Transcript Highlights:

• or for Chair Davids, I uh to your question earlier objection earlier, I believe is the repeal on subdivision
• or for Chair Davids, I uh to your question earlier objection earlier, I believe is the repeal on subdivision
• or for Chair Davids, I uh to your question earlier objection earlier, I believe is the repeal on subdivision
• or for Chair Davids, I uh to your question earlier objection earlier, I believe is the repeal on subdivision
• or for Chair Davids, I uh to your question earlier objection earlier, I believe is the repeal on subdivision

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 4738 was laid over for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill. Representative Keeler presented the bill as a funding source for Minnesota’s Safe Harbor program, arguing that trafficking and sexual exploitation are statewide problems and that current shelter and housing resources are insufficient. She and several supporters emphasized that the program serves youth across greater Minnesota, not just the metro, and that state and federal funding pressures make additional support necessary. Testifiers from Place Called Home/Life House, The Link, the City of Minneapolis, and a survivor all described the impact of Safe Harbor and related shelter programs. They cited data on youth served, bed nights, mental health services, and high unmet need, including waitlists and youth turned away because programs are full. Testimony stressed that stable housing and trauma-informed services help survivors recover and move toward education, employment, and family stability. One committee member, Representative Davis, objected to the proposed funding source, saying he would not support taking money from women’s sports scholarships and urging a different source. The bill’s tax mechanism was described as ending the sales tax exemption for preferred seating, suite licenses, and related amenities at athletic and entertainment events. Alec Williams of We Make Minnesota supported the proposal as a fair way to raise revenue from high-end discretionary purchases for a public purpose. Committee discussion also focused on the size of the revenue estimate and the breakdown of the impact, with nonpartisan staff saying roughly 85% would come from suite licenses, 10% from collegiate seating, and 5% from amenities. Representative Smith and others framed the issue as both a tax and moral question, and the chair moved the bill to be laid over.

Transcript Highlights:

• authority into the Attorney General's office if they found an entity under the umbrella of political subdivision
• authority into the Attorney General's office if they found an entity under the umbrella of political subdivision
• Basically requiring all political subdivisions to cooperate with Immigration and Customs detainers and
• authority into the Attorney General's office if they found an entity under the umbrella of political subdivision
• Under the umbrella of political subdivision that was not cooperating.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 3 March, 2026; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 1131, which would revise penalties for procuring prostitution by increasing the misdemeanor fine from $200 to $1,000, increasing the felony fine from $1,000 to $2,000, and adding 100 hours of community service. Representative Ford explained that the bill had been changed from an earlier version that made the first offense a felony. The committee approved the bill after brief discussion. Members then discussed a strike-all for House Bill 1613, a drug trafficking bill that had been amended to add a pill-count threshold for aggravated trafficking and to include language addressing abortion-inducing drugs. The added provisions would make certain conduct involving abortion-inducing drugs a felony punishable by one to ten years and would authorize the Attorney General to seek civil enforcement. Senators raised questions about whether the House and Senate versions were identical, and one member expressed concern about mail-order abortion pills and the lack of medical oversight. Another senator raised a concern about the definition of "clinically diagnosable pregnancy" and ectopic pregnancies. The committee adopted the strike-all and passed the bill. House Bill 525, dealing with sexual battery sentencing, drew the most extended debate. Representative Rimac said the bill was prompted by constituent concerns about what he viewed as lenient sentences in a few cases and would add minimum sentences of five years for a first offense and ten years for a second offense. After discussion, the committee adopted a friendly amendment narrowing the bill by striking language related to age-difference provisions, with members noting that those provisions could affect cases not intended to be covered. Several senators then debated whether mandatory minimums were appropriate, with some arguing the bill was needed to ensure meaningful punishment for sexual battery and others arguing it would remove judicial discretion and respond to a small number of outlier cases. The committee ultimately passed the bill as amended. The committee also considered House Bill 538, which would require political subdivisions to cooperate with immigration detainers and give the Attorney General enforcement authority, but only after adding a reverse repealer. Senators raised concerns about possible sovereign-immunity issues and the breadth of the cooperation language, while others urged narrowing the bill to avoid unintended consequences. The committee adopted the strike-all and passed the bill. At the end of the meeting, the chairman introduced House Bill 1612, a Department of Public Safety restructuring bill, and noted that Commissioner Tindell would present it with a possible conceptual amendment, but that bill was not yet discussed in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• be fined for the first violation unless they are first given a written notice by the political subdivision
• , as well as the time frame specified by the subdivision to remove the sign.
• House Bill 198 would require political subdivisions to provide occupational cancer screenings for their
• The bill bans, with few exceptions, an officer or employee of the state or political subdivision from
• out, and Senate Bill 511 would also prohibit an officer or an employee of the state or political subdivision

Bills: SB203, SB317, SB397, SB511, SB524, SB731, SB781, SB801, SB867, SB1071, SB1087, SB1232, SB1444, SB1483, SB1782, SB1798, SB1861, SB1944, SB2082, SB2233, SB2309, SB2363, SB2497, SB2549, SB2566, SB2603, SB2607, SB2617, SB2688, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2919, SB2928, SB2969, SB3063, HB12, HB26, HB33, HB34, HB45, HB48, HB130, HB148, HB198, HB431, HB647, HB668, HB677, HB748, HB754, HB791, HB1022, HB1193, HB1240, HB1242, HB1318, HB1397, HB1520, HB1584, HB1729, HB1922, HB1950, HB2003, HB2027, HB2029, HB2254, HB2350, HB2559, HB2607, HB2663, HB2712, HB2768, HB2775, HB2788, HB2789, HB2802, HB2894, HB2960, HB3033, HB3041, HB3126, HB3228, HB3229, HB3474, HB3560, HB3594, HB3611, HB3698, HB3699, HB3700, HB3805, HB4187, HB4219, HB4238, HB4344, HB4384, HB4739, HB4753, HB4804, HB4850, HB4885, HB5560, HCR90, SJR34, SB529, SB541, SB693, SB963, SB1173, SB1241, SB1383, SB1559, SB1646, SB1734, SB1833, SB1883, SB1968, SB2544, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB2308, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR60, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB2309, SB1861, SB2617, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB511, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1782, SB1944, SB1232, SB2969, SB2497, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB781, SB524, SB2233, SB2683, SB1319, SB1978, SB3038, SB3045, SB1633, SB1538, SB719, SB3071, HB1393, HB2559, HB26, HB2607, HB3810, HB388, HB12, HB2712, HB1633, HB1318, HB685, HB4753, HB198, HB762, HB148, HB1520, HB2286, HB1606, HB132, HB45, HB48, HB33, HB1022, HB1458, HB5560, HB1240, HB1950, HB2027, HB2768, HB2788, HB2791, HB3146, HB3698, HB3699, HB1893, HB3700, HB4850, HB4187, HB1397, HB4885, HB4804, HB3751, HB3611, HB2775, HB2061, HB2003, HB1729, HB1242, HB791, HB2029, HB647, HB2522, HB4738, HB3033, HB3594, HB3474, HB2563, HB2802, HB34, HB128, HB130, HB581, HB668, HB677, HB766, HB2259, HB2960, HB2358, HB2894, HB4384, HB2663, HB748, HB793, HB1193, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3104, HB5180, HB4739, HB1584, HB4344, HB4238, HB4219, HB3806, HB3805, HB3804, HB3803, HB3229, HB3228, HB1922, HB1522, HB431, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB754, HB1314, HB2254, HB2789, HB3560, HB4643, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3041, HB3505, HB4205, HB5652, HB3687, HB5424, HB4506, HB3370, HB2025, HB4273, HB3395, HB3376, HB2733, HB2495, HB4325, HB2071, HB2510, HB138, HB18, HB107, HB694, HB923, HB1639, HB1700, HB2187, HB3211, HB4529, HB4655, HB5342, HB2516, HB4783, HB1894, HB1965, HB102, HB300, HB1875, HB2513, HB2713, HB39, HB114, HB24, HB3088, HB4163, HB3479, HB2842, HB519, HB609, HB1275, HB1592, HB3348, HCR90, HCR98, SB524, SB781, SB1782, SB2497, SB2969, HB12, HB33, HB34, HB45, HB48, HB130, HB148, HB198, HB431, HB668, HB677, HB754, HB791, HB1022, HB1193, HB1242, HB1318, HB1520, HB1729, HB1922, HB1950, HB2003, HB2027, HB2029, HB2559, HB2607, HB2663, HB2768, HB2775, HB2789, HB2802, HB2894, HB2960, HB3041, HB3228, HB3229, HB3474, HB3560, HB3594, HB3611, HB3698, HB3699, HB3700, HB3805, HB4238, HB4344, HB4739, HB4804, HB4885, HB5560, SB1861, SB2309, SB2617, SB511, SR545, HJR47, HB75, HB108, HB111, HB521, HB1052, HB1249, HB1373, HB1403, HB1449, HB1586, HB1629, HB1646, HB1794, HB1820, HB1831, HB1845, HB1939, HB1960, HB1991, HB2014, HB2080, HB2136, HB2159, HB2293, HB2313, HB2399, HB2512, HB2581, HB2593, HB2621, HB2638, HB2655, HB2658, HB2694, HB2731, HB2757, HB2803, HB2807, HB2814, HB2844, HB2999, HB3053, HB3142, HB3171, HB3234, HB3254, HB3320, HB3349, HB3405, HB3420, HB3463, HB3516, HB3520, HB3631, HB3679, HB3680, HB3694, HB3722, HB3732, HB3749, HB3793, HB3833, HB3928, HB3977, HB4014, HB4042, HB4076, HB4099, HB4105, HB4112, HB4158, HB4204, HB4207, HB4234, HB4449, HB4454, HB4520, HB4535, HB4559, HB4582, HB4630, HB4669, HB4748, HB4795, HB4847, HB4848, HB4916, HB4924, HB5093, HB5302, HB5509, HB5624, HB5627, HB5629, HB5632, HB5639, HB5664, HB5693, HB5698, HB2851, HB5154, HB5339, HJR47, HB75, HB108, HB111, HB521, HB1052, HB1249, HB1373, HB1403, HB1449, HB1586, HB1629, HB1646, HB1794, HB1820, HB1831, HB1845, HB1939, HB1960, HB1991, HB2014, HB2080, HB2136, HB2159, HB2293, HB2313, HB2399, HB2512, HB2581, HB2593, HB2621, HB2638, HB2655, HB2658, HB2694, HB2731, HB2757, HB2803, HB2807, HB2814, HB2844, HB2999, HB3053, HB3142, HB3171, HB3234, HB3254, HB3320, HB3349, HB3405, HB3420, HB3463, HB3516, HB3520, HB3631, HB3679, HB3680, HB3694, HB3722, HB3732, HB3749, HB3793, HB3833, HB3928, HB3977, HB4014, HB4042, HB4076, HB4099, HB4105, HB4112, HB4158, HB4204, HB4207, HB4234, HB4449, HB4454, HB4520, HB4535, HB4559, HB4582, HB4630, HB4669, HB4748, HB4795, HB4847, HB4848, HB4916, HB4924, HB5093, HB5302, HB5509, HB5624, HB5627, HB5629, HB5632, HB5639, HB5664, HB5693, HB5698, HB2851, HB5154, HB5339

Keywords: student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, monuments, memorials, public property, historical significance, civil penalties, local governance, SB 397, telemedicine, telehealth, teledentistry, remote care, virtual care, consent documentation, patient consent, data collection

Transcript Highlights:

• members are not elected by homeowners, in-person meetings must take place within 10 miles of the subdivision
• from making any grant or authorizing any county, city, town, or other political corporation or subdivision
• from making any grant or authorizing any county, city, town, or other political corporation or subdivision
• the real question I've got is counties that we have not delegated that authority to, or other subdivisions
• Those include transitioning reporting responsibility from political subdivisions to county appraisal

Bills: SB434, SB844, SB898, SB1177, SB1214, SB1454, SB1920, SB1927, SB1935, SB1965, SB2010, SB2046, SB2068, SB2073, SB2183, SB2260, SB3034, SB907

Keywords: SB 434, Harris County Hospital District, hospital district police, peace officers, commissioned officers, law enforcement authority, Health and Safety Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, public safety, hospital security, county hospital district, local government, Texas criminal procedure, district police, armed security, SB 898, low income housing tax credits, LIHTC, affordable housing, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Summary: The committee heard several bills dealing with local government authority, homeowners associations, hospital district policing, school AED inspections, special district annexation, public contracting penalties, and guaranteed income programs. Senate Bill 2073 by Sen. Zaffirini would clarify that appraisal districts may finance purchases, leases, or construction of real property for appraisal offices without prior approval from taxing units; it was supported by the Texas Association of Appraisal Districts and left pending. Senate Bill 1935 by Sen. Hinojosa would increase homeowner control of property owners association boards, require more transparency, limit fines and assessment increases, and require accessible meeting locations; HOA and builder representatives opposed it, arguing it would hinder maintenance and make dues harder to manage, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 434 by Sen. Miles would authorize Harris County Hospital District police officers, was supported by Harris Health, and was left pending. Senate Bill 1177 by Sen. Alvarado, as substituted, would require school AED inspections during fire inspections and reporting to school leadership; it was left pending. Senate Bill 1214 by Sen. Perry would update Concho County Hospital District law to align with current procurement and notice rules; it was left pending. Senate Bill 1965 by Sen. Middleton, for Sen. King, would tighten notice and proximity rules for special district annexations; district witnesses warned the bill could interfere with service to noncontiguous tracts, and the bill was left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 2046 by Sen. Bettencourt, which would increase criminal penalties for county purchasing act violations involving unauthorized separate or sequential purchases to evade competitive bidding, and create a tiered penalty structure based on contract amount. Former Harris County DA Kim Ogg, Deputy Attorney General Josh Reno, and James Quintero supported the bill, citing recent Harris County bid-rigging cases and arguing the current Class C misdemeanor penalty is too weak to deter misconduct; some members questioned whether the proposed thresholds were too low and whether stronger oversight, rather than higher penalties alone, would be more effective. The bill was left pending. Finally, Senate Bill 2010 by Sen. Bettencourt would bar counties and other political subdivisions from operating guaranteed income programs and address constitutional gift-clause concerns. Testimony split sharply: Ogg and Quintero argued such programs are unconstitutional, can be used for political data collection, and should not be funded with public money, while Paige Terry Barry defended the bill as protecting taxpayers and discouraging dependency. Senators also debated whether the state can restrict use of federal grant funds and whether local governments should be allowed to run such programs; the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• new section of statute, just because this is a sentence that is going into a temporary, specific subdivision
• new section of statute, just because this is a sentence that is going into a temporary, specific subdivision
• I imagine we'd probably want to get approval, but it says, you know, that subdivision seven of that statute
• I imagine we'd probably want to get approval, but it says, you know, that subdivision seven of that statute
• seven of that statute says subdivision seven of that statute says use<00:24:07.880> of<00:24:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• more about the fraud deterrence measures, they are certainly open to that, which is why section subdivision
• more about the fraud deterrence measures, they are certainly open to that, which is why section subdivision
• Mom walked through, contains some boilerplate blank language on the appropriations in subdivision one
• some boilerplate blank language on the appropriations<00:38:03.280> in<00:38:03.400> subdivision
• in subdivision one, and then<00:38:05.480> um<00:38:05.600> goes<00:38:05.920> through

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I explained to them what's been done, and a lot of the responsibility of taxes is on the local subdivisions
• I explained to them what's been done, and a lot of the responsibility of taxes is on the local subdivisions
• So for us to maybe not ignore it, but probably not do anything about it, and to allow subdivisions to
• So for us to maybe not ignore it, but probably not do anything about it, and to allow subdivisions to
• I'm not opposed to that, but if we're going to talk about procedure to political subdivisions, then I

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator McQuade, you have the motion to adopt Senate language, Article 1, section 1, subdivision 1A,
• So, members, I need advice. article 1, section 1, subdivision 1A, article 1, section 1, subdivision 1A
• All those in favor to adopt Article 1, section 1, subdivision 1A, paragraph A, and give by saying aye
• 1A, paragraph A section 1, subdivision 1A, paragraph A and<00:33:03.679> give<00:33:03.840>
• <00:47:12.079> Um,<00:47:12.560> subdivision<00:47:13.280> 5.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of the problems with what the City and County of Honolulu did, is they swept up a lot of those subdivisions
• of Honolulu did before it all came apart, the Land Use Commission was going to carve out those subdivisions
• <00:54:51.280> in<00:54:51.440> their up a lot of those subdivisions in their up a
• lot of those subdivisions in their IAL IAL IAL designation<00:54:54.119> and<00:54:54.760>
• <00:55:07.440> because<00:55:07.880> they're<00:55:08.040> not those subdivisions

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any money that the Entity or the governmental political subdivision got, if it generated any income.
• My understanding is right now that income from the Interest of the loan, the political subdivision can

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that sounds better okay just subdivision that sounds better okay just simply<04:14:30.720> saying
• “Including digital asset mining, other than the limits set by the political subdivision in any local
• “Well, you know, I think that then setting the limits set by a political subdivision might like that
• “Zoning is from a political subdivision, right?
• is a zoning term I'm subdivision is a zoning term I'm assuming<04:26:26.960> that<04:26:27.920

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The discussion focused on a cannabis legalization/regulation bill and whether it should be retained for further study or moved forward. Members debated the fiscal impact, with one side emphasizing that the bill would cost about $7.1 million in the first two years before generating revenue, while supporters argued the House should make a statement in favor of legalization despite likely opposition from the Senate and governor. There was also disagreement over strategy: some said retaining the bill until closer to the next election would give the issue more visibility, while others said delaying would only avoid sending a bill the Senate was unlikely to take up anyway. A major point of contention was whether cannabis should be regulated by a new cannabis commission or placed under the Liquor Commission. Supporters of the Liquor Commission argued it already has enforcement infrastructure, especially for age restrictions, and could handle cannabis more efficiently without creating a new bureaucracy. Opponents said cannabis is a different industry that would require specialized expertise, and they objected to expanding the Liquor Commission, which they described as unpopular and costly. The committee also discussed past versions of the bill, including concerns about limited licenses and the perception that the earlier approach favored large businesses. Members reviewed specific provisions such as licensing fees, THC limits, and cultivation categories. One member noted a $10,000 fee for retail cannabis stores and cannabis product manufacturers authorized to perform extractions, while a smaller tier-one cultivator fee was described as a lower-cost option for small growers. There was also discussion of whether the bill would allow sales through general retail outlets or only dedicated cannabis stores, and whether plants and seeds were covered. No final vote or action was clearly recorded in the excerpt, but the main procedural question was whether to retain the bill for more work or advance it as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• the nature of the partnerships between the University of Minnesota and some smaller political subdivisions
• :54:50.720> into<00:54:50.960> its<00:54:51.200> own Moves it into its own subdivision
• Um on the side by side we subdivision.
• <00:55:26.240> seems breaking it out as a subdivision seems breaking it out as a subdivision
• In addition, MnDOT suggests striking language in Minnesota Statutes 161.088, subdivision 4A, that requires

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Subdivision 5G provides new assurances to project proposers that initial conversations with the DNR and
• 5G provides new conversation subdivision 5G provides new assurances<01:09:45.839> to<01:09:46.120
• On the underlying bill, line 1.22, subdivision 1, section 5, I'm guessing that they were referring to
• subdivision subdivision five<01:22:58.760> section five section five section three<01:23:01.520
• five of uh 103g subdivision five of uh 103g 265<01:25:19.320> uh<01:25:19.480> it<01:25

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• and it just adds fentanyl to the title and then the definition of fentanyl in chapter 152.137, subdivision
• 15237 um subdivision 25 I believe that 15237 um subdivision 25 I believe that uh<00:02:37.440> that
• illegal immigrant arrested on suspicion of a violent crime, as defined by Minnesota Statute 624.172, subdivision
• illegal immigrant arrested on suspicion of a violent crime, as defined by Minnesota Statute 624.172, subdivision
• language in House File 16, specifically the proposed amendments to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• 5, and similar language in 268.35, subdivision 20.
• 5, and similar language in 268.35, subdivision 20.
• 5, and similar language in 268.35, subdivision 20.
• 5, and similar language in 268.35, subdivision 20.
• 5, and similar language in 268.35, subdivision 20.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee’s first official meeting was framed as an informational session, with the chair saying no legislation would be acted on and that testimony would focus on what is working and not working for businesses and workers in Minnesota. The stated topics included earned sick and safe time, paid family and medical leave, labor shortages, and broader business climate concerns. The chair also noted the absence of DFL members and invited questions to be held until the end so testifiers could present fully. Lauren Shodor of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce argued that Minnesota’s business climate has worsened because of high taxes, rising costs, regulation, and new workplace mandates. She cited chamber survey and research findings saying more businesses are considering leaving the state, that Minnesota companies are investing more in other states than vice versa, and that the state lags national growth rates. She said employers are especially concerned about earned sick and safe time and the upcoming paid family and medical leave program, which the chamber believes add compliance burdens and costs, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. Matt Hilgart of the Association of Minnesota Counties said the new leave laws affect county budgets and operations because labor is the main county cost and services are often state-mandated. He said the programs were imposed outside the collective bargaining process and can duplicate existing county benefits, increase costs, and create staffing and service challenges. He asked for changes including clearer premium-sharing language, exclusion of elected officials and short-term election workers from paid leave requirements, better exemption and private-plan rules, coordination requirements for intermittent leave, and more clarity for essential employees during weather emergencies. Owen Worth of the League of Minnesota Cities said cities are facing similar implementation problems, with overlapping leave policies and concerns about stacking state and federal leave rules, and he indicated the league would support changes to reduce administrative and budget pressures on cities.

Transcript Highlights:

• of Kentucky and its various officers, cabinets, departments, boards, commissions, institutions, subdivisions
• , commissions, institutions, subdivisions, commissions, institutions, subdivisions, agencies,<01:
• the government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and its various officers, boards, commissions, subdivisions
• Kentucky and its various officers, boards,<01:18:46.800> commissions,<01:18:47.520> subdivisions
• ,<01:18:48.360> and boards, commissions, subdivisions, and boards, commissions, subdivisions

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• statute that already tells us who must be screened out is found in Minnesota Statute 326.3381, subdivision
• <00:05:15.919> 2,<00:05:16.479> excuse<00:05:16.720> me, 326.3381, subdivision
• 2, excuse me, 326.3381, subdivision 2, excuse me, subdivision<00:05:17.600> 3,<00:05:18.320><
• <00:05:19.840> Uh,<00:05:20.080> and<00:05:20.320> it subdivision 3, parentheses
• Uh, and it subdivision 3, parentheses A.

Bills: HF2233, HF1524, HF1893, HF1396, HF2456, HF2959, HF2300, HF2412, HF3022, HF2825, HF1862, HF1373, HF1039, HF3070

Keywords: Uniform Special Deposits Act, special deposit, banking law, financial institutions, escrow, escrow account, trust account, security deposit, beneficiary, depositor, creditor process, garnishment, attachment, levy, setoff, recoupment, financial market infrastructure, retirement benefits, compensation, earnest money

Transcript Highlights:

• Subdivision 1 sets the eligibility requirements.
• <00:23:32.960> Uh,<00:23:33.280> subdivision<00:23:33.760> one through the bill
• Uh, subdivision one through the bill.
• Uh subdivision 2 uh provides disability.
• Uh subdivision 2 uh provides that<00:23:54.559> the<00:23:54.720> student<00:23:55.120>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll call this meeting of the Political Subdivisions Committee to order.
• We'll call this meeting of the Political Subdivisions Committee to order.

Bills: SB2069

Keywords: legal notices, publication requirements, transparency, state agency, public access, 908, all

Summary: The Political Subdivisions Committee met to reconsider Senate Bill 269, which concerns legal notices and newspaper publication requirements. Representative Motschenbacher explained that a prior version had a mistake in Section 2 and that the revised amendment, worked out with the Public Service Commission and the North Dakota Newspaper Association, would limit the change to state agencies rather than all governmental units because the broader version would have required thousands of affidavits and been too burdensome. The committee also discussed the meaning of “immediate publication,” with the newspaper association stating the intent was to post notices on the website as soon as a print notice is received, even before newspaper publication, so notices would still appear online if the print version was missed. Members raised questions about whether posting notices online before print publication could affect statutory notice periods, such as 30-day notice requirements. The response given was that the clock would begin when the notice is published on the agency website. After discussion, the committee adopted the amendment 11-0, with two members absent and not voting. The committee then approved Senate Bill 269 as amended and further amended on a 11-0 vote, again with two absent and not voting. Representative Motschenbacher agreed to carry the bill, though members noted it would likely go to a conference committee because of differences between the House and Senate versions. The chair thanked those who worked on the bill and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• for a request to not publish that information, and they're acting on the behalf of a political subdivision
• for a request to not publish that information, and they're acting on the behalf of a political subdivision
• that can be implemented by our office and also with our partners in counties and other political subdivisions
• , but we could create that document and make that available on our website for those political subdivisions
• are And make that available on our website for those political subdivisions or legislative appointments

Summary: The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up a draft bill to make legislators’ and candidates’ residential addresses confidential in public records. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State explained the proposal was prompted by security concerns and would protect residential addresses while still allowing election officials to verify residency and keep candidate names and offices public. Members raised concerns about unintended consequences, transparency, and how the change would affect rural districts and residency enforcement. The Secretary of State suggested an amendment to end the confidentiality when a candidate’s term ends, and the committee agreed to hold the bill over for further discussion at the next meeting. The committee also reviewed follow-up materials on legislator security and best practices, including advice on situational awareness, internet hygiene, varying routines, and reporting threats, along with NCSL materials comparing capitol security practices in other states. Members discussed a recent security incident and the need to keep alert contact information current, and staff said they would continue working with the Highway Patrol on legislative-specific notifications. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to Garrity Consulting’s final report on mitigating the effects of legislative term limits. The consultants summarized survey, focus group, and stakeholder input showing concerns about loss of institutional knowledge, leadership turnover, onboarding demands, and workload pressures, while also noting public support for term limits and annual sessions. Recommendations included considering annual sessions or shifting biennial sessions to even-numbered years, restructuring organizational session and interim committee work, creating office hours and more structured orientation and mentorship, expanding ongoing training and staff support, improving public communication and virtual testimony rules, and addressing barriers to service such as employer support and travel costs. Members discussed the tension between making the legislature more effective and preserving a citizen-legislature model, and the report was received as a roadmap for future implementation rather than immediate action.