Transcript Highlights:

• And also thank you to the political subdivisions, the League of Cities, the counties, the townships,
• What that told me was, are there certain budgets, levies from political subdivisions in the county that
• Is it possible that a local political subdivision in their levy worksheet could exceed the 3% cap as
• We see that in other political subdivisions.
• But they combined that with the political subdivisions, and the oil and gas tax revenue provides 41%

Summary: The committee met to receive updates from the Tax Commissioner’s office on property tax relief programs and related compliance work. Commissioner Brian Croshys reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting that the Homestead program expanded significantly after HB 1158, that some households are “adjusting out” of eligibility as incomes rise, and that the committee may want to consider indexing income thresholds. Members asked for additional data on bracket breakdowns, possible costs of eliminating income limits for seniors, and how many households are zeroed out by the combined programs. Croshys also discussed the simpler administration of the disabled veteran credit, the growth in participation, and the heavy workload and auditing safeguards built into the new primary residence credit system. He said the department found no material compliance findings and that the program is designed to be digital-first, with county auditors and the Tax Commissioner’s office both involved in review and notification. The committee recessed for lunch and later reconvened, with the chair noting that more detailed PRC information would likely be available at a September meeting. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase, or “zero growth,” report and the 2025 statistical report. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and which jurisdictions showed the largest percentage changes in countywide, citywide, school district, and park district levies. In the statistical report, she summarized recent trends in assessed values: agricultural values remained relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed property values increased over the past five years. She also reviewed statewide tax levies by property class and clarified that centrally assessed growth figures were annual averages. Members discussed how shifts in land use and annexation can make it appear that tax burdens are moving from ag to residential/commercial property. Myers then summarized the interim study on the 3% levy limitation under HB 1176, saying most counties complied without budget changes, while some used hiring freezes, deferred purchases, or reserve funds; 23% of counties had to reduce levies, and the affected funds were mainly general, road and bridge, and weed control. She said 12 counties reported zero new growth in the data and that 35 counties reported not using all of their cap. The committee also received an oil tax presentation from Croshys on the stripper well extraction tax exemption. He outlined the number of active stripper wells, the production and revenue implications of the exemption, and projections for future biennia under different tax scenarios. He said the exemption represents substantial savings to operators but also corresponds to production tax revenue that would otherwise be collected, and he emphasized that future outcomes depend on oil prices, well counts, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly answered a question about why Red River wells have a different production threshold than Bakken wells, explaining it was tied to completion costs and lateral length. The committee then heard from Charlie Gorecki of the EERC, who presented an analysis of typical Bakken well decline curves and argued that most oil is produced before a well reaches stripper status, but that keeping wells open and investing in refracturing or other interventions can recover additional production. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; the main actions were receiving reports, asking for follow-up data, and scheduling further discussion for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And also thank you to the political subdivisions, the League of Cities, the counties, the townships,
• What that told me was, are there certain budgets, levies from political subdivisions in the county that
• Is it possible that a local political subdivision in their levy worksheet could exceed the 3% cap as
• We see that in other political subdivisions.
• But they combined that with the political subdivisions, and the oil and gas tax revenue provides 41%

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum, approved the March 17, 2026 minutes, and heard a lengthy update from Tax Commissioner Brian Croshys on property tax relief programs. He reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting increased relief after House Bill 1158 and House Bill 1176, but also discussing how some households “income adjust out” of eligibility over time. Members asked about indexing income thresholds, expanding eligibility by age alone, simplifying administration, county-level notices, and whether the county and state systems could be streamlined. Croshys said the programs are heavily used, largely administered at the county level, and that the department is still refining compliance and reporting; he also said there were no material findings or overarching concerns in the latest review. The committee agreed more detailed PRC information would likely come back in a September meeting, and the chair announced an afternoon recess for lunch before later reconvening. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase report, the zero-growth report, and a statistical report on property values and tax levies by class. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and identified counties and cities with the largest percentage changes in growth or decline. She also summarized recent trends: agricultural values remain relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed values have risen over the last five years; in 2025, residential property accounted for the largest share of statewide property tax levies, followed by commercial, agriculture, and centrally assessed property. Committee members asked about unusual zero-growth figures, the effect of annexation and land-use changes, and whether the 3% levy cap was forcing political subdivisions to use reserves or defer spending. Myers said many counties complied by using reserves, delaying capital projects, or limiting increases, and that some counties had not used their full cap. The committee then moved to the stripper oil extraction tax exemption. Commissioner Croshys reviewed the state’s oil tax structure and estimated the revenue impact of keeping stripper wells exempt from extraction tax while still paying production tax. He said the exemption saves operators hundreds of millions of dollars over a biennium, while the state still collects production tax on those wells. He also discussed projected impacts if the exemption were changed for future wells and noted that future outcomes depend on oil prices, production declines, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly explained the historical difference between the 35-barrel and 30-barrel thresholds for certain wells, citing differences in completion costs and lateral lengths. The committee then heard from EERC CEO Charles Gorecki, who presented an analysis of oil well life cycles and said most oil is produced before wells reach stripper status, but that refracturing or other reinvestment can significantly extend production and keep wells above the threshold for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the way the law is written, that political subdivisions get, you know, once every three years can
• So, so this, you know, this remedy here is to give the rest of us other than political subdivisions what
• So the way the law is written, that political subdivisions get, you know, once every three years can
• So, so this, you know, this remedy here is to give the rest of us other than political subdivisions what
• have the same non-political subdivisions have the same opportunities.<00:31:47.039> Um,<00:31

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the Hawaii State Constitution to expressly provide that the legislature may authorize political subdivisions
• that the legislature may authorize that the legislature may authorize political<00:16:25.760> subdivisions
• <00:16:27.120> to<00:16:27.280> issue political subdivisions to issue political subdivisions
• 00:16:41.120> of<00:16:41.320> the<00:16:41.400> political<00:16:41.920> subdivision
• debt of the political subdivision. debt of the political subdivision.

Bills: HB2241, HB1163, HB1514, HB1696, HB2021, SB2135, SB2466, SB2727, SB3082, SB3097, SB2861, SCR100, SB3096, SB99, SB2138, HB2289, HB2319, HB1711, HB2270, SB3138, SB3076, HB1642, HB2338, HB2171, HB1785, SB2881, HB2505, SB2552, HB1518, HB1815, SB3125, SB3234, SCR162, SB2614, SB3118, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB2158, HB1718, HB2207, HB1801, SB3229, SB2338, SB3069, SB2600, HB2300, HB1800, HB1960, SB2999, SB2060, SB2866, SB2239, HB1741, HB1713, HB2023, HB2417, SB2877, SB2598, SB2921, SB2645, HB2547, HB2275, HB2452, HB2329, HB2339, HB1838, HB1509, HB1661, HB2271, HB2272, HB2344, HB1888, HB1707, SB2340, HB2474, HB1576, HB1853, HB1804, HB1854, HB2095, HB2050, HB472, SB3215, SB2247, SB2400, HB1618, HB1802, HB1969, HB1541, HB2310, HB2498, HB2443, HB2218, HB649, HB2104, HB1710, SB2802, HB1973, HB1974, HB1894, HB1891, HB1890, SB177, SB2101, SB3320, SB2487, HB2429, HB1870, HB1839, HB2583, HB1391, HB2094, SB2671, SB2673, SB2892, SB2057, SB3245, HB306, HB2592, SB3157, SB3204, SB3324, SB2580, SB2074, SB411, SB3025, SB2934, SB2567, SB2125, SB3238, SB2367, SB2599, SB3007, SB2001, SB2756, SB3029

Keywords: renewable energy, income tax credit, solar energy, wind energy, low-income households, energy policy, commercial drivers license, non-domiciled, federal regulations, commercial learner's permit, citizenship, lawful residency, Department of Transportation, workers' compensation, vocational rehabilitation, injury recovery, employment services, return to work, commercial driving, driver's license

Transcript Highlights:

• There's also an addition at subdivision There's also an addition at subdivision 4B,<00:35:16.920
• First is subdivision three, the do not call list.
• subdivision A says that data maintains its<00:39:59.240> classification.
• uh, the subdivision uh, the subdivision I don't<00:40:22.680> know<00:40:22.760> exactly
• And then, finally, subdivision six.

Bills: HF3951, HF4005, HF962, HF4585, HF3870, HF4542, HF3893, HF4293, HF4075, HF4057, HF3809

Keywords: submetered utility service, tenant rights, digital payment, eviction protection, housing policy, biometric data, consent, data protection, civil penalties, privacy laws, HF4585, Minnesota, harassment restraining order, HRO, restraining order, temporary restraining order, petitioner notice, service of process, law enforcement notification, sheriff

Transcript Highlights:

• So if we look at line 630, 631, subdivision four.
• So if we look at line 630, 631, subdivision four.
• <00:31:33.320> So<00:31:33.480> section 631 um subdivision four.
• So section 631 um subdivision four.
• <00:31:34.640> agreements eight subdivision four, the agreements eight subdivision four, the agreements

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 3791 was laid over for possible inclusion later, with Rep. Green and Rep. Noor presenting it as a response to rising threats against Minnesota elected officials and public officers. They cited increased threat reports, the June 2025 killings of Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortman and her husband, the shootings of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, and other recent threats as evidence that current protective resources are insufficient. The bill would create a state officials protective services unit within the State Patrol, provide security and threat-assessment services for principal state officials, and require reporting on credible threats. Rep. Noor said the proposal would be triggered by leadership when there is a credible threat, would include legislators and constitutional officers, and would be funded at about $3.98 million in FY 2027 with an ongoing base of $3.25 million, with some ability to contract with local law enforcement for support in official-capacity situations. Members raised concerns about scope, jurisdiction, and cost. Rep. Olsen argued the bill was not narrow enough and worried it could allow Capitol Security to provide home or event security too broadly, rather than limiting the work to the Capitol and catastrophic incidents. Rep. Joy offered an A1 amendment to use existing funds instead of adding new spending, saying local sheriffs and police already handle many situations. That amendment failed on a voice vote. Rep. Olson then moved an A2 amendment focused on clarifying who should be in charge of protection at home and how local law enforcement would be involved; discussion centered on whether Capitol Security, State Patrol, or local agencies should lead response and how credible threats would be determined. Supporters of the bill, including Rep. Green and Rep. Muir, said the events of June 14 showed the need for a dedicated, coordinated protective service and that local responses were uneven across jurisdictions. Rep. Muir described delayed or inconsistent police responses after the attacks and said lawmakers need a more reliable system to keep members and their families safe. Rep. Keagle also testified about personal threats and harassment at home, including a prank pizza delivery that made her fear someone knew when she was home. The committee did not take final action on the bill beyond laying it over, and the A1 amendment failed; discussion on the A2 amendment and the bill’s details continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Another question is: I just wrote the statute 13.05, subdivision 11.
• Another question is: I just wrote the statute 13.05, subdivision 11.
• Another question is: I just wrote the statute 13.05, subdivision 11.
• proposes to amend the subdivision proposes to amend the subdivision section<00:47:26.599> three
• <01:00:01.799> 5A provision on page three subdivision 5A provision on page three subdivision

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Each of the political subdivisions faces some unique challenges with this.
• I also want to That each political subdivision is different.
• If a political subdivision wanted to use this, there is work to be done.
• I think that what it boils down to is whatever political subdivision adopts this.
• When you say water's political subdivision, do you mean a watershed district as a political subdivision

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, established a quorum, and heard introductory remarks from Majority Leader Hogue and the chair about the committee’s charge. Members said the goal was to build a factual foundation on AI, hear from experts and stakeholders, and develop practical North Dakota-focused recommendations rather than simply produce a large volume of bills. Legislative Council also reviewed interim committee rules and procedures before the informational presentations began. Staff and NCSL presenters then gave overviews of AI concepts and the state and federal policy landscape. The background memo and presentations covered AI categories and terms, state laws in areas such as consumer protection, algorithmic discrimination, deepfakes, chatbots, children’s safety, health, education, and government use, as well as data center siting and economic impacts. NCSL described a growing number of AI bills introduced and enacted across the states, with comprehensive laws in places like Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois, and noted recurring issues around transparency, privacy, liability, and protections for minors. A major focus of the discussion was federal preemption and the tension between state regulation and national AI policy. NCSL said a recent White House executive order and related federal framework seek a light-touch, innovation-friendly national standard, with possible challenges to state laws and possible funding conditions tied to compliance, though no broad federal preemption has yet been enacted. Members asked about Commerce Clause concerns, industry pushback, oversight models, and whether AI policy is bipartisan; presenters said the issue cuts across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfake restrictions but more disagreement on broader regulatory approaches. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting, and the committee recessed briefly for technical issues during the second presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then subdivision 3 has all the non-search-warrant exceptions.
• And then subdivision 3 has all the non-search-warrant exceptions.
• <01:01:40.400> 5, Minnesota statute 171306 subdivision 5, Minnesota statute 171306 subdivision
• <02:23:02.560> Like grantees in in that subdivision?
• Like grantees in in that subdivision?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, to the point that you made about the definition of focusing on chatbots, subdivision 2, line 1.25
• There is an enforcement provision on page two of the delete-everything amendment, subdivision three,
• three um that amendment uh subdivision three um that brings<01:20:29.600> this<01:20:29.920><
• <01:39:50.000> If<01:39:50.159> if liability under subdivision three.
• If if liability under subdivision three.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, do we assume it's political subdivisions then, or K-12 that are on the lower end of the scale
• Well, at a time when the political subdivisions are under pressure based on caps and things like that
• The input of this committee and legislators as we look at how we can drive political subdivision and
• Just thinking through the process of, you know, why we had the job of, do many cities or subdivisions
• or subdivisions or schools do those first two, the endpoint detection and the vulnerability scanning

Summary: The Information Technology Committee approved the March 26 minutes and received a series of reports from NDIT on major IT projects, the annual report, mainframe modernization, and cybersecurity services. The project portfolio was reported at 116 major projects with a baseline cost of $546 million, overall under budget but modestly behind schedule. Several projects that had been in variance status last quarter were said to have closed, including HHS bed management, vital records modernization, and DOT roadway capital planning. New startup reports were mostly HHS efforts tied to refugee data management, technical debt cleanup, and legacy application decommissioning, while closeouts included HHS, OMB, DPI, and DOT projects with mixed budget and schedule results. In the annual report discussion, NDIT described its service-fund financials, peer-state rate comparisons, records management reporting, and customer satisfaction efforts. Members asked about how revenues and grants flow through the service fund, how NDIT charges agencies for services, and whether customer satisfaction or CSAT scores are tracked and could be reported more regularly. NDIT said it does track service-team CSAT and survey data, and committee members encouraged more regular reporting of those metrics. The committee also discussed application portfolio management, statewide IT planning, and whether agencies should slow new system replacements while the state pursues an ERP system. The mainframe update focused on the state’s ongoing effort to retire legacy systems by about 2030. NDIT and HHS said the work is being managed as a tech-debt program, but progress is slowed by data cleanup, integration complexity, staff retirements, vendor capacity, and federal requirements. Members asked whether there is a coordinated commitment and whether additional vendor support or consultants are needed; NDIT said it is working jointly with HHS and is seeking an RFP to help accelerate modernization. The cybersecurity presentation then shifted to statewide maturity assessments and services. NDIT said it provides endpoint protection, vulnerability scanning, security awareness training, threat briefings, and penetration testing, and that assessments are based on CIS controls. Members raised concerns about low participation in the self-assessment process, the lack of mandatory reporting or audit authority, and whether insurance incentives through Enderf or possible State Auditor involvement could improve compliance. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• transition to a closed session for committee members and advisers under Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subdivision
• We will now move to closed session under Minnesota Statute 13D, subdivision 3.
• uh<00:07:05.280> 13.D under Minnesota statute uh 13.D under Minnesota statute uh 13.D subdivision
• 07.759> will<00:07:07.919> start<00:07:08.160> this<00:07:08.319> close subdivision
• I will start this close subdivision 3.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Advisory Committee on Capitol Area Security met on January 13, 2026, adopted the January 7 minutes, and reviewed the committee’s work on the annual AAST/ACAS security report. The chair emphasized that the committee’s purpose is advisory only, but that its recommendations could guide the governor and legislature on improving security at the Minnesota Capitol complex. She also highlighted prior testimony about security practices in other states and said the committee’s report would likely recommend stronger screening and weapon-ban policies as part of a broader effort to prevent violence in public government spaces. Department of Public Safety advisers reported that they are still reviewing the report in detail and determining internal next steps. They also said quarterly security meetings with building tenants have been held and that internal and external tabletop exercises with law enforcement and other security partners are scheduled for the end of January. The Senate Sergeant-at-Arms gave a brief update on operational security changes, including hiring additional staff with security experience, weekly security meetings with DFL and GOP chiefs of staff, installation of two security kiosks, rollout of encrypted keycard ID badges, updated emergency procedure QR-code stickers, and implementation of the State Patrol’s threat matrix and reporting protocol. The Senate also said it is continuing joint training with the House and LCC. The committee then moved into a closed session under Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subdivision 3D, to discuss sensitive security details and non-public findings from the capital security assessment. The chair stated that the closed session would cover confidential vulnerabilities and operational information, and that the committee would later reconvene in public to vote on whether certain provisions from the public executive summary should be included as recommendations in the final report.

Transcript Highlights:

• Subdivision three goes into the required standards.
• So that's going to be subdivision three, and then subdivision four is getting into the administrative
• houses inside our new Lots subdivision houses inside our new Lots subdivision three<00:03:56.519
• that's going to be sub uh subdivision that's going to be sub uh subdivision three<00:04:36.560><
• > four<00:04:38.120> is three uh and then subdivision four is three uh and then subdivision

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1987, the Minnesota Starter Home Act, and first adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which made minor cleanup changes, removed sections two and three, adjusted ADU language, and tweaked density language. The bill authors described the measure as a bipartisan effort to address Minnesota’s housing shortage by allowing more starter homes, duplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, while also limiting some local zoning barriers and preserving city protections in certain sensitive areas. They emphasized that the state has a large housing gap, rising home prices, and that the bill is intended as one part of a broader housing package. Supportive testimony came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Housing First Minnesota, Habitat for Humanity, AARP Minnesota, and Americans for Prosperity. These witnesses argued that workforce and starter-home shortages are hurting families, employers, and economic growth; that restrictive zoning and lengthy approval processes raise costs; and that more middle housing and ADUs would expand options for older adults, caregivers, working families, and people seeking homeownership. Several supporters said the bill would reduce regulatory barriers, lower development costs, and help communities add needed housing supply. Opposition or cautionary testimony came from city and municipal representatives, including officials from Cambridge, Eagan, and Mankato, as well as the League of Minnesota Cities and related groups. They argued that local governments already are approving substantial housing growth and need flexibility to manage zoning, parking, infrastructure, stormwater, and community input. They warned the bill could weaken local control, remove practical standards, and create unintended impacts such as more rental conversion in some neighborhoods or development without adequate infrastructure. No final vote on the bill itself was shown in the transcript beyond adoption of the A1 amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• what the actual effect of this bill is, if you actually read it, House File 3477, just look at subdivision
• Subdivision 2 was taken out in committee, but subdivision one says any person who under color of any
• <00:32:09.279> one<00:32:09.600> subdivision<00:32:10.080> 2 look at subdivision
• one subdivision 2 look at subdivision one subdivision 2 was<00:32:10.399> taken<00:32:10.640>
• one says any person who subdivision one says any person who under<00:32:13.840> color<00:32:14.080

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• two um subdivision one and subdivision<01:03:00.440> two<01:03:01.320> have<01:03:01.560
• > come<01:03:01.920> from subdivision two have come from subdivision two have come from
• And that's listed in subdivision three.
• Subdivision delegates at a convention.
• the subdivision 13 is the subdivision 13 is the basically<03:08:21.400> the<03:08:21.520><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, subdivision six is the Minnesota Energy Alley $2 million.
• > the<00:17:58.600> two<00:17:59.200> 2.25 Um subdivision five is the two 2.25 Um subdivision
• Next page, 21, subdivision seven.
• Next page subdivision eight is $500,000. Next page subdivision eight is $500,000.
• Senate<00:18:57.440> file Subdivision nine is from Senate file Subdivision nine is from

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are two subdivisions.
• Subdivision two directs that the Department of Education is to encourage re-enrollment and, in fact,
• <00:15:36.720> so<00:15:37.279> the 2882 um there's two subdivisions so the 2882 um
• there's two subdivisions so the first<00:15:37.560> subdivision<00:15:38.040> one<00:15
• 2 directs uh that notice um subdivision 2 directs uh that the<00:15:59.120> Department<00:15:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So getting the taxable values for all the political subdivisions is very easy for me.
• We get budgets and levy certifications from all the taxing districts and political subdivisions.
• As a political subdivision, the park district at the time, and the county both—I was doing books for
• As a political subdivision, the park district at the time, and the county both—I was doing books for
• We have a cap in place now, so unless a community or a political subdivision votes to do a bond for a

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met to begin its study of whether the content of the real estate tax statement should be revised to improve transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the study directive from HB 1176 and the statutory requirements for tax statements, including required line items such as true and full value, mill levy, legislative tax relief, primary residence credit, legacy fund share, discounts for early payment, and special assessments. The Tax Department then explained how the current uniform statewide statement is prescribed and approved, and noted that changes are typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from NDACO, including auditors from McKenzie and Richland counties, described the full annual property tax timeline from budgeting through mailing final statements. They explained how counties gather budgets, calculate levies, verify taxable values, handle centrally assessed property, and prepare required notices and statements. They also said public attendance at budget hearings is generally very low, though the notices and statements generate some calls, mostly about whether attendance is required or why taxes are changing. Several members questioned the usefulness of the legislative tax relief line and the complexity of the 5% discount calculation, and county officials said the current process can be confusing and depends on manual data entry and coordination among counties, vendors, and taxing districts. The committee also discussed assessment frequency, valuation equalization, the 3% cap, and whether more frequent reassessment would reduce large jumps in taxable value. County officials said they try to use rotating reassessments and sales-ratio reviews to keep values within statutory tolerance, but staffing, training, and local market changes make the work difficult. NDACO staff estimated, based on a small county survey, that tax statement preparation and mailing costs average about 74 cents per statement, with outsourcing generally cheaper than in-house printing, and said HB 1176 added some mailing and administrative costs even if the tax statement itself did not change dramatically. Software vendors from CPT and Tyler then began presentations showing how their systems handle budgeting, valuation notices, tax statement generation, primary residence credit processing, and levy worksheets, emphasizing that many of the required calculations and reports are still manually entered or verified by county staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally, subdivision six, I heard something about this maybe being worked on a little bit, but
• And then finally, subdivision six, I heard something about this maybe being worked on a little bit, but
• And then finally, subdivision six, I heard something about this maybe being worked on a little bit, but
• And then finally, subdivision six, I heard something about this maybe being worked on a little bit, but
• And then finally, subdivision six, I heard something about this maybe being worked on a little bit, but

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 3893, which would regulate the use of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy and counseling, was heard with an A3 amendment adopted by voice vote at the start of the meeting. The amendment was described as the product of stakeholder discussions and was intended to clarify the roles of licensing boards, the attorney general, and other stakeholders, including language about large corporations versus individual practitioners. The bill author argued that AI chatbots should not be allowed to provide psychotherapy or counseling, citing concerns about suicide risk, the need for licensed human professionals, and examples of harmful chatbot interactions. Supportive testimony came from Eric Meshy of SAVE, who said AI cannot assess risk or intervene in crises, and from Dr. Steven Gerardo of the Minnesota Psychological Association, who said AI is designed to keep users engaged and monetize conversations rather than provide treatment. A virtual testifier from TechNet supported the bill’s overall goal but urged clearer definitions so the measure would not unintentionally restrict supervised, administrative, or wellness uses of technology, and asked for clearer limits around emotional distress and AI’s role in treatment decisions. Members raised several concerns and questions, including why religious counseling was exempted, whether the bill could conflict with interstate licensure compacts, privacy issues around AI used for scheduling or administrative support, and whether chatbot screening language would itself require analyzing sensitive mental health disclosures. The author said the bill was still being refined and that the attorney general language was intended to apply to AI companies, while boards would handle individual licensed professionals. After discussion, the committee renewed the motion to re-refer House File 3893 as amended to the Committee on Commerce, Finance, and Policy, and the motion prevailed by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• do have some questions about the bill language, and I am specifically looking at your section 3, subdivision
• do have some questions about the bill language, and I am specifically looking at your section 3, subdivision
• do have some questions about the bill language, and I am specifically looking at your section 3, subdivision
• I guess I'll just make a comment here that some of those additional subdivisions are covering some things
• I guess I'll just make a comment here that some of those additional subdivisions are covering some things

Keywords: 1183, house