Transcript Highlights:

• on the first few lines, you see the general fund impact, so you can see the full Social Security subtraction
• So those two numbers under the Social Security subtraction are slight savings to the general fund.
• um and then you can Security subtraction um and then you can see<00:03:25.480> payments<00:03
• <00:03:47.319> um<00:03:47.519> are<00:03:47.840> slight Security subtraction
• um are slight Security subtraction um are slight savings<00:03:48.879> to<00:03:49.159> the

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 5 was heard in the Transportation Committee and moved by the author, Representative Jim Joy, to be referred to the Tax Committee. Joy described the bill as a package to make Minnesota more affordable by fully eliminating the Social Security tax subtraction, ending the motor fuels tax indexing, repealing the retail delivery fee, and studying vehicle registration/license taxes compared with neighboring states. Committee fiscal staff explained the bill’s fiscal effects across the general fund, highway user tax distribution fund, transportation advancement account, and metro county sales tax allocations, including that the delivery fee repeal would reduce Transportation Advancement Account revenue and that the bill would shift some revenue sources to offset losses. Several stakeholders testified. The Minnesota Grocers Association strongly supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it is costly and complex for retailers to administer, especially small businesses, and that the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. The Minnesota Propane Association also supported repeal, saying the fee is burdensome for propane businesses, that only a small share of deliveries are actually subject to it, and that compliance costs can exceed the fee revenue collected. Fiscal staff noted that delivery fee revenue forecasts have fallen below earlier projections, and explained that the fee is imposed on sellers with several exemptions, including a $100 transaction threshold and exemptions for some sales such as bars, restaurants, nonprofits, and certain small businesses. Opposition came from local government groups. The League of Minnesota Cities said it supported the Transportation Advancement Account and its 2023 funding sources, including the delivery fee and motor vehicle parts sales tax, and warned that the bill would prematurely alter a funding structure that cities rely on for predictable transportation revenue. The Minnesota Association of Small Cities said small cities had long lacked dedicated transportation funding and wanted a stable, ongoing revenue stream, but were neutral on the exact source as long as it was reliable. Metro Cities echoed support for stable, predictable transportation funding for metro-area cities. The committee took testimony and discussion only; no final vote was recorded in the excerpt beyond the motion to refer the bill to the Tax Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• He described those as an income tax subtraction and property tax refund, homestead credit refund exemption
• So, it's an income tax subtraction<00:15:22.880> and<00:15:23.199> property<00:15:23.519
• > tax<00:15:23.839> refund, subtraction and property tax refund, subtraction and property
• temporarily for those stipen subtraction temporarily for those stipen payments<00:15:48.399> and<
• Um and then finally the SEIU Minnesota stipend subtraction.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from it and then what we're subtracted from it and then what we're looking<01:32:49.600> at<01
• So we would subtract out the total $170 million.
• The $37 million or $38 million would get subtracted out.
• So we would subtract out of the $207 million the $37 million, and then that's what would be looked at
• generally talking so we would subtract generally talking so we would subtract out<01:33:52.920><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review the lapse extensions in the back of House Bill 25, which governs capital budget appropriations and bonding. Members were walked through how the bill is structured: section 1 covers general, federal, and other funds; section 2 covers highway fund appropriations; later sections authorize borrowing, restrict spending to the stated purposes, and explain why community colleges and the university system operate through their boards of trustees. The chair also explained that lapse extensions are needed because capital projects can span multiple years, and that appropriations normally expire at the end of the biennium unless extended. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on how to identify unspent balances and whether they should be extended, repurposed, or allowed to lapse. Members discussed that if a project is complete or an agency confirms it no longer needs the money, the remaining balance can be reused for another project or, if not needed, lapse back. The committee also reviewed the meaning of bill references and chapter numbers, and how to read prior-year appropriations and extensions in the worksheet. One example discussed was a 2023 Department of Administrative Services courthouse generators item, and members noted that some agencies may rely on encumbered balances rather than explicit lapse extensions, though the chair said he prefers including the extension for flexibility. The committee identified at least one specific change: the Jeffrey Ringe CTE renovation was removed from the governor’s recommended budget because the required local match was not approved, freeing about $18.5 million for possible reuse. Later, the chair noted that lapse extension 49 on the worksheet was no longer needed and could be removed, leaving an unspent balance of $81,500 available for repurposing. The discussion also referenced a Department of Transportation item, Caroline Stratford Freight Rail Improvements, which the agency asked to keep alive through a lapse extension so the funds would not expire on June 30. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and of other changes to debt service forecasting, the change amount on line five, and then that subtraction
• five and then the amount on line five and then the um<00:09:47.360> that<00:09:47.920> subtraction
• 48.959> up<00:09:49.040> on<00:09:49.279> line<00:09:50.000> um um that subtraction
• added up on line um um that subtraction added up on line um uh<00:09:51.120> six.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you just look at the first page, it's a 2025 amount of 2.998454 million, and then you would subtract
• <00:58:43.599> from then we take that amount subtracted from then we take that amount subtracted
• from take<00:58:44.280> 1.5<00:58:44.960> million<00:58:45.400> subtracted<00:58
• that to take 1.5 million subtracted from that to calculate<00:58:47.559> the<00:58:47.799>
• look at B and C on the other subtract look at B and C on the other side<00:59:08.920> so<00:59

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, are you subtracting it from cap? It gets subtracted from cap, right?
• Well, are you subtracting whole amount.
• It gets subtracting it from cap.
• We don't subtracted from cap, right?
• than subtracting it from a reimbursed amount.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met for its third discussion on special education aid under retained bill 742, with the chair noting that no action would be taken at the meeting. The chair reviewed prior hearings on Medicaid and local special education funding shortfalls, saying the committee was trying to understand why districts are facing proration of special education aid and how to reduce unfunded costs. He raised a series of questions for the Department of Education about the Nessus system, eligibility and ineligibility, invoices and vouchers, audit procedures, reimbursement rates, out-of-state placements, and who enters data at the district level. Rebecca Fdet, director of special education services at the Department of Education, explained that Nessus is the statewide special education information system and that every child in special education must be entered into it. She said most districts use it to develop IEPs and track services, while six districts use it only as a data reporting tool. She described which fields are required, how the system connects IEP development to the financial section, and how districts submit invoices when seeking special education aid, court-ordered placement payments, or episode-of-treatment placements. She said the department reviews invoices against the IEP, pays only for allowable services, and uses a cap that notifies districts when they reach the annual limit. Members asked about who submits the information, how districts decide when to seek aid, and how costs are calculated for individual or group services. Fdet said the district, usually an administrative assistant in the SAU office, submits the documentation electronically, and districts decide when to track students for aid based on their own circumstances. She said reimbursement is based on actual costs tied to the IEP, with group services split among students, and that the department does not generally set rates for local services. The only rate-setting she described was for approved private special education providers, which submit annual cost spreadsheets for tuition rates. She also said out-of-state providers must be approved by their own state, and the department checks licensure and certification through monitoring and investigations if concerns arise. The department also described its monitoring process, called Program Approval and General Supervision Monitoring, or PAGS. Fdet said districts are reviewed on a six-year cycle, with more intensive review for districts needing assistance or intervention and fewer file requests for districts meeting requirements. She said the department can review up to 65 data points on an IEP and that districts must submit special education aid paperwork by July 31, with superintendent verification due by August 15. The meeting ended with continued questions about procurement, audit procedures, and how the department handles out-of-district and out-of-state placements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Taxable market value is the amount of value used in calculating property taxes, typically after subtracting
• <00:01:44.320> property<00:01:44.680> tax after subtracting property tax after subtracting
• <00:37:54.319> those<00:37:54.520> from may have um and then subtract those from may
• After the gross tax is calculated, credits are subtracted from this gross tax and other taxes, including
• <00:47:33.559> from calculated credits are subtracted from calculated credits are subtracted

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, uh yes, the three types of income that Senator Putnam's bill would be proposing to subtract
• And so, um, if we adopted this bill, how would that income be shown, and then the subtraction, or would
• <00:44:47.560> be<00:44:47.800> proposing<00:44:48.320> to<00:44:48.440> subtract
• <00:44:49.000> from would be proposing to subtract from would be proposing to subtract from
• 00:45:00.600> that If we adopted this bill, how would that income be shown, and then the subtraction

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and we have gone after those energy sources by drilling into the earth and retrieving them and subtracting
• and we have gone after those energy sources by drilling into the earth and retrieving them and subtracting

Bills: SB174, SB174

Keywords: business taxes, annual reports, Alabama Tax Tribunal, tax appeals, local government, SB174, alternative energy, alternative energy wells, alternative energy facility, geothermal, geothermal energy, subsurface energy, energy storage, energy capture, energy generation, hydropower, solar energy, oil and gas well conversion, well conversion, plugging and abandonment

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm just curious what the dollar was for Washburn that would be subtracted from 16.8.
• That's where we subtracted and added. What is it compared to when it says you're enhancing it?
• We subtracted a certain number out of that. Those numbers are just minor.

Bills: SB2015

Keywords: corrections, rehabilitation, prison budget, department of corrections, adult services, youth services, correctional facilities, Heart River correctional center, Missouri River correctional center, James River correctional center, minimum security facility, county jails, regional jails, deferred maintenance, capital construction, strategic investment and improvements fund, Bank of North Dakota, line of credit, tasers, body cameras

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Human Resources Division met with all members present and took up several bills, focusing most of the discussion on SB 1577 and SB 1619, along with a detailed review of the HHS budget bill draft. On SB 1577, Senator Magrum explained that the bill was being revised to focus on wastewater rather than raw water, possibly shifting the Washburn project to the Department of Water Resources so it could access matching funds, and potentially converting the bill into a line of credit if federal money is restored later. Members discussed whether to keep an emergency clause or instead use a date-based approach, and agreed the bill would likely be handled through the full committee and possibly reconsidered later. On SB 1619, Senator Davison said amendments were still being worked on, including changes requested by the Bank of North Dakota, and the committee planned to hold it for possible amendment before full committee consideration. The bulk of the meeting was a section-by-section review of the HHS appropriations bill draft. Members discussed one-time funding items such as technology projects, child care programs, housing programs, behavioral health facility grants, infant and toddler care provider support, juvenile justice diversion, medical housing, and other public health and human services projects. Several adjustments were noted, including reductions or changes to IMD-related funding, incarcerated-person treatment funding, the child welfare technology project, and the provider rate increase. The committee also discussed the FTE block grant structure at length, with staff explaining that the apparent increase in positions reflected budgeting mechanics, zero-dollar “phantom” positions, and positions approved previously but not counted in the FTE total. Members raised concerns about transparency and whether the bill should list FTE numbers, but staff said the block grant was intended to give the department flexibility while quarterly reporting would provide oversight. Other topics included Medicaid expansion funding and provider reimbursement rules, the move toward certifying human service centers as certified community behavioral health clinics, a moratorium on new ICF beds, and studies or reports on Medicaid, obesity, disability services, truancy, and behavioral health facility grants. The committee also discussed removing or revising broad intent language in Section 31 so the department would report findings rather than implement changes without further legislative action. No final votes were taken in the transcript; instead, members agreed to make a few technical adjustments, continue reviewing the bill, and likely revisit it the next day before moving it to conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Subtracts from the federal adjusted gross income any income earned by election inspectors, poll clerks
• Subtracts from the federal adjusted gross income, any income earned by election inspectors, poll clerks

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee, chaired for the day by Senator John Liu, took up a long agenda of bills covering labor and benefits, corrections, health, taxation, government transparency, and public services. Early measures included increasing short-term disability benefits, adjusting a poverty-level-related earned income disregard, expanding correctional health staffing review, and authorizing the Inspector General to investigate sexual assault complaints in correctional facilities; each of these advanced to the floor. The committee also advanced bills on ovarian cancer screening access, retirement system membership changes, a trail stewardship program, live agency representative access, FOIL/open meetings fee awards, a Harriman campus development plan, court data reporting, educator conventions, park water testing, an energy storage tax abatement, a Native American Affairs office, adult changing tables in public facilities, Medicaid Inspector General audit standards, remote training certification for agency personnel, newborn Gaucher disease testing, electronic self-exclusion requests for gambling, and child daycare inspections and opioid antagonist requirements. Several bills drew discussion. The prescription drug transparency bill (Print 488A) prompted questions about possible overlap with federal Hatch-Waxman/FTC oversight and whether a New York notice requirement could slow generic-drug settlements; sponsors and staff said it was intended as a supplemental transparency measure for consumers. The court reporting bill (Print 1849A) raised concerns about mandates on local governments, but supporters said it mainly required OCA to compile data in one format. The Medicaid local-share phaseout bill (Print 5519) generated the most debate, with supporters arguing it would provide major property tax relief and should be addressed in the budget, while opponents emphasized the need to curb Medicaid fraud, waste, and abuse first. Two major fiscal oversight proposals were defeated. Print 8661, which would have required the Comptroller to hire an independent private auditing firm to review state-funded programs for fraud and abuse, was opposed despite support from some members who argued outside auditing was overdue; it failed by one vote. Print 5519 was also ultimately defeated after a recount confirmed it lacked the required majority of the full 22-member committee. Most other bills were approved and sent either to the floor or, in the case of the drug transparency bill, to the Rules Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• that very eloquently—but, um, on line 31 you can see that what we do to adjust for that is we just subtract
• that very eloquently—but, um, on line 31 you can see that what we do to adjust for that is we just subtract
• Um, on line 31 you can see that what we do to adjust for that is we just subtract the inflation amount

Bills: HF601

Keywords: agriculture, depredation compensation, livestock, crop damage, elk, wolves, wildlife management, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• c><02:20:18.600> the<02:20:18.680> only<02:20:18.840> ones<02:20:19.600> subtract
• <02:20:20.040> the Nash are the only ones subtract the Nash are the only ones subtract the
• <03:45:34.199> out see that you I I would subtract out see that you I I would subtract out
• <03:56:00.479> from<03:56:00.760> the $133,000 could be subtracted from the $133,000
• could be subtracted from the state<03:56:01.680> adequacy<03:56:02.319> Grant<03:56:03.040

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The executive session focused primarily on HB 563, which revises the school funding formula, especially the adequate education grant amounts for special education students and the treatment of fiscal capacity disparity aid. Representative Ladd moved OTPA on Amendment 06508, explaining that FY 26 would largely hold the current formula steady, while FY 27 would increase several per-pupil amounts, including base cost, free and reduced-price meals, English language learner aid, and special education differentiated aid. He said the special education change was based on estimated case loads across disability categories and that the amendment also reinstates fiscal capacity disparity aid, using a formula intended to better assist property-poor communities. Several members supported the amendment as a step in the right direction, saying it better recognizes special education costs and separates property wealth from low-income student counts. Others raised concerns about the lack of time and the absence of a printed spreadsheet showing how the fiscal capacity disparity aid would affect each town. In response, sponsors said the spreadsheet existed, that the LBA had copies, and that the amendment would help about 40 target towns, while Manchester would be the main community receiving less under the new formula because of prior shifts in the extraordinary needs grant. Discussion also covered the broader impact of the bill, with members noting that about 200 of the state’s 245 cities and towns would see an increase and 45 a decrease under the proposed FY 27 changes. Supporters argued the bill was a compromise given limited revenues and that it should move forward so it can be considered by the full House and then Finance. No final vote on the amendment or bill was taken in the portion provided, and the chair indicated the committee was still deciding whether it had enough information to proceed.

Transcript Highlights:

• And what is, well, I guess we can subtract that from 100 to figure out the other half, but what percentage
• And what is, well, I guess we can subtract that from 100 to figure out the other half, but what percentage
• And what is, well, I guess we can subtract that from 100 to figure out the other half, but what percentage
• And what is, well, I guess we can subtract that from 100 to figure out the other half, but what percentage
• And what is, well, I guess we can subtract that from 100 to figure out the other half, but what percentage

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in November was they created a separate worksheet that can link into the conformity forms to do subtractions
• So everything that occurs before the calculation of federally adjusted gross income, all those subtractions

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The caucus focused on HB 2153, a tax conformity bill that would align Arizona statute with the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions affecting tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bill excludes three federal provisions from H.R. 1: the additional $6,000 senior deduction, the increase in the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. It also adds several Arizona-specific provisions, including a $6,000 deduction for certain retirement distributions for taxpayers age 65 or older, a $6,000 deduction for Roth IRA contributions, an increase in the dependent tax credit from $100 to $125, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC’s fiscal note was cited as a negative $441.3 million in year one, declining over the next two years. Chairman Livingston and other Republican members argued the bill was needed immediately because the Department of Revenue had already issued tentative forms assuming full conformity, creating confusion for taxpayers and businesses. They said the state needed a signed law as soon as possible to avoid amended returns, inconsistent filing rules, and uncertainty for small businesses. Livingston emphasized that the bill was intended to protect small businesses from having to keep two sets of books and said he was advising taxpayers not to file until the issue was resolved. Members also discussed the practical impact on small businesses, citing testimony that Arizona has about 700,000 small businesses employing well over a million people. Several exchanges clarified the difference between the governor’s November direction to the Department of Revenue and the bill before the committee. Staff explained that DOR normally assumes “simple conformity” and that the governor’s directive attempted to add “below-the-line” deductions through a worksheet, but that those items still require statutory authorization. Members said the governor’s action was confusing and characterized it as a press release rather than binding law. The committee also discussed the child care provisions, describing them as a federal-style deduction Arizona has not previously adopted and as one of the main new benefits in the bill. The caucus ended without a vote, and members were told the floor would begin at 10 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• amount wagered, and then the tax is on the gross gaming revenue, or adjusted gross revenue, which is subtracting
• 00:04:56.639> revenue<00:04:57.080> which<00:04:57.160> is<00:04:57.360> subtracting
• <00:04:57.960> out gross revenue which is subtracting out gross revenue which is subtracting

Keywords: 00:00 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:37 KY Horse Racing and Gaming Corp. 08:32 Cabinet for Health and Family Services 35:28 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an update from the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation on sports wagering revenue allocations and problem gaming funding. KHRGC reported that in fiscal year 2024, about $34.4 million was deposited to the pension fund and about $931,000 to the problem gaming assistance fund; fiscal year 2025 to date, the totals were about $18.5 million and $556,000, respectively, bringing all-time problem gaming funding to about $1.48 million. Members also discussed wagering volume, with KHRGC stating Kentucky had about $3.5 billion in wagers from September 2023 through December 2024 and about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2025 to date. KHRGC explained that it tracks the funds sent to CHFS and the self-exclusion list, but does not track the number of people seeking help or the outcomes of those calls. The Division of Mental Health then described how the problem gambling assistance account is used. Patty Clark and Sarah Cooper said the fund supports education, counseling, public awareness, counselor certification, and treatment-related costs, with $50,000 reserved for administrative expenses. They said the department has spent the last 18 months establishing criteria, funding standards, performance measures, monitoring, and application procedures, and that it issued notices of funding opportunity in October. They reported about 1.49 million in the fund through the end of January, with awards including support for the Kentucky Council on Problem Gambling conference, a public awareness campaign by Project Ricochet, and a youth-focused campaign by Shaunie Transformation Youth Coalition. Testimony also focused on the scope of problem gambling in Kentucky and how the helpline works. The department said fewer than 10 clinicians in Kentucky are specifically certified in problem gambling, though all addiction clinicians can provide services, and estimated about 165,000 adults show problem gambling behaviors, with 47,000 to 64,000 potentially meeting criteria for a gambling disorder. They said helpline calls rose to about 3,240 in 2024, but only about 25% were from people seeking help, with most callers seeking information about online wagering. Members asked about anonymity, follow-up, co-occurring alcohol or drug issues, and whether the fund should reimburse Medicaid or directly cover treatment costs. The presenters said calls are anonymous, outcomes are not tracked unless callers follow up, and the program is currently focused on building provider capacity and targeted outreach rather than direct reimbursement or a statewide campaign.

Transcript Highlights:

• care providers to receive a credit of 50% of the net tax owed on their residential property after subtracting
• on their residential<00:26:18.240> property<00:26:19.080> after<00:26:19.440> subtracting
• residential property after subtracting residential property after subtracting other<00:26:20.440

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's just that I am subtracting it from the extra line and moving it into the base agency line.
• It's just that I am subtracting it from the extra line and moving it into the base agency line.
• It's just that I am subtracting it from the extra line and moving it into the base agency line.
• it from the extra line and subtracting it from the extra line and moving<01:21:31.159> it<01:
• out of that to get 86 um are subtracted out of that to get um<01:34:45.119> the<01:34:45.320>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Education Finance Committee met on January 21, 2025, for its first hearing of the session and began with organizational business. Members and staff introduced themselves, described their districts and backgrounds, and the chair reviewed committee procedures, including how to request bill hearings, amendment deadlines, and handout deadlines. The committee also heard introductions from nonpartisan and partisan staff, including House Research and House Fiscal Analysis personnel who will support the committee’s work this session. The main substantive item was an overview presentation on the state budget and education finance process. Staff explained how Minnesota’s general fund is forecast twice a year, how the committee should read the budget documents and aid/levy tracking sheets, and how the current biennium compares with the upcoming budget window. They described the November forecast, noted that the committee will later receive the February forecast, and outlined the committee’s role in reviewing K-12 state aid spending, school district revenue, and property tax impacts. Staff walked through the aid appropriation summary spreadsheet and explained its columns, including end-of-session spending, fiscal year 2024-25 actuals and estimates, and the 2026-27 and 2028-29 planning horizons. They emphasized that many education programs are forecast-driven and can change with enrollment and other data. The presentation also summarized the state’s overall revenue mix and spending priorities, noting that K-12 education is the largest general fund category and that state aid makes up the majority of school revenue. No bills were heard and no votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• You would just take the rest of those as a subtraction on your state taxes.
• You would just take the rest of those as a subtraction on your state taxes.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• TCJA and then beginning January 1st, 2027, add back the amount deducted at the federal level and subtract
• change to Section 179 property, taxpayers will add back the amount deducted at the federal level and subtract

Keywords: 999, senate, all