost proposal as well. cost proposal as well.
• No target conversation. conversation. conversation.
• . well. well.
• <00:21:14.720> So really not well done. So really not well done.
• my >> conversation is what be my >> Well, I'm<00:26:19.280> throwing<00:26:19.560

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, I look forward to continued conversations as well because I was a council member at the local
• We look forward to continued conversations as well.
• We look forward to continue conversations as well.
• We've had conversations; you and I have had conversations about this.
• Chair, very well.

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Well, Chair, thank you, Mr. Chair.
• you for that and for that conversation you for that and for that conversation but<00:45:43.680><
• Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I appreciate this bill.
• Well, AB 507 is the Office to Housing Conversion Act. We'll accelerate adaptive...
• Well, AB 507 is the Office to Housing Conversion Act.
• Yeah, I mean, parking is top of mind for many conversations in my district as well.
• Well, you may close. All right.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 1157, the Affordable Rent Act, which would lower California’s annual rent cap, remove the single-family home exemption, and eliminate the sunset on existing tenant protections. The author and supporters argued that renters are facing severe affordability pressures, especially in single-family rentals, and that stronger statewide rent stabilization is needed to prevent displacement and homelessness. Opponents, including apartment, building, and property-owner groups, said the bill would discourage housing production, harm small landlords, and override a deal they said was intended to be temporary while the state focused on building more housing. Public testimony on AB 1157 was extensive, with many renters, tenant advocates, labor groups, and community organizations speaking in support, while many landlords, business groups, and property-owner representatives spoke in opposition. Committee members were split: some praised the bill as a necessary response to the rent crisis, while others warned it could reduce investment and worsen the housing shortage. The committee ultimately voted 7-5 to pass AB 1157 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The committee then approved the consent calendar, including AB 413, AB 1152, and AB 1275, on a 9-0 vote. It also heard ACA 3, which would require the University of California to make available a limited number of down payment loans for eligible long-term support staff who are first-time homebuyers. Supporters said the measure would help lower-wage UC workers afford homeownership and improve retention, while UC and other opponents argued the proposal was duplicative of existing state programs, unnecessary, and potentially harmful to UC finances. The discussion focused on financing mechanics and the relationship to CalHFA, but no final vote on ACA 3 was included in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• to engage in this conversation.
• Okay, well, we will hold off on that.
• This bill is... well, go ahead.
• Well, it's just available.
• And I'm not aware of any conversations.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Conversation.
• Any further conversation? That'll be enough to... Okay. Any further conversation on the amendment?
• And hopefully I'll have an answer on 1535 as well. I'm good.
• Okay, and hopefully I'll have an answer on 1535 as well.
• Okay, and hopefully I'll have an answer on 1535 as well.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The State and Local Government Committee met to reconsider and amend House Bill 1165, which dealt with petition circulation requirements and ballot receipt rules. The committee walked through technical changes requested by the Secretary of State’s office, including moving petition-title language, adding a 15-business-day submission deadline for petition packets, and revising language related to mailed absentee ballots and the presidential executive order requiring ballots to be received by election day rather than merely postmarked. The State Election Director explained that the change was intended to provide clarity and consistency for voters and election officials, while Senator Braunberger objected that it was an unnecessary reaction to an executive order that could be challenged. The committee adopted the amendment 5-1 and then passed the bill as amended on a 5-1 vote, with Senator Braunberger voting no. The committee then took up House Bill 1307, which concerned election authority, home rule powers, and related city and county petition/signature provisions. After questions from members and clarification from the Deputy Secretary of State and a League of Cities representative, the committee agreed the amendment was intended to preserve city petition power and align the bill with changes made in another election bill, while also addressing park district language. The amendment was adopted 6-0, and the bill was passed as amended 6-0. Senator Castaneda was designated as the carrier. Finally, the committee discussed House Bill 1580, a study bill on state employee compensation. Members used language from an earlier draft tied to health plan changes and broadened it to study total rewards compensation, including pay grades, classifications, comparisons among state employees across departments and with similar private-sector jobs, equity funding and bonuses, prevailing wages on state projects, and the impact of changes to health plan benefits and premium structures. The committee agreed to make the language more generic and adopted the amendment 6-0, then passed the bill as amended 6-0. House Bill 1601 was not acted on and was held until after floor session so members could continue discussions and await additional input.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, continue to have those conversations.
• You should have be having conversations.
• > appropriate<00:09:54.480> in those conversations if appropriate in those conversations
• > minor<00:10:07.040> parents well, that's by the minor parents well, that's by the minor
• as well. So, I'm a yes. as well. So, I'm a yes. Representative<00:26:25.200> Stevenson.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met with a quorum and considered four bills. House Bill 4, relating to grooming a minor, was presented as a response to child sexual abuse concerns and would create criminal penalties for adults who groom or solicit minors for sexual conduct. Members raised questions about possible impacts on teachers, youth ministers, nonprofits, and other good-faith communications, as well as concerns about vagueness and age thresholds. The sponsor and supporters said the bill was intended to target predatory conduct while exempting job-related, age-appropriate, and other non-predatory discussions. The committee approved HB 4 favorably by a vote of 14 yes, 0 no, and 5 pass. House Bill 84, dealing with local government liability for riot-related property damage, was described as a clarification of longstanding Kentucky law so it would apply to consolidated and unified local governments such as Louisville. The sponsor said the bill preserves accountability when governments have notice of a riot and fail to act, while opponents questioned whether language about citizens’ aid could encourage vigilante behavior. The sponsor and another member said the bill was not about vigilanteism but about preserving existing rights and ensuring equal protection for property owners across the state. HB 84 passed favorably by a vote of 15 yes, 1 no, and 1 pass. House Bill 188, relating to public safety in jails, would extend peer-support confidentiality protections from police officers to jail employees and add jail and medical staff to third-degree assault protections. The sponsor said the measure was prompted by concerns from Warren County jail leadership and was intended to improve mental and physical safety at no cost to taxpayers. Members voiced support for extending protections to jail and penitentiary staff, and the committee passed HB 188 favorably with 18 yes votes and no opposition. House Bill 143, relating to fiduciary bonds, would allow fiduciary bonds to be notarized instead of attested by the circuit court clerk, a change described as a practical request from clerks and attorneys. It passed unanimously, 18 yes, 0 no, 0 pass, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:06:54.479> in ago to come to a housing conversation in ago to come to a housing conversation
• <00:13:28.639> and conversations and conversations and uh<00:13:29.920> for<00:13:30.760
• team gathered and uh the conversations team gathered and uh the conversations that<00:57:41.200>
• thumbprint on that is a conversation thumbprint on that is a conversation that<01:10:25.719>
• <01:10:31.960> has six sessions as that conversation has six sessions as that conversation

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention Committee met for an organizational hearing focused on introductions, committee jurisdiction, and a presentation from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Commissioner Jennifer Ho. Members described their priorities for the session, including addressing HOA issues, senior housing affordability, manufactured housing exploitation, first-time homebuyer access, housing and health connections, homelessness protections, downtown conversions, and expanding starter homes, ADUs, and smaller multifamily housing. Chair Port emphasized bipartisan collaboration and the committee’s focus on removing barriers to housing production and expanding homeownership. A substantial portion of the meeting was devoted to remembering Senator Carrie Dietz, with Chair Port, Senator Draheim, and Commissioner Ho each describing her deep knowledge, behind-the-scenes leadership, and role in major housing accomplishments. They highlighted her work on fire sprinkler requirements in high-rise buildings, rental housing safety, public and nonprofit housing repairs, protections against predatory investors, manufactured and workforce housing, tenant protections, down payment assistance, local affordable housing aid, homelessness services, and the Bring It Home program, which helped pave the way for Minnesota’s rental voucher program. Advocates’ letters honoring her contributions were also made available to members. Committee staff then reviewed the panel’s jurisdiction, including housing and homelessness prevention, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency oversight and budget matters, housing bond allocation authority, housing infrastructure bonds, manufactured housing, rent control, transitional housing, and homeless prevention. Chair Port said the budget overview would be held for a later hearing. Commissioner Ho introduced her staff and outlined Minnesota Housing’s mission as a statewide mission-driven financial institution that finances affordable housing, homeownership, supportive housing, homelessness prevention, and manufactured housing through partnerships with lenders, developers, service providers, tribes, and local governments. No votes or formal legislative actions were taken at this meeting.