Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, there's a lot of development going on in the southern part of the state, but a lot of it is restricted
• 20:06.080><c> is</c> part of the state, but a lot of it is part of the state, but a lot of it is restricted
• :07.280><c> can</c><00:20:07.440><c> and</c><00:20:07.679><c> can't</c><00:20:07.840><c> do</c> restricted
• by what you can and can't do restricted by what you can and can't do based<00:20:08.320><c> on</c><00
• The federal government accepted New Hampshire's inspection program because it was more restrictive than

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Stillwater is also serving as the placement site for individuals with long-term restrictive housing needs
• IPs in this unit will be transferred back to their sending facility after they've completed their restrictive
• So, along with that conversation, however, and knowing that we’ve got a restrictive housing unit of 150
• /c><01:19:38.159><c> we've</c><01:19:38.480><c> got</c><01:19:38.640><c> a</c><01:19:38.960><c> restrictive
• </c> knowing that we've got a restrictive knowing that we've got a restrictive housing<01:19:39.840><

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, we are restricted from funding options that we know will work for many people who need it.
• Right now, we are restricted from funding options that we know will work for many people who need it.
• We know what this money will do: It's 40,000 new homes for folks who need it that are deed-restricted
• that definition by considering factors such as whether it includes additives that are banned or restricted
• good actors who generate new housing units are also protected while greedy hedge funds are being restricted

Summary: The Assembly met after a quorum call and first dealt with a procedural dispute over four amendments to AB 1240. The Speaker ruled the amendments out of order as not germane, and the Assembly sustained that ruling on a 49-16 vote. Members then added co-authors to several consent-calendar resolutions, including measures on the National Conference of State Legislators, Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, ALS Awareness Month, and Men’s Mental Health Month, before adopting the consent calendar. The chamber also heard guest introductions, including a welcome for Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee, and took up a motion to bring AB 41 up out of file, which failed 19-48. The bulk of the meeting was floor action on a long series of bills and resolutions, many of which passed with broad bipartisan support. Measures approved included ACR 40 supporting immigrant students and FAFSA privacy; AB 917 on permanent status for certain school employees; AB 985 on anesthesia access; AB 7 and AB 42 on higher education and student services; AB 245 providing property tax relief for wildfire victims; AB 255 allowing funding for drug-free recovery housing; AB 279 updating K-12 library standards; AB 289 creating a pilot for automated speed enforcement in highway construction zones; AB 291 on an educator apprentice program; AB 327 addressing swatting; AB 340 on confidential union communications; AB 341 creating an oral health technical assistance center for people with disabilities; AB 356 on San Diego health care infrastructure; AB 410 on bot disclosure; AB 476 on copper theft enforcement; AB 477 on educator pay targets; AB 485 on stolen wages and business licensing; AB 487, the insurance committee’s technical omnibus bill; AB 573 on tobacco retail license fees; AB 598 on school mapping technology; AB 635 on mobile home law enforcement referrals; AB 651 on remote participation for incarcerated parents in dependency hearings; AB 654 on homelessness hotline assistance in Los Angeles County; AB 662 creating a South County higher education task force; AB 667 on language access in professional licensing; AB 669 limiting early denial of addiction treatment; AB 670 on naturally occurring affordable housing; AB 695 on online continuation of community college for deported students; AB 723 on disclosure for digitally altered real estate images; AB 727 placing Trevor Project information on student IDs; and AB 736, a $10 billion affordable housing bond for the June 2026 ballot, which passed on a 61-11 urgency vote after extensive debate. Debate on AB 736 was the most extensive of the day, with supporters arguing the bond would help address California’s housing crisis and give voters a chance to weigh in, while opponents criticized the state’s bond debt and past spending results. The Assembly then recessed for caucus meetings and later returned to continue the daily file, where additional measures were taken up, including AB 798 adding diapers and wipes to the emergency food bank reserve program, which passed 56-0, and AB 821 on career technical education, which was presented as bipartisan-supported as the transcript continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because I know PFA in general, with their programs, there's a lot of restrictions in terms of local tax
• Because I know PFA in general, with their programs, there's a lot of restrictions in terms of local tax
• there's a general with their programs, there's a lot<01:04:05.680><c> of</c><01:04:05.920><c> restrictions
• c> in</c><01:04:06.799><c> terms</c><01:04:06.960><c> of</c><01:04:07.280><c> local</c> lot of restrictions
• in terms of local lot of restrictions in terms of local tax<01:04:08.079><c> capacities.

Committee: Senate Capital Investment

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a parent of children who are in a charter school, and I oppose AB 84 as it would restrict their access
• And therefore, if you're only restricted to the small district where you're located with your home office
• authorized, period, because of the increasing number of statutes that have worked to refine and restrict
• When not placed in his least restrictive environment, he is overstimulated, and as a result, all students
• This restriction disproportionately affects charter school students in high-need areas, particularly

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee heard AB 84, a charter school accountability measure focused on non-classroom-based charter schools and fraud prevention. The author and supporters said the bill was intended to respond to the A3 charter fraud case and related scandals by strengthening audits, transparency, authorizer oversight, and funding determination rules, while ensuring public education dollars are used for public education. Supporters included FCMAT, CSEA, CTA, and CSBA, who argued the bill would improve oversight and protect taxpayers. Opponents, including the California Charter Schools Association, Green Dot, many charter parents, educators, and charter operators, said the bill was too broad, would impose major new costs and bureaucracy on all charter schools, and could reduce options for families, especially those using flexible, homeschool, or special-needs charter programs. After extensive testimony and committee discussion, the bill passed on a 5-1 vote and was sent to Appropriations, with the item left open for additional votes. The committee then approved a consent calendar of 11 education bills, including AB 542, AB 563, AB 731, AB 753, AB 784, AB 964, AB 988, AB 1034, AB 1233, AB 1255, and AB 1381, all moving to Appropriations. The consent calendar passed unanimously. Later, the committee heard AB 1454, a literacy and reading instruction bill authored by Assembly Members Rubio and Revis. The bill would require the state to create professional development resources for evidence-based literacy instruction, update English language arts and English language development instructional materials, and revise administrator preparation standards to include literacy training. The authors and a broad coalition of supporters, including CTA, EdVoice, Families in Schools, Decoding Dyslexia, school administrators, and parent advocates, described the measure as a compromise aimed at improving reading outcomes and addressing California’s literacy crisis. There was no opposition testimony at the hearing, and members voiced strong support for the bill and its collaborative approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• would go to the counties is is there any would go to the counties is is there any is there any uh restrictions
• or ear is there any uh restrictions or ear is there any uh restrictions or ear marks as to what the
• if it's up to the judge number one is there age number one is there age number one is there age restriction
• yes and what is the age I restriction yes and what is the age I restriction yes and what is the age

Keywords: sessions, 2025-R, 1, 219

Transcript Highlights:

• Minnesota there the the entire state of Minnesota there is<00:24:53.320><c> a</c><00:24:53.559><c> restriction
• <c> on</c><00:24:54.679><c> flying</c><00:24:55.120><c> uavs</c><00:24:55.760><c> over</c> is a restriction
• on flying uavs over is a restriction on flying uavs over private<00:24:56.559><c> property</c><00:24
• </c><00:25:18.080><c> that</c><00:25:18.200><c> would</c> statute is more restrictive that would statute
• is more restrictive that would allow<00:25:18.640><c> us</c><00:25:18.760><c> to</c><00:25:18.919><c

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have zoning restrictive—I'm sorry—zoning and restrictive local and state regulations have not adapted
• Light-density zoning would allow for four units on single-family lots, ADUs by right, and fewer parking restrictions
• and single family lots um adus by right and fewer<00:49:59.960><c> parking</c><00:50:00.440><c> restrictions
• /c><00:50:01.440><c> there's</c><00:50:01.640><c> a</c><00:50:01.760><c> lot</c> fewer parking restrictions
• there's a lot fewer parking restrictions there's a lot of<00:50:02.200><c> C</c><00:50:02.559><c> cities

Committee: House Housing

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He added that it could also lead people to question the need for the restrictions on protected shoreland
• </c><01:35:13.840><c> on</c><01:35:14.040><c> the</c><01:35:14.199><c> protected</c> know the restrictions
• on the protected know the restrictions on the protected Shoreland<01:35:15.600><c> and</c><01:35:15.840
• He said they are actually removing some of the restrictions on those boathouses in line with the recent
• ><01:37:20.840><c> updating</c> He said that kind of deals with some of these issues on height restrictions

Committee: Senate Commerce

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is striking the restriction in statute that allows an employee of the state to earn no more than 10
• ><c> that</c><00:35:20.640><c> is</c> statutory restriction if that is statutory restriction if that
• on employment or membership restrictions on employment or membership based<02:44:46.160><c> on</c><02
• </c><03:43:15.760><c> on</c><03:43:15.920><c> state</c> exempt from the restrictions on state exempt
• from the restrictions on state spending<03:43:16.399><c> imposed</c><03:43:16.800><c> five</c><03:43:

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:38:47.839><c> on</c> know they have a lot of restrictions on know they have a lot of restrictions
• Um, they have subsequently, they're the town that I was mentioning, that put in some restrictions on
• Um, so it does actually does two things for a commercial... some restrictions on uh having Green some
• believe that it it is okay to restrict the<05:04:38.160><c> funds</c><05:04:38.400><c> from</c><05:04
• </c><05:04:51.440><c> which</c> have the authority to restrict which have the authority to restrict which

Committee: House Ways and Means

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• on what we can do very very restricted on what we can do in<01:25:11.320><c> the</c><01:25:11.480><c
• on how much we can ask you're restricted on how much we can ask you're allowed<01:27:19.360><c> to</
• </c><01:30:37.320><c> of</c><01:30:37.520><c> the</c> given the uh uh the restrictions of the given the
• uh uh the restrictions of the Ada<01:30:39.320><c> um</c><01:30:40.320><c> uh</c><01:30:40.639><c> you
• </c><03:34:01.040><c> about</c> those and make some restrictions about those and make some restrictions

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session on a bill arising from the Lee case involving animal seizures and humane society involvement. Members and the commissioner discussed concerns about due process, lack of clear notice to animal owners, the need for owners to understand when they are surrendering ownership, and whether humane agents should have additional training or certification. Several members also questioned the role of the NH SPCA and humane societies, the absence of oversight, and whether there was any financial or policy conflict in their involvement. The commissioner said the Department of Agriculture does not have a direct relationship with humane societies, but does coordinate with police on seizures, and noted that problems tend to arise when agencies do not consult the department first. Testimony and discussion focused on possible fixes to the bill, including clearer written notice of rights, requiring a third-party qualified veterinarian or other neutral evaluator, establishing the condition of animals at the time of seizure for later court proceedings, and possibly using teleconferencing with a veterinarian in limited circumstances. Some members suggested the bill may need a broader study committee, while others said it should be amended now rather than delayed. The chair said the bill would be worked on further and sent to the subcommittee for more detailed review. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 250, which would allow local governing bodies to regulate dog muzzling. Representative Jodi Newell testified that the bill was intended to let municipalities respond to dangerous dogs, citing Keene’s attempt to require muzzling after a serious incident but lack of clear authority under current law. Deborah LeBlanc also testified about a dog attack that seriously injured her dog and said a muzzle requirement could have prevented the attack. Committee members asked about the incident, existing dog-control laws, and whether the dog had been leashed; the discussion suggested the bill was meant to clarify local authority over muzzling as a public safety measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• That’s already a restriction that companies and organizations are having to deal with at this moment,
• That's already a restriction that companies and organizations are having to deal with at this moment.
• comes to the International Fire Code, what I can do is enforce when folks are trying to be less restrictive
• comes to the international fire code, what I can do is enforce when folks are trying to be less restrictive
• and trying to allow What I can do is enforce when folks are trying to be less restrictive and trying

Committee: Joint Government Finance Committee

Summary: The committee first received a general fund and revenue update from the Office of Management and Budget. Staff reported that the state started the biennium about $176 million above prior estimates, but year-to-date revenues were now running below legislative forecast, mainly due to lower individual income tax and sales tax collections. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap, the legacy fund continued to grow, and oil revenues were slightly above forecast overall. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing variability, and OMB said agencies would be asked to address potential federal reductions case by case during budget preparation. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analysis materials, followed by a bill draft for a fixed-route city transportation grant program. Testimony from transit officials in Fargo and Minot supported the proposal, saying state aid would help match federal transit funds and support operations, but members raised questions about the funding source, fare structures, and whether the program should be limited to the current four fixed-route cities or allow future eligible cities. Several members asked for more time to study the formula and possible funding options before moving the bill forward. Next, the committee approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to a proposed North Dakota-South Dakota bi-state authority. Staff explained the provision had been unused for about 30 years and that existing law likely already allowed joint powers agreements without the specific language. The committee voted to adopt the repeal bill draft. The Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site then provided an update on uncrewed aircraft system initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and future revenue models. Officials said North Dakota had received FAA approval to operate the radar data pathfinder, had begun replacing non-compliant drones from restricted foreign sources, and was working on phased procurement and cost-recovery plans. Members asked about deadlines, funding, supply-chain issues, and how the system would be used; staff said the federal restrictions were already in effect and that Vantis was being positioned as infrastructure for future beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. Finally, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and on a reentry housing task force. The new facility is planned for the penitentiary grounds, with a reduced estimated cost of about $263 million, 600 beds initially, possible expansion to 732 beds, and completion projected around 2031 if funded in 2027. The reentry housing task force described a data-driven effort to identify housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with the goal of reducing homelessness and recidivism through targeted housing support and possible subsidies. Members asked about staffing, site selection, housing duration, and whether employment and transportation needs would be included in the assessment.

Transcript Highlights:

• It restricts vape products within 300 feet of a school, similar to alcohol. Thank you.
• It restricts vape products within 300 feet of a school, similar to alcohol. Within 300 feet?
• But I guess my point is that this is restricting my ability to advocate on behalf of my constituents.
• and direct the Louisiana State Law Institute to study prescription of actions enforcing zoning restrictions
• , building restrictions, and subdivision regulations by certain parishes and municipalities.

Bills: HB410 , HR310 , HR314 , HR316 , HR317 , HR321 , HR275 , HR276 , HR279 , HR282 , HR286 , HR289 , HR292 , HR295 , HR302 , HR319 , HR307 , HR273 , SCR59 , SCR61 , SCR62 , SCR68 , SCR69 , SCR70 , SCR54 , SCR55 , SCR64 , SCR75 , HCR32 , HB776 , HB42 , HB119 , HB159 , HB302 , HB1017 , HB1028 , SB217 , SB283 , HB953 , SB208 , HR74 , HB998 , HB901 , HR20 , HCR65 , HCR71 , HCR98 , HB284 , HB306 , HB341 , HB366 , HB393 , HB458 , HB577 , HB603 , HB605 , HB614 , HB625 , HB646 , HB733 , HB752 , HB773 , HB798 , HB911 , HB955 , HB996 , HB1035 , HB1069 , HB1113 , HB1140 , HB1180 , HB1191 , HB1240 , HB1255 , SB82 , SB89 , SB97 , SB123 , SB237 , HB36 , HB74 , HB75 , HB258 , HB259 , HB414 , HB459 , HB784 , HB848 , HB956 , HB1095 , HB1220 , HB1252 , SB469 , SB479

Keywords: recording, privacy, notification, direct conversation, law enforcement, first responder, penalties, oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding

Transcript Highlights:

• So, Representative, what kind of restrictions are we going to put at the state level?
• our state has an LRE target for the percentage of time that our learners are spent in their least restrictive
• state has an LRE target for how the percentage of time that our learners are spent in their least restrictive
• state has an LRE target for how the percentage of time that our learners are spent in their least restrictive
• say this, but I sometimes think our costs are expanded because we're overserving learners in more restrictive

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then received a lengthy DPI presentation from Stanley Schauer on statewide reading and math assessment data for students with and without disabilities. He explained the assessment systems used over time, the absence of 2019-20 data, and how North Dakota’s standards are set by educators. Members asked about alternate assessments, cohort trends, the apparent drop in proficiency in higher grades, and the new NDA+ assessment. Schauer emphasized that the biggest pattern in the data was the relative stability of students with disabilities, the post-pandemic drop and partial recovery, and the need to focus on reducing the novice category. He also said the state plans to revisit high school standard setting and that future data could be broken out by program, disability category, and schools using science-of-math or other initiatives. Public testimony from special education staff suggested that the flat performance of students with disabilities during COVID likely reflected continued services and intensive supports, and committee members discussed whether the current disparity goal is realistic and whether growth measures would be more useful than simple proficiency buckets. After the presentation, the committee took a short break and then moved into discussion of special education funding models. Chair Richter said members should contact Schauer directly with ideas for additional data views and noted that the committee would continue its work on funding and possible model changes. Brandon Bomback of Grand Forks Public Schools began a presentation arguing that the special education funding formula, especially the weighting factor, should be reconsidered if the committee wants a system that better reflects accountability and student needs. He said his comments were based on the perspective of a larger district and focused on the special education weighting factor rather than other parts of the formula. The remainder of his presentation was not included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are some restrictions on what CCDF dollars can be used for.
• temporary absence regulation, which limits temporary absences to no more than 20% per day, is too restrictive
• , but it often responds in the most disruptive and costly ways: placement changes, move to more restrictive
• You also asked a question about the children who are transitioning home as a result of the 2025 restriction
• While we support family-based placements, we are concerned about restricting. Thank you.

Summary: The committee heard an extensive Department of Social Services presentation on child care budget issues, including the Governor’s proposed 2026-27 budget, federal CCDF changes, Prop. 64 revenue adjustments, and a one-time $11.5 million disaster-related infrastructure grant for licensed child care facilities affected by 2025 declared disasters. DSS said federal formula updates and lower Prop. 64 revenues would reduce funding and could result in about 4,176 CCTR slots being reduced, but the department said it was working to avoid impacts to currently enrolled children. The LAO supported aligning general child care funding with lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant. Members pressed DSS and Finance on why reductions were not being backfilled and why so many awarded slots remain uncontracted or unused; DSS said delays are largely due to providers building new infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment challenges, and that some unspent funds revert to the General Fund. The committee also discussed whether some contract dollars should be shifted to vouchers and whether more flexibility should be allowed for infrastructure and expansion costs. A second panel focused on the state’s commitment to expand child care and on rate reform. DSS reported that nearly 125,000 new slots have been awarded since 2021-22, but speakers from Stanislaus County Office of Education, Parent Voices California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that unmet need remains large and that the system still leaves many families without access. Stanislaus County described a large local shortage of infant and toddler care and said reimbursement disparities between child care programs and state preschool create disincentives for providers. Parent Voices gave testimony about the burdens and instability families face when trying to access care, especially for survivors and low-income parents, and called for a universal, publicly funded system. The Budget Center said only about 16% of eligible children were enrolled in 2024, urged expansion across the mixed delivery system rather than concentrating investment in TK, and called for faster rate reform and new revenue. LAO estimated that bringing certain CCTR adjustment factors up to CSPP levels would cost $88 million to $131 million ongoing. Members and witnesses discussed the single rate structure, automation needs, and the need for deadlines and a ramp-up plan; DSS said the goal is to eliminate disparities, but that policy decisions are still needed before automation can proceed. The committee then reviewed several trailer bill proposals. DSS outlined a 2026-27 COLA proposal that would apply a 2.41% increase through cost-of-care-plus payments, though the department said it had inadvertently excluded CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program and would revise the proposal; LAO recommended making the COLA methodology uniform across programs. DSS also proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology on a triennial schedule, limiting temporary absences in family child care homes to 20% of monthly hours, defining excessive unexplained absences as more than 30 days in a year, and aligning family fee deductions with new federal requirements so providers receive the full voucher value. Members generally supported the temporary absence change and asked about implementation timing for the family fee deduction, with DSS saying it was in contact with Riverside County. The committee also heard a brief update on the Early Childhood Policy Council reappropriation, which would extend unused funds through June 30, 2028 because prior costs came in higher than expected.

Transcript Highlights:

• now only applies to Santa Monica, and only to a limited set of low-impact activities that do not restrict
• We've seen everything from six months to 18 months to multiple years for affordable, 100% deed-restricted
• So affordable housing taking... ...for affordable, 100% deed-restricted affordable housing projects.
• a lot of parameters around it; it has to be zoned accordingly and all the other kinds of local restrictions
• city of San Diego by this narrow exemption for lands which are legally dedicated as parkland and restricted

Summary: The committee heard a long housing agenda with several bills presented before quorum was established. AB 1725, as amended, would require disclosure of nearby oil wells and methane monitoring issues in a specific district; the author and community witnesses described serious health and safety risks in Vista Hermosa Heights, while the California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, and California Chamber of Commerce opposed, arguing the bill targeted the wrong industry and that the state should instead fix abandoned wells directly. AB 2110, a local finance tool to create tax increment districts for workforce housing for education, health care, manufacturing, and public safety workers, drew no witnesses in support or opposition and was presented as a way to help workers live closer to jobs. AB 1732 would expand CEQA streamlining for public university and college housing projects; UC and several housing and labor groups supported it, while housing advocates raised concerns about amendments affecting existing 100% affordable housing exemptions. AB 1771, amended into a study bill, would direct HCD to report on the long-standing resident manager requirement for apartment buildings with 16 or more units; the rental housing industry supported studying the issue, while the chair emphasized the need to consider tenant protections and the impact on current resident managers before changing the law. The committee also heard AB 2185, which would direct state affordable housing programs to update guidelines to better support factory-built housing; it drew broad support from housing, labor, technology, and local government groups, with no opposition. AB 2748 would delay new EV-readiness requirements for 100% affordable housing developments, keeping the prior 40% standard through 2035; supporters said the higher standard would add significant costs and threaten project feasibility, while clean air and transportation advocates argued the code changes are modest, important for equity, and should not be rolled back. Members split along those lines, with some emphasizing housing production and others urging more public subsidy for EV infrastructure rather than delaying the code. SB 417, a proposed $10 billion affordable housing bond for the November ballot, received extensive support from housing organizations, local governments, labor, and business groups, but Habitat for Humanity and the Los Angeles mayor’s office asked for specific allocations for CalHome and interim housing; the bill was ultimately moved to Appropriations on an 8-0 vote, with members noting ongoing negotiations over funding priorities. Finally, AB 1740 would create an urban multimodal community designation for Santa Monica, allowing local approval of certain low-impact coastal-zone activities—such as some housing, bike and bus lanes, outdoor dining, and building changes—without Coastal Commission review. The author and Santa Monica officials said the bill would reduce delays and uncertainty for infill housing and local economic recovery while preserving protections for sensitive coastal resources; supporters included housing, business, and city groups. The Coastal Commission and environmental organizations opposed, saying the bill would carve out broad exemptions, weaken public access and appeal rights, and bypass the local coastal program process that Santa Monica has not completed. Committee members debated the Commission’s role, with some criticizing it for opposing legislation and others arguing the bill was a common-sense way to modernize coastal permitting. A motion and second were made on AB 1740, and the bill was left pending with the committee’s action to be taken when appropriate.

Transcript Highlights:

• New Hampshire RSA 237:9 restricts tolls collected on the Turnpike to be spent on the Turnpike. else who
• New Hampshire RSA 237:9 restricts tolls collected on the Turnpike to be spent on the Turnpike. take in
• 49:32.440><c> RSA</c><00:49:33.240><c> 237:9</c> New Hampshire RSA 237:9 New Hampshire RSA 237:9 restricts
• 35.760><c> tolls</c><00:49:36.240><c> collected</c><00:49:36.920><c> on</c><00:49:37.080><c> the</c> restricts
• tolls collected on the restricts tolls collected on the Turnpike<00:49:37.920><c> to</c><00:49:38.040

Committee: House Public Works and Highways

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• domestic violence or spousal abuse that is justified by cultural, religious, or family authority, restricting
• Lastly, whether one parent can impose a restriction on the geographic area in which a sole or joint decision
• And this is even more restricting.
• It's a restriction on speech and triggers strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional standard that we
• It is neither narrowly tailored, despite the amendment, nor the least restrictive means, especially when

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then approved the journal and received House messages and first-read bills. The chamber moved through multiple Committee of the Whole calendars, considering a range of measures on solar energy, public safety, insurance, health care, agriculture, gaming, education, child welfare, and real property. Several bills were retained on calendar, while many others were advanced with committee amendments and floor amendments. On Calendar 2, SB 1419 on solar energy inspection contractors drew the most debate. A floor amendment by Sen. Sundareshan sought to require utilities to protect ratepayers from costs associated with large energy users such as data centers; supporters argued it would help keep electricity affordable, while opponents called it a hostile amendment. After a division vote, the amendment failed 12-15, and SB 1419 was reported do pass as amended. SB 1498 (DPS appropriation) and SB 1502 (unlawful flight/reckless endangerment) also advanced. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted, but a later attempt to add the failed Sundareshan amendment to the report on SB 1419 was defeated 13-14. On Calendar 1, the Senate advanced SB 1165, SB 1206, SB 1212, SB 1215, SB 1290, SB 1291, and SB 1347, mostly with committee amendments. SB 1178 on naturopathic physicians and prescription drug pricing saw a contested Sears floor amendment aimed at stopping price gouging on essential generic drugs; supporters said it would lower drug costs, while the sponsor objected that it was not germane. The amendment failed, and the bill passed as amended. SB 1186 on document retention and donations also drew a Sundareshan amendment on transparency and implementation; it failed, and the bill passed as amended. SB 1286 on veterinary visits and electronic prescriptions advanced after a proposed Kavanagh floor amendment was defeated on division. The Senate then adopted the Committee of the Whole reports and moved on to additional calendars. On Calendar 4, the chamber passed SB 1004 on ESA students and interscholastic activities, SB 1116 on AHCCCS access/behavioral health, SB 1162 on health care institution licensing complaints, SB 1179 on developmental disability/health monitoring, SB 1475 on school district governing boards and eligibility, SB 1821 on DCS training and child placement, and SCR 1012. A request to hold SB 1475 for a reinstatement process was rejected. The Senate also took up an additional Committee of the Whole for SB 1077, SB 1479, and SB 1566; SB 1077 advanced with a Payne floor amendment, SB 1479 advanced with a Carroll amendment classifying certain forged real-property recordings as a class five felony, and SB 1566 began consideration with a Petersen amendment to remove part of a prior amendment. Throughout, the chamber repeatedly adopted committee reports and advanced the bills for further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's not a restricted fund used for your agency there. Good. Very good.
• more sensible to have attorneys on contract or collection firms on contract, whether in-state, restricted
• collection firms on contract whether collection firms on contract whether instate<00:42:21.760><c> restricted
• </c><00:42:23.359><c> I</c> instate restricted or out of state.
• I instate restricted or out of state.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 History of SEEK 00:02:15 Summary of On-Behalf Payments 00:12:40 Discussion on Collection of University Debt Department of Revenue 00:32:40 Northern Kentucky University 00:57:10, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes from the September 17 meeting, and heard a presentation from Kentucky Department of Education staff on SEEK school funding and KDE on-behalf payments. KDE explained recent SEEK changes, including the guaranteed base per-pupil amount, attendance-based calculations, second-month and January growth, the 2022 change funding kindergarten at 100% instead of 50%, and the existing add-ons for at-risk students, exceptional children, limited English learners, home/hospital instruction, and transportation. Staff also reviewed tier one funding, noting the 2024 increase from 15% to 17.5% and explaining that eligibility depends on local tax effort and property wealth. They also described Senate Bill 6 from the 2025 session as a reporting proposal to include on-behalf costs in education spending totals. KDE staff then outlined on-behalf payments made for districts, including roughly $458 million for Teachers Retirement System contributions, $942 million for health insurance, about $12 million for technology costs, and additional SFCC debt service outside KDE’s appropriation, for a total of about $1.5 billion. Members asked how a future Senate Bill 6 would affect local contributions and whether folding on-behalf payments into SEEK would shift costs among districts. KDE and Senator Gibbons clarified that the bill was intended only as a reporting mechanism and would not change local contribution or district payments; it would simply present a broader total of state education investment. The discussion also noted that Kentucky’s reported SEEK amount alone does not capture all state education spending. Members raised questions about home and hospital instruction data, saying local concerns suggest growth in some communities even if statewide numbers appear stable. KDE said the statewide figure has been relatively consistent but offered to provide district-level trend data. Co-Chair Petrie also asked about the accuracy of SEEK projections and on-behalf calculations, referencing prior concerns from the Office of Education Accountability. KDE responded that it works with the state budget director’s office in a consensus forecasting process and has been reviewing demographic and property-assessment data, including exceptional child counts, to improve forecast accuracy.