Transcript Highlights:

• We will be discussing proposals We will be discussing proposals.
• The investments we are making with our one-house budgets and the Governor proposed are really important
• One is the proposal the Governor has to expand SUNY Reconnect, which is allowing students from age 25
• One is the proposal the Governor has to expand SUNY Reconnect, which is allowing students from age 25
• The changes that are being proposed by, you know, in terms of the TAP program, I think, go a long way

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee met to discuss budget priorities for SUNY, CUNY, community colleges, TAP, student aid, and capital funding. Chair Toby Ann Stavisky emphasized the need for increased operating and capital support, protection against enrollment-based funding losses, no tuition increases, a review of TAP because it has not kept pace with living costs, and action on student loan access and research funding cuts. Assembly Chair Alicia Hyndman outlined the Assembly’s higher education proposal, including $475.7 million to expand TAP eligibility, raising income thresholds for TAP and the Excelsior Scholarship, creating a graduate tuition assistance program, adding community college operating aid, expanding the Opportunity Promise Scholarship, forgiving SUNY hospital debt service, increasing CUNY operating support, restoring opportunity program funding, creating a $110 million student loan support program called New York Rises, and funding five-year capital plans for SUNY and CUNY plus additional ECAP grants. Members broadly supported making higher education more affordable and accessible, while highlighting district-specific needs. Senator May praised SUNY Reconnect, community college workforce programs, hospital debt service relief, and a five-year SUNY capital plan. Senator Gonzalez framed the budget as an investment in economic mobility. Senator Griffo supported affordability, operating and capital aid, and additional support for medical schools and hospitals. Assembly Members Walker, Colton, and Fall backed TAP expansion, opportunity programs, disability supports, SUNY Downstate’s transformation, and capital needs at CUNY and SUNY campuses. Assembly Member Smullen, speaking for the minority conference, urged a five-way budget process, said TAP has not kept pace with inflation, and called for a more stable long-term funding model for community colleges. He also stressed aligning higher education with workforce needs. Assembly Member Pirozzolo pointed to the College of Staten Island as an example of the benefits of investment and warned that employers recruiting students directly from high school could weaken higher education unless colleges continue strengthening trade and career training. The meeting ended with no vote on the budget items, and the chairs adjourned the conference committee after concluding remarks.

Transcript Highlights:

• The document is titled Proposed Sections for Adoption, 5/19/2025, on the top.
• c><00:25:03.919> polling<00:25:04.320> places proposal related to um polling places proposal
• related to this topic that is proposed related to this topic that is proposed to<00:25:14.240>
• The proposal is legislative vacancies.
• Row 11 proposal is is an effective date.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're not proposing trailer bill language.
• Switching gears to the PACE and HCBA sanctions proposal, the HCBA waiver and PACE sanctions proposal
• We have two comments on the fees proposal. This is not on the sanctions proposal.
• We also regrettably oppose both proposals.
• Sure, and so our proposal...

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• Question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• The House proposal of amendment?

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• will see a tax cut under the proposal will see a tax cut under the proposal and<00:19:45.760>
• <00:42:18.440> would abstract pilt cut in this proposal would abstract pilt cut in this proposal
• you're going home to potential proposed you're going home to potential proposed levies<00:43:08.160
• <00:53:15.240> the negatively impacted by The Proposal the negatively impacted by The Proposal
• proposed appropriation.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2437, the governor’s proposed tax bill, and first adopted the A25-Z42 amendment to put the bill in the desired shape. Commissioner Paul Marquardt of the Department of Revenue then presented the bill as part of Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan’s budget, describing it as a response to budget pressures that would make the tax system more fair and stable while supporting economic development and jobs. Marquardt walked through the bill’s major provisions. These included sustainable aviation fuel policy, repeal of K-12 education credit assignment, elimination of the political contribution refund, expansion of the research and development credit, short-line railroad infrastructure modernization, changes to the state airport fund levy, replacement of attachments and appearances with distribution systems, a narrow personal property tax exception for low-income housing tenants, reduced aquatic invasive species aid, and a 34% reduction in PILT payments. He then focused on the sales tax article, saying it would lower the statewide rate by 0.75% while expanding the base to selected professional services such as accounting, banking, brokerage, and legal services, with business-to-business transactions exempt. He said the proposal would be effective for sales and purchases after September 30, 2025, and estimated a first-year rate-cut impact of about $99 million versus $215 million from the service expansion, while arguing that most households would see a net tax cut. He also noted other changes such as landlord penalty adjustments, a 30% reduction in sustainable aviation fuel incentive payments, repeal of local government cannabis aid, and repeal of the tax filing modernization account. Public testimony began with Kyle Playford of the Financial Planning Association of Minnesota, who strongly opposed the proposed sales tax on professional services, especially financial planning. He argued that financial planning is an essential service for retirement, investment, and long-term financial security, and said the tax would raise costs for consumers, reduce access for middle-class families, small business owners, and retirees, and put Minnesota firms at a competitive disadvantage. The chair then indicated that additional public testimony would continue before member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• prepared a proposed CD1. prepared a proposed CD1.
• your proposal.
• Yes, to outline your proposal.
• iteration of your proposal. Correct. to iteration of your proposal.
• outline your proposal. Yes. outline your proposal. Yes.

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:

• The purpose of this meeting is to insert the provisions of the proposed SD1 that is posted online and
• The recommendation of the chair is to pass SB 2656 proposed SD1 with amendments and recommit the bill
• Uh, we will take the testimony on the proposed SD2.
• Uh we will take the testimony on the proposed<00:03:03.120> SD2.
• So when submitting your proposed SD2.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee opened with the 10:54 agenda and took up SB 2656, a short-form bill relating to taxation. The chair explained the intent was to insert the provisions of proposed SD1, then recommit the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means so the process could start over and a full hearing could be held later. The committee adopted the chair’s recommendation to pass SB 2656 proposed SD1 with amendments and recommit it, with aye votes from the chair, vice chair, and several senators, and reservations from Senators Elefante, Wai, and Favlla; Senators Kidani and McKim were excused. For the remaining three agendas on that meeting block, no oral testimony was taken. The chair said there was a large volume of written testimony, so the committee would review it and defer decision-making to a later date on all three measures. The meeting then moved through the 10:55, 10:56, and 10:57 agendas. On the 10:55 agenda, the committee said it would defer decision-making to Monday, March 2, except for SB 334, which would be deferred and then reposted as proposed SD2 for a full hearing, with testimony to be submitted on the proposed SD2 rather than the current version. On the 10:56 and 10:57 agendas, the committee deferred decision-making to Tuesday, March 3, at 10:15 a.m. in conference room 211, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• BY THESE PROPOSALS I HAD NO REASON TO DOUBT THEIR ALIGNMENT WITH HOPE FLORIDA'S INITIATIVE.
• ARON ALREADY AWARE OF THESE PROPOSALS PRIOR TO RECEIVING THEM?
• WE MADE THESE PROPOSALS AND THEY WERE GRANT FOR $5 MILLION A PIECE.
• >> THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. BOTH ARE RECEIVED ON E MAIL UNSOLICITED.
• WHO AND WHAT IS THERE AND ACTUALLY PREPARING THESE GRANT PROPOSALS?

Transcript Highlights:

• And what >> Did you guys submit a proposal?
• Um, proposals of gun legislation at all?
• >> Yeah, looking at the governor's proposal >> Yeah, looking at the governor's proposal
• We have to have bills that proposal.
• >> We made a proposal. We made an offer.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The amount that we have this year, but there is a proposal for $66 million in the governor's proposed
• So early on, we were able to fund every viable proposal.
• So this is a $50 million one-time proposal.
• We recommend rejecting the loan repayment program proposal.
• We support the Governor's proposals on teacher workforce.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And proposal for for fiscal year 2026.
• total expenses after proposed total expenses after proposed appropriation<00:03:56.560> increases
• included in the governor's proposal included in the governor's proposal impact<00:08:09.840>
• <00:08:41.360> And speak about uh each proposal. And speak about uh each proposal.
• proposals? proposals? Uh<00:42:06.000> thank<00:42:06.079> you,<00:42:06.240> Mr.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee reviewed differences among the Governor’s, House, and Senate proposals for state grant parameter changes and their effects on state grant spending, North Star Promise spending, and average student awards. Nonpartisan staff explained that the proposals use different combinations of parameter changes, with the Governor’s and Senate plans modeled to avoid or minimize rationing, while the House plan would require rationing to balance the program. Staff reported projected biennium balances of a positive $29.836 million for the Governor’s proposal, a negative $60.758 million for the House proposal without rationing, a positive $994,000 for the House proposal with rationing, and a positive $3.623 million for the Senate proposal; North Star Promise balances also varied, with the Senate showing a positive balance and the Governor and House with rationing showing negative balances. Staff also said the Senate proposal would extend availability of the state grant appropriation and suspend surplus procedures through fiscal year 2029, allowing the balance to carry forward. The committee then focused on the House-only tuition and fee cap provision, which would limit the tuition recognized for state grant purposes for four-year programs to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities level, with 1% annual increases in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. House members said the cap was intended to address rising tuition, especially at the University of Minnesota, and to produce savings in the state grant program. The governor’s office confirmed the provision was not included in the Governor’s bill. Representatives from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Private College Council opposed the cap, arguing it would reduce awards for low-income students and shift costs to students rather than address underlying tuition pressures; they also said it could discourage enrollment at higher-cost institutions. Supporters from Minnesota State argued the cap would improve fairness because students at lower-tuition institutions are effectively capped lower, while students at more expensive institutions receive larger awards, and they said the legislature should intervene in a variable that has grown substantially over time. Committee members questioned how the cap would work and whether it was tied to the Twin Cities campus rate. Testifiers clarified that the state grant formula is tied to the University of Minnesota level, but because Minnesota State institutions are below that level, the cap effectively limits their students to their own lower tuition while allowing higher awards at the University of Minnesota and private colleges. No formal vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue with item-by-item review of the remaining parameter changes and hear additional testimony from agencies and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Going down to lines 14 and 15, you will see operating adjustments also at the governor's proposed levels
• levels for veterans uh the proposed levels for veterans uh the department<00:04:49.759> of<00
• These are from Representative<00:09:10.399> Olsen's<00:09:11.120> proposal<00:09:11.600
• > to Representative Olsen's proposal to Representative Olsen's proposal to provide<00:09:12.480
• <00:10:19.920> on where the Senate and House proposals on where the Senate and House proposals

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I WILL NOW ADDRESS EACH OF THE PROPOSED SECTIONS.
• THAT'S WHAT THESE PROPOSED RULES TO. AND LIKE I SAID IN 2016 THEY GAVE US TWO SETS OF RULES.
• AS WE APPROACH FEBRUARY 2023 A LOT OF THOSE CHANGES WERE PUT INTO A PROPOSED RULE.
• SO THE DEPARTMENT AGAIN A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT PROPOSALS AND AGAIN IT'S $3100.
• SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE INTENDED ACTION WHICH IS THE PROPOSED RULE.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• IN 2024, STAFF REVIEWED 1355 PROPOSED RULES, 119 EMERGENCY RULES, AND 1243 FORMS, MANUALS, AND OTHER
• OBJECTIONS CAN BE MADE TO PROPOSED AND EXISTING RULES.
• OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION DURING THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
• THE PROPOSED RULES PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO COMMITTEE STAFF IN THE REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULES AND OUTLINE PROCEDURES
• Seeing none, members of the committee, any comments regarding the OBJECTION, OR PROPOSED OBJECTIONS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have uh sent you a proposed this.
• Um I proposal for uh conference draft.
• We do have a proposed We do have a proposed CD1,<00:37:20.720> which<00:37:20.960> I
• cons that's that's my proposal to Okay. cons that's that's my proposal to Okay.
• Uh our proposed CD1 includes um measure.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:41:19.760> That tax relief that is proposed. That tax relief that is proposed.
• case uh the case here in this proposal. case uh the case here in this proposal.
• Then we just heard what the governor may be proposing, and then under this proposal what it does is to
• and then under this u proposing and then under this u proposal<01:00:26.040> um<01:00:27.040>
• Chairman, I I bring<01:02:29.599> this<01:02:29.839> proposal bring this proposal bring

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are also proposing the county's dime.
• <00:12:48.720> incentive We also propose a one-time incentive We also propose a one-time incentive
• . proposal. proposal.
• point in our proposal. point in our proposal.
• <00:21:31.840> fair<00:21:32.080> and proposal overall creates a fair and proposal

Keywords: Reupload to restore attendance roll call Roll Call 00:00:00 Approval of Minutes from September Meeting 00:00:24 Presentation of the Kentucky Association of Counties Legislative Platform for the Upcoming 2026 Session 00:01:48 Discussion of Legislation Concerning Firefighter Death Benefits 00:35:43 Discussion of DNA Collection in Jails for Felony Arrests 00:45:52 Discussion of Federal Immigration Law Enforcement 00:54:18 Adjournment 01:15:39, 958, all

Summary: The committee met for its sixth meeting, established a quorum, and approved the minutes from the October 21 meeting. The main agenda item was a presentation from Kentucky Association of Counties (KACo) leaders and county officials on jail funding and jail-system reform. Speakers said county jail costs have reached crisis levels, citing large and rising general-fund subsidies in counties such as Hardin, McCracken, and Warren, and noting that county general-fund contributions to jail funds have increased by 76% since 2019. KACo outlined a three-part legislative approach for the upcoming session: incentivizing regional jails, clarifying responsibility for pre-trial felony detainees, and redefining the model for housing state inmates in county jails. On regional jails, they proposed one-time state construction funding, statutory changes to allow former county jails to serve as 96-hour holdover facilities, broader participation of jailers on regional jail authority boards, an increased supplement for closed county jails, and a one-time payment for counties that close local jails and join regional facilities. Union County Judge Adam Onan described his county’s savings from contracting with Webster County and said regionalization can reduce costs where feasible. Harlan County Judge Executive Dan Mosley focused on pre-trial felony detainees, saying counties bear the full cost of housing people awaiting trial for long periods, sometimes years, and that pre-trial time is later credited toward state sentences. He argued the state benefits from that credit and referenced prior bills that would have reimbursed counties for time-served credit. Shelley Hampton then proposed replacing the current per diem model for state inmates with contracts requiring the Department of Corrections to pay actual housing costs and to support programming such as substance abuse treatment, cognitive behavioral programming, re-entry services, workforce training, and academics. No votes were taken on the jail proposals, and the meeting ended with the presentation and discussion of the county recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• budget is basically a plan of proposed budget is basically a plan of proposed revenue<00:20:55.880
• The proposal of the bill is to law.
• <00:43:34.120> of Senate concur in the House proposal of Senate concur in the House proposal
• of amendment with in the house proposal of amendment with further<01:15:30.360> proposal<01:15
• technical change and the Senate proposal technical change and the Senate proposal apparently<01:

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:29:56.600> being um if a project is proposed being um if a project is proposed being proposed
• of that in this bill um we did propose of that in this bill um we did propose some<01:37:57.440>
• proposal that anyone in the community or I don’t even think any agencies are aware of that proposed
• I respectfully share that t grins are most definitely included in this proposal, and there is no proposal
• part of the proposal and one of the huge part of the proposal and one of the huge uh<01:44:28.599>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land met on March 13, 2025, and first announced that SB 1456 would be deferred to the end of the agenda and ultimately worked on later, with the chair indicating the bill would be deferred and revisited in a future measure. The committee then heard SB 841 on marine life conservation districts. DLNR supported the bill, saying it would fund carrying capacity studies to inform rules and policies. Testimony noted a pilot study already underway at the Puka Marine Life Conservation District and another nearing completion at the old Kona Airport MLCD. Members discussed costs, with DLNR estimating about $300,000 per year for one user-experience study, potentially more for ecological analysis, and also discussed possible funding from the Mālama Kai special fund. DLNR said it had no objection to consulting current operators and other users, and explained the program would be a new, ongoing adaptive-management tool. The committee next heard SB 411 on capital improvement projects at small boat harbors. DLNR supported the intent, saying the bill would help expedite use of special funds for CIP work, while the Department of Budget and Finance opposed it, arguing the draft could conflict with constitutional limits on appropriations. Public testimony from an industry representative supported the bill and urged more collaboration with commercial operators, while committee discussion focused on whether DLNR could already use special funds for repairs, how much engineering and bidding work is required before projects go out to bid, and whether the current process creates bottlenecks when bids exceed initial estimates. DLNR said it can do some repairs and maintenance within existing authority and funding ceilings, but that the bill as drafted could be too broad. The committee also heard SB 5 on historic preservation, where DLNR supported the measure and NAOP Hawaii opposed it, saying the bill’s broader definition could expand the scope beyond the stated goal of narrowing reviews and reducing backlog. The committee then took up SB 1462 on the state historic preservation income tax credit. The Department of Taxation said the revenue estimate assumes the cap would be reached each year the credit is available, and DLNR supported the bill. SHPD said the prior credit had sunset, outreach had previously been done in targeted communities such as Chinatown, and owners of eligible historic properties are notified during review. Finally, the committee heard SB 268 on island burial councils. DLNR supported the bill, and OHA strongly supported it, saying the councils have struggled with quorum and expertise and that the measure would restore the original intent of having lineal descendants and cultural practitioners as decision makers, while still allowing landowners and developers to testify and participate. OHA also said it would help provide technical support and urged continued involvement from SHPD and the Attorney General’s office.

Transcript Highlights:

• S. 163 was passed by the House with a proposal of amendment.
• The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• in the house proposal of amendment? in the house proposal of amendment?
• proposal proposal of<00:09:01.600> amendment<00:09:02.160> on<00:09:02.480> S of

Keywords: 927, senate, all