Transcript Highlights:

• The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee will now come to order. Sienna, please call the roll.
• Across all budget silos, it was decided to run a vacancy report as of February 3, 2025.
• Members, as you all know, the biggest funding item in our budget silo is the FFP.
• The governor's budget creates a new scholarship funding allocation and amends the educational enrollment
• stabilization program to be used exclusively to fully fund this new allocation.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met for two workshops. The first focused on vacant positions in the Division of Early Learning and the Department of Education. Committee members reviewed vacancy reports, including long-vacant positions and positions that had received discretionary pay adjustments. Division and department officials said many vacancies were being filled, advertised, or under review, but acknowledged persistent recruitment and retention problems, especially for engineering, legal, finance, IT, and other specialized roles. Members questioned whether some long-vacant positions were still necessary, whether overtime and workload were being affected, and whether outside contracting, cross-training, combining positions, or eliminating some vacancies could help. Officials said they were considering those options and noted that hiring has become slower and more difficult since the pandemic, with lower applicant volume and more competition from other agencies and private employers. The second workshop addressed draft legislation related to school choice scholarships and the FEFP. The chair said the committee’s prior hearings raised concerns about student identification numbers, cross-checking between districts and scholarship organizations, duplicated FTE reporting, delayed district payments, scholarship payment timing, and inconsistent data sources. She said the proposed language is intended to standardize scholarship processing and improve accuracy and efficiency while preserving the long-standing FEFP principle that funds follow the student. She also said funding scholarship students below the line would not solve the identified problems and could create disparities. The draft would align processing for the Family Empowerment Scholarship and Florida Tax Credit Scholarship programs and would reduce add-on weights by 50% while keeping the current policy structure. No votes were taken. The chair invited further comments and said the draft budget and legislation would continue to be refined before rollout. The meeting adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• for Senate Bill 151, but this allocated for Senate Bill 151, but this reg<00:30:00.840> puts<
• excuse me is in fact allocated. excuse me is in fact allocated. Thank<00:30:08.480> you.
• process you all should be the budget process you all should be working<00:31:36.600> with<00:
• It's just there's not funding in the budget; there wasn't funding in the budget to do that.
• budget that comes out of this session to do this.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed several Fish and Wildlife regulations. Staff explained amendments to 301 KAR 2:176, 4:112, and 6:030, including updating wildlife control tag language, creating an impoundment agent program for seized wildlife, and clarifying boating safety rules. A member raised a concern about boat wakes near docks, and staff said the commission had recently voted on related changes that were not yet included because the regulation had been filed earlier; those changes would have to come back later. The committee approved the staff amendments without objection. The Board of Veterinary Examiners then presented 201 KAR 16:767, which would require veterinary managers to be physically present during business hours and limit them to five registered facilities. Board representatives said they had tried to meet with affected parties before the hearing but had not reached agreement. A representative for Kentucky Pet IQ argued the rule was written for full-service hospitals and would be impractical for short, limited-service clinics that only provide vaccinations, preventive care, and parasite testing. Members expressed concern about the rule’s impact on veterinary access in underserved areas, and the committee voted to defer the regulation until the next month so the parties could continue negotiating. The committee next considered Transportation Cabinet 601 KAR 9:120, the online insurance verification system, in both ordinary and emergency form. The chair said staff had identified conflicts with a bill passed the prior year and moved to find the regulations deficient. The motion passed on a roll call vote, with six ayes and two pass votes. The committee then found ordinary ABC regulations 804 KAR 12:020 and 12:030 deficient as well, again by six ayes and two pass votes, after noting that the emergency versions had already been found deficient the previous month. Finally, the committee reviewed Cabinet for Health and Family Services 902 KAR 55:110, which would require veterinarians to report dispensed controlled substances to KASPER while exempting administered medications. OIG staff said the rule was meant to align regulation with statute, which includes veterinarians as prescribers, and emphasized that the reporting duty applies to prescriptions, not administration to animals. Some members supported the change as a needed anti-diversion measure, while others worried about implementation burdens and timing. After discussion, the committee found the regulation deficient by a 6-2 vote. The meeting then moved into full review of 922 KAR 1:565, a Department for Community Based Services rule implementing kinship care provisions from Senate Bill 151; staff said it was needed for implementation once funding is available, but a member criticized the two-year delay and the inclusion of language conditioning implementation on funding. A public witness from the Kinship Families Coalition argued the rule should not shift the 120-day application window in a way that could affect federal funding eligibility and urged the committee to reject the regulation as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to Assembly Budget Sub 4.
• Okay, so Lee Scott, Chief Budget Officer, here.
• revised budget and schedule.
• of our budget change proposals.
• This is not a budget committee, but I will tell you, I'm on the budget committee.

Summary: The committee first heard a DMV budget presentation on the state-to-state verification system required for Real ID compliance and the Digital Experience Platform (DXP) modernization project. DMV officials said the state-to-state system is a pointer-based exchange used when a person applies for a license in another state, with only limited identifying data shared initially and the full driver history sent only after a qualified request. Members raised concerns about privacy, possible misuse by other states or federal actors, notification to Californians, hacking, and whether California could detect or stop abusive access. DMV said it can monitor requests, see patterns of access, work with AAMVA and legal counsel, and seek to block or challenge misuse; LAO said California is in a difficult position and should consider guardrails rather than opt out. On DXP, DMV said the project is on its revised schedule and budget, occupational licensing is complete, vehicle registration is expected by the end of calendar year 2026, and the full system should be finished by fiscal year 2028-29, with phased rollout and reappropriated funding to keep costs controlled. The committee then heard from the California High-Speed Rail Office of Inspector General on a trailer bill and AB 1608. The Inspector General said current law does not clearly authorize public reports or establish a framework for retaining and disclosing work papers, and the proposed trailer bill would create that framework while also adding authority to hire needed classifications and purchase goods and services. He also said the office needs a clearer statutory definition of “proposed agreements” and notice when the High-Speed Rail Authority is reviewing them, so the office can review contracts and related agreements effectively. LAO raised no concerns with the trailer bill language, and Finance said any amendments would come in the May revision. Members debated the scope of confidentiality in the Inspector General proposal, especially whether reports could be held confidential when they identify weaknesses in fraud controls, security, or other vulnerabilities. The Inspector General said confidentiality would be temporary, tied to articulating the risk, reassessing it every 120 days, and releasing the report once the risk is no longer substantial; he also said the office had already published reports at its discretion and had found at least one procurement violation involving an amendment that added services not in the original contract. Several members pressed for stronger transparency and suggested time limits or broader disclosure, while others argued the bill would improve oversight and make the Inspector General’s authority clearer. No votes were taken during the discussion, and the item was left for further work on the trailer bill and AB 1608 language.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have a cost allocation plan that is set up.
• So we have a cost allocation plan that is set up.
• It's like 2 percent of my budget is funded by that formula.
• It's like 2 percent of my budget is funded by that formula.
• next year, I would maybe just remind you that, but, um, Budget.

Summary: The committee met as a study subcommittee on fixed-route public transportation and first approved the December 11 minutes. It then heard detailed presentations from transit leaders in Grand Forks, Bismarck/Mandan, and Fargo about their systems, including route structures, paratransit service, ridership trends, fare changes, funding sources, fleet replacement needs, and operational challenges. Grand Forks described Cities Area Transit’s 17 routes, university shuttle service, expanded paratransit coverage, a 2025 fare increase, and rising costs for labor, fuel, parts, and new buses. Bismarck/Mandan’s Bisman Transit outlined its fixed-route and paratransit operations, recent service expansions approved for April 1, fare structure, ridership recovery since COVID, and major funding streams including mill levies, federal grants, and new local sales tax revenue. Fargo’s MATBUS representative emphasized the importance of continued state support for urban fixed-route transit. Members asked extensive questions about cost per ride, fare increases, school transportation, veteran service partnerships, app-based ticketing, local funding formulas, and whether ride-share or microtransit could replace fixed routes. Transit officials said fixed-route service remains essential because it provides reliable capacity, supports jobs and access to services, and preserves federal funding tied to public transit operations. They also said paratransit is costly but necessary for riders with disabilities, and that vehicle and maintenance costs have risen sharply. Minot’s transit superintendent added context on the state’s existing transit aid formula, explaining that it is weighted more toward rural and paratransit providers and that urban fixed-route systems are seeking a separate, dedicated funding source rather than changes to the current formula. The committee also heard public testimony from North Dakota Protection & Advocacy supporting both fixed-route and paratransit service for disabled riders, and from Minot staff on refurbished buses, CDL driver recruitment, and why the agency is not pursuing full electric buses. Near the end, members discussed whether to recommend additional state funding for the four urban fixed-route systems. A motion passed to have Legislative Council prepare a summary of the subcommittee’s activities for inclusion in the Government Finance Committee’s report to Legislative Management. Members then continued discussing possible recommendations, including a separate funding source for urban fixed-route transit and whether the four urban systems should meet to develop a proposed amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, budget is taking place, and this is the budget subreview on personnel, public retirements, and finance
• So, the governor's budget included a $60 million allocation for finance.
• So, the governor's budget question.
• > allocation<00:02:31.840> for included $60 million allocation for included $60 million
• underfunding in the base of your budget? underfunding in the base of your budget?

Keywords: Call to Order: 00;15 Approval of Minutes: 01:22 Update on Generator replacement: 01:52 Update on Sheriff Fees: 13:28 Adjournment: 25:22, 958, all

Summary: The committee met for its fourth budget subreview session focused on personnel, public retirements, and finance. Members approved the minutes from the prior meeting and then heard from Finance Cabinet staff on two main items: a $7.5 million request related to generator systems and a sheriff’s fees budget request. The generator request was described as a preventive, life-cycle replacement and capacity-enhancement effort for 26 generators serving Frankfort-area state buildings, intended to protect continuity of government and expand beyond basic emergency power to support continuity of services. Members asked detailed questions about how many generators would be replaced, the cost per unit, the scope of the study, and whether the work could be phased. Staff said the $7.5 million would cover a full evaluation and any resulting engineering/replacement work, but the exact number of replacements was not yet known. They estimated the initial study would cost about $500,000 to $750,000, would take six to nine months once funded, and would produce building-by-building recommendations. Staff also said typical generator life cycles vary widely, often around 15 to 20 years but sometimes longer depending on run hours and usage. The committee then reviewed sheriff’s fees, with the Division of Local Government explaining that the state reimburses counties for several statutory sheriff-related costs, especially court security, which accounts for more than 90% of the claims. Staff said the current budget base is about $20 million, while actual spending has been running above $23 million, leading to a $3.5 million growth request to align the base with projected spending and reduce the need for non-general fund expenditure (NGE) adjustments. Members asked about claim volume, county participation, reimbursement controls, and whether the request reflected growth or underfunding; staff said all 120 counties submit claims, volumes have been fairly steady, and reimbursements are governed by statute and signed monthly certifications. No votes were taken on the requests, and the meeting adjourned after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• ed budget?
• within our higher ed your entire budget within our higher ed budget?
• So, our entire budget, yes, is budget?
• the higher budget, uh, higher ed within the higher budget, uh, higher ed budget<01:51:56.239> as
• fact that consequences of this budget fact that consequences of this budget will<02:08:15.920>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Finance and Policy Conference Committee met publicly to compare House and Senate positions on the higher education budget, with the chairs emphasizing transparency and alternating gavel control. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through a spreadsheet of differences across the Office of Higher Education and Minnesota State, including major items such as state grants, childcare grants, work study, tribal college grants, emergency assistance grants, hunger-free campus grants, student parent support, direct admissions, paramedic scholarships, and several medical residency and fellowship programs. The House and Senate also differed on administrative funding, campus sexual assault reporting, and a House FY25 cancellation that would be carried forward. Members discussed several of the larger policy and funding choices. The Senate explained its increase for Minitex as support for operating costs and statewide access to information. The House explained its cuts to student parent support and other items as necessary to work within a zero target and to prioritize direct aid to students, while the Senate said it focused on direct appropriations and access-related programs. On hunger-free campus grants and emergency assistance grants, the Senate said it was changing the distribution method and direct appropriations rather than reducing the overall money, while the House noted differences in whether nonprofit institutions remained included. The committee also reviewed Senate-only additions and reductions in Minnesota State, including free course materials, Lake Superior College remediation, and changes to the Kids on Campus appropriation. A representative from Lake Superior College testified that the PAS remediation funding would help address contamination issues at an emergency training site near Lake Superior and that the money was shifted from the Kids on Campus initiative. No final conference agreement or vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee continued discussing differences and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:13.600> of what you have before you is a budget of what you have before you is a budget
• um that we could not do with this budget um that we could not do with this budget that<00:02:46.080
• in<00:02:49.200> teacher some budget reductions in teacher some budget reductions in teacher
• Funding for the upcoming budget cycle, and we acknowledge that need to curb spending in future budget
• session, is essential for school budgets session, is essential for school budgets and<00:14:48.800

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the NDSU Ag Budget Office.
• the NDSU Ag Budget Office.
• That budget is allocated in response to the legislative intent. units within NDSU that have transportation-related
• That budget is allocated in response to the legislative intent.
• A little bit different way to look at the agency budget. This is actually the way it was budgeted.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed the 2024-25 tuition waiver report for the North Dakota University System. Staff explained that waivers were reported for degree-seeking students and broken out by residency, institution, and waiver type. Members asked about partial versus full waivers, institutional discretion, athletic waivers, and whether campuses have published guardrails or transparency requirements. Staff said most waivers are set by institutions, with some statutory and board-required categories, and that athletic waivers are a small share of total waiver dollars. The report showed total gross tuition of $354.5 million, tuition waived of $38.9 million, and 11,193 of 42,040 students receiving some waiver. Members also discussed how waivers affect net tuition revenue, housing and food collections, and whether campuses are using waivers strategically compared with scholarships and other funding sources. The committee then heard a presentation on tuition rates by campus and State Board policy. Staff explained the board’s tuition factors for resident, Minnesota reciprocity, contiguous-state/U.S. nonresident, and international students, and noted that campuses often seek exceptions based on program-specific competition and enrollment goals. Members asked whether rates are based on cost or competition, and staff said campuses typically bring forward estimates and market comparisons when requesting special rates. The presentation also reviewed general fund appropriations versus net tuition revenue by campus, and members discussed how local tuition decisions and waivers do not directly affect the state funding formula, though they do affect institutional revenue and reserves. Questions were also raised about the Higher Learning Commission’s financial composite indicator and how it differs from the more intuitive reserve and revenue figures. The committee next received a broad overview of non-higher-education entities affiliated with the State Board of Higher Education, beginning with NDSU agriculture-related units. Dr. Greg Lardy described the State Board of Agricultural Research and Education, the NDSU Extension Service, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and the branch research centers, emphasizing their statewide role in crop and livestock research, extension education, and county-based outreach. He outlined funding mixes for extension, the experiment station, and branch stations, noting that grants and contracts support both research and education, while the agronomy seed farm is self-funded through seed sales. Members asked about the new and vacant FTE pool, R1 research status, matching requirements for grants, and whether state appropriations count toward research expenditures. Dr. Lardy also highlighted major research impacts, including crop varieties, virtual fencing, AI-assisted weed control, and NDAWN weather data. The Northern Crops Institute and the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute also presented. NCI described its role in market development, technical services, and education for regional agriculture, its governance through the Northern Crops Council, and its funding from state appropriations, other states, and earned revenue. Members asked about the source of out-of-state funding, intellectual property, and the institute’s international reach. UGPTI then outlined its transportation research, federal and state funding structure, and work on road and bridge condition assessments, travel demand modeling, and workforce training. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• A quorum being present, I want to welcome everyone to the Budget Committee.
• Any fiscal impacts will be dealt with in the budget at the appropriate time.
• Representative Overdorf, welcome to the Budget Committee. Let's see.
• So there should not be a cost that is outside of an existing budget. Right?
• We have allocated monies toward them to do this in the budget, and with the FTEs, you know, I am going

Summary: The Budget Committee took up six bills. HB 313 passed unanimously and was reported favorably; it exempts vehicles or motorcycles displaying the Purple Heart specialty license plate from paying tolls on Florida facilities. HB 749 also passed and was reported favorably; it extends benefits to firefighters injured during training exercises. CS/HB 1103 passed and was reported favorably; it addresses APD’s developmental disability waitlist by increasing transparency, creating statewide family care councils, expanding the existing pilot program statewide on a phased timeline, and improving coordination for young adults transitioning out of foster care. Testimony on HB 1103 focused on the long waitlist, the need for more provider capacity and support coordinators, and concerns from Disability Rights Florida about moving too quickly without enough data, while supporters argued the current system is not working and families need access to services now. HB 1097 passed after a unanimous amendment removing an appropriation; it creates a premier academic insurance research center at Florida State University to conduct applied insurance and catastrophic risk research, with members discussing the transition from FIU and noting continued collaboration. HB 1309 passed and was reported favorably; it requires evidence-based reading interventions for K-2 students with reading deficiencies and creates a reading coaches program for grades 4-12. Supporters from education and business groups appeared in favor. CS/HB 433 also passed and was reported favorably, though it drew the most debate. The bill requires agencies to review existing rules and guidance documents for consistency with legislative intent, repromulgate rules over time, and report licensing metrics. Members raised concerns about possible duplication of work, staffing needs, and cost, while the sponsor and supporters argued agencies should already be doing this and that the bill would reduce unnecessary regulation and improve accountability. The committee then adjourned after completing its agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but I'm not actually seeing allocated, but I'm not actually seeing that<00:10:14.080> in<00:
• It's $3.9 million allocated to that department when we have Minnesota not being affordable right now
• So, I guess this amendment is just to use the intent, but just keep the resources under their budget
• It's $3.9 million allocated to that department when we have Minnesota not being affordable right now
• Continuing to add to the base budgets is problematic, and thank you for pointing that out.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 3791 was laid over for possible inclusion later, with Rep. Green and Rep. Noor presenting it as a response to rising threats against Minnesota elected officials and public officers. They cited increased threat reports, the June 2025 killings of Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortman and her husband, the shootings of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, and other recent threats as evidence that current protective resources are insufficient. The bill would create a state officials protective services unit within the State Patrol, provide security and threat-assessment services for principal state officials, and require reporting on credible threats. Rep. Noor said the proposal would be triggered by leadership when there is a credible threat, would include legislators and constitutional officers, and would be funded at about $3.98 million in FY 2027 with an ongoing base of $3.25 million, with some ability to contract with local law enforcement for support in official-capacity situations. Members raised concerns about scope, jurisdiction, and cost. Rep. Olsen argued the bill was not narrow enough and worried it could allow Capitol Security to provide home or event security too broadly, rather than limiting the work to the Capitol and catastrophic incidents. Rep. Joy offered an A1 amendment to use existing funds instead of adding new spending, saying local sheriffs and police already handle many situations. That amendment failed on a voice vote. Rep. Olson then moved an A2 amendment focused on clarifying who should be in charge of protection at home and how local law enforcement would be involved; discussion centered on whether Capitol Security, State Patrol, or local agencies should lead response and how credible threats would be determined. Supporters of the bill, including Rep. Green and Rep. Muir, said the events of June 14 showed the need for a dedicated, coordinated protective service and that local responses were uneven across jurisdictions. Rep. Muir described delayed or inconsistent police responses after the attacks and said lawmakers need a more reliable system to keep members and their families safe. Rep. Keagle also testified about personal threats and harassment at home, including a prank pizza delivery that made her fear someone knew when she was home. The committee did not take final action on the bill beyond laying it over, and the A1 amendment failed; discussion on the A2 amendment and the bill’s details continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• To keep it budget neutral.
• The rest of its allocations, and if it's allocations, it's a lump sum of money that gets allocated out
• <03:28:54.840> would because it's so the allocations would because it's so the allocations
• huge magnitude shift in in allocations huge magnitude shift in in allocations so<03:29:02.960>
• of money that gets allocated out based of money that gets allocated out based on<03:29:37.640>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed HB 443, which would change terms and vacancy language for members of a higher education commission. Members raised concerns that the bill was too narrow to address broader issues with commission membership, including expired appointments, attendance expectations, and whether the Department of Education could replace the commission’s role. Several members suggested the bill was not ready for action and favored holding it for further work, possibly through a subcommittee or work session. One member suggested that if attendance standards were added, no more than two unexcused absences should trigger removal, given the commission’s meeting schedule. The chair said he would defer action and form a small subcommittee to report back before the committee deadline. The committee then moved to HB 484, dealing with repurposing Career and Technical Education classroom space after 20 years of exclusive use. The chair explained that the bill was aimed at the Milford CTE project, where shared use of space could allow a school to repurpose part of a CTE facility while still using it for CTE-related instruction. Members discussed other possible situations around the state, including Claremont, North Conway, and Jaffrey/Rindge, and whether the bill should be limited to Milford or broadened to allow local districts more flexibility. Some members favored passing the bill now to help CTE projects move forward, while others argued for an amendment removing the requirement that the space be vacated specifically to expand the CTE program occupying it. Testimony and discussion emphasized that the Milford project had state approval but reduced funding, requiring a smaller scope and repurposing of existing space. Supporters said the bill could help preserve CTE programs while also benefiting general education space needs, and that local districts should have flexibility after 20 years. Opponents or cautious members noted that the language might not fit every district situation and asked for feedback from Director Beard and Steve Rothenberg before final action. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, and instead discussed waiting for an amendment and additional input before acting.

Transcript Highlights:

• to allocate.
• Christy Gilmore: The budget, it doesn't, the budget keeps the system standing.
• childhood education in the budget.
• Half a million in the budget. Half a million in the budget? Yes, sir. Is it in the budget already?
• It's in the budget. $1.5 million is in the budget.

Summary: The committee met for public testimony on the Finance budget, with the main discussion focused first on funding for disability services and then on the LA GATOR scholarship program. Several individuals testified in support of fully funding Families Helping Families and Louisiana Rehabilitation Services (LRS), describing how advocacy, transition services, and direct support workers help people with disabilities access education, employment, and independent living. Witnesses urged the committee to preserve or increase state general funds to draw down federal matching dollars, and provider groups said current reimbursement rates and staffing shortages are leaving agencies in deficit, creating waitlists, overtime costs, and difficulty retaining workers. Committee members thanked the speakers and noted that the testimony would be used to compare the governor’s, House, and remaining budget requests. The committee then heard extensive testimony in support of increasing funding for the LA GATOR scholarship program. Supporters included policy groups, school leaders, parents, and students who argued that the program expands educational choice, helps low-income and special-needs students find schools that fit their needs, and should be fully funded at the level of demonstrated demand. Speakers from Catholic and Christian schools said GATOR funding had helped students thrive academically and spiritually, but that shortfalls left many eligible students without awards, hurt kindergarten enrollment, and forced schools to raise private donations to cover gaps. Several witnesses emphasized that the program is not a zero-sum attack on public schools, but a way to let education dollars follow students. A few committee questions focused on the fiscal impact and on whether choice programs improve outcomes without harming public schools. Testimony cited enrollment growth, parent demand, and data from other states to argue that school choice can improve student and parent outcomes and may also strengthen traditional public schools through competition. No votes or formal actions were taken during the public testimony portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• the budget forecast.
• allocation amounts based upon the budget allocation amounts based upon the budget forecast.<00:15
• reflected the allocation reflected the allocation recommendations.<00:15:27.360> Council<
• , this year um this year's allocation, this year um this year's allocation, it's<00:20:39.600>
• Timely completion also means budget.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Despite this, less than 20% of the solid waste management tax revenues are allocated to SCORE grants
• to score grants revenues are allocated to score grants to<00:18:31.919> fund<00:18:32.320>
• counties may use a waste tax allocations counties may use a waste tax assessment<00:20:10.120> uh
• > and<00:57:27.280> the about the Imp on local budgets and the about the Imp on local budgets
• <00:58:46.359> of<00:58:46.520> local to think about the budgets of local to think

Bills: HF1359, HF1829, HF290, HF1933, HF926

Keywords: solid waste management, resource management account, environmental fund, taxation, Minnesota statutes, homestead, property tax, classification, disability, resort properties, recreational use, commercial property, tax refund, estimated tax, interest on refunds, income tax, corporate franchise tax, S corporation, partnership, corporation

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, most funds in a budget are specific to whatever, you know, they're allocated for specific things:
• only get to vote on the whole budget. only get to vote on the whole budget.
• It'll be part of both the default budget and the regular budget in following years.
• have a budget committee in that case. have a budget committee in that case.
• Christina. budget. It just it just the existing budget.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• appreciates the Senate's first offer, and we are prepared to make the House's first offer on the budget
• Beginning with the budget, members, the House's first offer is located in the far-right columns of the
• Immediately after the budget spreadsheet is the House's statewide summary of our FEFP.
• Both the House and the Senate original budgets put forth a reduction of those weights.
• I normally have never had, in my entire legislative career, a question during these budget hearings.

Summary: The meeting focused on the House’s first offer on the budget, proviso, and back-of-the-bill items in negotiations with the Senate. Representative Persons-Mulica explained that the House’s proposal would create an academic acceleration options supplement to support advanced courses such as AP, IB, ACE, and CAP, and would fund that supplement at 100% of the amount generated under the current statutory weight system, rather than the lower level included in the Senate’s proposal. She said the House’s offer would provide more funding to every district than this year and at least as much as the current formula would generate. She also highlighted two back-of-the-bill items: a Family Empowerment Scholarship Stabilization Enrollment Program to provide additional funding if enrollment projections create issues, and a provision allowing early learning coalitions to use unexpended school readiness funds in fiscal year 2025-26. Senator Burgess praised the offer and noted the House and Senate were working toward addressing concerns raised during session. A public commenter, a longtime teacher, thanked lawmakers for preserving funding for academically rigorous courses and urged future improvements in school funding and teacher pay. Representative Joseph asked how the additional supplemental funds would be allocated between district schools and other programs, and Persons-Mulica said that guidance would be included in a forthcoming conforming bill. With no further questions or public comment, the committee moved to adjourn, and the meeting ended with notice that it could reconvene on one hour’s notice.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pease, I still see in your budget, every budget, every line item has state overtime.
• Although the House 1 budget allocation for the trial court is a welcome increase over the trial court's
• With the constraints of our IT budget and our IT bond funding allocation, we are maximizing every available
• Certainly... ...we have not budgeted for that $500,000 in our budget.
• My entire budget doesn't even equate to the structural deficit included in my budget.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held its sixth public hearing on the Governor’s H-2 budget proposal for fiscal year 2026, focused on public safety and judiciary agencies, at the Foxborough Community Center. After opening remarks and local welcomes, the committee heard first from the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, led by Secretary Gina Kwan, who outlined a $1.72 billion budget, up $69.8 million from FY26. She said the proposal emphasizes core operations, readiness, and partnerships with municipalities, and highlighted work on firearms-law implementation, State Police reform, DOC reentry efforts, hate-crimes prevention, emergency response, and planning for major events including the World Cup. Members also raised concerns about DNA backlog reporting, State Police academy boxing and training standards, ICE communication, disaster relief funding, crime lab staffing, EMS placement, and diversity in public safety leadership. Several exchanges focused on specific operational issues. Secretary Kwan and her team said the State Police are tracking the influx of forensic work from local sheriffs, that the boxing program remains suspended pending an IACP review and likely will not return in its prior form, and that EOPS has no direct communication with ICE but supports law-enforcement coordination where appropriate. On disaster preparedness, officials said the new disaster relief fund is being developed with MEMA and A&F, currently capitalized at $14 million with another $14 million expected, though members urged a more permanent funding source. On the crime lab, staff said the roughly $4.5 million increase is intended to cover core operations and a structural funding gap rather than expand services. The secretary also said EOPS is not ready to absorb OEMS from DPH at this time, though she would keep an open mind. The committee then heard from district attorneys, led by Suffolk County DA Kevin Hayden, who said the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association is seeking a 10% increase in operating budgets, including about $16.7 million for staffing salaries, to recruit and retain prosecutors, advocates, and support staff. He said the request reflects rising workload and the need to keep the criminal justice system functioning efficiently and fairly. The hearing was recessed briefly after the district attorneys’ opening remarks, with additional testimony expected to continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is not simply an issue of budgets.
• It is not simply an issue of budgets.
• how credits are allocated among multiple owners. owners. owners.
• <00:58:11.640> for 50% of the credits be allocated for 50% of the credits be allocated for
• who are thrilled to be able to allocate who are thrilled to be able to allocate their<01:06:17.200

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that can be addressed in the next budget that can be addressed in the next budget process<00:26:
• the following budget, so the next budget the following budget, so the next budget cycle<00:37:17.680
• that was put into the budget. that was put into the budget.
• books through the last budget cycle. books through the last budget cycle.
• It's already been budgeted for. It's already been budgeted for.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The first question I have is that there are some states that use more of a budget, a family budget model
• I guess are any of those other states better at making those allocations or are? Right.
• Other states better at making those allocations? On the shared parenting, Judge Howard.
• Just in the child support side and making those allocations.
• That $25,000 is allocated by the percentage of their income, the gross income. Yes, sir.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee met to conduct the statutorily required four-year review of Oklahoma’s child support guidelines, which DHS said had not been reviewed on schedule in recent years. Deputy Director Don Zellner of DHS Child Support Services presented data on the number of children served, child poverty, rising costs of raising a child, wage trends, and the volume of child support orders handled by DHS. He also explained how the current guidelines work, including income withholding, shared overnight deductions, daycare, medical, transportation, and self-employment adjustments, and noted that the guidelines are based on gross combined income and currently cap at $15,000 combined income. Committee members, especially Senator Boren, questioned whether the current model fairly reflects modern family economics, including the cost of housing, the impact of shared overnights, and whether visitation issues should be addressed alongside child support. DHS said the guidelines are over 25 years old, that other states generally use similar gross-income models with shared-overnight deductions, and that Oklahoma’s administrative courts have been more receptive than district courts to DHS’s lower-income deviation approach. Zellner said DHS has also updated its practices to better account for low-income obligors, including allowing zero orders in some cases and reducing imputed minimum-wage assumptions, which DHS said has improved collections. Members also asked about transparency and public access to the calculations. DHS said the formula and income chart are in statute, the calculator is available on the DHS website, and the Excel-based tool applies the statutory chart and deductions. A public commenter asked where parents could see how amounts are calculated, and DHS explained that the statutory chart and calculator are the main sources. The committee discussed possible future reforms, including higher income caps, possible changes to shared overnight rules, and whether extracurricular or special child-related expenses could be considered through judicial deviation. No vote was taken; the meeting ended with the chair noting it was the last Judiciary meeting of the 60th Legislature and adjourning the committee.