Bills: HB4421, HB4426, HB4432, HB4329, HB3551, HB3763, HB1411, HB2730, HB3465, HB3649, HB3650, HB3674, HB3941, HB3970, HB3979, HB3980, HB3981, SB1074

Keywords: child welfare, fentanyl exposure, drug endangerment, environmental testing, safety analysis, remediation, child protection, Department of Human Services, violence prevention, HB4426, SIDE tax credit, strategic industrial development enhancement, income tax credit, economic development, tax incentive, qualified economic development expenditures, qualified initial infrastructure expenditures, industrial park, economic development zone, port authority

Bills: HB4421, HB4426, HB4432, HB4329, HB3551, HB3763, HB1411, HB2730, HB3465, HB3649, HB3650, HB3674, HB3941, HB3970, HB3979, HB3980, HB3981, SB1074

Keywords: child welfare, fentanyl exposure, drug endangerment, environmental testing, safety analysis, remediation, child protection, Department of Human Services, violence prevention, HB4426, SIDE tax credit, strategic industrial development enhancement, income tax credit, economic development, tax incentive, qualified economic development expenditures, qualified initial infrastructure expenditures, industrial park, economic development zone, port authority

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a refund, a total refund liability on the balance sheet, but it's not a restricted liability
• And that is your typical entrance-fee CCRC with a refund.
• But all resident refunds there were fully protected.
• In some cases, to get the refund.
• We asked about the average time for refunds.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met at Brookhaven at Lexington to continue discussing continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a focus on financial viability, entrance fees, refund policies, and how the industry is evolving. Speakers explained that nonprofit CCRCs have shifted away from building entirely new campuses since the 2008 financial crisis, and now more often grow through expansions, affiliations, mergers, or added home- and community-based services. They also noted that many newer CCRCs, especially nationwide, are being built without on-campus skilled nursing, relying instead on assisted living, memory care, or off-site arrangements, and that zoning and local approval can affect expansion plans. A substantial portion of the discussion centered on financial health and consumer protection. Panelists said the most important indicators of a strong CCRC are high occupancy, strong liquidity, and reinvestment in the property, with low occupancy and declining days cash on hand cited as warning signs. They described how actuarial reviews are used to estimate health care utilization and set pricing, and said staffing shortages are often a bigger financial pressure than resident care utilization itself. On refunds, speakers said entrance-fee refunds are generally paid when a unit is resold and the new entrance fee is received, and that resident refunds are usually protected even in bankruptcy, though residents are unsecured creditors. Massachusetts examples such as Reed’s Landing and the Groves were cited as cases where residents remained in place and refunds were ultimately protected. The group also discussed a pending disclosure bill on Beacon Hill related to entrance fees and refund transparency. LeadingAge Massachusetts said it supports clearer disclosure so residents understand refund provisions, and reported that among surveyed member CCRCs, the average time to provide an entrance-fee refund over the past two years was about 117 days. Participants emphasized the need to balance consumer protection with preserving the financial stability of the communities. The commission also reviewed upcoming dates: a virtual public hearing/listening session on June 16, the next commission meeting on June 23, and a later discussion planned on consumer rights, protections, and advertising practices. The meeting concluded with introductions of commission members and an invitation for attendees to tour the Brookhaven campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• fee refund.
• were uh refund requests from customers. were uh refund requests from customers.
• refund provision and not refunding refund provision and not refunding people<00:14:44.000> that
• Just file a refund or what? Whatever. But cavalierly said just ask for a refund.
• Just file a refund or what? reports? Just file a refund or what?

Bills: HF3642, HF2700, HF3615

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosks, prohibition, customer payouts, cryptocurrency regulation, consumer privacy, data privacy, health data, sensitive data, Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, personal data, data broker, targeted advertising, geofencing, location tracking, health care privacy, patient privacy, consent, minor privacy, children's privacy

Summary: The Commerce Finance and Policy Committee met on House File 3642, which would prohibit virtual currency kiosks in Minnesota. The bill was laid over, and the committee adopted a DE1 author’s amendment. Chair Kaggel and Representative Perryman described the measure as a response to widespread scams using crypto kiosks, especially against older adults and other vulnerable people, and said they would continue working with the Department of Commerce and other stakeholders. Testimony from law enforcement and advocates strongly supported the ban. A St. Cloud police sergeant and a Woodbury detective described cases in which victims lost large sums, said the current safeguards and refund rules are being bypassed, and argued that the kiosks are difficult to investigate because funds move quickly and often overseas. An AARP Minnesota volunteer also supported the bill, saying kiosks are a preferred tool for scammers and that existing protections have not kept pace with the problem. The Department of Commerce said it strongly supports the bill and reported that it has received 120 complaints over three years involving nearly $1 million in reported losses, with 2025 the worst year so far. The main opposition came from CoinFlip’s general counsel, who argued that the problem is fraud generally, not kiosks themselves, and said Minnesota already has consumer protections, including refunds for eligible victims. He urged stronger regulation rather than a ban, citing blockchain analytics, hold periods, and 24-hour customer service as alternatives. Committee members then asked questions about how long kiosks have operated in Minnesota, how many there are, who owns them, and the scale of losses; Commerce said there are hundreds statewide, operated by a variety of companies, and that reported losses are likely undercounts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the bill clarifies how this refund would interact with the other property tax refunds that
• amount of refund they received from PTR would be subtracted from the refund available under this bill
• property tax refunds that are other property tax refunds that are available<00:01:46.280> to<
• refund available under this bill. refund available under this bill.
• sort of similar to how other tax refunds sort of similar to how other tax refunds at<00:02:47.000

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:

• <00:52:04.720> to around providing property tax refunds to around providing property tax refunds
• We also did some one-time property tax refunds.
• > and<01:02:35.400> so Targeted property tax refunds, and so Targeted property tax refunds
• they get a refund based on that. they get a refund based on that.
• <01:05:55.000> that related to property tax refunds that related to property tax refunds that

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, and approval of the previous day’s journal. The chamber received Senate messages announcing a joint convention for the governor’s message and transmitting Senate Files 1251, 3769, and 3868. The House also introduced House Files 4868 through 4933 and adopted committee reports and comparison report motions without objection. The Rules Committee placed several bills on the calendar and required pre-filing of amendments for specified measures. On the calendar, the House passed Senate File 3602, which enacts the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act and expands electronic signing to estate planning documents beyond wills. Supporters said it would help people who are homebound, hospitalized, or in rural areas and reduce uncertainty for banks and hospitals about electronically signed powers of attorney and health care directives. The bill passed 134-0. The House also passed House File 3516, a Board of Dentistry policy bill that updates licensure language, allows retired dentists to serve low-income uninsured patients, and increases the number of dental hygienists a dentist may collaborate with from four to eight; it passed 134-0. The House then passed House File 3528, a technical barbering bill that reduces training and retesting burdens, gives the board more testing flexibility, repeals duplicative rules, clarifies that waxing is not barbering, and makes other fee and registration changes; it passed 134-0. House File 3718, updating veterinary medicine and veterinary technology statutes, was amended to restore board seal language and then passed 134-0 as amended. Supporters said it modernizes definitions and standards, recognizes licensed veterinary technicians, and may help address veterinary shortages, especially in greater Minnesota. Finally, the House passed Senate File 3402, which broadens who may serve as a medical consultant for Community Health Boards to include additional licensed professionals such as DOs, physician assistants, and advanced practice registered nurses; it passed 134-0. The chamber also considered several motions to move bills between committees, including referrals involving veterans, education, health, and psilocybin-related legislation. A motion to suspend the rules for House File 4487 was presented, and the bill was described as providing a one-time $1 billion property tax rebate or credit, but the transcript cuts off during extended debate on that motion before any final disposition is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:07.119> also tax to be collected then refunded also tax to be collected then refunded
• sf13 which provides a refundable sf13 which provides a refundable exemption<00:04:56.600> for
• commissioner of revenue for the refund commissioner of revenue for the refund uh<00:19:09.960>
• Taxes are imposed, then collected and refunded, and the appropriate refunds are appropriated from the
• and refunded and the appropriate refunds and refunded and the appropriate refunds from<00:30:17.399

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• contribution refund program. contribution refund program.
• Section 17 pertains to pharmacy refunds and the timing of those pharmacy refunds paid under the legend
• Section 17 pertains to pharmacy refunds and the timing of those pharmacy refunds paid under the legend
• :16:02.720> the those uh pharmacy refunds paid under the those uh pharmacy refunds paid under
• <00:25:54.720> The refunds paid to property owners. The refunds paid to property owners.

Bills: HF9

Keywords: energy policy, renewable energy standard, carbon-free standard, solar standard, hydroelectric, hydropower, electric utility, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, renewable portfolio standard, carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, greenhouse gas emissions, climate policy, nuclear power plant, certificate of need, fossil fuel plant demolition, utility compliance delay, beneficial electrification, sales tax exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• that exemption and refund claim ensure that exemption and refund claim are<01:21:25.000> made
• <01:22:12.520> claims um that doax notes that refund claims um that doax notes that refund
• issuing the wrong amounts of refunds issuing the wrong amounts of refunds there's<01:24:11.880><
• statute that's in place for all refund statute that's in place for all refund claims<01:24:45.679
• processing these refund processing these refund claims<01:26:48.400> thank<01:26:48.560><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Economic Development and Technology met on March 12, 2025, and heard testimony on several measures. On SB 9, the Hawaii Food Industry Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation testified in support, and there were no questions or objections. On SB 148, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs offered comments, and a member of the public testified in support of combining boxing and MMA oversight into a single combat sports commission, with amendments to preserve safety standards and separate or distinct treatment for the two sports. Committee discussion focused on whether proposed requirements were primarily safety-related or cost-related, how to handle smaller events, and whether a one-year implementation delay was necessary; the department said many safety provisions already exist in the MMA program, that it was open to continued discussion on costs, and that it needed time to combine rules and appoint new commissioners. The chair suggested possible amendments to account for event size and to reduce burdens on smaller events. The committee then heard SB 816, which drew extensive testimony on providing legal representation for immigrants in immigration proceedings. Supporters included the Hawaii State LGBTQ+ Commission, ACU Hawaii, the Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic, the Legal Clinic, Hawaii Friends of Civil Rights, the Hawaiʻi Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Pride at Work Hawaii, and others. Supporters argued that immigration cases can be as serious as criminal cases, that counsel is essential for due process, and that representation improves outcomes; several also emphasized the economic importance of immigrants to Hawaii. One supporter noted a suggested amendment to include training for attorneys and partners doing deportation defense and asylum work. Opposition came from a Navy veteran who argued the bill would use state resources for a federal issue, create inequities, and impose fiscal burdens. The chair noted 69 testimonies in support and 44 in opposition, and later an additional supporter brought the total to 70 in support. No vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided. The committee also heard SB 125, with the Department of Economic Development, the Agreed Business Development Corporation, and the Hawaii Food Industry Association in support, and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii offering technical comments about complicated nested definitions in the bill. Testimony on SB 125 focused on updating the Enterprise Zone Program so local manufacturers selling directly to retail could qualify, along with value-added products and certain health-related sectors. Finally, on SB 732, the State of Hawaii Creative Industries testified with comments, raising concerns about county permit-fee waivers, implementation timing, and the bill’s lack of a carry-forward provision for the film tax credit. The witness said uncertainty in the credit was already causing productions to delay coming to Hawaii and urged stability to support the industry and local workers. The committee then moved on to additional testimony on the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• the property tax refund often known as the property tax refund here<00:36:53.520> in<00:36:53.680
• <00:37:00.920> which targeted uh property tax refund which targeted uh property tax refund
• sure that we are getting uh more refund sure that we are getting uh more refund into<00:37:12.079
• <00:42:37.680> from refund from refund from $1,000<00:42:39.319> to $1,000 to $1,000 to
• Williams: So it's effective with refunds based on property taxes payable in 2026, so that's refunds filed

Bills: HF2254, HF2302, HF2502, HF2315, HF2475, HF2086

Keywords: HF2254, Minnesota child credit, baby bonus, child tax credit, income tax, individual income tax, tax relief, newborn, birth credit, family tax credit, tax refund, advance payment, Department of Revenue, taxable year, parenting, families with children, child credit, state regulations, families, taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• non-refundable? non-refundable?
• And in that scenario, we don't have a restriction on the refundable versus non-refundable.
• And in that scenario, we don't have a restriction on the refundable versus non-refundable.
• <00:49:04.319> But refundable versus non-refundable.
• But refundable versus non-refundable.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• , summary on um homestead credit refunds, summary on um homestead credit refunds, the<00:02:22.480
• > homeowners refund program assists homeowners refund program assists homeowners whose<00:04:56.320
• > 15.9% Property tax refunds offset 15.9% Property tax refunds offset 15.9% of<00:05:13.760>
• between Minnesota's property tax refunds between Minnesota's property tax refunds for<00:18:55.640
• Refund.

Bills: HF2715, HF2499, HF3420, HF3657, HF2303

Keywords: HF2715, homestead credit refund, property tax refund, property tax relief, homeowner tax relief, homestead credit, co-pay reduction, Minnesota property taxes, tax rebate, state refund, income thresholds, inflation adjustment, property tax circuit breaker, housing affordability, elderly homeowners, fixed income, taxation, Minnesota Statutes 290A.04, renters credit, income tax

Transcript Highlights:

• most um every dollar of a tax refund most um every dollar of a tax refund that<00:16:40.319>
• Would I be eligible for a refund under your proposal?"
• <01:11:30.320> if single mom doesn't get a tax refund if single mom doesn't get a tax refund
• <01:14:49.880> under would I be eligible for a refund under would I be eligible for a refund
• Somebody who pays sales taxes is not eligible for a refund under your bill.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• If your refund is for $750 or more, you can request a refund quarterly.
• You can't get the refund.
• The refund request is due on April 15th. The refund request is due on April 15th.
• You can't get the refund. out of luck. You can't get the refund.
• <00:31:56.320> this fuels and our request for refund this fuels and our request for refund

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are four issues regarding this issue: refund contingencies, time limit and return of refund, bankruptcy
• The refund—can you?” “Time limit and return of refund, bankruptcy, and regulation.
• A refund limit.
• My suggestion is: make entrance fees non-refundable. Offer a lower refund percentage.
• It’s also important to protect the refunds and offer regulations.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities held a public hearing focused on studying CCRCs in Massachusetts, including their financial viability, consumer protections, oversight, entrance fee and refund policies, advertising, and procedures for closure or ownership changes. Chair Rep. Tom Stanley and co-chair Sen. Pat Jehlen opened by explaining the commission’s mandate under Chapter 197 of the Acts of 2024 and asked speakers to keep testimony brief. Several commissioners and staff also emphasized the importance of hearing directly from residents, providers, and advocates. Resident testimony largely centered on two themes: the need for stronger resident representation and the need for clearer, faster refund protections. Multiple residents urged the legislature to require resident seats on governing boards, including full voting rights on national or nonprofit boards, and to make board minutes and meetings more transparent. Several speakers described long delays in receiving entrance-fee refunds after leaving a community, with one family reporting an 18-month wait and financial hardship; they called for a one-year refund limit, vacancy-order systems, escrow or reserve protections, and state oversight or guarantee funds. One resident also argued that CCRCs should be more clearly defined in state law and possibly licensed or certified so only approved communities can market themselves as CCRCs. Providers and operators generally described CCRCs as valuable models for aging in place and emphasized transparency, resident engagement, and the benefits of nonprofit ownership. Speakers from nonprofit communities said residents often serve on boards or committees, participate in budgeting and planning, and benefit from integrated care, amenities, and financial stability. A for-profit operator also said residents receive disclosure and input, while noting that CCRCs vary widely and that consumer education is important. Commissioners echoed several recurring issues at the end of the hearing, especially the need to define what a CCRC is and to address refund timelines and information sharing. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with notice that the next virtual meeting would be on June 23 at 10:00 a.m., and written testimony was invited by email.

Transcript Highlights:

• . refunded. refunded.
• . refund. refund.
• TABOR refund by the amount of the over refund.
• out<01:40:03.960> the TABOR refund uh TABOR refunds out the TABOR refund uh TABOR refunds
• refund for 24-25. refund for 24-25.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate was in session with a quorum present, approved the journal, and received several committee and House messages before moving through a long third-reading calendar. The chamber also paused for multiple personal privilege recognitions, including welcoming community guests and students, and a lighthearted update that Senator Sullivan’s missing stuffed “Chip” had been found. The majority leader later moved to lay over the remaining third-reading bills until later in the day, and the Senate also laid over special-order second reading bills until after third reading. On third reading, the Senate passed Senate Bill 185 and a series of House bills, including HB 1342 on bear-luring behavior, HB 1269 on transit access, HB 1225 on distributed energy resources, HB 1233 on property tax procedures for nonresidential property, HB 1414 on medical records held by certain health care entities, HB 1256 on release procedures from the Department of Corrections, HB 1004 on a child care income tax credit, HB 1014 extending the Colorado Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit, HB 1111 creating a pesticide product disposal and container recycling program, and HB 1287 continuing certain Division of Real Estate regulatory functions. HB 1206 was laid over to Monday, and SB 193 was laid over to the bottom of the calendar. Several of these bills passed with notable no votes from minority members, while others passed with broad support. The Committee of the Whole then took up House Bill 1276, a bill concerning protections for immigrants in Colorado and related appropriations. Senator Weisman explained and the committee adopted two amendments: one extending the deadline for peace officer training from July 1 to December 31, 2027, and another clarifying that a certification requirement would not apply to the judicial branch’s e-filing system but would continue to apply to other judicial data systems. Senator Judah spoke strongly in support of the bill, arguing it was about government accountability, privacy, and conditions in detention facilities. The committee adopted both amendments and then adopted HB 1276. The committee also considered House Bill 1419, dealing with the overall refund amount for state revenues above the TABOR spending limit. Senator Bridges presented the committee report, and Senator Kirkmeyer spoke in opposition, arguing the bill was an unnecessary maneuver to retroactively alter accounting and TABOR refund calculations despite prior compliance and a clean audit opinion. After debate, the committee report was adopted and the bill was taken up for further discussion, with the transcript ending amid that debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• This describes the refund program.
• This describes the refund program.
• <00:13:43.800> The uh describes the refund program. The uh describes the refund program.
• refund portion. refund portion.
• The refund process we currently have some taxpayers that get refunds from our office.

Bills: SF0095, SF0107, SF0112

Keywords: driver's license, motor vehicle services, third-party providers, Wyoming, regulatory compliance, motor vehicle, registration, license plate, electronic system, State Department of Transportation, county treasurers, vehicle fees, public records, license plates, replacement cycle, vehicle registration, motor vehicles, state fees, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• refundable? refundable?
• A few issues to consider might be: you mentioned refundable versus non-refundable.
• A few issues to consider might be: you mentioned refundable versus non-refundable.
• . refundable. refundable.
• :03.680> the<01:01:03.920> refundability that the refundable the refundability that the

Bills: HB2241, HB2316, HB1566, HB1926, HB1673, HB1948, HB2602, HB1598, HB2334, HB2451, HB2243

Keywords: renewable energy, income tax credit, solar energy, wind energy, low-income households, energy policy, lead materials, drinking water, public health, water infrastructure, safety regulations, HB1566, energy efficiency, LED lighting, light-emitting diodes, fluorescent bulbs, fluorescent fixtures, compact fluorescent lamps, CFL ban, mercury-free lighting

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a bill to expand the solar energy tax credit for single-family residential properties by removing certain cap amounts and raising the adjusted gross income limits for taxpayers to elect a refund of excess credits. The Hawaii State Energy Office and Department of Taxation both said they were standing on written testimony, while industry and advocacy groups largely supported the measure. Members questioned whether the income thresholds were set appropriately, how many taxpayers would be affected at different income levels, and how many would qualify for refundable treatment; Taxation said it did not yet have the requested numbers but was preparing a fiscal estimate. A major issue raised was drafting and administration: witnesses said the bill appears to apply differently to owner-purchased systems versus third-party leased systems, and Taxation said it likely could not easily verify household income for leased systems or cross-reference different taxpayers. Discussion also covered whether the credit should remain refundable, whether credits should be limited to amounts actually expended, and whether the bill should instead be structured to keep the credit with the system owner or lessor, with concerns about equity, market effects, and possible incentives to lease rather than buy. The committee then moved to HB 2316, which would align state restrictions on lead materials in drinking water infrastructure with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The Department of Health and other supporters testified in favor, and there were no questions from the chair. Next, HB 1566 on energy efficiency would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting, with the Hawaii State Energy Office providing technical assistance and a compliance survey prioritized for first responder facilities; testimony from state agencies and advocates was in support, and again there were no questions. For HB 1926 on Red Hill, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Board of Water Supply, and multiple organizations and individuals supported funding for remediation studies, environmental monitoring, groundwater research, independent testing, and a public dashboard, with DLNR emphasizing that decades of work remain necessary even after defueling and that the bill supports ongoing university and community partnerships. The committee then heard HB 1673 on landfill units. The Department of Health initially said it was in support but later corrected the record and stated it strongly opposes the measure, saying the bill would undo protections enacted last session that keep landfills out of areas over aquifers; the Board of Water Supply also opposed repeal of those protections, while the City and County of Honolulu supported the HD1 version that leaves siting decisions to the counties. Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi and the Energy Justice Network opposed the bill, arguing the original protections should remain and that the amended version had confused commenters; supporters of the original version urged restoring it and considering additional language on ash.

Transcript Highlights:

• The maximum refund is $2,720.
• The maximum refund is $1,000.
• The maximum refund is $2,720.
• The maximum refund is $1,000.
• The maximum refund is $2,720.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Tax Committee met to hear a House Research presentation from Jared Swanson on Minnesota’s property tax system. Before the presentation, the chair announced that the committee would put the governor’s budget on hold until the department could provide the information needed for a proper hearing. The committee then approved the prior meeting minutes without objection. Swanson gave an overview of how property taxes are structured and collected in Minnesota, explaining that the state uses a levy-based system in which local governments set levies and counties collect and distribute payments. He described the property tax cycle, the difference between referendum market value and net tax capacity, and how classification rates shift tax burdens among property types. He also outlined the state general property tax, noting it is split between commercial-industrial property and seasonal recreational property, and reviewed how Minnesota compares with other states, with residential taxes generally around the middle and commercial-industrial taxes relatively higher. The presentation also covered major property tax relief and aid programs. Swanson explained three broad relief mechanisms: shifting burdens through exclusions and classification rates, state-paid credits and refunds, and state aid to local governments or levy reductions. He discussed local government aid (LGA), township aid, and county program aid (CPA), including their funding levels, formulas, and general-purpose nature. Members asked why some cities receive no LGA and how the funds may be used; Swanson said cities with strong tax bases often receive zero aid and that the money generally can be used for the same purposes as property tax revenue. No votes were taken on the presentation itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• that are refunded.
• refund in a calendar year.
• a um uh that the contribut tion refund a um uh that the contribut tion refund program<00:49:28.200
• donations to candidates were refunded donations to candidates were refunded and<00:56:10.680>
• It's called delegation. somebody claiming their refund but in in somebody claiming their refund but in

Keywords: 1187, senate, all