Transcript Highlights:

• And the fiscal note was re-prepared and re-engrossed.
• I think that when the fiscal note was done on the re-engrossed bill, that it shouldn't change from here
• As far as the fiscal note goes, if we're saying OGB is included in this, is it going to generate a fiscal
• note?
• I think that's already reflected in the current note. It's about $67,000.

Summary: The Senate Insurance Committee met on May 20, confirmed a quorum, and approved the May 13 minutes. The first bill heard was House Bill 591, which would create the Paid Family Leave Insurance Act as a voluntary private-market insurance option for employers, with no mandate, state program, or taxpayer cost. Senator Bass presented the bill, offered technical amendments, and after brief questions about why the framework was needed, the committee adopted the amendments and reported the bill favorably with amendments. The committee then took up House Bill 76, dealing with coverage for orally administered anti-cancer medications. Representative Amy Freeman and former Representative Julie Stokes explained that the bill updates Louisiana’s oral chemotherapy coverage law, which had not been revised since 2012, and addresses insurer rejection of newer oral cancer drugs. They also explained Amendment Set 4063, which was intended to restore the bill to the proper posture after changes made in the Appropriations Committee and to prohibit copayment adjustment programs such as accumulator or maximizer programs from reducing credit for manufacturer assistance toward deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. Senator Bass raised a concern about prior authorization language and possible ERISA litigation, and department staff responded that the bill would not alter ERISA enforceability and that the fiscal note already reflected about $67,000 in OGB costs. After the amendments were adopted, Senator Bass moved to report HB 76 favorably with amendments, and the committee did so without opposition. Senator Carter thanked the bill authors for their advocacy on cancer-related issues and offered to help during the interim. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, members and witnesses, it's important to note, uh, that you must first be recognized by the chair
• Is there a fiscal note on this? Are we sending these counties any money to do this?
• There is no fiscal note, of course that would cover the state and in the local government impact, I want
• to point out that I'll read from the Legislative Budget Board fiscal note on March 24th.
• No, no state fiscal note, but the bill could have an impact on certain counties associated with establishing

Transcript Highlights:

• And the reason I ask that is because I was actually kind of surprised that there was not a fiscal note
• Chairman, I apply—and I think we just got a request for a fiscal note, like literally just came in today
• We're paying for something, which usually means this is a fiscal note that needs to go into the budget
• Chair, so we did not request a fiscal note to find out if this would impact anything.
• Chair, so we did not request a fiscal note to find out if this would impact anything. Chairman, Ms.

Bills: SB1059, SB1209, SB1273, SB1332, SB1452, SB1456, SB1549, SB1552, SB1818, SB1826, SB1827

Keywords: appropriation, Department of Transportation, right turn lane, traffic improvement, infrastructure funding, nonoperating identification, homeless exemption, veterans, emancipated minors, Arizona Department of Transportation, transportation, infrastructure, pavement rehabilitation, funding, Arizona, SB1332, light rail, light rail expansion, Maricopa County, Phoenix

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 1273, which would appropriate $14 million in FY 2027 for pavement rehabilitation of Olga Frontage Road between Bowie and San Simon. Members asked about the project length and whether it was on the rural transportation priority list. The bill was moved and passed out of committee on a 3-2 vote with a due pass recommendation. Senate Bill 1452, as amended, would create a cargo theft task force in the Attorney General’s office and require regular meetings, investigations, and reporting. Testimony from the Arizona Trucking Association described cargo theft as a growing, sophisticated crime and said the task force would help coordinate law enforcement and use Consumer Fraud Protection Fund dollars rather than the general fund. Members discussed the fund balance, possible costs, and whether the AG’s office had capacity; the committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill 5-0 with a do pass recommendation. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1332, which orders a study of light rail expansion in Maricopa County by the Auditor General and an independent transportation research entity. Supporters, including local business owners, argued the study was needed before further expansion, while opponents said light rail already had extensive study, strong ridership, and local voter approval, and that the state should not override local decisions. After extensive debate and public testimony, the bill passed 4-3 with a do pass recommendation. Finally, Senate Bill 1059, one of several rural transportation appropriation bills discussed by Senator Wendy Rogers and Representative Blackman, would fund an additional right-turn lane at State Route 87 and State Route 260. The sponsors described it as a safety and congestion issue for Payson and surrounding rural communities, and members discussed broader rural road needs and funding. The committee approved SB 1059 unanimously, 7-0, with a due pass recommendation. The transcript also included extended discussion of Senate Bill 1209, which would waive non-operating ID fees for unhoused people and homeless shelter residents, but the committee had not yet finished action on that bill in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The chair then noted there were no further speakers.
• The error rate in fiscal year 2024 was below 10%.
• Diagnosis note is sent. Then there's a requirement for the latest chart notes.
• Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell has also noted that this is a best practice.
• For members concerned about cost, I want to note that this bill is fiscally responsible.

Bills: HB2180, HB2184, HB2188, HB2194, HB2206, HB2321, HB2322, HB2438, HB2442, HB2448, HB2727, HB2797

Keywords: appropriation, funding, University of Arizona, education, state budget, fetal death, funeral homes, informed consent, abortion, women's rights, medical assistance, emotional support, language acquisition, early intervention, hearing impairment, grant program, deaf education, health care, insurance claims, prior authorization

Summary: The Committee on Health and Human Services opened with remarks about shortening meeting times and then heard a JLBC presentation on the effects of H.R. 1 on SNAP. JLBC staff explained that H.R. 1 expands SNAP work requirements, raises the state share of SNAP administrative costs from 50% to 75% beginning in FY 2027, and could require Arizona to pay a share of benefits if its SNAP error rate exceeds 6%. JLBC estimated the administrative cost increase at about $33 million in FY 2027 and $44 million in FY 2028, and said a 2024 error rate of 8.8% could trigger about $139 million in state benefit costs under the new federal formula. The committee then considered HB 2797, which requires DES to regularly review data from other agencies to verify SNAP eligibility, post fraud and noncompliance data, and address out-of-state EBT purchases. Supporters said it would improve program integrity and help Arizona avoid federal cost-sharing penalties; the bill passed 7-5. The committee next heard HB 2180, which appropriates $2.5 million in FY 2027 to the University of Arizona for AZ REACH, a statewide hospital transfer coordination service. Supporters from rural hospitals and the health system described it as a useful, voluntary service that speeds transfers and reduces burden on physicians, while one health system representative asked for better operational coordination. The bill passed 11-1. HB 2184, as amended, would extend fetal death certificate filing requirements to fetal deaths at or before 20 weeks if requested by the mother and require notice of the option to transfer remains to a funeral home before an abortion. Supporters, including a mortuary owner and parents who had experienced miscarriages, said it would give grieving families dignity and closure; opponents raised concerns about reproductive rights and language in the bill. The committee adopted the Bliss amendment and passed the bill 7-4-1. HB 2188, as amended, created a Language Acquisition Grant Program for services to deaf or hard-of-hearing infants and toddlers. Supporters said it would streamline funding and preserve family choice among spoken language, ASL, or both, while an opponent argued the bill should more explicitly ensure equal access to ASL and Deaf Culture services; the bill passed 12-0. The committee also considered three more H.R. 1-related SNAP bills. HB 2442 would require able-bodied adults under 60 receiving SNAP to participate in an employment and training program unless exempt; supporters said it would connect recipients to work and training, and it passed 7-5. HB 2448 would bar DES from seeking work-requirement waivers or discretionary exemptions unless authorized by law; supporters said it would prevent broad waivers and improve employment outcomes, and it also passed 7-5. Finally, HB 2206 would require DES to reduce the SNAP payment error rate to 3% by 2030, submit annual progress reports, and face corrective action if targets are missed. Supporters said it would save taxpayer money and improve accountability, while opponents argued the target was too aggressive without more staff or funding and could strain DES; the bill was still under discussion at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• The laws in 2024 amended the appropriation to be for fiscal year 2025.
• The laws in 2024 amended the appropriation to be for fiscal year 2025.
• <00:01:28.640> year appropriation to be for fiscal year appropriation to be for fiscal year
• offer the DMC program in either fiscal offer the DMC program in either fiscal year<00:01:35.560>
• for the record, Eric Olson, fiscal for the record, Eric Olson, fiscal analyst<00:03:20.720> for

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:30.080> approved<00:09:30.399> the note that the commissioners approved the note
• fiscal year in fiscal um last year last fiscal year in fiscal year<00:10:50.480> 25.
• You'll see right now I'm fiscal year.
• Um, showing you the last fiscal year.
• Um so, and also for this fiscal 131.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Gillman had requested a fiscal note.
• Gillman had requested a fiscal note. Thank you, Chair.
• <00:36:38.720> note<00:36:39.720> representative a fiscal note representative a fiscal
• note that's been there's no fiscal note that's been requested<00:36:47.160> that<00:36:47.680
• <00:36:59.599> note surprised there's not a fiscal note surprised there's not a fiscal note

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The estimated beneficiary savings for the 2028-2029 fiscal years are $5.1 million to $19.2 million.
• In fiscal year 2024, large beneficiaries saved $4.6 million.
• This is a 107% increase from fiscal year 2020.
• And in fiscal year 2024, small beneficiaries saved $1.2 million.
• This is a 33% reduction from fiscal year 2020.

Summary: The Citizens Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences met on August 6, 2025, with five commissioners present and a quorum. The commission approved the May 7, 2025 meeting minutes and welcomed new commissioner Scott Edwards, who introduced himself. Staff also confirmed the September meeting date had been changed to September 22, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. to accommodate his schedule, and noted that testimony questions for the public hearing would be used at that meeting. JLARC staff then presented preliminary 2025 tax preference performance reviews covering nine preferences. For natural gas used as a transportation fuel, staff said the preferences reduce fuel costs but do not meet emissions-reduction goals, and recommended continuing the public utility tax and natural gas use tax exemptions while modifying reporting requirements; they also recommended continuing the marine-use LNG sales tax exemption and considering the Department of Revenue work group’s findings. For travel agents and tour operators, staff said the small-beneficiary rate appears to support smaller firms, while the larger-beneficiary rate should be reviewed and both should have clearer objectives and metrics. For nonprofit low-income housing development, staff said the preference is helping produce housing but the current metric does not align well with the objective, data/reporting problems remain, and the legislature should decide whether to continue and possibly modify the exemption, including considering annual renewal. Staff also reviewed the multipurpose senior citizen centers exemption, concluding it meets its objective and recommending continuation, with possible consideration of making it permanent. For disabled veteran adapted housing, staff said the preference has very low uptake despite eligible veterans and recommended continuing it but modifying it in consultation with the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve use. For trade convention attendance, staff said the preference aligns Washington with other states and recommended continuation. For agricultural fertilizer and seed wholesaling, staff said the exemption reduces tax layering and recommended continuation, with clarification on whether it is exempt from expiration/performance-statement requirements. For agricultural crop protection products, staff said the preference met its revenue-growth metric and recommended extending it while considering better metrics or recategorizing it as tax relief. Finally, for energy sales to a silicon smelter, staff said the preferences were unused because the facility was never built and recommended allowing them to expire. The meeting ended with reminders about written testimony and the September public testimony session.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:49.920> expect their fiscal note that they quote expect their fiscal note that they
• I am surprised at this fiscal note.
• 00:22:44.080> expert<00:22:44.640> in fiscal note I'm not an expert in fiscal note I'm
• That ties into some of the fiscal note worksheet.
• So that's why in our fiscal note we put estimate.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then I just noted some other examples.
• And then I just noted some other examples.
• Just a note too about the jurisdiction: I think Ms.
• <00:27:10.000> that control board uh would just note that control board uh would just note
• <00:27:23.480> too scambling policy um so just a note too scambling policy um so just a note

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met on January 16, 2025, for an organizational and informational session. Members and staff introduced themselves, and Chair Jim Nash reviewed committee expectations, including that nonpartisan staff are to be used for factual information rather than political arguments. He also noted the committee rules were a blend of prior chairs’ rules and would be posted without a vote. Helen Roberts of House Fiscal gave a high-level overview of the committee’s jurisdiction and budget structure. She explained that the State Government Finance Committee oversees funding for major administrative agencies, the legislature, constitutional offices, and several boards, councils, and commissions. She emphasized that the committee’s general fund base for fiscal years 2026-27 is about $1.31 billion, less than 2% of the state general fund, and that the largest pieces are the Department of Revenue, the legislature, and pension aids. She also described how all-funds presentations differ from general fund views, highlighting internal service funds such as Minnesota IT Services, Department of Administration services, and other chargeback or reimbursement arrangements. Members asked questions about House and Senate budgets, debt service related to the Capitol Area building project and move costs, and how Minnesota IT Services is funded through fee-for-service chargebacks. Colby Sullivan of House Research then summarized a memo in the packet that outlines the entities within the committee’s jurisdiction and the constitutional and statutory provisions governing them. He pointed members to the memo as a reference and noted that the committee also has jurisdiction over the Legislative Coordinating Commission, the legislative auditor, the legislative reference library, the reviser of statutes, the Secretary of State’s budget and certain duties, and three gambling-related agencies, though gambling policy itself is generally handled by another committee. He offered to help members with bill drafting and amendments and to provide a linked electronic version of the memo. The Office of the Legislative Auditor then began an overview of its work. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall explained that the office is nonpartisan, serves all 201 legislators, and provides oversight through financial audits, program evaluations, and special reviews focused on state funds. She distinguished the Legislative Auditor from the State Auditor, noting that the State Auditor is an elected constitutional officer who focuses on county and local government funds. Randall said the office would also present a deep dive into its November performance audit of the Minnesota State Lottery. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• note make for extra cost?
• approximate this next fiscal year. approximate this next fiscal year.
• on your notes. on your notes.
• This is SNAP benefits House Bill 1750, with a 4.4 estimated fiscal note.
• fiscal year for the previous federal fiscal year.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division 3 work session opened on February 13, 2026, with the chair outlining the committee’s advisory role and the possible motions available under House Rule 45. The committee then took up House Bill 1569, concerning the Philbrook Center/state hospital campus property, and heard extensive testimony from Commissioner Charlie Arlinghouse. He explained that the property is currently one parcel and state law prevents subdivision unless a separate Senate bill, identified as SB 572, is enacted to fix the legal issue. He said HB 2 directed the sale of the property but did not address subdivision or marketing details, and he characterized the $5 million revenue estimate as speculative. He also said the state would first offer the property to the city or county, which he viewed as the most practical buyer and potential partner for any subdivision work. Members asked whether the building should be retained for transitional housing or sold, what would happen after July 1, 2026, and whether other vacant state buildings could absorb the current occupants. Arlinghouse said there are no firm plans for the building if it is not sold, and that HHS would remain until a sale occurs. He described the building as not especially historic or attractive and noted plumbing issues, while also acknowledging HHS’s view that it could serve as transitional housing. He said there is no reserve stock of office space, that the state already rents substantial office space in Concord, and that some nearby state buildings are either under renovation or only partially usable. He also said the Executive Council would have to approve any sale and that moving costs are usually not budgeted in advance, leaving the using agency to absorb them. Several members raised concerns about relying on asset sales to balance the budget, citing past examples where projected real estate revenue did not materialize on schedule. Arlinghouse agreed that one-time revenue should generally be used for one-time expenses, but said the state sometimes has legitimate reasons to sell assets and that such decisions depend on the state’s needs. He estimated the state rents roughly 100,000 square feet of office space in Concord at about $25 per square foot, and said he would provide a more exact figure later. In response to a question about whether the state should include a right of first refusal if the property is later resold, he said that idea had not been considered but could make sense, especially if the buyer is the city or county. No votes were taken during this portion of the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• But certainly they're going to do their best to get us a fiscal note on it, and we know that that is
• But certainly they're going to do their best to get us a fiscal note on it, and we know that that is
• Madam Chair, so fiscal note has been requested. you know how many more people are going you know how
• note on it and we we know that um fiscal note on it and we we know that um that<00:08:37.240> is<
• note of some there'd be like a fiscal note of some like<00:50:28.359> constitutional<00:50:28.960

Bills: HF414, HF768, HF359

Keywords: data practices, filing fee, government transparency, complaints, public access, free speech, human rights, censorship, protected speech, Minnesota Department of Human Rights, real property, partition, eminent domain, transfer on death deeds, property rights, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• year 26 and fiscal year 27?
• year 26 and fiscal year 27?
• year 26 and fiscal year 27?
• year 26 and fiscal year 27?
• year 26 and fiscal year 27 um and fiscal year 26 and fiscal year 27 um and the<00:15:46.440> language

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees first heard Senate Bill 151 relating to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and geothermal development on Hawaiian homelands. DHHL and Ulupono Initiative testified in strong support, saying the measure would help advance clean energy goals, create economic opportunities, and support DHHL’s mission. Fine Electric also supported the bill. Several members of the public testified in opposition, raising concerns about consultation with beneficiaries, water impacts, land issues, and the scale of the proposed spending. In response to questions, DHHL staff explained slimhole drilling, the permitting distinctions between water exploration and geothermal exploration, and said prior studies and geophysical testing had been done. The chair then recommended passage with amendments, including SMA technical amendments, a directive to establish a permitted interaction group to study geothermal options, removal of the appropriation language, and a new effective date. The committees adopted the recommendation and passed SB 151 with amendments, with one senator voting no and several excused. The joint committees then took up Senate Bill 371 on property damage to critical infrastructure facilities. The Department of the Attorney General supported the bill with amendments, recommending broader critical infrastructure language to cover systems such as transportation, gas, power, water, and oil, and suggesting additional changes to improve prosecution. Utility and other supporters also testified in favor. The chairs proposed adopting the AG’s amendments except one, and further expanding the bill to make manslaughter explicit when a death results from disruption of critical infrastructure, and to add water as a covered infrastructure category. The committees adopted the amended recommendation and passed SB 371 with amendments. Finally, the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee heard Senate Bill 585 on special purpose revenue bonds for Bana Pacific. The Attorney General noted a possible issue with the company’s entity status and the bill title, but Bana Pacific stated it was in the process of converting from an LLC to a corporation and was satisfied with the title. The State Energy Office supported the concept, and Bana Pacific described the project as an integrated biogas and green hydrogen facility that would support energy security, create jobs, and reduce emissions. The committee then moved on to Senate Bill 964 on waste-to-energy, where the State Energy Office offered supportive comments but many testifiers opposed the measure, arguing incineration is costly, polluting, and inferior to recycling. Written testimony showed more opposition than support, and public testimony focused on environmental and cost concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's quite a fiscal note.
• the fiscal note had was indeterminable. the fiscal note had was indeterminable.
• That's quite a fiscal note. So, if HB That's quite a fiscal note.
• speak really briefly to the fiscal note. speak really briefly to the fiscal note.
• What is not what's in the fiscal note.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The month of June stays open a bit longer as it's the end of the fiscal year.
• So we won't have final numbers for the fiscal year for a little while yet.
• In terms of this, it reflects what was actually passed, the fiscal impact or the fiscal note that was
• And I just made a note there that that amount of dollars... Thank you.
• And then for the next biennium would be at $6 million and $8 million, which puts a fiscal note at about

Summary: The Budget Section met to approve prior minutes and receive a series of budget, revenue, and program updates from OMB, the Tax Department, DOT, DMR, and DPI. OMB reported that general fund revenues through May were about $76 million below the legislative forecast, driven mainly by individual income tax and sales tax shortfalls, though the biennium is still projected to end with a positive balance. OMB also reviewed oil price and production assumptions, the budget stabilization fund transfer above its cap, Legacy Fund performance, federal grant applications, fiscal irregularities, tobacco settlement proceeds, budget guidelines for agencies, vacancy savings, and the DAPL settlement, noting that most of the settlement funds had been deposited but a small amount of accrued interest would require a future deficiency request. The committee then considered Emergency Commission requests. It approved requests for Public Service Commission abandoned mine lands federal authority, an Attorney General FTE and related funding for criminal investigator work tied to the Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, and a DPI transfer for bridge software costs. After discussion, the committee also approved DPI’s request for a $500,000 transfer for the food vendor program, despite questions about the program’s savings and cash-flow structure. Later, the Tax Commissioner presented the primary residence credit program, reporting that current biennium costs are expected to exceed the appropriation by about $22 million and explaining how the credit interacts with homestead and disabled veteran credits and the 3% property tax levy cap. The Legacy and Budget Stabilization Fund Advisory Board reported strong returns for both funds, and DOT sought and received approval for two flexible fund highway projects on ND 49 and ND 31. DOT also updated members on Highway 85 construction and said remaining flex fund dollars were essentially fully allocated. DMR reported on the abandoned well plugging and site reclamation fund, noting North Dakota’s relatively small orphan well inventory, current and projected fund balances, rising remediation costs, and a possible need to adjust the fund cap in future sessions. Finally, DPI outlined the new integrated formula gap funding program, explaining that it compensates school districts that cannot reach the assumed 60-mill local contribution because of the 3% levy cap; the first year’s gap funding totaled about $1.8 million, with future costs expected to grow.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, you do have a fiscal note.
• Noting that in this biennium, it's not a fiscal note, a revenue note, pardon me.
• have a fiscal note.
• Uh noting that in have a fiscal note.
• As the bill proceeded, we discovered that we needed a corrected fiscal note, and that fiscal note is

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so there is—they did add a fiscal note. >> Yeah, they did add a fiscal note.
• >> fiscal note. >> fiscal note.
• Um, so >> Yeah, they did add a fiscal note.
• 58.720> to<03:32:58.960> the fiscal note which is attached to the fiscal note which is
• And additionally, uh, the fiscal note—exorbitant.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• note to the agency?
• <00:32:24.320> year<00:32:24.679> 26<00:32:25.360> and fiscal year 26 and fiscal
• organization uh and and use a fiscal organization uh and and use a fiscal agency<00:53:35.319>
• agency as a pass through but the fiscal agency as a pass through but the fiscal agency<00:53:38.319
• <01:13:48.120> uh three they would receive a note uh three they would receive a note uh assuming

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:37:29.839> year for this fiscal year for this fiscal year for<00:37:32.079> the
• uh work of the legislative fiscal uh work of the legislative fiscal committee<00:47:50.240> and
• I will note that this chart stops after last year. We're in the current fiscal year 2026.
• current fiscal year 2026. current fiscal year 2026.
• Um, my bill on the education freedom accounts, the amendment obviated the fiscal note.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:56.280> note<00:19:56.520> on could put a little tiny fiscal note on could put
• a little tiny fiscal note on it it it Mr<00:19:59.000> chair<00:19:59.559> uh<00:19:59.799
• Do we have a fiscal note? Not miss Templin, save us here, please. I'm drowning. Mr.
• Chair, a fiscal note has been requested for House Bill 4 with the 2A amendment, and it is in process
• The preliminary fiscal note only had... was only completed by the Secretary of State, and that estimate

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 4, as amended, was heard in committee. The bill proposes a constitutional amendment to create a Minnesota tax relief account that would capture projected general fund revenues exceeding 105% of projected expenditures and return those funds to taxpayers, primarily through property tax relief or income tax relief. The committee adopted an amendment to put the bill in the author’s preferred shape, and later adopted a technical amendment from Representative Smith to insert the word “projected” before “expenditures” on line 2.2. Representative Johnson presented the bill as an affordability measure meant to return surplus money to the people rather than create new spending, arguing it would help homeowners and taxpayers if a surplus occurs. Ranna Lee of Americans for Prosperity supported the concept of returning surplus funds to taxpayers but also urged broader tax and budget reforms, including triggers for rate reductions and changes to budgeting practices. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project and Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota opposed the proposal, warning that embedding budget and tax rules in the Constitution would reduce legislative flexibility, weaken public investment, shift costs to local governments, and make it harder to respond to recessions or emergencies. Members raised questions about how the formula would work, who would qualify for refunds, whether corporations with property tax liability could benefit, and how the proposal would handle forecast-based calculations and unexpected events such as pandemics or federal policy changes. House research and committee staff clarified that the bill would need to go to Ways and Means and then Rules to satisfy House requirements for constitutional amendments, and that a fiscal note had been requested and was in process. The committee did not take final action on the bill in the portion of the transcript provided, but the motion before it was to recommend passage and send House File 4 to Ways and Means.