Transcript Highlights:

• May I add a point of clarification through... Thank you for the question, Assembly Member.
• May I add one clarification? Thank you for the question. Assembly member.
• But we think that it's vitally important to have some clarification, since the measure goes into effect
• limiting disclosure where the synthetic performer appears prominently, we believe, needs some clarification
• So what we're seeking is clarifications of basic rights to make sure that we respect private property

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills, beginning with SB 16, which would require county behavioral health directors to create clear pathways for clinicians to be authorized to initiate 5150 involuntary holds. The author and supporters argued the bill would reduce reliance on law enforcement and create more consistent crisis response standards statewide, while county behavioral health directors opposed it as an unfunded mandate that could increase law enforcement involvement and create implementation burdens. Members raised questions about county costs and funding, but the author emphasized the bill’s role in building a more clinical response system. SB 561 would require public guardians to acknowledge conservatorship referrals, make determinations within a reasonable time, and provide status updates on request. Supporters said the bill would reduce delays that leave vulnerable adults in limbo, while the opposition from public guardian representatives was removed after amendments. SB 381 drew extensive public testimony in support; it would allow California-born adoptees, and descendants of deceased adoptees, access to original birth certificates, with a nonbinding contact preference form for birth parents. Supporters framed the bill as a matter of dignity, identity, and health, and there was no formal opposition on the record. The committee also discussed SB 880, which would give tenants and prospective owner-occupants notice and a first opportunity to make an offer when institutional investors sell certain homes. Supporters said it would expand homeownership opportunities and preserve neighborhood stability, while opponents warned about conflicts with federal law, bundled-sale restrictions, and impacts on build-to-rent and affordable housing projects. Members and the author discussed possible amendments to address those concerns. SB 1238 would impose a duty of care and additional transparency requirements on HOA managers and boards; supporters said it would protect homeowners from mismanagement, while the main opposition argued the duty should remain contractual and could increase litigation. Finally, SB 423 would require disclosure of emergency-service records related to private detention facilities, and SB 28 would make changes to the CARE Court process, including a statewide ombudsperson and expanded oversight; both drew support and opposition, with concerns focused on transparency, privacy, implementation, and the balance between treatment and coercion. SB 574, discussed at the end, would require disclosure and human oversight for AI use in courts and legal practice and create a complaint process for ADR providers, with the State Bar noting requested amendments related to complaint handling and confidentiality.

Transcript Highlights:

• the most recent biennium at June 30, 2025, they had $490,000 of general fund appropriation for clarification
• However, we did issue a concluding comment to provide more clarification.
• Yeah, so the couple of clarifications there, we don't have any coverage for state vehicles or, you know
• Chair Magrum, members of the committee, first, as a point of clarification, this is the first time I've
• I just want clarification.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• However, we did issue a concluding comment to provide more clarification.
• Yeah, so the couple of clarifications there, we don't have any coverage for state vehicles or, you know
• Um, Chair Madagerman, members of the committee, first as a point of clarification, this is the first
• Chair Magerman, members of the committee, first as a point of clarification, this is the first time I've
• I just want clarification.

Summary: The committee was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer were offered, and the minutes from the previous meeting were approved. Members then received a memo summarizing major audit items and began hearing audit presentations from the State Auditor’s Office and private auditors on a range of state agencies and organizations. Several audits were reported as clean, including the Bank of North Dakota, the North Dakota Guaranteed Student Loan Program, the Office of the Governor, the Office of the State Treasurer, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Transportation’s flexible transportation fund, Lake Region State College, and the Department of Environmental Quality. The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association also received an unmodified opinion, though repeat findings were noted for limited segregation of duties and financial statement preparation due to its small staff. The Council on the Arts audit found two findings: payroll charged to federal awards without adequate timekeeping records, and unallowable expenditures from a restricted cultural endowment fund. The Department of Public Instruction audit identified unsupported scholarship applications in the paraprofessional-to-teacher program, though additional testing showed the funds were used for their intended purpose. The most extensive discussion centered on the North Dakota Racing Commission audit, which identified four findings: overspending the promotion fund’s 25% operating limit, grant conditions not being met, improper Breeders Fund awards, and improper procurement for advertising services. Racing Commission director Bruce Johnson acknowledged complacency and weak controls, said the agency would tighten procedures, and explained that the commission had since worked with procurement and would follow the rules more closely. Auditors also explained that the commission would now be audited every two years because of the findings. Another major discussion involved the University of North Dakota School of Law, where auditors found a lack of documentation supporting admissions decisions for post-baccalaureate programs. UND officials said they remain in good standing with the American Bar Association but agreed better documentation and tools are needed; the committee pressed for more transparency and follow-up on admissions criteria. The committee also received an update on Dakota College at Bottineau, where Minot State University reported that bank reconciliations had been brought current after a significant backlog and would now be maintained through shared services. Members requested a written follow-up report on the issues and corrective actions. Finally, the North Dakota Fair Association explained that its foundation has been dissolved and remaining funds were transferred to another nonprofit for continued support of the state fair, and the Department of Public Instruction provided an update on school meal debt, saying the reported amount was about $1.1 million from a partial district survey and that debt remains a local issue, though it could be revisited if school meal funding changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the second resolution that DLNR and these clarification on, for the Attorney General. seeing
• This is the second, resolution that dlnR and these clarification on, for the attorney general.
• So just some clarification around the intent. Questions, comments?
• So just some clarification around the intent questions, comments, seeing none.
• And also, there were some CDA proposed amendments that are largely just clarifications that are included

Bills: HCR93, HCR14, HR85

Keywords: image-based sexual abuse, working group, gender-based violence, Hawaii Commission on the Status of Women, prevention efforts, survivor protections, new technologies, legal reform, HCR14, House Concurrent Resolution, perpetual easement, non-exclusive easement, state submerged lands, submerged lands, shoreline easement, drainage outfall, stormwater outfall, lagoon outfall, pipelines, Kahala Hotel & Resort

Transcript Highlights:

• if there's clarification on that or<00:46:08.560> or<00:46:08.880> if<00:46:09.040>
• Chair, and thank you for that clarification, Mr. Tense.
• Chair and thank you for that<01:09:48.640> clarification<01:09:49.279> Mr.
• <01:09:50.400> The<01:09:50.640> other that clarification Mr. Tense.
• The other that clarification Mr. Tense.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much for the clarification on that. Any questions for our utilities at the table?
• Thank you very much for the clarification on that. Any questions for our utilities at the table?
• Thank you very much for the clarification on that. Any questions for our utilities at the table?
• Thank you very much for the clarification on that. Any questions for our utilities at the table?
• <01:15:38.800> Any for the clarification on that. Any for the clarification on that.

Bills: SF0095, SF0107, SF0112

Keywords: driver's license, motor vehicle services, third-party providers, Wyoming, regulatory compliance, motor vehicle, registration, license plate, electronic system, State Department of Transportation, county treasurers, vehicle fees, public records, license plates, replacement cycle, vehicle registration, motor vehicles, state fees, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> I think I need a clarification. >> When I grant a variance, that variance goes with the land and
• What—so I don't know if you want to speak on that or... >> I think I need a clarification. >> When I
• What—so I don't know if you want to speak on that or... >> I think I need a clarification. >> When I
• What—so I don't know if you want to speak on that or... >> I think I need a clarification. >> When I
• What—so I don't know if you want to speak on that or... >> I think I need a clarification. >> When I

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is just kind of a... this is what the city... ...is one of this clarification amendments to make
• This clarification reinforces the legislative intent. ...everyone thought we had when we passed the law
• More clarification when we're talking about life-threatening and the definition in this bill.
• Money, over the last six months or so, I've needed a lot of. ...clarification myself.
• I appreciate the clarification. Thank you, ma'am. He yields for questions. Thank you, Mr. Guerin.

Bills: SB31, SB33, SB20, SB217, SB264, SB269, SB650, SB681, SB528, SB502, SB740, SB916, SB995, SB10, SB2581, SB2570, SB3031, SB24, SB379, SB1171, SB1121, SB1120, SB1061, SB1036, SB1019, SB890, SB11, SB868, SB1188, SB1254, SB2778, SB2543, SB2443, SB1333, SB1259, SB1401, SB1404, SB2139, SB2165, SB2237, SB2268, SB1202, SB1198, SB1212, SB1451, SB1470, SB1498, SB965, SB1547, SB1667, SB1818, SB1902, SB2129, SB2078, SB2069, SB1737, SB1589, SB1318, SB387, SB1150, SB1574, SB2127, SB3034, SB860, SB1278, SCR5, SCR32, SB4, SB23, SB1762, SB34, SB60, SB706, SB1814, SB1220, SB523, SB565, SB1253, SB840, SB764, SB2383, SB2155, SB1535, SB1423, SB1566, SB1804, SB1728, SB1816, SB1952, SB75, SB2068, SB1455, SB213, SB627, SB2037, SB670, SB896, SB917, SB1184, SB971, SB1255, SB1261, SB1283, SB991, SB1733, SB21, SB231, SB739, SB1252, SB1371, SB646, SB3, SCR27, SB552, SB1405, SB1948, SB243, SJR1, SB31, SB33, SB20, SB217, SB264, SB269, SB650, SB681, SB528, SB502, SB740, SB916, SB995, SB10, SB2581, SB2570, SB3031, SB24, SB379, SB1171, SB1121, SB1120, SB1061, SB1036, SB1019, SB890, SB11, SB868, SB1188, SB1254, SB2778, SB2543, SB2443, SB1333, SB1259, SB1401, SB1404, SB2139, SB2165, SB2237, SB2268, SB1202, SB1198, SB1212, SB1451, SB1470, SB1498, SB965, SB1547, SB1667, SB1818, SB1902, SB2129, SB2078, SB2069, SB1737, SB1589, SB1318, SB387, SB1150, SB1574, SB2127, SB3034, SB860, SB1278, SCR5, SCR32, SB546, SB647, SB648, SB1493, SB1709, SB2001, HB5669, HB3115, HB5655, HB5675, HB5689, HB5690, HB5653, HB3228, HB2802, HB45, HB1318, HB5560, HB2894, HB4344, HB2775, HB33, HB 12, HB148

Keywords: SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, unborn child, abortion exception, abortion ban, physician liability, health care liability claim, aiding and abetting, Texas Medical Board, State Bar of Texas, continuing medical education

Transcript Highlights:

• Brook asked for clarification, saying, “Mr.
• Are there any other clarifications you want to make on the discussion this morning about the harassing
• Are there any other clarifications<01:19:55.280> you<01:19:55.440> want<01:19:55.600>
• > to<01:19:55.679> make<01:19:55.840> on<01:19:56.000> the clarifications you
• want to make on the clarifications you want to make on the discussion<01:19:56.480> this<01:19

Bills: HF1546, HF2403, HF2389, HF2398

Keywords: fire safety, public safety, statewide fire code, code cleanup, repeal, obsolete statutes, matches, strike-anywhere matches, safety matches, match packaging, match storage, tent safety, flame resistant tents, public assembly tents, flammable materials, fire code modernization, Minnesota Statutes chapter 325F, commerce policy, financial institutions, insurance regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for that clarification.
• Thank you for that clarification.
• Thank you for that clarification.
• Thank you for that clarification.
• Thank you for that clarification.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:09:19.400> why<01:09:19.600> not craft for your clarification why not craft for
• your clarification why not mandating<01:09:21.239> State<01:09:21.759> gov<01:09:22.159
• I appreciate the bill and just have a question on a clarification of your language in your amendment.
• a question appreciate the bill just have a question on<01:25:34.199> a<01:25:34.360> clarification
• of your language in on a clarification of your language in your<01:25:36.159> in<01:25:36.280

Bills: HF550, HF412, HF796, HF140

Keywords: redistricting, Bipartisan Commission, Minnesota Constitution, census, legislative districts, HF412, Minnesota legislature, education committee, K-12 education, school observation, teacher observation, administrator observation, legislative transparency, legislator accountability, House rules, Senate rules, Legislative Reference Library, public reporting, education finance, education policy

Transcript Highlights:

• :32:34.080> have clarification u that we have clarification u that we have communicated<00:32:
• I just have a question or clarification. So this is information only today.
• I just have a question or clarification. I just have a question or clarification.
• But the regulation doesn't provide that clarification.
• It's ambiguous in that clarification.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then recognized a staff member’s birthday and a guest shadowing Senator Adams. It then moved into informational review of Education and Labor Cabinet, Department of Education regulation 702 KAR 3:30, which sets insurance coverage requirements for school district buildings and structures. Department of Education officials explained that districts are expected to carry coverage at replacement cost and said they understand some districts participate in self-insurance pools with backup policies, but they deferred detailed insurance questions to the Department of Insurance. Senators raised concerns that pooled coverage could leave districts exposed if claims exceed pool limits, and the chair asked KDE to follow up with DOI to confirm districts are adequately covered, especially for bondholders. No vote was taken on the informational review. The committee then reviewed emergency ABC regulations 804 KAR 130:01 through 130:04 implementing Senate Bill 100’s new licensing requirements for tobacco, nicotine, and vapor product businesses. ABC and Public Protection Cabinet representatives outlined the emergency rules governing enforcement, license applications, denial criteria, and transitional licenses. Retail industry witnesses Shannon Stiglet and Brian Clark said they support licensure in principle but argued the rules add duplicative requirements borrowed from alcohol licensing, create confusion about transitional licenses, and may be too burdensome for the roughly 7,000 affected businesses to meet by the January 1 deadline. They also said guidance has been inconsistent and requested the agency revise the regulations, remove requirements not grounded in law, and provide clearer, separate processes for new and existing businesses. Committee members asked whether the industry had worked directly with ABC and noted the public comment period was still open. Witnesses said they had communicated with ABC and the Public Protection Cabinet, but responses had been uneven and they wanted written guidance. Members expressed concern about the short timeline and the need to avoid disruption so businesses can operate legally on January 1. Representative Marzian asked for clarification that the discussion concerned emergency regulations already in effect while ordinary regulations remain in process. No formal action was taken beyond receiving the informational testimony and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also seek greater clarification around sanctions MDE can take if the OIG has credible information
• > protections<00:08:32.320> for further clarification on protections for further clarification
• We're<00:08:57.440> seeking<00:08:57.680> technical<00:08:58.160> clarification<
• 00:08:58.959> by We're seeking technical clarification by We're seeking technical clarification
• I mean, we do need to have this clarification in our... well, we would advocate that we need to have

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, just as a clarification, you have contracts with tow companies, let's say Interstate 93.
• . clarification. clarification.
• A little clarification.
• They go places at transportation. clarification. I do appreciate the words clarification.
• Would this bill so far as clarification.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, just a couple things for clarification.
• >> And then just a clarification.
• So, you >> And then just a clarification.
• >> it's not a question, but a clarification >> it's not a question, but a clarification
• I appreciate the clarification. >> Okay. I appreciate the clarification.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• clarification back on page 24<01:35:23.080> is<01:35:23.199> this<01:35:23.400> the
• Okay, thank you for that clarification.
• Okay, thank you very much for the clarification. oh so that 11 million is all HUD is that oh so that
• Representative Priest, for a question again, as a clarification: the school-based prevention not only
• Representative Priest, for a question again, as a clarification: the school-based prevention not only

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Committee’s Division 3 held a public work session on the Behavioral Health budget on February 27, 2025. The chair opened by explaining the schedule, materials, and deadlines for the budget process, and noted there would be no motions or votes in the division that day. Division of Behavioral Health Director Ktia Fox and DHHS CFO Nathan White then walked the committee through the division’s mission, structure, and budget materials, describing the division’s four bureaus: Mental Health Services, Children’s Behavioral Health, Drug and Alcohol Services, and Homeless Services, along with the policy unit. They emphasized the division’s role in oversight, technical assistance, quality assurance, contracting, and the continuum of care from prevention and early intervention through crisis and residential services. Much of the discussion focused on major programs and funding lines, including the 988 Lifeline contract with Headrest, a technical assistance contract with UNH, Medicaid pass-through payments to New Hampshire Hospital and Glencliff, crisis response services, cold-weather homeless responses, housing supports, and the children’s system of care. Members asked about the UNH contract, the 988 program, crisis stabilization centers, and the peer certification program; Fox explained that the peer certification is a training-and-credentialing pathway for people with lived experience to enter community-based behavioral health work, not a volunteer program. The committee also discussed the “Choose Love” program, which Fox said was created after the Sandy Hook tragedy to build resilience and strength-based emotional regulation in schools and communities. On the children’s side, Fox described the system of care account as the place where many contracted services are budgeted, including community mental health centers, care management entities, rapid response services, and residential programs. Members asked about temporary staffing, and Fox said roughly $500,000 in temporary staff costs shown in the current year would not be spent next year because the money came from a nonlapsing appropriation in HB 1573 for oversight of children’s residential services. She also said provider rate increases were a prioritized need but were not funded in the governor’s current budget, and that the Children’s Behavioral Health Resource Center was not funded, resulting in about a $1 million reduction. The session ended while the division was still moving through the children’s behavioral health slides, including questions about the Fast Forward high-fidelity wraparound program and medication management.

Transcript Highlights:

• obviously, what is the mechanism in which you then educate us on whatever concerns or updates or clarifications
• obviously, what is the mechanism in which you then educate us on whatever concerns or updates or clarifications
• But I will look to Finance to see if there's any clarification there.
• Thank you for the point of clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you all very much.
• Thank you for the point of clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you all very much.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• going over Senate File 856, and since this bill has many of the same provisions, I want to ask for clarification
• going over Senate File 856, and since this bill has many of the same provisions, I want to ask for clarification
• > ask<00:54:08.200> for provisions, I want to ask for provisions, I want to ask for clarification
• . clarification. clarification.

Bills: HF4074

Keywords: retirement, pension, public employees, MSRS, PERA, TRA, St. Paul Teachers Retirement Fund Association, police and fire, correctional employees, probation officers, telecommunicators, dispatchers, 911 operators, public safety answering point, PSAP, firefighters, volunteer firefighters, paid on-call firefighters, fire relief association, state aid

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for that clarification. That's what I was looking for. >> All right.
• Thank<00:09:22.000> you<00:09:22.080> for<00:09:22.240> that<00:09:22.480> clarification
• <00:09:23.120> That's >> Thank you for that clarification.
• That's >> Thank you for that clarification.
• at this time it would not include the financial aid. >> Representative Allen, I appreciate the clarification

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is really clarification of something we have already put in place.
• Chair, maybe just as a matter of clarification, I intend this as a question for Mr. Larson.
• Chair, maybe just as a matter of clarification,<00:08:53.279> I<00:08:53.519> intend<00
• :08:53.760> this<00:08:53.920> as<00:08:54.080> a clarification, I intend this as
• a clarification, I intend this as a question<00:08:54.480> for<00:08:54.720> Mr.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused. The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO. Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.