Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:28.840> more governments in Minnesota to spend more governments in Minnesota to spend
• <00:08:36.479> to that we have to pay locally to spend to that we have to pay locally to spend
• of income limits or measure of need. of income limits or measure of need.
• And and and be cautious with spending.
• <00:22:56.520> more concern is the fact that it spends more concern is the fact that it spends

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 4906, adopted the H4906A1 amendment, and heard a staff explanation that the bill would create a one-time property tax refund in calendar year 2026 for residential homesteads and the house/garage/1-acre portion of agricultural homesteads. As amended, the bill would appropriate $4 billion in fiscal year 2027, distribute payments based on 2026 property tax due, include a clawback for delinquent taxpayers, and coordinate with existing property tax refund programs so recipients would not receive more than they paid in taxes. House Research also discussed a disagreement with the Department of Revenue over whether the refund would be taxable federally, with House Research suggesting it would likely be treated as a non-taxable recovery of prior taxes. Public testimony was largely opposed. Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota argued the proposal was too large, would create a deficit and force future service cuts, and would disproportionately benefit higher-income homeowners. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project said the bill would create a major budget hole, threaten funding for health care, food support, schools, and other services, and exclude renters and lower-income Minnesotans. Members echoed those concerns, citing impacts on public safety, rural EMS, hospitals, education funding, and equity, while noting that renters and many seniors would receive nothing. Representative Howard questioned whether the bill was a cautious use of state resources, and Representative Norris said it missed the mark for struggling renters. Chair Davids defended the concept as a way to put money back in people’s pockets and said the proposal was scalable and intended to start a discussion. Representative Wiener strongly supported the bill, saying many homeowners and farmers in his district are not wealthy and need relief from property taxes; he said the bill should be even bigger. No vote on final passage was taken in the portion of the meeting provided, and the committee moved on after testimony and member discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• One thing to note: the total estimated spending will change in May.
• terms of what that means for the program enrollment and spending.
• Now, our comments on this initial spending plan start...
• For example, there's a revenue limit, and they've been considering reducing that revenue limit.
• limited term positions and I'm a 33 permanent positions, 11 limited-term positions, and expenditure

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget we passed holds the line, spending less than last year and reducing per capita spending.
• So you can only spend on this, but you can spend whatever you want.
• There's no limitation, so it's everybody.
• And this is going to force them to really prioritize their spending and their spending habits.
• But are there any limitations, or do you anticipate limitations on the ability of counties and cities

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• What we found was the promotion fund spending limit was exceeded, promotion fund grant conditions were
• During the audit period, the agency didn't have procedures or controls to track that 25% spending limit
• We do to a limited extent.
• That cash reserve is limited.
• That cash reserve is limited.

Summary: The committee was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer were offered, and the minutes from the previous meeting were approved. Members then received a memo summarizing major audit items and began hearing audit presentations from the State Auditor’s Office and private auditors on a range of state agencies and organizations. Several audits were reported as clean, including the Bank of North Dakota, the North Dakota Guaranteed Student Loan Program, the Office of the Governor, the Office of the State Treasurer, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Transportation’s flexible transportation fund, Lake Region State College, and the Department of Environmental Quality. The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association also received an unmodified opinion, though repeat findings were noted for limited segregation of duties and financial statement preparation due to its small staff. The Council on the Arts audit found two findings: payroll charged to federal awards without adequate timekeeping records, and unallowable expenditures from a restricted cultural endowment fund. The Department of Public Instruction audit identified unsupported scholarship applications in the paraprofessional-to-teacher program, though additional testing showed the funds were used for their intended purpose. The most extensive discussion centered on the North Dakota Racing Commission audit, which identified four findings: overspending the promotion fund’s 25% operating limit, grant conditions not being met, improper Breeders Fund awards, and improper procurement for advertising services. Racing Commission director Bruce Johnson acknowledged complacency and weak controls, said the agency would tighten procedures, and explained that the commission had since worked with procurement and would follow the rules more closely. Auditors also explained that the commission would now be audited every two years because of the findings. Another major discussion involved the University of North Dakota School of Law, where auditors found a lack of documentation supporting admissions decisions for post-baccalaureate programs. UND officials said they remain in good standing with the American Bar Association but agreed better documentation and tools are needed; the committee pressed for more transparency and follow-up on admissions criteria. The committee also received an update on Dakota College at Bottineau, where Minot State University reported that bank reconciliations had been brought current after a significant backlog and would now be maintained through shared services. Members requested a written follow-up report on the issues and corrective actions. Finally, the North Dakota Fair Association explained that its foundation has been dissolved and remaining funds were transferred to another nonprofit for continued support of the state fair, and the Department of Public Instruction provided an update on school meal debt, saying the reported amount was about $1.1 million from a partial district survey and that debt remains a local issue, though it could be revisited if school meal funding changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:59.360> the RSA a local tax cap simply limits the RSA a local tax cap simply limits
• to override it ensures that any spending to override it ensures that any spending that<00:14:04.120
• or x amount of dollars are they limited or x amount of dollars are they limited by<00:25:18.399>
• implement a tax cap it would only limit implement a tax cap it would only limit the<00:42:37.800
• :42:44.880> for District versus how much we spending for District versus how much we spending

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• limit on the state fiscy year spending limit on the state fiscy year spending only<02:11:37.280>
• Here was our spending limit in 2005 with bipartisan support. RFC passes.
• Here was our spending limit limit limit in<02:56:48.479> 2000<02:56:49.120> 2005<02:56:
• In the first year, the TABOR cap, the spending limit In the first year, the TABOR cap, the spending limit
• That's how much the spending limit will increase by.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate met with a quorum, approved the previous day’s journal, and received committee and conference reports. Committee actions included favorable reports on several appropriations and local government bills, postponement of some measures indefinitely, and a conference committee report on House Bill 1357 concerning the teacher recruitment, education, and preparation program and related appropriations. The chamber also received a House message indicating House Bill 140 had been postponed indefinitely. The main floor action was consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 24, designating May 2026 as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. Supporters described motorcycle riding as part of Colorado culture and emphasized safety, rider education, and sharing the road. The resolution was adopted 33-0, and ABATE of Colorado was recognized in connection with the measure. The Senate then moved into special orders and took up Senate Bill 116, which as amended focused on property tax changes, including setting the business personal property exemption ceiling at $58,000 without future inflation adjustment and aligning dates for the portable senior property tax exemption pilot. Senator Weissman argued the changes simplified administration and were fiscally prudent, while Senators Pelton and Frizell opposed the bill, saying the business property tax cap would hurt small businesses and that the portable senior exemption’s sunset would raise taxes for affected seniors. The debate continued as the bill was considered in committee of the whole.

Transcript Highlights:

• First up on SB 51 is Gary for the Campaign Spending Commission.
• behalf of the campaign spending behalf of the campaign spending commission<00:08:28.639> uh
• Gary Cam on behalf of the Campaign Spending Commission.
• Gary Cam on behalf of the Campaign Spending Commission.
• <00:13:52.480> and increasing the expenditure limit and increasing the expenditure limit and

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard several election-related bills first. SB 51, a comprehensive public financing bill for candidates, drew strong support in testimony but also concerns from the Campaign Spending Commission that the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund has only about $2.2 million, far short of what would be needed, and that the program could not realistically start in 2026 because of staffing and system changes; the commission asked for a start date no earlier than 2028. SB 118, which would create a full-time investigator position at the Campaign Spending Commission, was supported by the commission, which said it has lacked staff growth since 1995 and that an investigator is needed to handle investigations instead of having the commission’s attorney do that work. SB 255, a housekeeping bill on excess cash campaign contributions, was supported by the commission and several county officials and would require excess cash contributions over the limit to be returned within 30 days or turned over to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund. SB 345, which would expand the current partial public financing program, was supported by the commission but drew questions because it would still allow private fundraising; the commission said that under its assumptions the bill would provide more total public funds than SB 51, with a maximum of a little over $20 million versus a little over $15 million for SB 51. Testimony counts were reported as 125 support/48 oppose for SB 51, 26 support/0 oppose for SB 118, 30 support/49 oppose for SB 255, and 30 support/49 oppose for SB 345. The committee then discussed SB 176 on recount thresholds. The Office of Elections said it would stand on written testimony, and the East Hawaii Republican Party was listed but not present. The Office of Elections explained in response to questions that the bill’s recount trigger would be based on the final election-day count, not the early 6 a.m. tabulation, because the initial count is not complete until later in the day and cured ballots are counted later; the office said it does not want to begin recounts before all election-day ballots are counted. The reported testimony count was 4 support, 50 oppose, and 2 comments. Finally, the committee heard SB 260, the Judiciary’s biennial budget bill. Judiciary staff requested about $6.17 million in FY 2026 and $6.25 million in FY 2027 for operations, 17 permanent positions and one temporary position, plus $11.9 million for capital improvements. The Judiciary said the request would support specialty courts such as Women’s Court, Truancy Court, and DWI Court, a new Wahiawa District Court unit, an additional district court judge in Kona, cybersecurity, the Criminal Justice Research Institute, and facility projects including South Kohala design work and a Kauai chiller replacement. Civil legal services providers, including Volunteer Legal Services Hawaii, Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, the Legal Clinic, Kuikahi Mediation Center, the Domestic Violence Action Center, the Hawaii State Bar Association, and the Hawaii Access to Justice Commission, all supported the bill but asked for an additional $1 million for the civil legal services line item, saying demand is high and the funding is spread across more providers than before. The Judiciary clarified that some of its requested positions would support Wahiawa and Women’s Court, and that the civil legal services funding goes to organizations serving low-income residents on issues such as immigration, domestic violence, evictions, and foreclosures. The committee also briefly took up SB 279 on fentanyl possession thresholds, where the prosecuting attorney’s office supported the bill and said fentanyl is already driving overdose deaths and that the proposed thresholds target distribution-level quantities rather than personal use.

Transcript Highlights:

• A troubling... or unfairly limit access due to having a disability.
• Several years ago, my own family experienced the limitations of our current system.
• Private insurance is ever more expensive, even though coverage is limited.
• Private insurance is ever more expensive, even though coverage is limited.
• Massachusetts ranks third highest in health care spending per capita.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on 16 bills, with the chairs noting a busy legislative day and asking speakers to keep testimony brief. The committee first heard testimony on Senate 860/House 1405, the Medicare for All bill, with Sen. Jamie Eldridge and many advocates, clinicians, municipal officials, and patients arguing that a single-payer system would make care a right, reduce administrative waste, lower costs, and protect residents from rising premiums, medical debt, and hospital closures. Several speakers cited the Steward hospital crisis, affordability problems, and polling or ballot questions showing public support for single-payer coverage. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then took testimony on S. 863, a bill on non-opioid options for chronic pain. Pain specialists, patients, and advocates said the bill would improve care coordination for MassHealth members, expand access to non-opioid medications, require provider education, and collect data on chronic pain. Testifiers described long delays in diagnosis and treatment, stigma toward pain patients, and the need for multidisciplinary care and transportation support. Again, the committee heard testimony only and took no action. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 1360/S. 869, which would prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in health care. Disability advocates, clinicians, and patients described being denied or delayed care, pressured into DNR orders, or treated based on assumptions about quality of life rather than medical facts. Speakers referenced COVID-era crisis standards of care, discriminatory metrics, and personal stories involving canceled procedures, inadequate accommodations, and poor treatment in hospitals. Committee members thanked speakers for their testimony and said they would review the bill and its implications, but no vote was announced. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1399, an individual Medicare marketplace option for municipal retirees, where supporters said it would give cities and towns a lower-cost alternative for retiree health benefits through HRAs and individual Medicare plans. The hearing then returned to Medicare for All testimony, with additional supporters repeating arguments about cost, access, municipal budget pressure, and the need for global budgeting and universal coverage. The transcript ends with continued testimony and no recorded committee vote or final action on any bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• want to spend.
• want to spend.
• want to spend.
• want to spend.
• > spend.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget we passed holds the line, spending less than last year and reducing per capita spending.
• So you can only spend on this, but you can spend whatever you want.
• , because that is where each local government was spending.
• And this is going to force them to really prioritize their spending and their spending habits.
• But are there any limitations, or do you anticipate limitations on the ability of counties and cities

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• such extravagant spending in the last year.
• such extravagant spending in the last year.
• such extravagant spending in the last year.
• such extravagant spending in the last year.
• <00:10:42.959> to tied vote and it's not limited to tied vote and it's not limited to partisan

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And Senator Milton moves that the testimony limit be three minutes and public testimony be limited to
• money on roads and now you're spending money on tires.
• But when you break it down on a per capita spending level, they spend well in excess of any other city
• limit when we write the budget every two years.
• We add corrections for inflation and population growth in the consolidated GR spending limit when we

Bills: SB9

Keywords: property tax, ad valorem tax, voter-approval tax rate, no-new-revenue tax rate, tax rate calculation, Tax Code, local government finance, municipality, county, special taxing unit, sales and use tax, property tax cap, tax rollback, tax levy, maintenance and operations, debt rate, disaster relief rate, Texas Legislature, local taxing unit

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government met to hear Senate Bill 9, which would lower the voter-approval tax rate for certain local taxing units from 3.5% to 2.5%. Sen. Bettencourt, the bill author, argued the change would continue the state’s property tax reforms begun in 2019, slow local levy growth, and give voters more say over larger tax increases. He and supporters cited data showing property tax levies have grown faster than population plus inflation, and said the bill would help protect taxpayers while preserving the state’s broader investments in school tax relief, water, rural law enforcement, and ambulance funding. Supporters included the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, the Texas Association of Business, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the Texas Association of Manufacturers. They said the bill would improve transparency, encourage more disciplined budgeting, and create certainty for homeowners and businesses. They argued that lower tax-rate growth would help attract and retain employers and investment, and that voters would still be able to approve higher rates when needed. Local officials and other opponents said the bill would constrain cities and counties facing rapid growth, inflation, infrastructure needs, and public safety costs. Testimony from county judges, city finance officials, firefighters, and urban county representatives emphasized pressures from jail operations, roads, water, EMS, police and fire staffing, and unfunded mandates. Several witnesses asked for carve-outs or exemptions for public safety and disaster-related costs, warning that a one-size-fits-all cap could force service cuts or shift costs elsewhere. The committee heard extensive questioning but no final vote or disposition on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Costs have risen over that time, and the asset limit must increase accordingly.
• I don't have much, and what I do have is well under the... ...limit.
• Sarah and others spoke about the MassHealth asset limit. Again, $2,000 since 1989.
• So, yes, so the bill before you would increase the asset limit and also the income.
• At the same time, because of the limited funding that already exists and more limited funding that's

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing focused largely on senior long-term care issues, family caregiving, post-acute care access, and direct care workforce pay. Testimony strongly supported bills to raise the personal needs allowance for nursing home and rest home residents (including H. 1411, S. 482, and related bills), with speakers from Mass Senior Action, Dignity Alliance, nursing home residents, providers, and former state officials arguing that the current $72.80 monthly allowance has been unchanged since 2008 and is inadequate for basic items like clothing, toiletries, haircuts, and transportation. Witnesses also backed bills to increase MassHealth asset and income limits for seniors and to stop counting life insurance as cash, describing the current rules as outdated and harmful to low-income elders. The committee also heard testimony on bills allowing family members, including spouses and guardians, to be paid caregivers (H. 1394/S. 886), with supporters saying this would help families keep loved ones at home and reduce reliance on costly institutional care. Another set of bills (H. 1412/S. 903) drew support from a physician who said clearer MassHealth communication and improved post-acute care determination processes would help reduce delays and backlogs for patients awaiting skilled nursing, rehabilitation, or other post-acute placement. Several speakers emphasized that better home- and community-based care can prevent hospital readmissions and support independence. A major portion of the hearing focused on S. 877, which would establish an enhanced care worker minimum wage of $25 per hour, indexed to inflation, for certain home care and human services workers. Union representatives and direct care workers from SEIU Local 509, 1199 SEIU, and the AFL-CIO described severe staffing shortages, burnout, low wages, and high turnover across home care, mental health, disability services, and crisis response. They argued that higher pay is necessary to recruit and retain workers and to stabilize services for vulnerable residents. Committee members asked about costs, comparisons with other states, and whether non-wage incentives could help, but witnesses repeatedly said wages were the central issue. The hearing concluded after all registered testimony was heard, with the committee noting it would continue accepting written testimony and then adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Income limits vary based income limit.
• spending.
• spending.
• spending.
• Medicaid spending. How is it Medicaid spending.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're not spending anything.
• , they go into health care spending, they go into health care spending, Medicaid.<00:35:00.640>
• And GLP-1 firms remains limited.
• > has<00:51:29.160> grown Medicaid spending on GLP-1s has grown Medicaid spending on GLP
• And if we consume all of our spending in And if we consume all of our spending in one<01:17:45.520>

Bills: HF4493, HF3133, HF4595, HF4143, HF4142, HF3756, HF4289, HF1724, HF2291, HF4568, HF4547

Keywords: opioid use disorder, OUD, medication-assisted treatment, MAT, pharmacist prescribing, pharmacy practice, controlled substances, Schedule III, Schedule IV, Schedule V, DEA registration, Board of Pharmacy, substance use disorder, addiction treatment, buprenorphine, naltrexone, harm reduction, prescription authority, pharmacist intern, Minnesota pharmacy law

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget we passed holds the line, spending less than last year and reducing per capita spending.
• So you can only spend on this, but you can spend whatever you want.
• There's no limitation, so it's everybody.
• And this is going to force them to really prioritize their spending and their spending habits.
• But are there any limitations, or do you anticipate limitations on the ability of counties and cities

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, but the spend about 1.4 billion.
• So right now we have what is called the safe harbor limit, or 6% limit, for Medicaid expansion states
• So right now we have what is called the safe harbor limit, or 6% limit, for Medicaid expansion states
• new limit. new limit.
• HR1 limits CMS's payment errors.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Department of Human Services briefed the committee on how the federal HR1 law will affect Minnesota Medicaid and related programs. Budget Director Elise Bailey said the 900-page bill makes sweeping changes that will reduce coverage, increase administrative complexity for counties and tribal governments, raise uncompensated care for providers, and reduce federal funding. She reviewed current Medicaid spending and enrollment, emphasizing that the largest impacts will fall on the adult expansion group (adults ages 21-64 without children), which currently receives a 90% federal match. Bailey walked through several major provisions: work and community engagement requirements for the adult expansion group beginning January 1, 2027; six-month renewals for that same group; shorter retroactive coverage periods; new cost-sharing requirements for expansion enrollees above 100% of poverty; narrower Medicaid eligibility for certain lawful noncitizens; limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments; a reduced federal match for emergency medical assistance; and tighter federal rules on payment error penalties. She said many provisions require state law changes and additional federal guidance, and she cited research from Georgia suggesting work requirements increased administrative burden and caused coverage losses without increasing employment. The department estimated fiscal effects including reduced Medicaid spending in some areas but higher state costs in others, such as MinnesotaCare, emergency medical assistance, administrative systems, and provider uncompensated care. Bailey said the immigration-status changes would shift some people from Medical Assistance to MinnesotaCare, and that provider-tax and state-directed-payment changes could reduce future funding to hospitals and other providers. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the presentation was informational and the department indicated it would return with proposed state-law language as needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• spending limit.
• The secondary spending limit will give you the maximum amount of increased expenditures that you can
• The cap was $11 billion; the spending limit was $9.9 billion.
• You'll spend $9.9 billion; that's all the law will allow you to spend.
• We limited legislation to limit the amount the budget can grow.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Here in California, between 2015 and 2020, health care spending has grown 30%.
• We do have a friendly timer that will go off to remind you of the time limits.
• So, very limited actual information in terms of what that means to the program, enrollment, and spending
• To spend, and Indiana about a billion.
• For example, there is a revenue limit, and they have been contemplating reducing that limit.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's one of the reasons why you have limits on the size of the funds.
• But I will say that there is a limit to that, and that limit is if your pacing requires for a certain
• stay at the current limits.
• I mean, you can stay within the minority ownership limits if you want.
• Are we limited? But as an in-state, yeah, but that's as an investment in and of itself.

Summary: The committee met to approve prior minutes and receive updates on the Legacy Fund transparency website and fund performance. Staff reported the website procurement was in contract negotiations, with a planned go-live around November 1, and that the site would provide downloadable, more transparent information on fund holdings, allocations, history, and legislative appropriations while protecting confidential data. The investment office then reviewed performance through January 2026, describing strong returns relative to benchmarks, noting real estate and fixed income as weaker areas, and explaining that the fund’s diversification and internal management had helped offset market volatility, including recent geopolitical impacts. Members also discussed the in-state investment program, especially the Bank of North Dakota’s CD-match allocation. Several members questioned whether the program had been static for years and whether the uncommitted balance should remain parked there if it was not being used. The committee voted to pause further transfers into the program until the Bank provides a report and the committee can consider possible statutory changes; the motion also requested a cost-benefit analysis from RVK, and it passed by roll call vote. In the afternoon, RVK presented its review of the investment policy statement as it relates to the in-state investment program. The consultant said it found no major policy impediments, and that implementers and stakeholders generally felt the program was proceeding as intended. RVK emphasized best practices such as third-party due diligence, competitive risk-adjusted returns, diversification, pacing, and exit strategies, while cautioning that required lower-return investments or spending commitments can create pressure on the fund’s long-term real value. The consultant also raised ancillary concerns about state-level concentration risk, the need to distinguish between public and commercial infrastructure, and the lack of a central repository for all state funding commitments to the same projects.