Transcript Highlights:

• We can call them and have them come down and move it if you like.
• I want you to call the people who pay the assessment.
• Actually, I've heard that before. Thank you. Yeah, well, it's confusing.
• I almost called you Dr. Chas, Mr. Chas.”
• </c> come before the Pu and then the Pu you come before the Pu and then the Pu you know<05:27:39.440>

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, Representative Mecklin, if you want to make your way up, if you have anybody that wants to join you
• or whatever, are you— is the project you do, you have a plan to supplement, or are you looking that
• Um and thank you &gt;&gt; Thank you Mr. Chair.
• c> uh and uh what will you be will you be uh and uh what will you be will you be looking<00:14:03.360
• Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. I appreciate that. Um, so I want to dig into a few things here.

Bills: HF4770

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Summary: The committee approved the March 26 minutes and then took up House File 4770, as amended by an A1 technical amendment. The bill was presented as a proposal to help Liberty Diversified International and Liberty Paper in Becker plan for replacement steam and energy supply as the Shuro facility closure approaches in 2030. Testimony described Liberty Paper’s current closed-loop steam arrangement with Shuro, the need to study future fuel and technology options, and the potential use of anaerobic digestion, biomass, construction and demolition waste, and food waste to produce steam and possibly power. Members asked about feedstock availability, the need for a feasibility study, possible backup natural gas use, and whether waste heat or wastewater heat could be useful. The bill was laid over as amended. The committee then heard a presentation from CenterPoint Energy on Minnesota heating demand and electrification. CenterPoint staff said affordability and reliability are central concerns and outlined how the utility manages customer costs through energy efficiency, contracting, storage, peak shaving, and conservation. Dr. Joel Lynch presented research on peak heating with natural gas and the “missing piece” in Minnesota’s electrification puzzle, explaining that Minnesota’s cold climate makes winter heating demand especially challenging and that replacing natural gas would require substantial new electric capacity and renewable resources. He compared his work with prior national and state studies and said the analysis used Minnesota-specific gas throughput, COP assumptions across several electrification scenarios, and January renewable capacity data. Lynch summarized preliminary findings that Minnesota’s peak gas heating throughput could be up to 40 gigawatts, with electric resistance heating implying roughly 36 gigawatts of new demand, and lower but still substantial demand under heat-pump scenarios. The presentation was informational only; no vote was taken on the CenterPoint presentation. The meeting ended with House File 4770 laid over and the energy demand presentation continuing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Clerk will call the roll. Senator Schroeder. Present. Senator King. Here.
• But that is permissive, and I think you said before, yes, you allow that policy.
• I think you said before, yes, you allow that policy. It is required by statute in every case.
• I think we talked about that before. And has this rule... By rule, have you changed that?
• And I think you said before, yes, you allow that policy? It is required by statute in every case?

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Were you satisfied? Would you call us again in the future? So we've, what were, as Mr.
• So if the committee meets before the November 1st date, you will have that document available to you.
• So you can see in 2020, we took just over 2,800 calls on our North Dakota 988 phone line.
• And I'll point out too, just as you called it out, is we've never increased the $66.

Committee: Joint Information Technology Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Further, tell the agency you need that information before you start working on their budget.
• As we dig into the numbers deeper in this process and I would say like you look at an agency like TEA
• And, you know, members, every session, agencies come before us.
• And how long was that going on before it was determined? So, thank you, Madam Chair.
• It's called seat management ma'am new to me. Thank Thank you.

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So, and so called while you were out.
• Um, I think you got to dig into it, why it's important.
• /c><01:20:57.679><c> it's</c> I think you got to dig into it why it's I think you got to dig into it
• Um, and before we adjourn, I'll just throw it to Co-Chair Scott if you had anything you wanted to add
• You can, like, call. That's fair. Yes. Excuses. Cool. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.

Summary: The committee approved the October 15, 2025 minutes and then held a broader discussion on current challenges with data retention and government transparency. Judy Randall of the Office of the Legislative Auditor said historical data is essential for post-audits, which often look back three to five years, and that retention decisions must balance audit needs with the burden of separating public and nonpublic data. She described the records-retention panel process as informal and largely based on individual judgment, noting she had objected to a proposed 60-day email retention period and generally uses a three-year guideline, though she said that standard is not grounded in a formal rule. Members discussed whether auditing standards should set retention periods, with Randall saying auditing is a good starting point but other offices, including the attorney general, also have needs, and that some agency discretion is unavoidable because of the gray area between official records and non-records. Representative Elkins raised the related principle of data minimization, arguing that government should not keep data longer than needed and citing a University of Minnesota legacy data warehouse breach as an example of the risks of retaining unnecessary sensitive information. Randall agreed that data no longer needed is a liability and said her office purges workpapers after five years. Representative Scott pressed whether three years is enough for fraud investigations and financial records; Randall responded that a reasonableness standard is needed and that longer retention can produce diminishing returns, though she said she would follow up on whether financial records should be treated differently. Tanya Tacker of the Rum River Special Education Cooperative testified in support of updating Minnesota’s data-retention laws for schools. She said districts want to protect student information and maintain transparency, but the current general retention schedule dates to 1985 and 2000 and does not reflect digital records, modern systems, or the volume of special education data. She urged modernizing the schedule, clarifying what must be kept in paper versus digitized form, aligning state rules with IDEA and other federal requirements, and providing practical guidance and tools. Members praised the specificity of her recommendations. Dr. BB Newman testified that retention failures in St. Anthony Village have made it difficult to obtain routine municipal and police data, with records delayed, missing, or inconsistently produced and no clear explanation of what systems were searched or whether records were destroyed. Newman argued these gaps undermine statutory access rights and force residents into costly litigation, and recommended stronger retention auditing, documentation of destruction, mandatory disclosure of systems searched, and consequences for noncompliance. In response to questions, Senate counsel said there is generally no direct penalty, but affected parties may seek mandamus, Data Practices Act claims, or informal mediation/opinions from the Data Practices Office. The discussion closed with calls for clearer standards and possible legislative updates to improve compliance and transparency.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Were you satisfied? Would you call us again in the future? So we've, what were, as Mr.
• So if the committee meets before the November 1st date, you will have that document available to you.
• And I'll point out too, just as you called it out, is we've never increased the $66.
• It's a fair question to, you know, maybe have a, you know, take a motion before, you know, before we

Committee: Joint Information Technology Committee

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• I call this meeting to order. So glad to have you here.
• So you all define, you all look at the, you complete the adequacy study, you define adequacy, you determine

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the previous minutes and then focused on an update from the Department of Education on early childhood programs, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ongoing work to review ABC slots, which have been flat for years at about 23,800 slots and roughly $114 million. They said about 1,000 slots statewide are currently unfilled despite a waiting list of more than 2,000 families, and the department is shifting toward paying based on enrollment rather than guaranteed slots. Members asked about school choice, income eligibility, year-round access, curriculum flexibility, transportation, and whether funding should be increased or rebalanced; the department said it is collecting data, may survey providers more formally, and is considering whether to modernize income thresholds, daily rates, and other program rules. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical information on income limits and other program details. The second major portion of the meeting was a legal presentation on the framework for Arkansas school adequacy by BLR education attorney Taylor Lloyd. She reviewed the constitutional basis for a “general, suitable, and efficient” public school system, the Dupree and Lake View cases, and the principle that adequacy and equity are different but related: adequacy asks what resources are needed, while equity asks whether those resources are distributed fairly. She explained that the General Assembly must define adequacy, study it, and react to evidence over time, and that the current adequacy definition includes curriculum and career/technical frameworks, the 38 mandatory Carnegie units, state testing standards, and sufficient funding. She also described the matrix as a funding tool, not a spending mandate, and noted that categorical funds are separate from the matrix. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum then gave the historical framework, tracing legislative responses from Dupree through Lake View and into the present. She highlighted major changes such as the creation of equalization funding, fiscal distress and academic distress laws, the adequacy study process, the Educational Adequacy Fund, facilities and transportation changes, declining enrollment and student growth funding, and later adjustments to teacher salaries, isolated funding, and categorical programs. She explained that the adequacy study has evolved through committee hearings, surveys, site visits, and outside consultants, and that recent changes include updates to accountability references and the addition or removal of certain funding categories. Members asked follow-up questions about how the matrix is used, whether homeschool or private-school funding raises comparable issues, whether stakeholders include private and homeschool participants, whether school board members should be surveyed, and whether the state should revisit average daily membership versus attendance-based funding. No votes were taken on the adequacy presentations, but the committee did agree to continue the early childhood discussion in a future subcommittee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So whether you call it one door, no wrong door, the...
• So whether you call it one door, no wrong door, the governor, from our understanding, likes the no wrong
• There really, and I've mentioned this to you all before, but just something to think about as we ask
• If you remember Rachel and Les from our team, who were here before, Les is the expert on this.
• Just real quick, so I don't know if Representative Wilders has heard the audit that you did before, so

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, before we move on to business, as the public may know, you have seen increased security around
• Thank you. So everything. Thank you.
• Thank you, Commissioner. >> Thank you. Mr.
• Um, can you expand on &gt;&gt; Thank you, chair.
• Thank you. demolished. Thank you.

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you.
• Thank you. Ranking Member Schmick has a question for you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you, Robert. Whenever you're ready, please proceed. Yes, can you hear me?
• You can hear you just fine. Great. Thank you very much.
• You cannot fix what you cannot see. You cannot fix what you cannot see.

Bills: HB2555 , HB2658 , HB2683 , HB2685 , HB2168 , HB2196 , HB2545

Committee: House Health Care & Wellness

Keywords: Medicaid, healthcare, traditional practices, health insurance, coverage expansion, mental health, insurance coverage, transparency, consumer protection, efficiency, health carriers, providers relations, tribal data, data protection, privacy, sharing of information, Indigenous rights, overdose prevention, data sharing, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. But before we do that, we've had some additional people.
• And I got to tell you, we do it just by calling people. It's a lot of work.
• And I'd like to just ask, I know that there were, before you came, before you even had your first day
• Into the ground where you dig a trench or plow.
• Last year, before you came on board, but I think you were briefed on this, was that communities had to

Committee: House Economic & Rural Development & Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• years before you can serve on the board.
• And if you could be ready whenever I call for you, please be ready to come up here.
• ... ...understand their water system, extend, you know, understand the challenges long before you get
• Thank you. understand their water system, extend, you know, understand the challenges long before you
• Yeah, if you want to call sewage for profit.

Committee: House Conservation and Natural Resources

Summary: The Conservation and Natural Resources Committee first took up Senate Bill 953, which was described as ensuring environmental protection funds remain dedicated to that purpose. The committee substitute added provisions from House Bill 1885, changing Clean Water Commission membership conflict rules, and Senate Bill 1397, giving certain reservoir water storage contract holders exclusive rights to return flows. Members discussed the conflict-of-interest language and the water-return provision, then adopted a House committee amendment and the amended substitute by voice vote. The committee then voted the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 953 do pass by a 6-5 roll call, with Representative Wellenkamp voting no. The committee then heard House Bill 3193, a proposal by Representative Wellenkamp to reduce single-use plastic waste in state parks and historic sites by phasing out plastic bags, plastic water bottles, and Styrofoam/styrene containers, while allowing exemptions where needed. Supporters, including conservation groups, a Missouri River Bird Observatory representative, and others, said plastics harm parks, waterways, wildlife, tourism, and human health, and urged alternatives and better waste practices. Some members raised concerns about accessibility and the need for practical substitutes for people with disabilities and for emergency or park operations. The Missouri Beverage Association opposed the bill, arguing its plastics are recyclable and that education and recycling are better approaches than bans. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 3320, the Drinking Water Transparency and Accountability Act, which would assign Missouri public water systems A-F grades based on violations, finances, operations, and infrastructure, and would impose additional oversight and spending restrictions on systems graded D or F. The sponsor said the bill would make water-system problems easier for ratepayers to understand and help address chronic failures; supporters from Missouri American Water, Central States Water Resources, and the Missouri Chamber said it would improve transparency and support investment. Opponents from municipal utilities, the Missouri Municipal League, and the Missouri Water Association argued the bill oversimplifies a technical field, duplicates existing consumer confidence reports, could confuse customers, and may undermine trust in local systems. No vote was taken on HB 3193 or HB 3320 before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before you, Senate Bill 596, sponsored by Senator Nobles.
• Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you so much. Bill number one down for you as well. Thank you, Chair.
• Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you so much. Bill number one down for you as well. Thank you, Chair.
• Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Bills: SB5966

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: healthcare, nutrition, medically tailored meals, dietary support, food security, chronic illness

Transcript Highlights:

• Going to prejudicate them for you before you buy them. I mean, the value is going to go up.
• They can bring a lawsuit to make you open the compacts before you agree to the settlement.
• Texas made a call in 10 years and said, "You guaranteed us 18,200 acre-feet of water."
• a call on water in Elephant Butte, and you have to listen in?"
• at some point in some way, shape, or form is what you just said they can make a call.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's called quality engineering, where you, you, About how much you use.
• You have multiple award, what's called multiple award task order contracts.
• You have multiple award, what's called multiple award, may talk, if you will, multiple award task order
• So I just want to add quickly, then I'll call on you, Representative Richards.
• And we also adopted this model of what we call Before We Serve.

Committee: Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from WSDOT on balancing uncertainty in capital program estimates and cash flow management. WSDOT explained the differences between design-bid-build and design-build delivery, its tiered risk-assessment process by project size, and how it uses base estimates, inflation, and risk modeling to set budgets. Staff said design-bid-build estimates are generally accurate within about 1% across the program, while design-build projects carry much wider uncertainty and are better communicated as ranges; they cited a P85 budget approach and noted that large, complex projects can be affected by market competition and long procurement timelines. Members asked about the Columbia River Bridge cost growth and about value engineering, and WSDOT said it uses value engineering but has limited scope to cut costs because of project requirements and policy mandates. Troy Swing also discussed cash flow, noting that a few large projects can significantly affect biennial funding needs, and said a risk pool would not reduce overall program risk but could help manage timing if paired with appropriation and cash-flow controls. The committee then received the final presentation in the WSDOT Project Delivery and Innovative Practices study from HKA Global. The consultant said WSDOT’s estimating practices are generally robust and recommended improving transparency by presenting budget authorizations as ranges or estimate classes, better tracking estimate growth over time, and adjusting advertisement timing to avoid competing lettings. The report also discussed surety bonding, suggesting the legislature consider restoring authority for reduced bonding on select large design-build projects or using phased bonding and alternative securities. On indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting, the consultant said current job order contract rules are restrictive and recommended legislative changes to make such tools more usable, especially for smaller tasks and to help use unspent funds more flexibly. The committee also heard a follow-up presentation on transit-oriented development policy recommendations tied to HB 1491. The Urban Institute’s Yona Freemark said Washington has been a national leader on TOD but that housing construction, especially in the Puget Sound, has slowed sharply since 2022. He said rising construction costs, high financing costs, and local tax and rent conditions are making many TOD projects infeasible, and recommended that the state fill infrastructure funding gaps around stations, revisit MFTE affordability requirements, consider minimum rather than average density requirements near transit, and create a statewide system to track TOD outcomes such as affordability, gentrification, and transit access. Members questioned the study’s developer interviews, the role of rent control and crime, property tax assumptions, and parking needs; the presenter said the study included five private developers, that rent control was not part of the study scope, and that parking was included in the model assumptions. Finally, the committee began a presentation on regulating emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth. Staff and consultants described California-style at-berth rules, which require shore power or equivalent emissions controls so ships can shut off diesel auxiliary engines while docked. The study is examining vessel traffic, emissions reductions, implementation costs, labor and operational needs, and possible effects on port competitiveness and cargo diversion. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• See you again. >> Keep Craig straight. >> Please call the roll. >> [clears throat] >> Senator Berg.
• So, I thank you, Mr. President. The matter before the body is adoption of the resolution.
• So, I thank you, Mr. President. The matter before the body is adoption of the resolution.
• So, I thank you, Mr. President. The matter before the body is adoption of the resolution.
• So, I thank you, Mr. President. The matter before the body is adoption of the resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• Commissioner, before I get right back to Senator Grunhagen, you have referred to the electronic recordkeeping
• you can you tell true for some but can you can you tell me<00:32:01.440><c> one</c><00:32:01.799><c>
• So thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both of you. Thank you, Senator Abeler.
• </c> of you thank you as long as I have you of you thank you as long as I have you both<01:52:40.000>
• If not, thank you very much for joining us this morning, and with no other business before us, we will

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• And before I get started on the A9 amendment, I'd like to ask for a roll call.
• what</c> before, you could determine what before, you could determine what percentage<00:26:07.840><
• have my master's degree and I stand before you here today.
• So before you agree to those times.
• Thank you, members. Members, as a reminder, we are still under call.

Transcript Highlights:

• He's right behind you. Oh, and let's go, before we go to Sarah, Representative Mirabal Moya.
• to get the house off of the bridge before you can get in?
• Before you can fix the bridge, that's the stuff that's frustrating.
• I would entertain a motion, but before that, I would let you know that our work plan was adopted, and
• So let me ask first, before you go ahead, is anybody having trouble hearing? Paula?

Committee: House Water & Natural Resources Committee