Transcript Highlights:

• How does that impact projected contribution rates? Starting on the left-hand side...
• Impact projected contribution rates.
• “The next series of slides I’ll go through: the impact of adopting the recommendation, the impact on
• When we talk about budget impacts, they really come from looking at the impact on contribution rates
• And to the extent that it has an impact, that impact should be a bad one. Mr.

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• which has no impact on the valuation. which has no impact on the valuation.
• the road, like the impact on business owners, the impact on constituents.
• the road, like the impact on business owners, the impact on constituents.
• the road, like the impact on business owners, the impact on constituents.
• , the impact on impact on business owners, the impact on constituents.<00:27:00.799> I<00:27:01.039

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It was very impactful.
• Does it have an impact or no impact? And if there is an impact, how great is that impact?
• The other part of my question is, I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either.
• I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either.
• Senator Bekkedahl said it impacted or didn't impact the administration of it, but that's not what we're

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the other side of the house is our multifamily side.
• On the other side of the house is our multifamily side.
• to the program side, right?
• On the market side, it's usually like a year and a half in the planning side with the city.
• So on a market side. And it's usually like a year and a half in the planning side with the city.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, new committee, new side.
• Um, we do allow tax impact on articles.
• , you're making a decision that impacts, you're making a decision that impacts, you<00:07:46.960>
• that there is a fiscal impact possibly. that there is a fiscal impact possibly.
• We had four Medicaid side of things.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The fiscal impact to the state would be an additional $7 to $9 million without any impact on employers
• So I'm gonna take the other side of this.
• At first, uh, the impact is positive.
• At first, uh, the impact is positive.
• Uh, any impact, impacts there to their, maybe their workforce participation rates and that type of thing

Summary: The committee held a study on the potential effects of living wage or minimum wage laws in Oklahoma, with the chair emphasizing that the discussion was not intended to advocate for or against State Question 832. The first panel focused on economic and workforce impacts. An Oklahoma Department of Commerce representative argued that living wage calculations vary by region and household type, that Oklahoma’s average wages are already near or above many living-wage estimates, and that higher mandated wages could lead employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, automate, or avoid expansion, especially in rural areas where childcare, healthcare, broadband, and infrastructure constraints also affect labor participation. Committee members asked about wage distributions, rural cost differences, training pathways, and whether higher wages might draw workers or businesses out of state; the witness said many low-wage workers move up over time and that Oklahoma has seen net in-migration. A State Chamber Research Foundation witness then testified that a $15 statewide wage floor would raise payroll costs substantially, especially for small rural employers, and cited examples from California and Seattle to argue that higher wages can reduce hours, jobs, and benefits while increasing consumer prices. She suggested alternatives such as expanding the state earned income tax credit and promoting upskilling through existing education and training programs. A Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry representative described Missouri’s recent voter-approved minimum wage increase to $13.75, rising to $15, along with paid sick leave provisions. She said the chamber opposed the measure because it would raise business costs, hurt rural communities and youth employment, and force some employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, or close. She cited examples from Missouri businesses facing significant added costs and warned that a future ballot initiative could create a patchwork of local minimum wages. In response to questions, she said Missouri’s law did not distinguish by age or industry, that businesses had raised concerns about union contracts and compliance, and that the chamber viewed the measure as harmful to competitiveness. Peter Hansen of NFIB presented the final major testimony, summarizing an NFIB study projecting that a higher Oklahoma minimum wage would produce some short-term GDP gains but longer-term losses, with GDP turning negative by the early 2030s and job losses growing over time. He said businesses respond to higher wage mandates by raising prices, trimming jobs, converting full-time positions to part-time, reducing benefits, and shifting investment toward automation or other capital. He argued that the burden falls most heavily on vulnerable workers such as young or marginal employees, who are less likely to be hired when labor costs rise. In questioning, he acknowledged that higher wages can improve pay for some workers and may have some short-term positive effects, but maintained that the long-term employment and investment effects are negative. No votes or formal actions were taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Los Vigiles was directly impacted by this fire.
• The first two were impacted by the fire.
• Prescribed burning wasn't allowed on the forest side or on our side.
• , so the Stafford Act side of FEMA, but also the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Claims Office side, and working
• Hazardous fuels reduction side.

Transcript Highlights:

• conditions and their impact on income withholding, capital gains tax and its impact on non-withholding
• conditions and their impact on income withholding, capital gains tax and its impact on non-withholding
• I just think it's a win-win for both sides.
• It would be a significant revenue impact.
• or for the SALT PTE side.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate and House Ways and Means chairs opened the FY 2027 consensus revenue hearing by emphasizing the need for a balanced, fiscally responsible budget amid federal funding cuts, health care cost pressures, and uncertainty around the federal tax law changes referred to as OB3. They also noted the state’s current revenue performance is slightly above benchmark and paid tribute to the late Representative Anne Margaret Ferranti. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorkowitz echoed the call for caution, saying Massachusetts has protected core services while building reserves and that the FY27 budget process begins with a careful revenue estimate. Department of Revenue Commissioner Jeff Snyder, along with DOR staff, presented FY26 and FY27 tax forecasts and identified major drivers and risks: OB3’s negative impact on state revenue, surtax collections, labor market conditions, capital gains, and corporate/business excise taxes. DOR estimated OB3 would reduce FY26 revenue by about $664 million and FY27 by about $282 million, while surtax and capital gains were expected to remain strong in FY26 but soften in FY27. Members questioned the outlook for surtax, capital gains, and the potential fiscal effect of a ballot question reducing the income tax rate from 5% to 4%; DOR said that proposal could cost roughly $4.2 billion to $4.8 billion annually, with a smaller but still significant impact in FY27 because of phase-in timing. Treasurer Deb Goldberg testified next on the stabilization fund, lottery, PRIM, unclaimed property, and the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. She reported the rainy day fund at about $8.1 billion, said the lottery was on track for $1.5 billion in FY26 net profit and projected $1.25 billion in FY27, and highlighted that iLottery is expected to launch in summer 2026 with revenue beginning in FY27 and dedicated to child care initiatives. She also described strong PRIM performance and record unclaimed property returns, while members asked about the child care use of iLottery revenue, multilingual outreach, and the economic impact of expanded liquor licensing. Mass Taxpayers Foundation President Doug Howgate and Tufts’ Evan Horowitz then offered differing revenue outlooks and policy warnings. Howgate projected modest growth, cautioned against overusing reserves for ongoing obligations, and urged caution on federal tax conformity changes and health care spending pressures. Horowitz projected higher FY26 and FY27 revenues than other witnesses, warned that the surtax and capital gains make the tax system more volatile, and said a 4% income tax ballot question could reduce FY27 revenues by roughly $800 million to $1 billion. He also flagged the rent control ballot question as a potential risk to municipal finance and suggested the state consider giving a permanent home to the independent revenue model used by Alan Clayton-Matthews.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as such, they didn't have an impact, a fiscal impact. But that's why I listed them.
• And then on the business side, we have $51 and $23 million. So total fiscal impact...
• So that is the impact on the estimated impact for the various categories listed.
• prominent, would be on the depreciation side.
• I'll continue with the motor vehicle side of the fees.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then on the business side, we have $51 and $23 million. So total fiscal impact...
• So that is the impact on the estimated impact for the various categories listed.
• prominent, would be on the depreciation side.
• I'll continue with the motor vehicle side. No worries.
• I'll continue with the motor vehicle side of the fees.

Summary: The Government Finance Committee met with new leadership, approved the December 11 minutes, and received a series of informational updates on the state’s finances and related policy issues. The Office of Management and Budget reported the general fund is tracking very close to forecast, with revenues about $2 million above forecast and an estimated ending balance of about $397 million, higher than previously expected. OMB also reviewed balances in major funds, including the budget stabilization fund, legacy fund, foundation aid stabilization fund, social services fund, and strategic investment and improvements fund, and answered questions about oil tax revenues and fund management. The Tax Department provided updates on taxable sales and purchases by county and industry, noting Cass County as the largest county by taxable sales and that retail trade remains the largest industry sector. Tax Commissioner Brian Kroshus also discussed the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its estimated effects on North Dakota income tax collections, explaining that the projected revenue impacts are measured against a 2025 baseline and that some provisions are temporary while others are permanent. He also reported that primary residence tax credit applications were running ahead of last year, with more than 154,000 received so far and an expectation of roughly 160,000-plus applications. The committee also heard fee-study presentations from the Department of Transportation and the Information Technology Department. DOT explained that driver’s license fees cover only about half of program costs and that the shortfall is subsidized by the highway fund, while also noting recent changes such as the blackout plate and motor vehicle excise tax distribution changes. NDIT described its internal service fund model, current billing structure, and possible future changes to simplify invoices and billing frequency. Legislative staff also updated the committee on office space needs in Bismarck-Mandan and on legislative branch space planning, and subcommittees reported progress on fixed-route transit funding and regional jail capacity, including a visit to the Burleigh-Morton detention facility and discussion of future prison bed needs. No formal votes or legislative actions beyond approving the minutes were taken, and the committee adjourned with its next meeting set for June 25.

Transcript Highlights:

• work, that the impact is from both<00:08:45.920> sides.
• both sides. both sides.
• <00:24:16.799> on<00:24:17.039> impact results in $23 million impact on impact results
• Thank you. area that are impact greatly mainly east area that are impact greatly mainly east side,<01
• . impacts. impacts.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll then have a model to look at both direct impacts and indirect impacts.
• In the state of New Mexico, the production side and post-production side are crucial.
• On the commercial side and on the housing side, what we're trying to say is we score affordable housing
• I'll start with the commercial side and then I'll work back to the housing side.
• That's one speculation on the housing side.

Transcript Highlights:

• > pollution The impacts of environmental pollution The impacts of environmental pollution and<
• on all sides. on all sides.
• These impacts are not theoretical.
• These impacts are not theoretical. These impacts are not theoretical.
• , we just focus on let's say two sides, we just focus on let's say two sides, one<00:25:20.640>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: Rep. Athena Hollins and Sen. Ann Johnson Stewart introduced Minnesota’s proposed climate superfund bill, describing it as a way to make major historical greenhouse gas polluters help pay for climate adaptation and infrastructure repair. They said the bill would target large fossil fuel corporations with significant emissions and use the revenue for projects such as stormwater upgrades, bridge and roof protection, erosion control, drinking water protection, cooling cities, and other resilience work. Both lawmakers framed the proposal as a matter of accountability and fairness, arguing that Minnesotans should not keep paying for damage caused by companies that profited from fossil fuel pollution. Several supporters testified in favor of the bill, including St. Paul City Council Vice President Nyang Kheimey, former legislator and medical student Hunter Cantrell, Unidos Minnesota volunteer Bonnie Becol, and 100% Minnesota’s Aurora Vautrin. They emphasized local climate impacts such as flooding, wildfire smoke, extreme heat, emerald ash borer damage, asthma, and infrastructure failures, and said the costs are increasingly falling on taxpayers, local governments, and vulnerable communities. Kheimey highlighted municipal needs and St. Paul’s own climate investments, while Cantrell focused on environmental racism and health harms, and Becol and Vautrin stressed species loss, community recovery costs, and the burden on residents. In the question-and-answer portion, Hollins and Johnson Stewart explained that the bill would apply to fossil fuel corporations with at least 1 billion metric tons of carbon emissions and a nexus to Minnesota, not local utilities. They said the State Auditor’s office would determine the assessments owed by companies, while the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would hold the fund and administer grants. They also said they were looking to models in Vermont and New York and hoped the proposal could attract bipartisan support because it is tied to affordability and shifting costs away from taxpayers and onto polluters. No vote or formal committee action was taken in the transcript, and the event ended with the sponsors opening the bill to questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• He explained that the state budget forecast has two sides: the revenue side and the expenditure side.
• Minnesota um on the expenditure side Minnesota um on the expenditure side then<00:22:51.360>
• <00:25:43.520> of<00:25:43.640> the expenditure side of the expenditure side of the
• , it should continue to be included on the expenditure side as well.
• , it should continue to be included on the expenditure side as well.

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• on the House side.
• impact.
• impacted by the Decoupling.
• What impact? Because I'm looking at the FIR.
• Those are the folks that are going to be negatively impacted if capacity is impacted at the local level

Bills: SB240

Keywords: capital outlay, capital projects, severance tax bonds, general fund appropriations, supplemental severance tax bonds, UNM School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, infrastructure, state buildings, courts, schools, higher education, road improvements, water and wastewater, tribal infrastructure, tribal projects, public safety, housing, emergency services, bonding

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, this, I think, tends to impact us on the east side of the state maybe a little bit more.
• Again, this, I think, tends to impact us on the east side of the state, maybe a little bit more.
• You know, 30 is on the smaller side.
• Usually, when you have an agreement, both sides want something in that agreement, and if one side isn't
• The cost of impact fees can be an impediment. The cost of impact fees can be an impediment.

Summary: The committee held a work session on local government issues, beginning with an update from the State Building Code Council on four legislatively mandated code amendments now in CR-102 rulemaking: temporary emergency shelters, reduced minimum dwelling unit size, multiplex housing up to three stories and six units, and single-exit apartment buildings up to six stories. Council staff also described a separate embodied-carbon appendix proposal that remains under public review, with testimony both supporting and opposing it. Members asked about the rationale for some of the code limits, including the restriction on connecting multiplex buildings. The committee then heard a panel on annexations from MRSC, Pierce County, and the Association of Washington Cities. Witnesses reviewed annexation methods, including petition, election, and interlocal agreement approaches, and said larger annexations are increasingly using interlocal agreements because they can address infrastructure, revenue sharing, and public process concerns. They described barriers such as inconsistent local standards, the cost of infrastructure, referendum risk, census requirements, and the difficulty of persuading residents and local officials to support annexation. Members asked about the five-year restriction on residential zoning changes in one annexation method and whether a hearing examiner could reduce political pressure on local decision-makers. A second panel discussed subdivision reform. The Master Builders Association urged raising the short-plat threshold within urban growth areas to 30 lots as a simpler first step, citing permitting delays and added housing costs. The City of Spokane described implementation problems with recent housing laws, including uncertainty about how to review plats under HB 1110, lot-splitting administration, and added notice requirements for unit lot subdivisions. AWC said there was broad agreement that subdivision decisions should be more administrative, but public hearings remained a point of disagreement. The committee also heard from FutureWise, the Washington State Association of Counties, and Lewis County on county development regulation and enforcement, with witnesses emphasizing underfunded code enforcement, inconsistent standards between counties and cities, and the need for better coordination, incentives, and possibly stronger enforcement tools. No votes were taken; the chair said the committee would continue working on possible solutions in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, So, So, um, people ask what the revenue impact of that change?
• impact of that change?
• And in essence, the revenue impact<00:09:52.880> is impact is impact is um,<00:09:54.280> zero
• Tom Bakk, Senator Bakk, Senator Rest when she was on the House side and now on the Senate side, Dee Long
• indicates that there's no fiscal impact indicates that there's no fiscal impact to<00:36:30.360>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• On the north side of the port, it's all dedicated to cruise, and on the south side, it's dedicated to
• On the north side of the port, it's all dedicated to cruise, and on the south side, it's dedicated to
• So we're a big impact to the state.
• Our economic impact study in 2024: about $34.5 billion economic impact.
• That kind of... that also impacts just every-day folks who might not be involved in the business side

Summary: The Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee held a panel discussion focused on Florida seaports and their role in the state economy. Florida Ports Council CEO Mike Rubin opened with statewide figures from a 2023 economic impact study, saying Florida seaports support about 1.2 million jobs, generate roughly $195 billion in economic value, and produce about $7.4 billion in state and local taxes. He emphasized that ports are critical for fuel, food, medical supplies, construction materials, and hurricane response, and argued that continued state and federal investment is needed to expand capacity and move projects forward faster. PortMiami Director Heidi Webb described Miami’s cruise and cargo operations, noting the port generated about $61 billion in economic impact and 334,000 jobs. She highlighted record cruise activity, major private investment by cruise lines, the launch of shore power at cruise terminals to reduce emissions, and ongoing capital projects including a new Royal Caribbean terminal, berth reconstruction, and an inland port concept to reduce congestion. Members asked about security, hurricane procedures, AI use, infrastructure planning, collaboration among ports, and smuggling prevention; Webb said the port uses layered security with local law enforcement, CBP, Coast Guard, and radiation monitors, and that hurricane planning is coordinated in advance with county and federal partners. Port Tampa Bay’s Raul Alfonso said Tampa is the state’s largest port by land area and a major energy hub for Central Florida, with an estimated $34.5 billion economic impact. He discussed diversification into containers, food distribution, fertilizer, and construction materials, along with major needs such as a deep-dredge project and more warehouse space. He also addressed resilience and fuel distribution during hurricanes, and said the port is preparing for future LNG and alternative-fuel demand through partnerships, land planning, and education. Jaxport’s Nick Primrose then described Jacksonville’s container, auto, breakbulk, aggregate, military, and LNG businesses, including 1.3 million TEUs last year, major state-funded crane purchases, harbor deepening, auto-processing expansion, and its role as a strategic military port. He said Jaxport is a leader in marine LNG and has trained all employees on human trafficking awareness. The discussion ended with Port Panama City being introduced as a smaller but important Panhandle economic engine, with Rubin noting its cargo, manufacturing, and infrastructure projects and its continued need for state and federal support.

Transcript Highlights:

• An impact on how we consider the financial impact on treaty rights, right?
• So we have labor impacts.
• We have labor impacts, employment impacts to the private sector, the industry, which would be a result
• And it applies to revenue impacts as well as direct impacts, or the spending and the revenue side.
• It's a fairgrounds impact, but it's under that subsection of the county's impact. So.

Summary: The Financial Estimate Committee met on July 6, 2026, to begin work on the financial estimate for IP 28, after reviewing the statutory process and confirming that only IP 28 had cleared the signature threshold for consideration. Staff explained the committee’s duties under ORS 250.125 and the timeline for draft statements, public hearing, and final adoption. The committee also designated Carol Moreno C. Fuentes to file the committee’s eventual statements. Staff from the Department of Administrative Services and the Legislative Revenue Office presented preliminary analysis of IP 28, describing major uncertainties in estimating impacts because the measure is not a tax law change and would affect multiple industries and government functions. Preliminary figures discussed included an estimated $56.5 million loss in the current biennium and $6.7 million in reduced expenditures, with larger projected revenue losses of roughly $244.1 million to $258 million and reduced expenditures of $30.7 million to $34.9 million in 2027–29, plus $87.8 million to $88.3 million in increased expenditures. Analysts said the biggest effects would likely involve agriculture, fish and wildlife, hunting and fishing, local government enforcement, and possible shifts in state funding, but many impacts remained difficult to quantify. Committee members raised concerns about local government costs, law enforcement and prosecution burdens, impacts on the hospitality and recreation sectors, possible effects on tribal governments and treaty rights, and whether the measure would affect shellfish and crabbing. They also discussed the Humane Transition Fund, subsidies, possible litigation costs, and whether the statement should include broader uncertainty language and multiple scenarios. Members generally agreed the draft should be revised to better reflect uncertainty, clarify assumptions, and possibly use bullets or other formatting to improve readability. No vote was taken. The committee agreed to treat the current draft as a working version, with staff to revise it based on the discussion and return an updated draft before the next meeting scheduled for July 17 at 2 p.m., with both in-person and virtual participation available.

Transcript Highlights:

• requests and the impact of its work. requests and the impact of its work.
• 501c3 on the back side of Canterbury. 501c3 on the back side of Canterbury.
• Bank Stadium with the Vikings. side. He was an educator, a motivational side.
• <01:48:48.480> a the east side and make east side a the east side and make east side a destinate
• is in the East Side.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all