Transcript Highlights:

• The committee has eight bills on its agenda. There are five bills on consent.
• There are five bills on the consent calendar.
• And finally, this bill codifies FPPC regulations.
• This bill is simply clarifying.
• You already have a motion to vote on this bill.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:11.600> was<00:12:11.839> drafted >> Well, similar to this bill was drafted
• >> Well, similar to this bill was drafted and<00:12:12.880> as<00:12:13.200> a<00
• So what this bill deals with, if you've got the bill before you, what the bill does not deal with is
• to the bill, make it a better bill. to the bill, make it a better bill.
• with this bill. with this bill.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Last session, we passed a bill.
• Second by Representative Olson to Senate Bill 2276. Is there a discussion on the bill?
• Second by Representative Olson to Senate Bill 2276. Is there a discussion on the bill?
• This is the bill that you've all been waiting for since January. This is our last bill.
• We have amended Bill 2267 in front of us. Motion carries. We have amended Bill 2267 in front of us.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 2276, which addresses water projects that cross county lines. Senator Larry Luick and Danny Quissel of the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association explained that the bill would require joint boards for multi-county projects, with equal representation from each county, and would add a dispute-resolution process: mediation through the Agriculture Department, then appeal to the Department of Water Resources, and finally court if needed. An additional cleanup amendment was adopted to clarify that a district could proceed if a joint board or district refused to participate. Members raised concerns about possible county-versus-county litigation, but the committee approved the amendment and then passed SB 2276 as amended on an 11-0-2 roll call. The committee then heard the final bill of the day, Senate Bill 2267, on on-site wastewater treatment systems. DEQ Director Dave Glott presented a revised amendment reflecting prior discussion and input from local public health units and installers. The proposal would give the Department of Environmental Quality exclusive rulemaking authority, require public health units to inspect systems within 24 hours, allow MOUs with neighboring counties or health units, prohibit local rules that conflict with state standards, and create a state licensing system for installers while exempting homeowners working on their own property. It also set up permitting and appeals procedures, civil penalties for violations, and a $99,000 appropriation, with the department saying it would also rely on fee revenue and report back later on whether the program is working. Members asked about homeowner installation, local permitting, technical assistance, and whether the $99,000 appropriation and expected fees would be sufficient. Glott said homeowners could still consult with local health units and would likely still need permits, and estimated fees might be around $200 per year for installers, generating roughly $50,000 annually. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed SB 2267 as amended on a due-pass motion, with one no vote recorded. The chair then adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, I'm trying to open our bill drafting software and it's freezing on me, so I can't see what
• I've drafted recently.
• He's going to see what he's drafted.
• House Bill 1600. And we heard that this morning.
• House Bill 1448 was the one on the AI.

Bills: SB2004, HB1600

Keywords: ethics commission, immunity, conflict of interest, complaints, public officials, transparency, legislative action, criminal prosecution, complaint resolution, HB 1600, immigration law clinic, University of North Dakota, UND Law, law school clinic, legal aid, immigration attorney, student clinic, pro bono, immigration legal services, caseload limit

Summary: The committee reconvened to continue work on water-related appropriations and related bills, with the chair emphasizing the need to move the water bill to conference committee soon because of differences with the House. Members reviewed project funding levels and carryover balances across several water projects, including NAWS, Southwest, Valley City, Cirrus River flood control, Hart River, Redder water supply, municipal and rural water, general water, and discretionary funding. The discussion focused on reduced revenue forecasts, the use of a $150 million line of credit as a working assumption, and concerns about large carryover amounts and piling up cash. No final changes were made to the water funding numbers, but the chair said the committee would revisit the bill after further cleanup of the draft language. The committee then took up House Bill 1600, which would create an immigration law clinic at the University of North Dakota law school. Members agreed the program should be treated as a one-time pilot rather than ongoing general fund spending, so they adopted an amendment changing the $400,000 appropriation to one-time funding from the strategic investment fund. The amended bill passed unanimously, and Senator Meyer was assigned to carry it. House Bill 1417, dealing with parole and probation-related policy, was also amended. The committee removed Section 8, which eliminated the bill’s appropriations language, based on testimony that the referenced funding was already included elsewhere in the budget. The amended bill then passed unanimously. The committee also discussed possible future amendments to water study language, including earlier reporting deadlines and a proposal to require larger new water project requests to go through the Water Topics Overview Committee before being introduced, but no final action was taken on those concepts. Several other bills, including the AI-related House Bill 1448 and law enforcement bonus bill 1193, were left for later consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• , a very strong bill, a very legal bill, and a bill that would really serve its purpose.
• bill a favor report. bill a favor report.
• the bill or the amendment? the bill or the amendment?
• Trying to represent this bill, trying to defend this bill?
• The bill that's not what the bill says.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you have well water and septic, this is not included in this bill, as I understand it?
• We thank all of you for your leadership on that bill.
• As drafted, the... First, let's start with the impractical.
• We understand the urgency that we're all here, but it remains in the bill.
• Chairman, you yourself made reference to the post-World War II GI Bill.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-03, House Bill 5000, which would allow single-family homes on small lots in areas with adequate infrastructure. Committee chairs outlined the Article 48 process and the hearing format, then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Under Secretary Chris Clutchman of Housing and Livable Communities explained that the proposal would amend Chapter 40A’s Section 3 (the Dover Amendment) to require most municipalities, except Boston, to allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots of at least 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage and access to public water and sewer, while still allowing reasonable local regulations on setbacks, height, bulk, and short-term rentals. He distinguished the proposal from Chapter 40Y starter-home zoning, said implementation would likely require regulations to address issues such as wetlands, infrastructure capacity, and nonconforming lots, and answered committee questions about lot subdivision, MBTA Communities, and the relationship to existing zoning tools. Attorney Susan Murphy testified that the petition would significantly override local zoning and could create conflicts with existing statutes, including Chapter 40A Section 6 protections for certain nonconforming lots, subdivision control law, and other residential zoning districts. She raised concerns about how “access” to water and sewer would be defined, whether the measure could apply in business or industrial districts where residential uses are allowed, and whether the proposal could allow large homes on small lots without any affordability limits. She also warned that the measure could have significant infrastructure impacts and argued that the Legislature should consider broader, more comprehensive housing legislation rather than expanding exceptions to the zoning framework. Committee members asked both experts about frontage, lot size, infrastructure capacity, and how the proposal would interact with 40Y and MBTA Communities. The proponents, led by Andrew McCulla of the Legalized Starter Homes Coalition, argued that Massachusetts faces a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis, citing high home prices, high rents, declining listings, and outmigration of younger residents. They said the measure would legalize modest single-family homes on smaller lots, increase housing supply, and help first-time buyers and downsizing seniors, while leaving most other local rules in place. Other proponents, including representatives from Abundant Housing Massachusetts, the Charles River Regional Chamber, and individual residents, emphasized workforce retention, the need for more starter homes, and the view that large minimum lot sizes are a major barrier to production. Committee members pressed the panel on the lack of any home-size or affordability requirement, possible effects on 40B compliance, the number of new lots and homes that might result, and the fact that the ballot initiative would not be amendable by the Legislature. The hearing then turned to opponents from the Massachusetts Municipal Association, who urged the committee to take no action. MMA leaders said zoning should remain a local decision made by residents and elected local officials, and argued that the proposal would preempt local control with a one-size-fits-all mandate. They also said the measure is impractical because many communities with water and sewer are already at or near capacity, so infrastructure availability does not necessarily mean development capacity. The hearing ended during the MMA’s testimony, with no vote or final committee action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• The draft report is a draft report.
• that there are some unanswered questions with respect to the federal legislation, the big beautiful bill
• House Bill 2 passed at the end of June, and the One Big Beautiful Bill was, you know, still in the process
• and just being mindful of beautiful bill and just being mindful of the<00:16:28.720> timing.
• >> Yeah, I guess maybe it could be drafted >> Yeah, I guess maybe it could be drafted

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the previous meeting minutes and then reviewed a draft preliminary report on long-term managed care. The chair explained the report is intended to frame issues and outline legislative options, not make a final recommendation, especially given unresolved questions about the federal One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3). The report’s key issues included the current financing of county and private nursing homes through Medicaid rates, ProShare, MQUIP, and related funding mechanisms, and the concern that those payments could be affected or eliminated under a managed care model. Members also discussed managed care organizations’ role in Medicaid and cited other states’ experiences, noting examples of savings in Florida and Tennessee but higher costs in California. One member raised Indiana as another important comparison, and the committee agreed to add it to the report’s state examples. The committee also reviewed sections on dual eligibility, D-SNP, PACE, and CFI waivers. The chair raised concerns about whether OB3 creates incentives for states to move toward D-SNP and whether federal changes could affect provider taxes, state-directed payments, and intergovernmental transfers. Henry Litman, the state Medicaid director, said he would confirm details on D-SNP incentives and explained that ProShare is based on certified public expenditure rather than an IGT, while county cap financing is the relevant intergovernmental transfer issue. He said IGTs are not going away and that the main risk is whether current financing mechanisms could be preserved if the state later changed course. Members discussed the possibility of a waiver not being granted or renewed and the high fiscal impact that could have on counties and property taxes. The committee then discussed the population that any long-term managed care model should cover. Members agreed that there is no appetite to move developmental disability or acquired brain disorder populations into long-term managed care at this time, and the chair changed the report’s terminology from “elderly” to “aging population.” The chair also noted that the status quo option should reflect the recent shift toward home and community-based services and reduced nursing home utilization since earlier county reports. The report’s four policy options were summarized as: maintain the status quo; pursue D-SNP for dual eligibles, with DHHS potentially submitting an application as early as 2027; adopt an HCBS carveout; or move fully to managed care for the aging population. No final policy recommendation was made, and the committee discussed making edits to the draft before circulation, including adding Indiana, clarifying OB3-related issues, and changing the report title from “final” to “preliminary” or “interim.”

Transcript Highlights:

• bearing Legislative Council Service drafting number 0.23236, a bill amending the Delinquency Act, defining
• bearing Legislative Council Service drafting number 0.232698, a bill transferring from the Department
• bearing Legislative Council Service drafting number 0.228944, a bill clarifying when drug testing for
• bearing Legislative Council Service drafting number 0.231228, a bill providing for the reset of the
• bearing Legislative Council Service drafting number 0.232279, a bill requiring coverage and eliminating

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will support the bill, but the way the bill's drafted, we have concern.
• That is against the rules and bill drafting.
• And so when we draft any bill, and we'll have other license plate bills that you'll be able to see, it
• I will focus on the constitutional issues with drafting a bill like this.
• I will focus on the constitutional issues with drafting a bill like this.

Bills: HB2003, HB2057, HB2109, HB2111, HB2112, HB2114, HB2256, HB2259, HB2317, HB2323, HB2398, HB2443, HB2446, HB2574

Keywords: driver education, instruction permit, underage drivers, motorcycle licenses, traffic regulations, special plates, centennial, Arizona Department of Transportation, vehicle registration, commercial discounts, Arizona Centennial, distracted driving, portable wireless communication devices, motorcycles, traffic safety, civil penalties, driver license, examinations, motorcycle awareness, public safety

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from New Core Steel on its Arizona operations, emphasizing its Kingman facility, recycled-scrap steel production, high-paying jobs, safety improvements, veteran hiring, community investments, and support for infrastructure projects. Members asked about safety gains, expansion plans, scrap sources, and average pay. The company said it has invested heavily in Arizona and asked legislators to consider local steel and manufacturing when funding transportation and infrastructure projects. The committee then took up several bills. HB 2574 would delay ADOT enforcement of a traffic judgment while an appeal is pending; the sponsor and a witness said it would close a due-process gap, and it passed 7-0. HB 2057 would lower the fee for Arizona Centennial special plates for fleet vehicles to encourage more purchases supporting the Arizona Mining, Mineral, Natural Resource Education Museum; it also passed 7-0 after discussion about possibly expanding the concept to other specialty plates. HB 2109 would raise penalties for repeat distracted-driving violations and add an enhanced penalty when a violation results in a motorcycle crash. The sponsor and motorcycle advocates argued stronger fines are needed, but several members also wanted an education component; the committee agreed to work on a COW amendment and the bill passed 7-0. HB 2317, which would bar local governments from prohibiting cruising, drew strong testimony both for and against: supporters framed cruising as cultural and historical, while opponents from neighborhoods and law enforcement described congestion, blocked streets, sanitation issues, and safety concerns. The chair held the bill for further work. The committee also heard HB 2003, which would lower the age to get an instruction permit to 15 and extend permit periods and supervised-driving requirements; the sponsor and a motorcycle advocate said more supervised time would improve teen safety, while some members expressed concern about lowering the age and wanted to discuss changes before moving it forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next bill.
• Next bill. maybe a physician associate. Next bill.
• U, the bill that the bill will not do.
• NISPA supports uh<01:06:18.079> Senate<01:06:18.400> Bill uh Senate Bill uh Senate Bill
• I'm not here to either support the bill or oppose the bill.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 185, which would add timelines to Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) investigations. Senator Howard Pearl said the bill was prompted by concerns from the New Hampshire Association of Realtors about delays at the Real Estate Commission, and he explained that the proposal would require OPLC staff to make an initial determination within 30 days and, if misconduct is found, complete an investigation within 60 days. He said the goal is to improve transparency and give consumers and licensees more timely information, while preserving the board’s adjudicatory role. He also noted that the bill had been amended to delay implementation to give OPLC time to work through its backlog. Committee members questioned how the bill would work when an investigation is incomplete and whether the board could send a case back to OPLC without a firm deadline. Pearl said the board would have discretion to continue the investigation or make a final determination, and that the bill was intended to streamline OPLC’s process rather than impose a hard cap on complex cases. OPLC Executive Director Deanna Durus and General Counsel Nicholas Fry then testified that the agency has already changed its procedures under prior legislation, including a facial review of complaints and monthly board review of dismissal memos. They said the bill would substantially alter the current structure, could conflict with existing limitation periods and board duties, and would be difficult to implement without additional staff and funding. Durus said the agency’s backlog is large, that new complaints are being triaged and prioritized, and that some urgent matters are moved ahead based on risk and statutory deadlines. She said OPLC had completed a review of about 500 backlog cases that would now be dismissed under current screening standards, and that those cases are being turned into memos for board review. Board of Medicine public member Nina Gardner testified in favor of the bill but said the backlog is significant and that the agency needs more resources to make the process work effectively. She said the board is seeing progress, but not fast enough, and suggested the bill may not go far enough without additional staffing and funding. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you're still paying bills, you're still booking your accruals.
• Is that a bill draft request? I don't think I understand the motion. >> Huh?
• As your bill draft. >> Mr.
• Chairman, so I had the request as a bill draft that if an entity is non-compliant with audit findings
• So at that time, a bill was introduced 11-18-120 and...

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We appreciate their knowledge that they guide us through just drafting bills in committee, their professionalism
• Discussion to the bill. I reading. Discussion to the bill.
• It's an even bill, and it's a bill that I can live with.
• vote no on this bill. vote no on this bill.
• bill resiliency bill and the resiliency bill is<01:31:43.600> something<01:31:43.840> that

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill House Bill 102<00:07:10.599> and<00:07:10.800> recognize<00:07:11.680><
• Representative, you might be on the wrong bill. This bill is 206. This is the wrong bill.
• I think the foundation of the bill is a good bill.
• The bill is retained.
• I think it's a good bill.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the final draft of the report, which must be submitted to the
• You should have received a copy of the final draft we will review today.
• You should have received a copy of the final draft we will review today, which was created in an effort
• to incorporate your feedback following the review of the first draft during the February 9th public
• And I want to let you know that we're not going through every page of the draft of the final report,

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on the Public Health Effects of Xylazine held its fifth and final public meeting to review and approve the final draft of its report before submission to the House and Senate clerks. Chair Mindy Domb opened the meeting, noted Senator John Keenan’s absence due to National Guard deployment, approved the prior meeting minutes, and explained the process for incorporating final edits and late votes into appendices. Commissioners then voted to allow staff to make agreed-upon language changes after the meeting, and later voted on the final report itself. Staff walked commissioners through the report’s redlines and substantive updates. Changes included clarifying that xylazine is an active adulterant rather than simply a bulking agent, replacing “non-clinician” with “non-clinical staff,” removing or revising references to “hotspots” in favor of more accurate language about local trends, and refining language on wound care to refer to medical consequences and financial costs. The report also added or strengthened discussion of harm reduction measures such as drug checking, mobile health services, overdose prevention centers, oxygenation and airway support during overdose response, and the importance of naloxone remaining available while recognizing its limits for xylazine exposure. Commissioners also discussed data collection, legal protections for drug checking, and the role of the Attorney General in guidance and coordination on emerging drug threats. The commission then took a final vote, with the members present voting to approve the report. A letter from Senator Velis, who was also absent due to active duty orders, was read into the record expressing support for the report and its recommendations. In closing comments, commissioners and staff thanked one another for the collaborative work and described the report as a useful public health resource. Chair Domb adjourned the meeting at 11:11 a.m., noting that the final report would be submitted and posted online for public access.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill is intentionally drafted to not punish small unintentional mistakes.
• The bill is intentionally drafted to not punish small unintentional mistakes.
• The bill is intentionally drafted to not punish small unintentional mistakes.
• Yet, with the way this bill is drafted, like I said, there's no pre-approval mechanism for a park owner
• Would you be open to an bill is drafted.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of House Bill 9982.
• have a a direct the bill this bill will have a a direct impact<00:11:36.040> on<00:11:36.200>
• That's correct as the bill is currently drafted, right? Okay, that's a problem. Yeah, thank you.
• <01:01:04.119> requires<01:01:04.680> or<01:01:04.920> it As the bill is drafted
• Members voting on House Bill 982, House Draft 1.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on HB 982 HD1, a wildfire-related measure aimed at creating a wildfire recovery fund and a financing structure to address future catastrophic wildfire liability. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Division of Consumer Advocacy, and the Public Utilities Commission submitted comments and were available for questions. Supporters included IBW Local 1260, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Clearway Energy Group, Hawaiian Electric, Par Hawaii, and others, while Charter Communications and the Hawaii Association for Justice opposed or raised concerns. Life of the Land supported the bill but urged changes to the definition of a catastrophic wildfire and noted concerns about prudency review language. IBW Local 1260 asked to restore language from the original draft, and Charter warned the bill could impair existing contract and indemnity rights unless amended. A major focus of the hearing was Hawaiian Electric’s position on the HD1 version. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the original bill but objected to the HD1 requirement for an additional $500 million shareholder contribution, arguing it was not feasible and could delay or prevent the fund from operating. The company said the bill would help protect customers and improve credit ratings by creating a dedicated revenue stream and a bankruptcy-remote financing structure, which it said would lower borrowing costs over time. Members questioned how the $1 billion securitization amount was chosen, whether credit rating agencies had indicated it was sufficient, and how the bill would work in bankruptcy; Hawaiian Electric said the amount was a balance among interests, not based on a specific agency directive, and that it would follow up on bankruptcy questions. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about liability caps, the new claims process, and unclear language on damages above the fund’s limits. The Hawaii Association for Justice argued the bill limits victims’ remedies and gives too much authority to the new entity without clear guardrails. Committee members also pressed Hawaiian Electric on comparisons to California, the feasibility of the shareholder contribution, and whether alternative capital-raising or divestiture options had been considered. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; testimony and questioning continued with follow-up information requested from Hawaiian Electric and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• Should this bill move forward, will you continue to oppose the bill?
• are in support of this bill.
• are in support of this bill.
• are in support of this bill.
• 1388, Senate Draft 2.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several education-related bills, with testimony largely in support. SB 1388 and SB 1393, both concerning the School Facilities Authority and Department of Education representation and land conveyances, received support from DOE and the School Facilities Authority, with no questions or action taken. SB 423, which would add Head Start representation to the Early Learning Board, was supported by the Early Learning Board and the Executive Office on Early Learning, which explained the bill would realign the board with federal Head Start Act requirements after the board was restructured in Act 170; EEL also requested an effective-date amendment. SB 422, allowing DOE to award diplomas to students whose education was disrupted by war, drew support from DOE, the Chamber of Commerce, the Military Council, and the Special Education Advisory Council, but also significant opposition from the Hawaii Patriot Republicans and many individuals; members asked questions about the bill, and DOE explained the measure’s purpose, but no vote was taken. The committee also took testimony on SB 532, which would expand who may administer certain medications in schools. DOE, the Department of Health, and the University of Hawaii supported the bill. Members asked detailed questions about oral, nasal, and topical medications and the process for prescription review and administration; DOE explained that parents request the medication, a school form is completed, a nurse reviews it, and either a trained school health assistant or a contracted nurse administers the medication. DOE said the measure could improve attendance and learning, especially for students with ADHD, asthma, and other chronic conditions. The committee then heard SB 659 on locally sourced food products and school meals, where DOE’s procurement office opposed the higher small-purchase threshold and DOE exemption from procurement rules, while Ulupono Initiative, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Hawaii Public Health Institute, and others supported the bill as a way to advance farm-to-school goals and the 30% local food target by 2030. Testimony and questioning focused on the proposed threshold increase, transparency, and whether an online bidding system would be preferable. Finally, the committee heard SB 1300 on subsidies for ALICE families’ school meals. DOE supported the bill but requested amendments: defining eligibility at 250% of the federal poverty level, delaying implementation until the 2026-2027 school year, and covering reduced-price lunch students in full for 2025-2026. HSTA, Hawaii Appleseed, Catholic Charities Hawaii, Pride at Work Hawaii, Hawaii Youth Services Network, and others supported the measure, emphasizing food insecurity, the burden of meal paperwork, and the educational importance of free meals. Hawaii Appleseed suggested replacing ALICE with a federal poverty level standard and removing a rulemaking requirement that could delay implementation. No votes or final committee actions were reported in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are on House Bill 2012, House Draft 1.
• We are on House Bill 2012, House Draft 1. House Bill 2012, House Draft 1.
• House Bill 2345, House Draft 1, relating to school facilities.
• Uh, starting out with House Bill 1559, House draft 2.
• House Bill 2122 House draft >> Thank you.

Bills: HB1559, HB2012, HB2297, HB2122, HB2345, HB2398, HB2534, HB2621

Keywords: telecommunication devices, student use, public schools, student engagement, educational outcomes, confiscation policy, mental health, statewide policy, community literacy, education, Title I funding, reading proficiency, underserved communities, family engagement, tutoring, literacy support, adult education, community education, literacy programs, workforce development

Transcript Highlights:

• We have one bill left.
• Chairman, the way the statute is drafted, the way the statute in law is right now, we only collect rent
• It would most likely be general fund money that will replace the rent if we draft it. $219,500 was it
• So, Brady, is there a limit to how many amendments we can have you draft, or are we near the limit?

Bills: SB2014

Keywords: industrial commission, economic development, housing finance, oil and gas, rail infrastructure, financial assistance, emergency funding, 908, all

Summary: The Government Operations Division met to continue work on the remaining bill and related amendments. Joe Morse asked the committee to include a $219,000 general fund replacement for rent that would no longer be collected from Career and Technical Education after the 15th floor of the tower becomes legislative space under the Legislative Council’s jurisdiction. Members discussed that state law currently requires rent only from executive branch office space, not legislative or judicial space, and there was no objection to adding the request to the amendment package. The committee then revisited a set of amendments it had previously discussed, including whether to include funding for Prairie Public. Senator Dwyer argued against any Prairie Public funding, citing its reserves, endowment, and charitable gaming revenue, and said the state should prioritize other needs. Senator Irby supported a one-time infrastructure contribution as the state shares in related infrastructure costs. Senator Sickler said Prairie Public still provides unique local programming, but that a one-time infrastructure item would be a reasonable compromise rather than ongoing operating support. A motion was made and seconded to provide Prairie Public $850,000 from the Strategic Investment and Improvement Fund for infrastructure needs. The roll call vote failed 3-2, with Senators Sickler and Irby voting aye, Senators Dwyer and Burkhard voting no, and Chairman Wanzek voting yes. After that vote, the committee indicated the amendment package was otherwise complete, though leadership had asked that final action on the bill be held for a little longer. The meeting adjourned with the understanding that more amendments could still be brought forward before the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 516? Senate Bill 516?
• Senate Bill 640. Senate Bill 640.
• Um, so, in terms of the implications of the currently drafted bill, it's fairly unclear as to what the
• <00:44:30.440> bill, currently drafted bill, currently drafted bill, it's<00:44:32.040>
• . bill. bill.

Keywords: 1189, house, all