Transcript Highlights:

• the preparation of fiscal notes on every bill.
• The Legislative Fiscal Office is responsible for the preparation of fiscal notes on every bill and joint
• to appoint a committee that studies the fiscal note.
• When you have a fiscal note and you have questions about it, there was a specific process where we can
• ask questions of the fiscal note.

Bills: SCR63, SCR12, HB89, HB451, HB595, HB617, HB621, HB730, HB1064, HB1125, HB221, HCR58, SB106, SB206, SB248, SB441, SB104, SB122, SB180, SB260, SB424, SB476, SCR9, SCR30, SB57, SB414, SB525, SB35, SB65, SB135, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB276, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB484, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB501, SB513, HCR31, HB462, HB547, HB613, HB691, HB712, HB720, HB723, HB728, HB735, HB747, HB759, HB825, HB845, HB846, HB903, HB904, HB907, HB923, HB929, HB941, HB962, HB965, HB1036, HB287, HB370, HB515, HB521, HB570, HB1200, HB29, HB39, HB58, HB67, HB73, HB76, HB77, HB82, HB112, HB121, HB125, HB132, HB134, HB151, HB154, HB155, HB161, HB166, HB187, HB191, HB207, HB211, HB224, HB238, HB241, HB242, HB250, HB260, HB265, HB275, HB300, HB320, HB338, HB339, HB349, HB379, HB399, HB427, HB463, HB464, HB468, HB545, HB550, HB551, HB565, HB588, HB639, HB725, HB782, HB805, HB808, HB834, HB847, HB853, HB858, HB861, HB883, HB916, HB937, HB977, HB1012, HB1027, HB1044, HB1054, HB1091, HB1117, HB90, HB127, HB138, HB150, HB201, HB268, HB273, HB285, HB315, HB354, HB355, HB360, HB376, HB445, HB506, HB606, HB649, HB665, HB681, HB721, HB746, HB757, HB781, HB835, HB844, HB857, HB872, HB886, HB889, HB892, HB982, HB987, HB1037, HB1068, HB1072, HB1078, HB1085, HB1132, HB1137, HB1167, HB1174, HB1232, HB1238, HB23, HB136, HB17, HB21, HB51, HB55, HB74, HB106, HB108, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB168, HB215, HB226, HB263, HB296, HB299, HB322, HB364, HB519, HB535, HB538, HB568, HB571, HB622, HB635, HB676, HB772, HB784, HB1006, HB1018, HB1033, HB1034, HB1043, HB1070, HB1134, HB1237, HB1239, HB36, HB119, HB126, HB129, HB245, HB271, HB280, HB337, HB351, HB677, HB726, HB789, HB850, HB956, HB966, SB149, SB382

Keywords: fiscal notes, legislation, legislative auditor, state policy, conflict of interest, logging, recognition, John Keith, environment, safety, HB89, Act 615, district attorney, assistant district attorney, retiree health insurance, group health insurance, retirement benefits, public employee benefits, Third Judicial District, Thirtieth Judicial District

Summary: The Senate convened with 32 members present, heard a guest prayer from Pastor Dr. Michael Linton, and proceeded through routine journal approval and legislative bureau reports. The chamber received numerous House messages on passed Senate bills and House bills, introduced several resolutions and concurrent resolutions, and recognized Former Legislators’ Day with remarks honoring deceased former members and welcoming back past legislators and other officials. The Senate also adopted SCR 63, which asks the Legislative Auditor to review how fiscal notes are developed and prepared, after an amendment clarifying the study’s scope and a 33-0 vote. The body then took up a series of Senate bills returned from the House. It concurred in House amendments to SB 106 (crime scene recordings/public records), SB 206 (blood pressure testing in schools, narrowed to athletes), SB 248 (polling place closures for very small precincts), SB 104 (highway memorial designation), SB 122 (bridge preservation), SB 180 (disabled veterans’ homestead exemption transfer language), SB 260 (youth athletics safety training/Coach Safely Act), and SB 476 (garnishment service wording). It rejected House amendments to SB 441 on pre-kindergarten programs. SB 57 on nutrition cleanup, SB 414 on medical debt protection, SB 525 on unclaimed property purchases, SB 501 on postsecondary health information postings, and SB 276 on bail bond producer affidavits all advanced or passed, with SB 57 and SB 414 ultimately passing and SB 525 and SB 501 also receiving final passage. The Senate also adopted SCR 30, a resolution urging Congress to ensure accountability and release of Epstein-related files, and later took up SB 513, a pilot program involving average bid/design-build contracting for certain airport-related projects, which passed 25-10 after extended questioning about its purpose and safeguards. SB 484, revising higher education governance and removing LUMCON language in favor of a study commission, passed 36-1. In personal privilege remarks, senators recognized Louisiana Arts Day and introduced guest Ed Tillman. The chamber then began a long series of House bills, including HB 462 on the Capital Area Road and Bridge District board composition, HB 547 on photographing voter registration information, HB 613 on marking driver’s licenses with citizenship status, HB 691 on voter-roll verification through the federal SAVE system, and HB 712 waiving certain OMV fees for homeless individuals; several of these bills were explained and moved toward final passage as the session continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• As noted in your agenda, last year our office published.
• We will have a fiscal cleft by June.
• to collect feedback on the types of fiscal management.
• the comprehensive fiscal display.
• I hope you young folks are taking note.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• fiscal year. fiscal year.
• It almost requires a new fiscal note to be drawn up to see what this program now is going to cost if
• It almost requires a new fiscal note to be drawn up to see what this program now is going to cost if
• Institutions for and during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026, except as otherwise noted.
• otherwise noted. otherwise noted.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The committee and floor took up House Bill 1411, which concerned the Cover All Colorado program. Debate centered on whether removing the program’s cap would create an open-ended entitlement and add pressure to the state budget. Supporters and opponents argued over fiscal impacts, with several members saying the program had grown far beyond its original cost estimate and that the state needed to protect the budget and maintain a balanced plan. The bill was ultimately passed as amended. House Bill 1412 was then considered, authorizing the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to use statistical sampling and extrapolation to recover Medicaid overpayments in certain provider audits, including ABA therapy and non-emergency medical transportation. Sponsors said the measure would help recapture millions in overpayments tied to fraud, waste, and abuse, and noted safeguards such as strict benchmarks, internal audit review, and a third-party audit firm. An amendment striking the word “alleged” from the bill was adopted, and the bill passed as amended. House Bill 1413, which changes leave provisions for certain public servants, was also approved. The bill removes a statutory cap on how much sick leave state employees may earn, while leaving actual leave policies to departments and bargaining agreements, and increases annual military leave to align with federal law. Members described it as a modest employee-benefit measure in a year without across-the-board pay raises. The House also laid over House Bill 1410 until later in the day and received the committee of the whole report on a large slate of other bills. Later, Representative Richardson sought to reverse the committee’s action on an amendment to House Bill 1389, which involved the comprehensive human sexuality education grant fund, arguing the grant program should be repealed if it is no longer funded.

Transcript Highlights:

• scheduled for the rest of the fiscal scheduled for the rest of the fiscal year.<00:37:25.440>
• six during the remainder of this fiscal six during the remainder of this fiscal year.<00:37:37.520
• and one was unresolved. table of contents, you will note that table of contents, you will note that there
• the fund through fiscal year 2034. the fund through fiscal year 2034.
• c> unusual We noted no significant unusual We noted no significant unusual transactions<01:19:59.679

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first adopted the September 5 minutes and then approved the remaining consent calendar items after removing several bills for separate consideration, including 25-252, 25-248, 25-251, and 25-253. The committee then took up 25-252 from the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, where members asked about the arts tax credit program, staffing, and volunteer coordination. Department representatives said the program had recently been authorized, forms had been finalized, three of six laid-off staff had been rehired through a federal grant, and the agency was now trying to recruit participants. Members also discussed whether tax-credit-raised funds could count as federal match; the department said they could not, because federal rules require state dollars. The item was adopted. The committee next considered 25-248 from the Department of Safety, which was described as a technical correction moving funds from equipment to hardware and software after consultation with the Department of Administrative Services. A member asked about “buy American” waivers, and the department said it would follow up with more information. The item was adopted. The committee then approved 25-251 from the Department of Administrative Services, which included discussion of ongoing problems with Anthem’s retiree health plan mail-order pharmacy. Department staff said many issues were tied to implementation changes and prescription renewal rules, that some complaints were being resolved through the vendor and the retiree health office, and that the contract would be rebid in the coming year, likely causing further changes. On 25-253 from the Department of Health and Human Services, members questioned the department’s September 5 health alert and whether it diverged from CDC guidance. DHHS said the alert was an annual evidence-based guideline for respiratory virus season and immunizations, largely aligned with CDC recommendations, and that some differences reflected timing and population-specific guidance. The item was adopted. The committee then heard 25-237 from the Department of Justice on the annual litigation fund request. Attorney General John Formela said the request was about $4.3 million, roughly 40% below last year and below the five-year average, with major costs tied to YDC civil and criminal litigation and some DHHS class actions. A member criticized the large increase over the budgeted $350,000 and said the budgeting approach should be corrected in the next cycle. Another member asked about YDC settlement reductions; the attorney general said confidentiality limited specifics, but explained that under the new statute the office had accepted well over half of administrator awards, rejected some, and negotiated lower amounts in others while still resolving most cases. The item remained under discussion at the end of the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of the cost, I can't speak to that, but we can certainly do a fiscal note.
• I will say certainly do a fiscal note.
• Representative Gilman, did you ask the department for a fiscal note or a TA on this? Do we have it?
• <00:40:57.599> note<00:40:57.839> or ask the department for a fiscal note or ask the
• <01:04:41.039> note Um, and I don't see a fiscal note Um, and I don't see a fiscal note attached

Bills: HF3521, HF1807, HF1270, HF2070, HF3136

Keywords: hospital moratorium, hospital construction, bed capacity, hospital expansion, health care facilities, hospital licensing, safety-net hospital, level I trauma center, Ramsey County, Minnesota health law, hospital beds, new hospital exception, certificate of need, inpatient capacity, emergency care, trauma services, health system regulation, state moratorium, hospital modernization, health infrastructure

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:06:39.720> note that out we will in our uh fiscal note that out we will in our uh fiscal
• > and<00:20:42.320> it a fiscal note worksheet request and it a fiscal note worksheet request
• There is a revised fiscal note packet on your desk and the packet of bills, so this fiscal note that
• , so you'll have two packets. you it is in your revised fiscal note you it is in your revised fiscal
• note where if there speculative fiscal note where if there was<04:05:26.520> a<04:05:27.239><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, as noted by my colleague, I think we sort of are looking at updated fiscal that would be sort of
• Yeah, as noted by my colleague, I think we sort of are looking at updated sort of fiscal that would be
• You know, CWDA notes, or counties note, that given the significant progress in timely processing of it
• This is a fiscally responsible health protection.
• As your agenda notes in 2025, the U.S.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the governor’s IHSS budget proposals and then took public testimony from the administration, LAO, county representatives, labor, consumer advocates, and an aging/disability advocacy group. The administration described IHSS as a large Medi-Cal long-term services program serving more than 900,000 recipients and proposed three changes: shifting some growth costs tied to authorized hours per case to counties, eliminating the statewide backup provider system, and aligning IHSS terminations with Medi-Cal terminations. The administration also discussed the earlier CFCO reassessment penalty change for counties and said overdue reassessments had dropped significantly. LAO said the governor’s overall IHSS cost estimates appeared reasonable, but raised concerns about the hours-per-case cost shift, including unclear root causes for growth, limited county control over statewide averages, and uncertainty about the eventual savings. County Welfare Directors Association, SEIU, and consumer/advocacy witnesses opposed the hours cost shift, arguing counties use state tools, the proposal would pressure counties to cut services, and it could harm older adults and people with disabilities by increasing institutionalization and shifting costs elsewhere. The chair and members repeatedly questioned the rationale for the proposal, the lack of a defined baseline, and whether the current assessment tools or MOE structure should instead be revisited. On the backup provider system, the administration said the program is underused and costly to administer relative to service spending, while LAO suggested the Legislature consider whether administrative costs could be reduced instead of eliminating it. County, labor, and consumer witnesses opposed the cut, saying the system is a critical emergency safety net even if utilization is low, especially for rural areas and people with complex needs. Members also asked about data quality, county backup systems, and whether consumers know the program exists. On the Medi-Cal/IHSS alignment proposal, the administration said automation would stop General Fund-only spending when recipients lose Medi-Cal and restore IHSS automatically when Medi-Cal is regained; LAO and others noted the proposal had been rejected before and urged better notices and safeguards. Witnesses warned that automatic termination could create gaps in care and unpaid work for providers, while the department said counties already manually terminate in some cases and that automation is ready if approved. No votes were taken in the excerpt, and the chair indicated the committee would continue with public comment and later items before a hard adjournment time.

Transcript Highlights:

• Staff also noted that one committee-requested report is outstanding and currently in progress.
• The audit for fiscal year 2025 resulted in 33 findings.
• If you can see mine, you can see all the little Post-it notes where I've had questions.
• But this kind of feeds into the note that you see on page 93.
• “So noted.” “Flag it to be discussed in August, please. Thank you.” “So noted, Senator Hammer.

Summary: The committee met to adopt prior minutes and reports from its executive and standing committees, including counties and municipalities, educational institutions, and state agencies. Those reports covered routine audit activity, delinquent private water and sewer audits, municipal accounting compliance issues, education audit findings, and several state agency audit items. The committee also reviewed and adopted the State of Arkansas annual comprehensive financial report for fiscal year 2025 and the related single audit report, both presented by Legislative Audit staff. The state financial report showed unmodified opinions on the state’s financial statements and described total assets of about $41.9 billion and liabilities of about $11.1 billion, along with retirement system assets of $39.9 billion and a net pension liability of $9 billion. Two material weaknesses were identified: insufficient internal controls at the Office of State Technology to monitor threats and unauthorized access, and a Division of Workforce Services methodology change for unemployment-related estimates that was not properly documented or approved. The single audit covered $12.4 billion in federal awards across 469 programs, with 16 major programs reviewed; it resulted in 33 findings, 14 with questioned costs totaling $16.6 million, and qualified opinions for the Summer EBT program, the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund, and the Child Care Development Fund cluster. Members questioned agency officials in detail about the Summer EBT questioned costs, DHS unresolved findings, broadband grant documentation, cyber security controls, workers’ compensation liabilities, and child care funding and reporting. DHS explained that the Summer EBT issue involved drawing federal funds in advance rather than as benefits were redeemed, and said the process has been corrected. Broadband officials said the questioned $6.6 million reflected documentation-detail disagreements across many invoices rather than missing payments. OST officials described new logging, endpoint detection, and phishing-training efforts, and DFA and Education officials addressed specific audit findings and corrective actions. The committee ultimately moved to hold the two large statewide reports over until the August meeting for further review, with discussion continuing on whether to release some agency staff in the meantime.

Transcript Highlights:

• We actually closed thirty individuals during the federal fiscal year, twenty-seven in the state fiscal
• years and funded it over two fiscal years.
• 24 to fiscal 25.
• In fiscal 26, we did not receive any special appropriations.
• in the next half of Fiscal 26.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Fiscal year 27, they'll keep flowing out.
• One of the things to note is that P.E.D. has hands-on application with each program.
• year 27 through 29. in future fiscal years from the PERF, if you all chose.
• And so what's different about these is that they'll be over those three fiscal years.
• Again, you can note. Males tend to outperform females in this subject area.

Transcript Highlights:

• This recommendation invests $5.4 million in fiscal year 2026 and 2027, and $2.8 million in fiscal year
• survey asked for quantitative data for state fiscal years 2018 to 2022.
• <01:09:27.520> years<01:09:27.799> was five State fiscal years was five State fiscal
• <01:14:12.320> management institutions fiscal management institutions fiscal management processes
• <01:25:59.800> strain unsustainable fiscal strain unsustainable fiscal strain necessitating

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Health and Human Services committee heard a presentation from Department of Children, Youth, and Families Commissioner Tiki Brown on the department’s 2025 budget and transition plans. Brown said the governor’s budget pairs targeted reductions with modest investments, resulting in net general fund savings, while preserving core safety-net programs. Major proposals included funding for program integrity, modernization of the child welfare SSIS system, compliance changes for the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), operating adjustments, and a transition account reallocation as the new department continues moving programs from other agencies through July 1, 2025. A large portion of the discussion focused on CCAP fraud prevention and oversight. Brown and Assistant Commissioner Diane Hy explained that the proposed statewide electronic attendance recordkeeping system would replace retroactive paper-based attendance reporting with more timely data, making it harder to falsify attendance and claim payments improperly. Brown also said the department is working with the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General and other partners on compliance and fraud controls. Senators pressed for more detail on current enforcement, whether payments can be withheld for violations, and whether recent media reports showed gaps in oversight; Brown said payments can be stopped for false attendance records, suspended or revoked licenses, or fraud allegations, but not for health and safety violations alone. The committee also reviewed other budget-neutral policy changes, including expanding permanency support services for relative foster care and tribal equivalents, strengthening tribal child welfare grants, updating TEACH scholarship rules for early childhood educators, and adjusting the Great Start Compensation Support Payment Program to create a special revenue fund and extend a 10% payment increase to tribally licensed programs and programs on tribal reservation land. Brown also described a $1.5 million annual reduction to restorative practices grants, leaving a smaller ongoing base. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're asking for bar authority for next fiscal year.
• Okay, and the fiscal year, Mr. Chair—sorry, the fiscal year extends into the next administration?
• You authorized it for one fiscal year.
• fiscal year.
• and into next fiscal year, Mr.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As we move closer to adopting a budget for the fiscal year, which will begin very, very shortly.
• Today, we will be considering the conference committee report on the fiscal year 2026 budget.
• year for which this budget covers, fiscal year 2026.
• year for which this budget covers, fiscal year 2026.
• I know how much he focuses on these issues and how much he focuses on fiscal discipline.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate first took up and passed several House bills establishing sick leave banks, including House 4182 for a Massachusetts Department of Transportation employee and House 1590 for Eric J. Awaniak. It also advanced and then enacted House 4237, a fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill providing interim funding before final action on the general appropriations act. During the session, Senator Collins also recognized Chaplain Clementina Cherry of the Lewis D. Brown Peace Institute as a distinguished guest, with remarks entered into the record. The main business was the conference committee report on the fiscal year 2026 state budget, House 4001/House 4240. Senate Ways and Means leadership described the budget as balanced, on time, and fiscally responsible, with $61.01 billion in spending, no new taxes or fees, and a $33 million deposit to the stabilization fund. They highlighted major investments in Chapter 70 school aid, special education circuit breaker reimbursements, unrestricted local aid, MassEducate, universal free school meals, MBTA and regional transit funding, MassHealth, food security, and mental health services. The report also included policy items such as broker fee responsibility, fare-free regional transit, housing studies, a gold star family annuity provision, and a crumbling concrete commission. Minority leader Senator Tarr and others questioned the spending reductions, use of one-time funds, and the treatment of excess capital gains, arguing for greater fiscal caution and concern about future federal actions and long-term spending growth. Supporters responded that the reductions reflected revenue uncertainty, federal policy risks, and the need to preserve budget stability, while using some one-time sources to balance the plan. The conference report was adopted by a roll call vote of 38-2, the emergency preamble for House 4240 was approved by standing vote, and the FY26 general appropriations bill was then enacted and sent to the Governor. The Senate also adopted an order to dispense with printing a calendar for the next session and adjourned until Thursday at 11 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• If I can get mine up, I've got too many notes. Here we go.
• Hernandez, I'll just note. So you can see on line.
• Sorry, I misaligned my notes here.
• I'll just note this is a PED item.
• year, previous fiscal year.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have less than two months left in this fiscal year.
• The other thing to note, too, is some of the financial pressures that were noted, like there's been a
• You might still be stuck in when the federal fiscal year is.
• In an ideal world, we would do this for the fiscal year starting July 1st.
• I would note, to the Senator's previous comments, we do have data.

Summary: The committee heard AB 108, a budget bill junior that would amend the 2025 Budget Act to create a one-time $25 million General Fund grant program at HCAI for hospitals in immediate and significant financial distress. The bill also included a technical change related to property tax deferments for eligible low-income seniors. Finance explained that eligible hospitals would have to be not-for-profit, have less than 10 days cash on hand, show best efforts to exhaust other financing, and have a payer mix of more than 50% government payers and uninsured patients; the bill also gives HCAI expedited contracting and rulemaking authority. Members and the LAO noted the proposal is intended as a short-term bridge until July 1, while broader hospital support is expected in the May Revision and next year’s budget. Much of the discussion focused on whether $25 million is enough, how many hospitals would qualify, and whether the 10-day cash threshold is too narrow. Several senators argued the administration had not provided enough data or a clear methodology, and raised concerns about fairness compared with the earlier Distressed Hospital Loan Program, which used broader criteria and provided loans rather than grants. Members also raised broader policy issues affecting hospital finances, including Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, seismic retrofit costs, federal funding changes, and the need for better data and more immediate assessment of hospital distress. The LAO said the current proposal is narrower than the prior loan program and emphasized the need for better reporting and analysis going forward. Public commenters, including the California Hospital Association, district hospital representatives, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and county officials, supported the bill and urged additional longer-term funding for distressed hospitals. The chair and several members said the bill is a short-term emergency measure for a small number of hospitals at risk of imminent closure, while broader solutions will be addressed later in the budget process. AB 108 was then moved and passed out of committee on an 18-0 vote, with the roll held open briefly to secure remaining votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• And according to the Joint Fiscal Office and the fiscal note that can be found on our committee page,
• And according to the Joint Fiscal Office and the fiscal note that can be found on our committee page,
• And according to the Joint Fiscal Office and the fiscal note that can be found on our committee page,
• And according to the Joint Fiscal Office and the fiscal note that can be found on our committee page,
• > and<00:36:59.480> the<00:36:59.560> fiscal<00:36:59.960> note<00:37:00.200

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate Bill 323, suspending the rules to consider it immediately. The bill was described as a broad agricultural measure with committee amendments and fiscal implications, and it was reported favorably by the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee, Ways and Means, and Appropriations. Members outlined sections dealing with milk market corrections, farm-to-school language, repeal of the obsolete pest control compact, pesticide applicator licensing changes, seed law updates, the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program, hemp regulation, and CAFO-related provisions. The Agriculture committee reported the bill out 7-0-1, and the effective date was described as July 1, 2026, except for the hemp provisions, which would take effect upon passage. Much of the discussion focused on the hemp sections. Supporters said the bill updates Vermont law to reflect federal changes and shifts hemp oversight from the Agency of Agriculture to the Cannabis Control Board. The hemp provisions would create registration and licensing requirements for hemp producers, processors, and certain hemp products; set fees; authorize testing, inspections, stop-sale orders, and administrative penalties; and allow rulemaking on product standards, labeling, insurance, additives, and age restrictions. Speakers said the changes were intended to help Vermont’s hemp industry maintain access to banking, insurance, and interstate commerce while improving consumer safety and regulatory clarity. Other agricultural provisions were also explained in detail. The bill would clarify milk producer hearing rights, update farm-to-school grant/contract language, remove outdated pest-control compact language, and adjust pesticide applicator exam and fee rules, including removing the limit on retakes and eliminating certain government applicator fees. It would also modernize seed labeling and definitions, transfer the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program into a new statutory structure under VEDA, and make conforming cross-reference changes in tax and cannabis fund statutes. The final sections would add a CAFO permit working group and require consultant training for state agencies on CAFO inspections, with those provisions contingent on future funding. Ways and Means noted the bill’s fee changes could affect state revenues, including an estimated hemp-related impact of roughly $10,000 to $90,000, though the exact effect was uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• This first chart shows all paid fee-for-service claims during the noted fiscal year, reduced to the top
• Maybe give it to Legislative Council and they can maybe do a fiscal note on it and look at it.
• They just gave us a fiscal note today. $135 million is not...
• That some of these fiscal notes are made for political purposes, not real numbers.
• I don't know how we can get an accurate fiscal note, but you guys saw the numbers.

Summary: The committee met to receive a series of audit presentations, beginning with the statewide Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for fiscal year 2025. The State Auditor’s Office and OMB reported a clean, unmodified opinion for the state, with strong financial results including a $40.6 billion net position, $30.99 billion in assets, $1.81 billion in liabilities, and continued Legacy Fund growth. OMB also explained the new GASB 101 compensated-absences reporting change and discussed pension-liability fluctuations tied to discount-rate assumptions and investment performance. Members asked about how the state compares to others and about the effect of short-term commodity price swings, and OMB said the report reflects actual fiscal-year results rather than forecasts. The committee then heard the University System audit, which also received a clean opinion but included four findings: misreporting of Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund revenue, insufficient monitoring of service organizations at CTS, NDSU, and UND, improper bank reconciliations at Dakota College of Bottineau, Dickinson State, and Williston State, and investment/cash reconciliation problems at Bismarck State College related to bond proceeds. University officials agreed with the findings and said corrective actions were underway, including internal review of bank reconciliations. Members raised questions about NDSU’s use of certificates of deposit, and university staff explained that CDs are used to earn interest on funds being accumulated for future projects. Several other audits were presented, most with clean opinions and no findings, including the State Auditor’s Office, Workforce Safety and Insurance, Housing Finance Agency, Housing Incentive Fund, Job Service North Dakota, the Retirement and Investment Office, PERS, the Center for Distance Education, the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, the Ethics Commission, and the Office of Administrative Hearings. Notable exceptions included a State Fair Association audit with an adverse opinion on the foundation component unit because its financial statements were not available for audit, and a Securities Department performance audit finding that performance-based pay increases and bonuses were issued without required evaluations. The committee also discussed the State Auditor’s future needs, including more staff capacity, data analytics, cybersecurity reviews, possible subpoena authority, independent legal counsel, and whether some audits—such as the Ethics Commission and State Fair—should be handled by independent third parties or under different statutory arrangements.

Transcript Highlights:

• fiscal items that Ms. Heimark and Mr. fiscal items that Ms. Heimark and Mr.
• fiscal 28 and 29 for a total net zero general fund impact across the budget window. fiscal 2027. fiscal
• starting in fiscal 29. starting in fiscal 29.
• in fiscal 2026. in fiscal 2026.
• Eric Olafson, Senate fiscal analyst for the Housing Committee, said a fiscal note has been completed

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The conference committee on the housing omnibus bill began with member introductions and a staff walk-through comparing House and Senate provisions. House Research staff reviewed major policy differences affecting Minnesota Housing Finance Agency operations, including limits on how much the agency may retain from state appropriations for administrative costs, new reporting requirements, restrictions on transfers between appropriated accounts, and House-only language requiring annual expenditure of investment income from state appropriations. Senate provisions were also summarized, including tighter rules on when appropriations may be placed into Housing Development Fund bookkeeping accounts, updated operating-cost reporting, and Senate-only changes to how investment earnings may be used. Staff also described shared and differing provisions on program-money transfers, a lived-experience earnings exemption, and a long list of Senate-only policy changes, including manufactured home park tenant protections, low-income housing tax credit and bond-related changes, a task force on housing taxes and fees, and repealers affecting Housing Development Fund authority and certain older programs. Fiscal staff then reviewed the budget impacts. The House side included one-time appropriations for workforce housing development, family homeless prevention and assistance, a Minnesota Nice Home Share pilot, and homebuyer education, along with debt service for $100 million in housing infrastructure bonds and transfers/cancellations that produced a net zero general fund impact across the budget window. The Senate side noted a fiscal note for the housing taxes and fees task force and a smaller housing infrastructure bond authorization, with corresponding debt service costs and a total Senate budget-window impact of about $1 million in general fund debt service. After the staff presentations, the committee moved to public testimony. Commissioner Jennifer Ho of Minnesota Housing said the bill’s housing infrastructure bonds and continued support for family homeless prevention were important, and she supported the lived-experience earnings exemption, while noting concerns about the interest-earnings provisions. Testifiers from Greater Minnesota groups praised the workforce housing investments and Senate updates to the state housing tax credit and infrastructure grant program, though they suggested changes to the geographic distribution language. HOME Line urged funding for statewide tenant hotline services, citing rising demand and asking for $1 million if additional money becomes available. The Minnesota Consortium of Community Developers supported the bill’s investments and emphasized the need to pair housing development with supportive services. Housing First Minnesota praised housing infrastructure bonds and other investments but criticized the omission of the Minnesota Starter Homes Act. The Minnesota Multi Housing Association began testimony opposing certain rent-control-related provisions in the House bill. No votes or final actions were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• that does current in in the prior fiscal that does current in in the prior fiscal year<00:08:22.240
• For context, in Minnesota's current allocation for federal fiscal year 24 and state fiscal year 25, it
• current allocation for federal fiscal current allocation for federal fiscal year<00:20:15.880>
• These are federal fiscal years, which, as you know, is different than our state fiscal year.
• For our federal fiscal year 2024 and state fiscal year 2025, Minnesota has been allocated almost $1.5

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee met to hear a Minnesota Department of Education presentation on federal education funding and the potential effects of federal actions on those dollars. Chair Kunesh framed the discussion around concerns about threats to the U.S. Department of Education and noted that federal funds make up about 10% of Minnesota’s education budget, or roughly $1.4 billion. Senator Lang pushed back, emphasizing that 90% of school funding comes from state and local sources and urging the committee to focus on state mandates and how to pay for them. New member Senator Clark introduced himself and said he would teach ethics or running if he were a teacher. Department staff explained that federal education dollars are divided between entitlement/formula funds and competitive/discretionary grants. They said Minnesota receives federal money through established systems and that the department is seeking clarity about how federal changes might affect the flow of funds, oversight, and program administration. They also outlined Minnesota’s legislative review process for federal funds, which includes several pathways such as the governor’s biennial budget, supplemental budget submissions, legislative advisory committee review, and expedited review processes when needed. The presentation then focused on ESEA Title funding, especially Title I. Staff said Title I is one of the largest federal education programs in Minnesota, with about $200 million in current funding, and supports 476 local education agencies. They described how funds are allocated through Minnesota’s North Star accountability system and Compass support structure, based on measures such as poverty, graduation rates, and state assessment performance. Examples of allowable supports included professional development, attendance initiatives, reading curriculum, training, and peer coaching. Senators asked whether executive action could affect these funds and whether the money flows directly to districts or through the state; staff responded that they would avoid speculation and would continue explaining the different funding streams and oversight structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just, again, have some very important fiscal questions.
• And how can we say that we are fiscally responsible and taking care of?
• That wasn't fiscally responsible.
• Is that fiscally responsible?
• that this bill will result in no fiscal costs.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on August 20, 2025, and considered a large number of bills, with most of the discussion centered on election redistricting and several health, labor, environmental, and government-operations measures. The first major item was ACA 8, a constitutional amendment tied to a proposed November special election and temporary mid-decade congressional redistricting in response to partisan redistricting efforts in other states. Supporters, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, a 2020 redistricting commissioner, labor groups, and allies of the measure, argued it was necessary to defend democracy, protect representation, and respond to federal actions affecting California. Opponents, including Assemblymember Tom Lackey reading a statement for Assemblymember Gallagher and Assemblymember Dixon, argued the measure would undermine the independent redistricting commission, amount to a partisan power grab, and cost taxpayers roughly $230 million. Committee members also focused heavily on fiscal questions, including litigation costs and county election funding, and Department of Finance staff said counties would be made whole and funding would be advanced. The committee ultimately voted the measure out on a B roll call. The committee then heard SB 280, the implementing bill for the special election and related redistricting process. Supporters repeated the argument that California needed to respond to Texas and other states, while opponents again emphasized the cost, the strain on county budgets, and the state’s broader fiscal pressures. Department of Finance witnesses said the election funding would be provided in advance and that the state would work with counties and the Secretary of State. The bill was moved out on a roll call after extended debate. The committee also advanced several other bills, including SB 283 on battery storage safety standards, SB 470 extending remote participation and open-meeting flexibility for state boards and commissions, SB 697 modernizing stream adjudication procedures, SB 513 requiring more accessible employee training records, SB 30 restricting transfer of older diesel locomotives, SB 841 and SB 81 creating protections for vulnerable facilities and health care spaces from immigration enforcement, SB 358 revising traffic impact fee standards, and SB 630 streamlining state parks land acquisitions. Other measures discussed included SB 62 expanding health coverage benefits, SB 68 requiring restaurant allergen disclosures, and the committee heard both support and opposition on SB 68 from the California Restaurant Association and consumer advocates. Supporters of the health and immigrant-protection bills emphasized patient safety, reproductive health, immigrant rights, and access to care, while opponents on the restaurant bill warned of added mandates and litigation risk for small businesses. Across the hearing, committee members frequently returned to fiscal impacts, county implementation burdens, and whether the bills would save money, cost money, or shift costs to local governments. Several bills were reported out of committee, often on A or B roll calls, with some members not voting on particular measures.