Transcript Highlights:

• Arizona State Senate legislative proclamation honoring the traditions of legislative decorum and ceremonial
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• All right, any discussion?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• discussion of the matter. discussion of the matter.
• Is there any discussion? discussion? discussion?
• for discussion of the matter. for discussion of the matter.
• for discussion of the matter. for discussion of the matter.
• Is there any discussion? discussion? discussion?

Bills: SB141, SB124, SB56, SJR116, SB94, SB37, SB127, SB197, SB66, SB70, SB133, SB160, SB214, SB312, SB52, SJR62, SJR75

Keywords: legal advertisements, tax rates, public hearings, transparency, local government, sick leave, education, teacher retirement, benefits, employee compensation, Medicaid, nonopioid analgesics, pain management, health care regulation, utilization controls, physician shortage, health care access, medically underserved areas, medical education, workforce development

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that is, you know, baked into the legislation.
• Next, I will discuss...
• Now is the time to start discussing...
• The advanced nuclear technologies being discussed...
• They're not assigned to any specific legislator.

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to review prior minutes and hear a series of presentations on advanced nuclear technology and state readiness. The committee approved the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon’s William Bridge outlined the advanced nuclear landscape, distinguishing near-term light-water SMRs from more advanced Gen 4 reactors and microreactors, and emphasized that fuel supply, especially HALEU, remains a developing supply chain. He said light-water designs are the most deployable in the near term, while advanced reactors may be better suited for industrial heat applications and could face a 2- to 3-year delay from fuel availability. Representatives from NASEO described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, pilot programs, financing tools, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and regional coordination. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and stressed that states are focusing early on emergency preparedness, community engagement, waste management, affordability, and consumer protections. They also noted that some states are creating nuclear-ready community programs and cost-recovery guardrails, while public utility commissions are examining long-term lifecycle costs and rate impacts. North Dakota agencies then outlined their potential roles. The Public Service Commission said it would likely be involved in public-interest review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted current statutes may not fully address long-term nuclear projects, co-location, or decommissioning. The Department of Environmental Quality said it would continue to regulate radioactive materials and likely support emergency planning, while fission reactor oversight remains federal. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, needing a radiological emergency program, training, exercises, equipment, and possibly industry funding. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota has sufficient surface water, especially from the Missouri River, but that water planning would be important; it did not recommend statutory or budget changes at this time. The committee recessed for lunch after these presentations, with no additional votes or actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was a discussion that was had—the initial discussion with both Kyle Weatherly, the vice president,
• There were other further discussions that were brought between other members of the board discussing
• a number of legislators, they're Mr.
• We've had discussions with Mr.
• Jay to say, based on the discussion we had yesterday at 2 p.m., here's a summary of what we did discuss

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? >> Thank you. Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? bill. Any further discussion? >> I<02:15:25.599> do.
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? >> All right. Any further discussion?
• your legislative declaration. your legislative declaration.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and again they do not write legislation. and again they do not write legislation.
• send legislation to have legislation<00:07:10.560> passed<00:07:10.880> by<00:07:11.120
• "Is there any need for discussion on the motion to reconsider?"
• <00:12:53.360> that a very good uh piece of legislation that a very good uh piece of legislation
• With that, is there any other business that we need to discuss? Mr.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met to reconsider its prior vote on SB 148 and then take up a substitute amendment. The chair explained that members from both caucuses, along with the ranking member, were generally in agreement on the process: first a motion to reconsider, then a vote on amendment 20251922H, followed by a vote on the bill. He also noted late input from the attorney general’s office seeking language to ensure the bill would not affect criminal prosecutions, and said the final floor amendment language would be worked out with that office but would remain under legislative control. Representative Coutab moved to reconsider the committee’s earlier vote on SB 148, and the motion passed by show of hands, 16-1, with the chair not voting. Representative Manos then moved amendment 20251922H, described as a substitute for the Birch-Lin amendment that removed a paragraph on page 2, lines 17-19. The amendment was adopted unanimously, 17-0. The committee then voted on the main motion, to ought to pass SB 148 as amended. Members spoke in support, describing the bill as heavily revised through extensive work and research, with one member crediting Representative Coutab’s research for helping shape the revised proposal. The roll call passed 17-0. The chair said the bill could not go on consent because a floor amendment would be needed, and the committee would keep members apprised of the final language. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• discuss or favorable consideration. discuss or favorable consideration.
• discussion. Senator Driscoll. Mr. discussion. Senator Driscoll. Mr.
• legislators legislation. It can change. legislators legislation. It can change.
• Discussion on the House bill. Discussion on House Bill 4. Discussion on House Bill 4.
• discussion on House Bill 112? discussion on House Bill 112?

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• On August 22nd, we had a discussion of the desired qualifications and job description. discussion of
• It came to a head in this legislation.
• That might be a helpful spot of discussion for this committee. Discussion for this committee.
• Different discussions.
• Chair, legislate love and hate. We can't legislate that.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are not here to develop legislation or debate solutions.
• So, Commissioner Yaroski, we've chosen to discuss a frame-built 2000 We've chosen to discuss a frame-built
• We'd love to have that discussion at some point.
• And, you know, that's a very detailed discussion.
• We've done everything as legislators for years now.

Summary: The subcommittee held its first meeting on homeowners property insurance, with members from both parties introducing themselves and repeatedly noting that insurance affordability, roof condition, claims handling, and storm recovery are top concerns for their districts. Chair Yeager said the meeting was intended as an educational discussion rather than a legislative debate, and introduced a panel that included Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworski, consumer Chad Carr, agent Mary Catherine Lawler, insurer executive Melissa Burt DeVries, and policyholder attorney Chip Merlin. The panel and members discussed major cost drivers in Florida homeowners insurance, including inflation, home age, roof age, mitigation features, claims history, litigation costs, reinsurance, and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. Commissioner Yaworski said underwriting has become more sophisticated and that litigation costs, reinsurance, and replacement-cost inflation all affect premiums; he also said litigation is down about 30% and average requested rate increases have fallen from about 22.1% in 2022 to 0.8% today. DeVries said age of home, replacement cost, roof age, and coverage choices can materially change premiums, and explained that reinsurance is a major expense passed through to consumers. Merlin emphasized transparency concerns, argued that insurers are increasingly individualizing risk, and said consumers often struggle with coverage limits, deductibles, and claim denials. Members asked about flood coverage, hurricane deductibles, managed repair programs, mitigation credits, new insurer capitalization, and whether savings from reforms are reaching consumers. Yaworski explained that flood is generally excluded from homeowners policies and covered separately, that hurricane deductibles are mandatory in Florida and usually around 5%, and that the office tracks savings from reforms through rate filings and insurer discussions. He said the state is updating mitigation discounts and monitoring new entrants closely for solvency and market conduct. Several members and panelists said recent reforms have helped reduce some abuses and litigation, but many consumers are still seeing higher premiums because replacement costs and reinsurance remain elevated. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:49.520> the contacted stakeholders to discuss the contacted stakeholders to discuss
• :16.400> the Per the legislation establishing the Per the legislation establishing the working
• :26.400> the Per the legislation establishing the Per the legislation establishing the working
• Any discussion? Any discussion? Mr. Chos, thank you, Madam Chair.
• That's not in the legislative record. That's not in the legislative record.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group met for its final meeting on January 28 and first approved the prior meeting minutes after correcting two roll-call vote errors involving Miss Woodward. The chair then gave an extended recap of the history of seclusion policy, including the pre-2023 emergency-only framework, the 2023 ban on seclusion for children birth through grade 3, the 2025 introduction of SF 1830 to restore prior law, and the compromise amendment that allowed limited seclusion in grades 1 through 3 with added safeguards. The chair also reviewed the working group’s timeline, noting it had met from August 2025 through January 2026 and was required to submit findings by January 30, 2026. The main substantive discussion focused on the chair’s proposed timeline for eliminating seclusion and an alternative proposal from Mace. Several members criticized a Minnesota Department of Education letter that opposed parts of the working group’s recommendations, arguing it mischaracterized district practices, questioned informed consent and mental health professional provisions, and did not reflect the realities faced by schools. Members supporting the current use of seclusion said districts already use MTSS, PBIS, Ukeru, and other interventions, but still need seclusion in limited emergency situations. They also said the department’s comments felt inflammatory or unsupportive. On the timeline issue, Mace proposed allowing limited seclusion for students in grades 1 through 12 receiving certain special education services until July 1, 2036, with data collection on outcomes and related interventions. Some members supported a “runway” toward elimination, saying it would allow time to build alternatives and avoid an abrupt ban, while others said they could not support including grades 1 through 3 in any extended timeline and preferred elimination sooner. Members also questioned whether MDE currently collects enough data on law enforcement interventions and related outcomes. The meeting ended with continued discussion of the timeline proposal, but no final vote or report approval was recorded in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:34.840> so<00:20:35.120> legislators also include legislators so legislators
• also include legislators so legislators were<00:20:36.080> not<00:20:36.360> part<00:20
• a lot of discussion a lot of discussion on<00:39:11.680> uh<00:39:12.680> uh<00:39
• legislation legislation another<00:55:57.559> issue<00:55:58.640> that<00:55:59.640>
• <01:40:22.760> as<01:40:22.920> well and the discussion as well and the discussion

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for the legislative record. for the legislative record.
• there any member discussion? there any member discussion?
• We will go to member<01:15:26.600> discussion. member discussion. member discussion.
• discussion to the A6? discussion to the A6?
• discussion to this?

Bills: SF1750, HF2700, HF1606, HF3356, HF3946, HF3970, HF3658, HF3875, HF2627, SF856, HF1268, HF1338

Keywords: common interest community, CIC, homeowners association, HOA, condominium, planned community, cooperative, unit owner, association board, declarant, declarant control, special declarant rights, assessment lien, foreclosure, late fees, fines, attorney fees, resale disclosure, annual report, maintenance plan

Transcript Highlights:

• Mark Fincham, Senator from Legislative District 1, Prescott.
• So, and again, I discussed this with Senator Bolick.
• Senator Mark Fincham, Legislative District 1.
• Senator Mark Fincham, Legislative District 1.
• Joint Legislative Committee jointly provide notifications as prescribed and the legislature enacts legislation

Bills: SB1004, SB1424, SB1497, SB1507, SB1572, SB1684, SB1711, SB1741, SB1754, SB1763, SB1798, SCR1012, SCR1041, SCR1051

Keywords: sex offender registration, sex offender registry, A.R.S. 13-3821, sexual offenses, public safety, GPS monitoring, electronic monitoring, transient offender, homeless registrant, online identifiers, internet identifiers, sheriff notification, Department of Public Safety, DPS, DNA collection, juvenile adjudication, kidnapping of a minor, unlawful imprisonment of a minor, lifetime registration, community notification

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll also get a preview of legislation that may come up in the next legislative session or before one
• We'll also get a preview of legislation that may come up in the next legislative session or before one
• legislator.
• Or any individual legislator.
• No, Madam Chair, it's discussion that we needed, and we got some good discussion. Great.

Summary: The committee’s final day focused first on a historical overview of New Mexico tax packages by Pam Stokes of Legislative Council Services. She described how tax packages have alternated over the decades between tax relief, revenue raising, and tax reform, with examples ranging from the creation of the gross receipts tax in 1966 to major packages in 1981, 1986, 1991, 1994, 2005, 2019, 2022, 2024, and the vetoed 2025 package. Members discussed how tax policy often tracks revenue conditions, how packages can combine increases and decreases, and how local government gross receipts taxes and hold-harmless distributions have affected communities differently. Several members reflected on past packages, especially the 2004 food tax repeal and the 2013 film tax and manufacturing changes, and noted that tax policy can have major economic and political effects even when it is not “sexy” legislation. The committee then heard a proposal to expand the health care practitioner gross receipts tax deduction to include co-insurance, and to extend the sunset date. Sponsor Senator Figueroa said the bill was intended to help recruit and retain medical providers and build on prior deductions for co-pays and deductibles. Testimony explained that co-insurance is the patient’s share after the deductible, that providers currently absorb the gross receipts tax on those payments, and that the proposal would cost about $30 million to the state plus about $20 million to municipalities and counties, with the exact fiscal impact likely to be updated. Members raised concerns about the effect on local governments, whether insurers could be required to reimburse providers, whether the bill would actually attract doctors, and whether better evaluation measures and sunsets should be added. The sponsor said the bill was part of a broader set of efforts to address provider shortages and that the discussion would continue. Representative McQueen then presented a bill to update the Land Conservation Incentives Act. He and conservation partners said the program has protected more than 500,000 acres but has not kept pace with rising land values, especially for irrigated agricultural land in the Middle Rio Grande. The proposal would increase the percentage of conservation value eligible for the credit, raise the per-transaction cap from $250,000 to $2 million, and make the credit refundable rather than only transferable. Testimony emphasized that the program is voluntary, keeps land in private ownership and production, and helps land-rich, cash-poor landowners preserve farmland and water rights. Members asked about average credit amounts, how easements work, whether landowners could effectively buy land and then use the credit, and whether there should be inflation indexing or a statewide cap. The discussion also touched on water rights, fencing, and the role of conservation easements in protecting agricultural land and compact water deliveries. Finally, Senator Sharer previewed his 2% tax proposal with a historical presentation on New Mexico tax law, using props to illustrate the evolution from early territorial tax codes to the modern tax system. He argued that the state’s current tax structure is overly complex and that recent federal changes have disrupted the personal income tax base. The committee did not take any votes on the day’s presentations; the meeting was primarily informational, with members offering feedback and raising policy concerns for future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we're also going to discuss some variations.
• the bill, we will have a lot more discussion.
• But anyway, that's further under discussion.
• So I think that's part of driving the discussion, to have those nine discussed, the other two here.
• legislators decide, we'll work with.

Summary: The committee met to discuss higher education funding and capital building policy. Members first heard an update from NDUS Deputy Commissioner Lisa Johnson on low-producing academic programs. She described a proposed board policy using a five-year rolling window and thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, with programs flagged for three consecutive review periods going to the board. Possible outcomes would include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the review would account for program costs, service to other students, workforce demand, and the difference between inactivation and termination. Johnson said the board would consider broader factors and that campuses already do detailed program analysis. Several members also asked about cost savings and staffing impacts from program terminations, and Johnson said the board would try to provide more information later. The committee then received a report on the Capital Building Fund from Jamie Wilkie. He reviewed the program’s history, matching requirements, and recent uses, noting that about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with most going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Members discussed whether the program is reducing deferred maintenance and requested updated systemwide data on deferred maintenance and campus space utilization. Wilkie said the board is considering a new study to update deferred maintenance figures, which are based on information more than 12 years old. He also reported that several institutions have used current biennium funds for projects such as residence hall renovations, health sciences housing, generators, and building repairs. Later, the committee began a detailed walkthrough of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and also revise the capital building fund structure. The draft would use fall enrollment FTEs, add completion incentives for degrees in in-demand fields, and create a separate research funding component for UND and NDSU tied to doctoral completions and external research expenditures. Members raised concerns about the use of older data in the formula, the treatment of waivers, the weighting of professional and health sciences programs, and the use of CIP codes to define CTE and education incentives. The bill draft would also combine capital building fund tiers, broaden eligible uses for deferred maintenance and legislatively authorized projects, change matching requirements, repeal the old formula chapter and the capital pool, and transfer funds from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund into the capital building fund. No final votes were taken during the portion provided; the meeting was primarily discussion and review.

Transcript Highlights:

• Further<00:36:32.320> discussion. Further discussion. Further discussion.
• A motion and a second to make House Bill 1750 inexpedient to legislate. Further discussion.
• Further<01:20:45.199> discussion? Further discussion? Further discussion?
• inexpedient to legislate. inexpedient to legislate.
• Further discussion. The motion requires inexpedient to legislate on House Bill 1311.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a legislative committee that meets regularly throughout the legislative session.
• They discuss any piece of criminal justice-related legislation that's being considered by the legislature
• and heard that topic discussed.
• Part of that discussion, Mr.
• What was the legislative intent?

Bills: SB100

Keywords: burglary, aggravated burglary, dwelling, criminal law, property rights, 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Further discussion?
• Further discussion, gentleman from Jefferson. Further discussion.
• Discussion on the title.
• Further discussion on the underlying legislation. Gentlemen from Greene County, thank you, Mr.
• Legislative session.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and um legislative<02:54:54.520> staff legislative staff legislative staff this<02:54:55.880>
• the office of the legislative auditor. the office of the legislative auditor.
• discussions before we vote? discussions before we vote?
• >> Uh any other discussion? >> Uh any other discussion?
• prior to uh legislative prior to uh legislative uh<03:48:55.560> approval.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all