Transcript Highlights:

• it is or isn't retroactive it is or isn't retroactive uh<04:07:13.920> then<04:07:14.239>
• . retroactively. retroactively.
• I think it's the presumption is that the statute would not be retroactive.
• I think it's about the retroactivity.
• So it would be would not be retroactive.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• The retroactive imposing of the change of vesting raises some questions we might ask, such as: what if
• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• They made similar changes but did not make them retroactive.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Municipal and County Government Committee held public hearings on House Bill 471 and House Bill 373. HB 471 would create a temporary commission to study growth, traffic, planning, and land use issues in a group of southern New Hampshire towns, with possible recommendations on regional planning commission boundaries or coordination. Representative Perez said the bill was requested by Londonderry residents and local officials, and Eric Power of Brookline testified in support, saying the towns share corridor and development issues that cross regional planning commission lines. Several members questioned whether existing law already allows towns to form regional planning commissions under RSA 364:6, whether the bill should be broader, and whether the town list should include additional communities. The hearing closed with testimony counts reported as two in support and three opposed on remote sign-in, plus one opposed and one in support on the blue sheet. HB 373, sponsored by Representative Diane Powers, would revise RSA 41:11-a on town property leases. Powers said current law is too restrictive because leases over five years require repeated town votes, which she argued is impractical for long-term arrangements. She cited examples from Hampton and Brookline, including long-term road and property leases, and said she had found multiple similar cases. The bill would keep select board authority for leases under one year, allow a legislative body to authorize a specific longer lease by a three-fifths ballot vote, and preserve the existing five-year blanket leasing authority with a three-fifths vote, while keeping existing leases valid if authority is later rescinded. Eric Power testified in support, describing recurring lease renewals in Brookline and saying longer terms are needed for projects such as housing, cell towers, and solar arrays. Members asked about the change from a simple town vote to a three-fifths threshold and whether the bill duplicates existing mechanisms; Powers said the higher threshold was intended because the leases involve long-term commitments. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described.

Transcript Highlights:

• on actions for damages due to childhood sexual abuse, applying the elimination of the statute retroactively
• on actions for damages due to childhood sexual abuse, applying the elimination of the statute retroactively

Transcript Highlights:

• Repeals existing law imposing the transit accommodations tax on cruise ships, effective retroactive to
• , we would have because it's retroactive, we would have to<02:06:33.119> work<02:06:33.360>
• effect, we would collect retroactively. effect, we would collect retroactively.
• Um, and also I'm glad the Department of Education decided to retroactively compensate 300 office workers
• 300 office retroactively compensate 300 office workers<02:31:03.040> at<02:31:03.280> the<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 2021, a transportation measure creating a framework for electric bicycle and micromobility regulation. The bill would define electric bicycle and electric micromobility device, set age and helmet rules, restrict class 3 e-bikes from sidewalks, allow limited sidewalk use for class 1 and 2 bikes, prohibit high-speed electric devices and certain nonconforming devices in specified locations, update county tax definitions, and change related terminology. Testimony was largely supportive from DOT, police, Honolulu officials, Hawaii Bicycling League, AAA Hawaii, the Hawaii State Teachers Association, and several individuals, while DCCA’s Insurance Division asked for clarity on whether insurance would be required. Committee discussion focused on safety, enforcement, and the fact that no insurance market currently exists for these e-bike classes; members also discussed the need to target bad actors rather than ordinary riders. The chair then proposed and the committee adopted amendments to HB 2021, including clarifying that road-legal, permitted, classified electric bicycles are not subject to insurance requirements at this time; allowing properly classified electric bicycles on sidewalks at 10 mph or less subject to county restrictions; barring high-speed electric devices and other nonconforming devices from public roadways; authorizing impoundment of non-road-legal or improperly registered devices; and requiring direct parental supervision for riders under 16 on class 2 or 3 e-bikes. The committee also made technical and effective-date changes. The recommendation to pass HB 2021 with amendments was adopted unanimously by the members present. The committee next took up HB 1641, a related transportation bill addressing high-speed electric devices. The chair explained that the measure would prohibit the sale, lease, rental, distribution, possession, or operation of high-speed electric devices and establish penalties, but the committee’s version would narrow the focus to devices covered by HB 2021. The amended bill would prohibit offering high-speed electric devices for lease or rent, require sellers to comply with the new regulatory framework, ban operation on bicycle lanes, highways, roadways, and streets, and set a civil penalty of $250 to $1,000 per violation. After no further questions, the committee voted to pass HB 1641 with amendments, and the recommendation was adopted. The meeting then moved to HB 1709, which would transfer regulation of the Hawaii Water Carrier Act from the Public Utilities Commission to the Department of Transportation and make conforming changes with an appropriation. DOT testified in support, while the PUC and DCCA’s Consumer Advocacy Division raised concerns about preserving consumer protections and the complexity of moving the regulatory framework. Young Brothers supported the bill and said the current system is outdated, but the discussion remained ongoing; the transcript cuts off before any final action on HB 1709 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• These provisions are effective retroactively to tax year 2024.
• These provisions are effective retroactively to tax year 2024.
• These provisions are effective retroactively to tax year 2024.
• These provisions are effective retroactively to tax year 2024.
• These provisions are effective retroactively to tax year 2024.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It talks about impairing or changing contracts retroactively to 2021.
• And I just don't see how we would should support this language without taking that retroactivity out
• Uh, if you're going to start retroactively changing agreements or contracts, which is in direct conflict
• <01:22:30.480> changing<01:22:31.040> agreements<01:22:31.600> or retroactively
• changing agreements or retroactively changing agreements or contracts,<01:22:32.360> which<01:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They'll have different levels of coverage, right?
• they're doing on specific skills or portions of those standards depending on the like I said the coverage
• a growth model in that setup that is about 35 questions. 35,000 questions about 85% of the TEEX coverage
• we agree are good, and you have an increasing of the standard. in the bill, but you don't do it retroactively
• No, TEA shifted the goalpost and applied harsher criteria retroactively.

Bills: HB4, HB54, SB 10, SB 24, HB4, HB54, HB775, HB850, HB 1122, HB 1249, HB1405, HB2336, HB2757, HB3372, HB3622, HB4442, HB4687, HB4893, HB5089, HB5515, HB5606, SB10, SB24, HB1573, HB3369

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, citizenship, U.S. citizen, non-citizen, public office, advisory board, task force, state government, local government, political subdivision, commission board, appointment eligibility, officeholder qualifications, public service, naturalization, Texas Government Code

Transcript Highlights:

• of are are categories that have a lot of provisions<00:48:01.280> with<00:48:01.599> retroactive
• <00:48:02.640> effective provisions with retroactive effective provisions with retroactive
• Again, many of these miscellaneous business provisions have retroactive effective dates. general fund
• If I'm understanding your question correctly, yes, it retroacts back to 25.
• Um, there's a retroactive provision for small businesses that goes back to tax year 2023.

Bills: HR1, HF387

Keywords: January 6 insurrection, pardon, law enforcement, violent crimes, public safety, justice system, political accountability, Blaine, local sales tax, special tax, restaurant tax, lodging tax, admissions tax, amusement tax, hotel tax, redevelopment, capital improvements, municipal finance, bonding authority, tourism tax

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's retroactive<00:53:24.720> for<00:53:25.040> taxable<00:53:25.440> years<
• 00:53:25.760> beginning retroactive for taxable years beginning retroactive for taxable years
• This section is effective retroactively for taxable years beginning after December 31st, 2022.
• This section is effective<00:59:15.000> retroactively<00:59:16.000> for<00:59:16.240>
• > taxable effective retroactively for taxable effective retroactively for taxable years<00:59:16.960

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This will amend that the Department of Labor shall not retroactively apply new rules and standards to
• This bill simply prevents blanket retroactive modernization mandates without documented safety findings

Bills: HB4248, HB4429, HB2588, HB3472, HB4317, HB3462, HB2035, HB3501, HB3127, HB3143, HB3144, HB3260, HB4321, HB3011, HB3522, HB3530

Keywords: HB4248, hemp beverage, hemp drinks, THC beverage, cannabis beverage, intoxicating hemp, age restriction, under 21, minor possession, youth access, public health and safety, Title 63, Oklahoma Statutes, retail sales, alcohol-style regulation, controlled substances, beverage regulation, proxy advisory services, shareholder rights, financial transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• Would we be able to retroactively do that, I guess, recommendation in some of the current leases?
• Would we be able to retroactive<00:44:38.160> these<00:44:39.040> that<00:44:39.760>
• I<00:44:40.000> guess<00:44:40.400> that retroactive these that I guess that retroactive
• So I don't think we can retroactive<00:44:47.040> the<00:44:47.440> part<00:44:47.680><
• c> that<00:44:47.839> makes<00:44:48.160> them<00:44:48.319> pay retroactive

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Water and Land met on March 25, 2025, and first announced it had deleted HCR 3 and HCR 4567 from the agenda pending similar Senate measures. It then heard HR 35/HCR 40, which urges DLNR and other state agencies to work with community groups to co-steward community forests on public lands. DLNR’s urban and community forester testified in strong support, and several organizations and individuals submitted support; there were no questions or opposition noted. The committee next heard HCR 64, asking OPSD to convene a working group on establishing and placing an Office of Resilience and Recovery. OPSD and the Governor’s Office of Recovery and Resilience supported the resolution and suggested friendly amendments, including replacing county civil defense representatives with mayors or their designees and allowing subject-matter experts to serve. Members questioned the office’s role, funding, and relationship to other resilience and emergency management offices, and the witness explained it was created after the Maui wildfires to coordinate long-term recovery, with special-project funding and a focus distinct from response and mental health functions. The committee also heard HR 59/HCR 65 on coordinating concurrent reviews of general plan, district boundary, and zoning amendments during land reclassification. OPSD testified with comments and warned that the proposal could facilitate spot zoning if individual landowners could use the concurrent process, recommending it be limited to county-initiated actions. A related discussion followed on HR 118/HCR 122, which would create a collaborative working group on surveying and protecting iwi kūpuna and related coastal erosion issues; DNR, OHA, and others supported it with suggested additions, and testimony emphasized cultural sensitivity and community-specific decision-making. Members asked about burial practices and a recent court ruling, and witnesses said the working group could help guide broader policy and communication. Finally, the committee heard HR 145/HCR 151, requesting DLNR to report on its lease enforcement process and procedures. DLNR said it was recruiting staff to conduct lease inspections but had difficulty filling positions due to compensation, and explained that new or extended leases can include inspection requirements, while retroactive cost-shifting would raise contractual issues. Members asked for information on lease renewal timelines and whether inspection provisions were being added to renewals; DLNR said those decisions are made in public sunshine meetings and agreed to provide additional information. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Bills: SB2097, SB2317, SB2319, SB2177, SB2190, SB2424, SB2524, SB2627, SB3084, SB895, SB896, SB3102, SB3157, SB3215, SB2050, SB2090, SB2211, SB2572, SB2096, SB2025, SB2127, SB2046, SB2262, SB2354, SB2387, SB2487, SB2955, SB3234, SB2851, SB2573, SB2391, SB3282, SB3055, SB2189, SB2194, SB3152, SB2635, SB888, SB2203, SCR1, SCR2, SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7, SCR8, SCR9, SCR10, SCR11, SCR12, SCR13, SCR14, SCR15, SCR16, SCR17, SCR18, SCR19, SCR20, SCR21, SCR22, SR3, SR5, SR6, SR7, SR8, SR9, SR10, SR11, SR12, SR13, SR14, SR15, SR16, SR17, SR18, SR19, SB2010, SB3118, SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing

Bills: SB2097, SB2317, SB2319, SB2177, SB2190, SB2424, SB2524, SB2627, SB3084, SB895, SB896, SB3102, SB3157, SB3215, SB2050, SB2090, SB2211, SB2572, SB2096, SB2025, SB2127, SB2046, SB2262, SB2354, SB2387, SB2487, SB2955, SB3234, SB2851, SB2573, SB2391, SB3282, SB3055, SB2189, SB2194, SB3152, SB2635, SB888, SB2203, SCR1, SCR2, SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7, SCR8, SCR9, SCR10, SCR11, SCR12, SCR13, SCR14, SCR15, SCR16, SCR17, SCR18, SCR19, SCR20, SCR21, SCR22, SR3, SR5, SR6, SR7, SR8, SR9, SR10, SR11, SR12, SR13, SR14, SR15, SR16, SR17, SR18, SR19, SB2010, SB3118, SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing

Transcript Highlights:

• He said the administration knew it had to do something for FY26 and that the retroactivity of the provisions
• fly adjust a budget mid-year you know we knew that we had to do something for FY 26 and also the retroactivity
• of the provisions were very were very costly and problematic for the retroactivity of the provisions
• If I could just quickly, the retroactive part makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on H. 4975, Governor Healey’s bill to manage the impact of the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OB3) on Massachusetts tax law and state revenues. Administration officials, led by Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorowitz, said OB3 would otherwise reduce FY26 revenue by about $442 million and argued for a phased-in conformity approach that would preserve the current-year budget while still adopting selected federal business tax provisions over time. The proposal would phase in the research and experimental expenditure deduction first, delay other major corporate provisions for two years, extend the pass-through entity excise to income subject to the 4% surtax, add a one-year delay mechanism for future federal tax changes over $20 million, limit opportunity zone benefits to Massachusetts investments, and make smaller technical changes to DFML contributions and casino reporting thresholds. Committee members questioned the rationale for phasing in rather than fully decoupling, the effect on the budget if the bill did not pass, and the treatment of opportunity zones, the surtax, and future federal tax changes. Public testimony was split. MassBudget, Progressive Massachusetts, and several labor and public-sector groups urged the committee to permanently decouple from the federal corporate tax changes rather than delay them, arguing that the bill would still send state revenue to corporate tax breaks, often for investments outside Massachusetts, and that the state should protect funding for schools, health care, human services, and other public services. The Massachusetts Society of CPAs supported the administration’s timing and the research-and-development provisions, citing filing deadlines and the importance of certainty for businesses and startups. Business and tax experts also testified that rushed conformity can create revenue losses and that the governor’s review-and-delay framework was a prudent improvement, though some said decoupling should be the default if the Legislature does not act. Unite Here Local 26 testified against sections 3 and 4, which would raise the slot-machine jackpot reporting threshold from $1,200 to $2,000, arguing the current threshold helps with problem-gambling intervention, preserves slot attendant jobs, and generates revenue. Several union leaders, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, AFT Massachusetts, SEIU 509, the Massachusetts Building Trades, the AFL-CIO, and 1199 SEIU, urged permanent decoupling, warning that OB3’s federal tax cuts and related spending reductions would worsen budget pressures, harm public services, and shift costs onto workers, patients, and schools. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the examples given was what Judy Randall found in an OA report about retroactively dating some
• OA was um what Judy Randall found in an OA report<00:22:46.880> about<00:22:47.600> retroactively
• <00:22:48.880> dating<00:22:49.760> some report about retroactively dating some report
• about retroactively dating some documents<00:22:51.039> to<00:22:51.280> show<00:22:51.440

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House DFL leaders held a press availability outlining a broad anti-fraud agenda focused on state programs, especially Medicaid-related services, but also unemployment and tax fraud. They said the package is intended to strengthen accountability, improve oversight, and prevent fraud before it occurs, while arguing that fraud harms vulnerable Minnesotans such as children with autism, people with disabilities, seniors, and homeless people. They also tied the problem to long-term privatization of public services, arguing that outsourcing creates more layers and opportunities for fraud, and cited examples like county case management and managed care arrangements. Specific proposals discussed included strengthening the attorney general’s Medicaid fraud control unit, creating or expanding inspector general functions, requiring more in-person site visits, using electronic visit verification, improving background checks and fingerprinting, and upgrading outdated IT systems. Members said some bills would be relatively low-cost while others would require funding, and that bills without fiscal notes might move separately while others could be folded into budget discussions. They also said the House DFL had already taken steps in prior sessions, including creating a fraud unit at the BCA and adding DHS staff for site visits. The discussion also covered the Office of Inspector General bill, with DFL members saying they support placing the office in the executive branch and that the governor should make the final appointment for constitutional reasons. They said Republicans had blocked amendments they viewed as adding fraud-prevention authority to the OIG bill, and that the governor’s staff had not been involved in working groups. On a separate bill involving disclosure requirements, they said the committee version was improved but still flawed because it could interfere with investigations; they said it would next go to the Children and Families Committee. No votes were taken in the exchange, and members said they were still early in session and hoped for more constructive negotiations later.

Transcript Highlights:

• And there is a section just making sure that it is retroactive to August 1st, 2023.
• sure<00:26:26.799> that<00:26:27.120> it<00:26:27.919> is<00:26:28.159> retroactive
• <00:26:28.880> to<00:26:29.279> August sure that it is retroactive to August sure that
• it is retroactive to August 1st,<00:26:30.279> 2023.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This retroactively repeals the sunset date for the authorizations for primary caregivers to cultivate
• thank you next up is sp1<00:24:19.120> 1429<00:24:20.080> this<00:24:20.320> retroactively
• <00:24:21.159> repeals<00:24:21.679> the sp1 1429 this retroactively repeals the sp1
• 1429 this retroactively repeals the sunset<00:24:22.200> data<00:24:22.520> the<00:24:

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection and Judiciary decision-making meeting on February 21, 2025, considered a long list of previously heard measures and generally recommended passage, often with amendments that delayed effective dates to July 1, 2050 or made technical clarifications. Among the measures acted on were bills relating to property, hotels, service disruptions, transportation, consumer protection, license plates, condominium disputes and fines, election fraud intimidation, vehicle inspection fines, restaurant reservation services, insurance claim checks, foreclosed home sales, labor relations court authority, public housing authority powers, community outreach boards, arson penalties, driving without a valid license, pet animals in vehicles, important agricultural lands, public records retention, transit-oriented development review, sex offender-related licensing actions, National Guard assault penalties, federal recognition timing, medical cannabis caregivers, cease-and-desist orders, and critical infrastructure information sharing. Several measures drew specific discussion or reservations. SB 1030 on election fraud intimidation was amended after consultation with the Attorney General to focus on unconcealed carry and add definitions. SB 5 on legislative vacancies was recommended to pass unamended, but the committee noted constitutional concerns and requested an Attorney General opinion. SB 95 on inspection fines was amended to set a $400 fine amount, though one member objected and the recommendation failed in at least one committee. SB 102 on third-party restaurant reservation services was amended to clarify who may sue and to allow contracted reservation services to distribute reservations on a restaurant’s behalf. SP 1022 on leaving pets in vehicles was amended to remove duplicative language because existing animal cruelty law already covered the conduct. SP 1451 on critical infrastructure information sharing was amended to tighten confidentiality language from “would reveal” to “could reveal” vulnerabilities. Most measures were adopted by the committees with little or no opposition, though several members noted reservations or objections on particular bills, including transportation, consumer protection, and inspection-fine measures. One bill, SB 1255 on records retention for government-function contractors, was deferred to a later meeting on February 26, 2025. Overall, the committees advanced most measures with amendments and recorded the recommendations for transmission to the next committee or chamber.

Transcript Highlights:

• Administration Committee on consent with the initially introduced language, which was prospective and had no retroactive
• had<00:14:18.240> no which was prospective and had no which was prospective and had no retroactive
• > sections<00:14:20.639> then<00:14:20.800> it<00:14:20.959> passed retroactive
• sections then it passed retroactive sections then it passed Senate<00:14:21.639> finance<00:14

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on House Bill 637, which was described as a measure to make whole certain New Hampshire Retirement System retirees who were not included when Senate Bill 57 was incorporated into the 2023 budget. The chair and several members reviewed the bill’s legislative history and fiscal impact, citing estimates that the broader change would cost about $1.4 million to the state and $5.74 million to municipalities, with an actuarial liability increase of about $45 million. The chair argued that the omission of already-retired members was not an oversight but a policy choice made in the Senate, based on the bill’s prospective language and the budget process used in 2023. Testimony and discussion focused on whether the bill should be treated as a fairness correction or as an expensive policy expansion. Supporters, including retirees and representatives of employee groups, said the language was unclear, the fiscal note did not match the bill’s effect, and the change would unfairly leave out actual retirees who had expected the same treatment as active members. They also argued that the retirement system historically linked benefits to Social Security and that the bill would restore equity for those affected. Opponents emphasized the cost, the prospective nature of the original language, and the view that the Senate knowingly chose not to extend the change retroactively. After discussion, the chair moved to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate, and the motion was seconded. Members then heard brief public comments after the motion was withdrawn and reintroduced because of the weather and the public’s travel. At the final vote, the subcommittee recommended inexpedient to legislate on a 3-2 vote, with the chair noting that the full committee would take up other bills at a later subcommittee hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• They just don't want retroactive changes, and that's what your language suggests.
• retroactive changes and that's what your<00:27:26.000> language<00:27:26.480> suggests.
• On one hand, you have the no retroactive provision.
• <00:39:28.720> to uh gets decided that is retroactive to uh gets decided that is retroactive
• From what I understand, retroactively.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• This retroactive imposing of the change of vesting raises some questions we might ask.
• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• Does this violate the State Constitution, which prevents retroactive laws?
• They made similar changes but did not make them retroactively.

Keywords: 1189, house, all