Transcript Highlights:

• Parents, teachers, taxpayers, and even former district officials have reached out with concerns.
• I want to stress that this audit is about restoring public trust, accountability, and protecting taxpayer
• Taxpayers, city organizations, and local and state officials stand ready to support this effort.
• Risks to taxpayers are also real due to Risks to taxpayers are also real due to provisions in contracts
• No taxpayers are paying that cost.

Summary: The committee heard several audit requests and related testimony. The first major item was an audit of Coachella Valley Unified School District’s contract and fiscal management. The author and supporters described long-standing fiscal mismanagement, large budget shortfalls, layoffs, contracting concerns, and questions about the district’s foundation and use of public funds. District representatives and the Riverside County Office of Education said the district is already under fiscal oversight, has a stabilization plan, and is working to reduce deficits and improve student outcomes. After extensive debate and public comment, the motion to approve the audit was put on call because the committee did not have the required votes from both houses at that moment. The committee then approved an audit of East Bay transit agencies in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Senator Wahab argued the region’s many overlapping transit agencies create fragmentation, duplication, and inefficiency, especially amid a fiscal cliff and possible future tax increases. Transit agencies and labor representatives opposed the audit, saying the agencies already undergo multiple audits, serve distinct local needs, and are implementing regional coordination efforts. After testimony from agency leaders and public commenters, the committee voted to approve the audit. The next item was an audit of California Community Colleges’ unrestricted reserves. Senator Archuleta and supporting faculty representatives said reserves have grown substantially and may be diverting resources from student services, instruction, and workforce programs. They argued there is little oversight when reserves become too high. The Chancellor’s Office and Calbright College were invited to respond, and the audit objectives focused on reserve growth, reasons for high balances, oversight by the Chancellor’s Office, and effects on students and staff. The transcript cuts off during the Chancellor’s Office response, so the final committee action on this item is not shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. because they don't want to spend taxpayer dollars for what seems to me should be taxpayer
• So either way it falls on the taxpayers, right?
• If it falls on the county level or the state level, it's still the taxpayer that pays for them.
• If it falls on the county level or the state level, it's still the taxpayer that pays for it.
• absorb more costs through that budget process. ...having counties' taxpayers absorb more costs through

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• dollars Thank you. because they don't want to spend taxpayer dollars for what seems to me should be
• taxpayer expense.
• So either way it falls on the taxpayers, right?
• If it falls on the county level or the state level, it's still the taxpayer that pays for them.
• If it falls on the county level or the state level, it's still the taxpayer that pays for it.

Committee: Joint Judiciary Committee

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to continue its study of charitable gaming, especially the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations and the relationship between charities, site owners, and gaming manufacturers/distributors. Legislative Council reviewed the background memo and Attorney General’s Gaming Division explained the legal framework, including site authorizations, rent limits, allowable expenses, and restrictions on distributors and manufacturers. Members focused heavily on electronic pull tabs, asking about the large gap between gross proceeds and adjusted proceeds, how much is paid out in winnings, how much is retained for expenses, and whether the 60% allowable-expense cap is being used as intended. The AG’s office said e-tabs account for most gaming volume, that winnings make up much of the difference, and that some organizations do not use the full 60% while others may exceed it, though only the capped amount counts as gaming expense. The committee also discussed the number of gaming organizations that appear to own or be affiliated with bars, the ways those ownership structures are formed, and whether some arrangements may create conflicts or site-selection pressure. The League of Cities and the Association of Counties described the local site-authorization process and recent model policies adopted after the 2025 session. Cities said they can require signed agreements, limit games and machines, set qualifications, and charge up to $100 for site authorization, but cannot require charities to donate net proceeds or force a specific charity or site. They said the new policies are meant to add transparency and local control, though the more controversial parts involve requiring a local nexus or community connection. County representatives said the issue is mostly a city matter and that counties generally take a lighter-touch approach. Committee members raised concerns about whether local rules could unfairly exclude larger regional charities or create inconsistent standards across cities. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance said it supports the study and provided information on charities that own or are affiliated with bars, emphasizing that most gaming organizations do not own alcoholic beverage establishments. Its representative said some charities may pursue bar ownership for site stability and diversification, while others decide against it because operating a bar is difficult. He also said a ban on charity-owned bars could raise federal tax-law issues depending on how it is written, and agreed to provide more detail. The committee asked Legislative Council and the Gaming Alliance for additional information on ownership structures and federal-law questions before the next meeting. Later, the Racing Commission gave a separate update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, and related charitable partnerships, and the State Hospital superintendent reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, staffing, and wait lists; no votes were taken on these presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as Chair West talked about, you know, we are responsible as stewards of the taxpayer dollars.
• </c><01:04:52.720><c> The</c><01:04:52.960><c> second</c> Kentucky taxpayer money.
• The second Kentucky taxpayer money.
• </c> better metrics in funding of taxpayer better metrics in funding of taxpayer Kentucky<01:07:48.799
• 50.799><c> Kucky's</c> Kentucky taxpayer money on into Kucky's Kentucky taxpayer money on into Kucky's

Summary: The Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Education met to hear updates from Kentucky public universities and the Kentucky Community and Technical College System on compliance with House Bill 4, which restricts DEI-related activities and requires institutional and viewpoint neutrality. The chair emphasized that the hearing should focus on both compliance and the financial effects of the law. Eastern Kentucky University said its board adopted a House Bill 4 compliance resolution and an institutional neutrality policy. KCTCS reported systemwide reviews of programs, websites, scholarships, personnel, and admissions language, along with board actions removing a cultural competency course requirement, adopting institutional neutrality, and certifying compliance. KCTCS said about $2.5 million annually had been reallocated to other needs, and that no personnel were eliminated, though some roles were reassigned and DEI-related offices closed. Kentucky State University said it had already dissolved DEI offices before the bill passed, ended DEI-specific training, revised policies and gift acceptance rules, adopted a viewpoint neutrality policy, and was conducting ongoing reviews of programs, job descriptions, and web content. KSU said it had achieved substantial compliance, expected full operational integration by August 1, and had not terminated staff or closed academic programs because of the law. In response to questions, KSU said it was broadening outreach to all students rather than targeting specific populations and that its prior diversity finding was tied to not meeting a diversity quota. Morehead State University said it had no DEI office before House Bill 4, amended its non-discrimination statement to include political and social viewpoint neutrality and condemnation of religious and ethnic discrimination, and remained focused on serving its largely low-income student body. Murray State University reported reviewing scholarships, expenditures, training, and academic programs to ensure no differential treatment or indoctrination, revising its neutrality policy, and updating non-discrimination posters and training. When asked about a statement that DEI would “look different,” the university said it meant student support services would continue in a different form. Northern Kentucky University said it dissolved its diversity office and chief diversity officer position in 2024, reviewed programs, events, scholarships, and employee affinity groups, adopted a statement on intellectual diversity and viewpoint neutrality, and reviewed about 2,000 courses for compliance. NKU also said its new Center for Belonging would focus on first-generation and commuter students rather than rebrand prior DEI efforts. The University of Kentucky began its presentation by describing earlier changes made in August 2024, including disbanding its office of institutional diversity, removing diversity statements and mandatory training, adopting institutional neutrality, and ending race-based consideration in admissions and scholarships; the transcript cuts off before the rest of UK’s testimony and any committee votes or formal actions beyond receiving the presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the people, and for taxpayers, and for paying. attention to those free market principles that have
• He always considered the impact of any legislation to the taxpayer.
• potential tax increases, government overreach, and to offer strong arguments in defense of California taxpayers

Transcript Highlights:

• When kids get sent out of state and counties are footing the bill for that, it's negative for taxpayers
• When kids get sent out of state and counties are footing the bill for that, it's negative for taxpayers
• </c> taxpayers of Minnesota are not. taxpayers of Minnesota are not.
• </c> doesn't save the taxpayers any dollars. doesn't save the taxpayers any dollars.
• by</c><01:14:18.560><c> doing</c><01:14:18.840><c> that</c> taxpayers any money by doing that taxpayers

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• One hundred percent of the cost comes from Minnesota taxpayers.
• We are going to pay more as taxpayers for the health care of our undocumented neighbors if we do not
• We give taxpayer dollars to these corporations that don't need it.
• Dollars taken from taxpayers by force of law, not given freely.
• That means Minnesota taxpayers are stuck footing a hundred percent of the deal.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the taxpayers want that information, they should have that information.
• If<01:06:17.839><c> the</c><01:06:18.000><c> taxpayers</c><01:06:18.559><c> want</c><01:06:18.720><c>
• that</c><01:06:19.039><c> information,</c> If the taxpayers want that information, If the taxpayers
• Taxpayers fund public education, and they have a right to know clearly, consistently, and publicly when
• money when they're not going to taxpayer money when they're not going to get<01:19:23.760><c> any</c

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• This gives clarity for taxpayers and the tax filing community, and I hope members will support it.
• Let's get certainty for the income taxpayers so they could file their tax returns and know that they
• This budget trusts taxpayers, rewards work, and recognizes a simple truth: affordability doesn't come
• The rapid growth of the ESA program has created significant costs for Arizona taxpayers.
• We said several times this year that taxpayers will not have to refile their 2025 taxes.

Transcript Highlights:

• procurement card receipts, and purchase order reimbursements, which revealed expansive misuse of taxpayer
• </c><00:03:21.760><c> dollars</c><00:03:22.159><c> are</c> order to ensure our taxpayer dollars are order
• to ensure our taxpayer dollars are util<00:03:23.040><c> utilized</c><00:03:23.680><c> properly</c><
• </c><00:04:01.200><c> dollars,</c> wasteful misuse of taxpayer dollars, wasteful misuse of taxpayer dollars
• </c> revealed expansive misuse of taxpayer revealed expansive misuse of taxpayer dollars.<00:04:48.960

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> paid for by Minnesota taxpayers paid for by Minnesota taxpayers to<01:17:08.960><c> go</c><01:17
• That means that<01:17:18.640><c> Minnesota</c><01:17:19.040><c> taxpayers</c> that Minnesota taxpayers
• Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of students are benefiting from state taxpayer financial aid.
• ,</c><01:21:54.640><c> citizens</c> to spend our money, taxpayers, citizens to spend our money, taxpayers
• </c> from state taxpayer financial aid. from state taxpayer financial aid.

Transcript Highlights:

• , the statewide taxpayer.
• , the statewide taxpayer.
• Are we being efficient with the taxpayer dollars?
• So then it doesn't become a taxpayer burden.
• I mean, that's taxpayer dollars.

Committee: Joint Agriculture and Water Management Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• You're talking about $6 billion in taxpayer dollars to clear the waitlist, and if what you're telling
• Now, according to this bill, you're asking taxpayers for $6 billion over the course of how many years
• for for $6 billion over the taxpayers for for $6 billion over the course<00:43:29.440><c> of</c><00:
• </c> reliable and responsible of taxpayer reliable and responsible of taxpayer money<00:44:23.800><c>
• funds and so um the after all taxpayer funds and so um the amendments<01:32:00.080><c> to</c><01:32:

Summary: The joint Housing and Public Safety/Water and Land hearing first took up HB 1096, which would repeal statutory tenant-selection preferences for disabled veterans and spouses of deceased veterans in state low-income housing. HPHA testified in support, saying the change was a housekeeping measure because the same preferences already exist in administrative rules and could be adjusted later to align with other local preferences, while also noting the federal VASH program provides stronger veteran housing support. Several members questioned why the preference should be removed at all, emphasizing that veterans have long been underserved and asking for a stronger justification; the committees ultimately deferred HB 1096. The later Housing/Hawaiian Affairs agenda heard HB 606 HD1, a measure to extend Act 279 funding and related exemptions for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Supporters argued the bill would give DHHL more time to use the $600 million appropriation to acquire land, work with developers, and address a wait list of about 29,000 applicants, while also helping restore Hawaiian communities and reduce the Hawaiian diaspora. Opponents focused on accountability and oversight, saying DHHL needs clearer plans, measurable goals, and stronger safeguards before receiving more money, and warning that prior spending and strategic-plan changes had reduced the number of applicants served. The committee also heard testimony that the bill would help DHHL fulfill long-standing obligations to Native Hawaiians and that the housing need affects the broader state, not only Hawaiian Home Lands beneficiaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• The CD1 changes the proposed maximum and contribution amounts to $20,000 for an individual taxpayer in
• 21.519><c> individual</c> amounts to $20,000 for an individual amounts to $20,000 for an individual taxpayer
• 22.519><c> a</c><00:03:22.560><c> single</c><00:03:22.840><c> taxable</c><00:03:23.239><c> year,</c> taxpayer
• in a single taxable year, taxpayer in a single taxable year, $40,000<00:03:24.480><c> for</c><00:03:

Bills: HB2241 , HB1163 , HB1514 , HB1696 , HB2021 , SB2135 , SB2466 , SB2727 , SB3082 , SB3097 , SB2861 , SCR100 , SB3096 , SB99 , SB2138 , HB2289 , HB2319 , HB1711 , HB2270 , SB3138 , SB3076 , HB1642 , HB2338 , HB2171 , HB1785 , SB2881 , HB2505 , SB2552 , HB1518 , HB1815 , SB3125 , SB3234 , SCR162 , SB2614 , SB3118 , SB2053 , SB2494 , SB2851 , SB3073 , HB1678 , HB1721 , HB2475 , HB2246 , HB1667 , HB1516 , SB2532 , SB3131 , SB3154 , HB2297 , HB1737 , SB2143 , SB2398 , SB2623 , HB1740 , HB1920 , HB1682 , SB2153 , SB3140 , HB2158 , HB1718 , HB2207 , HB1801 , SB3229 , SB2338 , SB3069 , SB2600 , HB2300 , HB1800 , HB1960 , SB2999 , SB2060 , SB2866 , SB2239 , HB1741 , HB1713 , HB2023 , HB2417 , SB2877 , SB2598 , SB2921 , SB2645 , HB2547 , HB2275 , HB2452 , HB2329 , HB2339 , HB1838 , HB1509 , HB1661 , HB2271 , HB2272 , HB2344 , HB1888 , HB1707 , SB2340 , HB2474 , HB1576 , HB1853 , HB1804 , HB1854 , HB2095 , HB2050 , HB472 , SB3215 , SB2247 , SB2400 , HB1618 , HB1802 , HB1969 , HB1541 , HB2310 , HB2498 , HB2443 , HB2218 , HB649 , HB2104 , HB1710 , SB2802 , HB1973 , HB1974 , HB1894 , HB1891 , HB1890 , SB177 , SB2101 , SB3320 , SB2487 , HB2429 , HB1870 , HB1839 , HB2583 , HB1391 , HB2094 , SB2671 , SB2673 , SB2892 , SB2057 , SB3245 , HB306 , HB2592 , SB3157 , SB3204 , SB3324 , SB2580 , SB2074 , SB411 , SB3025 , SB2934 , SB2567 , SB2125 , SB3238 , SB2367 , SB2599 , SB3007 , SB2001 , SB2756 , SB3029

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, I'm traveling throughout the county talking to local landowners, deer hunters, and taxpayers about
• ... ...traveling throughout the county talking to local landowners, deer hunters, and taxpayers about
• “My taxpayer dollars spiked this disease.
• So ultimately, most of your taxpayer dollars are not being used for that.”

Committee: House Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources

Summary: The House Committee on Agriculture met with a quorum and first took up House Bill 1885, Representative VanSkoik’s bill. The committee moved the bill “do pass” and approved it by roll call vote, 22-0. After that action, the committee held a special presentation by the Grundy County R-5 FFA agriculture issues team. The FFA students presented a skit and discussion on chronic wasting disease (CWD) and the Missouri Department of Conservation’s targeted removal practices. Their presentation laid out competing concerns from farmers, deer hunters, families using venison, and conservation officials, including crop damage, hunting economics, deer population health, food safety, and the spread of CWD. Committee members asked questions about CWD prevalence in Grundy County, the Wisconsin and Kansas experiences, human health risks, Share the Harvest, testing practices, and the economic effects of deer hunting versus deer damage and collisions. Members praised the students’ preparation and presentation, and several offered suggestions about strengthening their factual support and economic data for competition. The committee also discussed the controversy around MDC’s CWD policies and the decision to pause targeted removals while more research is done. The meeting ended with thanks to the students and adjournment of the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'd like to remind the committee, this is not taxpayer money.
• Shouldn't security detail be paid for by the party and not necessarily the taxpayer?
• Senator Garcia, follow-up: I feel that that should be incumbent on the party and not necessarily the taxpayer
• But I feel that that should be incumbent on the party and not necessarily the taxpayer. Thank you.

Bills: S0564 , S0572 , S0414 , S0620 , S0500 , S0092

Committee: Senate Ethics and Elections

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and considered several election- and ethics-related bills. Senate Bill 572 by Senator Harrell, which would update ethics statutes so the definition of “relative” includes foster parents and foster children, received supportive testimony from the Commission on Ethics and passed unanimously. Senate Bill 414 by Senator Bracy Davis, allowing campaign funds to be used for campaign-related child care expenses, was presented as a way to reduce barriers to public service but was temporarily postponed after the sponsor said it lacked the votes to advance. Senate Bill 500 by Senator Avila would require FDLE protective security details for major-party nominees for governor, lieutenant governor, and cabinet offices from nomination through assumption of office; members questioned the scope, definitions of major and minor parties, and whether taxpayers should bear the cost, and the bill was reported favorably on a divided vote. Senate Bill 620 by Senator Mayfield would require candidates for federal, state, county, district, judicial, and school board offices to disclose any non-U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship; testimony opposed the bill as stigmatizing dual citizens, but it was reported favorably. The committee also approved CS for SB 92 by Chair Gaetz, which creates whistleblower-style protections for public employees who file ethics complaints based on firsthand knowledge and face retaliation, with support from the Commission on Ethics. In addition, the committee unanimously approved a block of gubernatorial appointments and then passed Senate Bill 564 by Senator Yarborough, allowing registered or pre-registered high school students to volunteer at polling places for community service hours; members discussed whether the bill would create new volunteer opportunities and whether the term “community service hours” needed clarification. The meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• from the district right now, and this is an unnecessary burden and expense to our district and our taxpayers
• district meeting in district when there are not even five people requesting it is a good use of taxpayer
• attributes. involve convenience, adequateness of the space, and of course, cost to our residents and taxpayers
• gives district board members the discretion to select a meeting facility that best serves their taxpayers

Bills: HB1835 , HB2561 , HB3630

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Keywords: manufactured housing, HUD-code, zoning, local government regulations, installation permits, municipal utility district, board meetings, public access, meeting location, transparency, fire prevention, agriculture, local government, fire safety, regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill doesn't cost the taxpayers anything.
• 00:02:29.599><c> doesn't</c><00:02:30.040><c> cost</c><00:02:30.280><c> the</c><00:02:30.440><c> taxpayers
• </c> and this bill doesn't cost the taxpayers and this bill doesn't cost the taxpayers anything<00:02

Transcript Highlights:

• Over a billion day in taxpayer money.
• </c><02:26:32.000><c> But</c> dollar a day in taxpayer money. But dollar a day in taxpayer money.
• The Deporting Fraudsters Act put the American taxpayer back in the driver's seat.
• </c><02:29:53.280><c> This</c><02:29:53.520><c> is</c> taxpayers like an ATM.
• This is taxpayers like an ATM.

Transcript Highlights:

• And why should the taxpayers trust that you are going to stop the fraud and the waste and abuse when
• And what's your plan for restitution to the taxpayer?
• </c> How do the people How do the taxpayers How do the people How do the taxpayers How<01:08:57.240><
• </c><01:08:59.759><c> of</c> How do you expect the taxpayers of How do you expect the taxpayers of Minnesota
• to be for the taxpayer dollars to be protected. protected. protected.

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy