Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, members, yes, we have two adjustments to the agenda this morning: items 6C project.
• Item 7B, the FY26 Capital Outlay Award Cycle Adjustment Timeline, is recommended for removal from the
• We are not asking for any adjustments for the past.
• So both of those numbers have been adjusted with what we're currently selling and then going into June
• the MEM rate per the 2024 Consumer Price Index for an increase of 2.9 and adjust the PSCOC rate per

Transcript Highlights:

• Both of which are going to be adjusted by the regional cost adjustment, which is different than current
• salary is not adjusted by current law. salary is not adjusted by current law.
• That was adjust to some of them.
• days adjusted by the regional<00:31:54.720> cost<00:31:54.960> adjustment.
• regional cost adjustment. regional cost adjustment.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• cap, which again is expected to be at 1,800 first before making adjustments to LME.
• Um, so I'd like to see that adjustment come first in a surplus and then any adjustments to LME.
• Um, so I'd like to see that adjustment come first in a surplus and then any adjustments to LME.
• > adjustments<00:12:40.959> to<00:12:41.040> Lam.
• then any adjustments to Lam. then any adjustments to Lam.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And finally, DEED assumed the use of permissive authority to adjust the first-year premium rate, which
• the first year authority to adjust the first year premium<00:08:48.959> rate<00:08:49.760>
• And finally, it was the exercising of permissive authority to adjust the first premium rate that also
• And finally, it was the exercising of permissive authority to adjust the first premium rate that also
• At times they'll be like, okay, you know, and we'll include that and we adjust our estimate.

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• adjustment would get you.
• 00:17:39.280> gets<00:17:39.440> us inflation adjustment, that gets us inflation adjustment
• <01:34:09.360> authorized actual expense 25 adjusted authorized actual expense 25 adjusted
• expense and fiscal year 25 adjusted expense and fiscal year 25 adjusted authorized<01:34:30.880>
• <01:46:55.320> authorized in fiscal year 25 adjusted authorized in fiscal year 25 adjusted

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we do not... so we are proposing to adjust the contract down to the...
• The next item is the Health Care Payments Data Program Funding Adjustment.
• Those resources will be used to make adjustments to data reporting as required.
• There’s a technical adjustment to chapter legislation. It’s a minor technical proposal.
• And last is a technical adjustment related to SB 858 civil penalties.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:07:09.839> for payment the second year to adjust for payment the second year to adjust
• <01:25:02.159> the paid for in aid by adjusting the paid for in aid by adjusting the equalization
• There are no increases to FTE in our operating adjustment ask.
• There are no increases to FTE in our operating adjustment ask.
• <01:41:13.679> is FTE in our operating adjustment ask. is FTE in our operating adjustment

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Why don't we go to the next: 102 Fringe Benefit Adjustment and Federal Fund Ceiling Adjustment?
• This is a fringe benefit adjustment due to what? Because of the salary adjustment by the CBA.
• Okay, let's go to the next one. adjustment this is adjustment this is Page<00:35:08.720> what<
• yes just a fringe benefit adjustment yes just a fringe benefit adjustment<00:35:40.599> due<00
• So this is the salary adjustment.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know that this year I've heard a lot of comments about bad actors, either on the adjuster side
• claim, that the insurance adjusters claim it still works.
• And then the other was that we removed the adjuster cap.
• The adjusters, the public adjusters, did not get everything they wanted.
• Yeah, I expect to have some advice from the public adjuster side by the end of the week.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House Insurance Committee heard testimony on House Bill 2250, which would require insurers, beginning in 2027, to pay for full siding replacement when storm damage affects only part of a home and matching siding is not reasonably available. Sponsor Rep. Jaclyn Zimmermann said the bill is intended to codify existing Missouri case law and address complaints from constituents who were left with mismatched siding after hail damage, especially in older homes where the original materials are no longer made. Committee members generally expressed support for the consumer-protection goal, while also discussing possible changes such as limiting the requirement to certain elevations or adding clearer policy disclosures. Opposition testimony came from the Missouri Insurance Coalition, which argued the bill could raise premiums for all homeowners and noted that consumers can already buy more comprehensive coverage if they choose. Coalition witnesses said insurers should repair direct physical damage but warned against requiring full-house replacement for cosmetic mismatch, citing a prior St. Louis-area experience where a similar requirement reportedly increased premiums. Members and witnesses also discussed related issues such as consumer understanding of policy terms, the availability of different policy products, and whether contractor payroll or fraud concerns should be addressed separately. No vote was taken on HB 2250. After the hearing, the committee established a quorum and moved to executive session on House Bill 3328. The committee adopted a House Committee Substitute that removed the IBHS certification requirement in favor of a non-biased third-party testing lab and removed the adjuster cap, while otherwise keeping the bill’s stronger home program framework. The committee then voted the House Committee Substitute for HB 3328 do pass by a vote of 9-0, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The proposal also includes provisional language to provide the Bureau with flexibility to adjust its
• And we'll start with the student-centered funding formula cost-of-living adjustment.
• So if there's—when will you see the adjustment later into the year?
• So we're ready to adjust if the enrollment increases and there's adjustments? Yes.
• A lot of the things that he presented are adjustments to reflect actual costs.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• would allow for inflationary adjustments would allow for inflationary adjustments to<00:51:10.200
• <01:07:33.720> your the executive director to adjust your the executive director to adjust
• <01:07:58.440> later whether that can be adjusted later whether that can be adjusted later
• <01:08:06.000> everyone executive director to adjust everyone executive director to adjust
• stand up now if the Ed wants to adjust stand up now if the Ed wants to adjust you<01:08:33.960><

Keywords: 910, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe there were some adjustments, but I'll defer to my colleagues.
• I believe there were some adjustments, but I'll defer to my colleagues.
• And so we would ask for an aggregate cost-of-living adjustment of about 11.6%.
• The adjustment for May Revision is similar to the adjustments for the public and...
• The adjustment for May Revision is similar to the adjustments for the public interest attorney program

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be evaluating how the weapon screening process works and we'll make adjustments as needed to
• We will be evaluating how the weapon screening process works and we'll make adjustments as needed to
• as needed to ensure adjustments as needed to ensure screening<00:03:15.599> is<00:03:15.760><
• are needed to improve adjustments are needed to improve efficiency<00:08:14.400> or<00:08:14.639
• Again this is we may have to adjust.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson and State Patrol Colonel Christina Bogey announced that weapon screening will begin Tuesday at the Minnesota State Capitol at the start of the 2026 legislative session. They said the change is based on an independent security assessment and the Axtell report’s top recommendation, and framed it as an added layer of protection rather than a weapons ban or a change in state law. Both emphasized that the Capitol will remain open, accessible, and welcoming while reducing preventable risks, citing heightened threats to public officials and the recent murders and shootings involving Minnesota lawmakers and their families. Bogey outlined the screening plan: visitors will use four public access points, with the south ground-level entrance as the primary entry, while other exterior doors will not be open for public entry. She said the process should take only seconds for most people, with bags going through separate scanners and additional screening only if needed. The Capitol will close to the general public at 4:30 p.m. on weekdays, though accommodations will be made when hearings or floor sessions run later. She also said the entrances and screening areas are ADA accessible and that staff will be available to help guide visitors. In questions, officials said prohibited items are defined by statute and administrative rules and referred reporters to the State Patrol website for the full list. They confirmed that lawful permit-to-carry holders may still bring firearms, but must declare the permit, show government ID, and go through screening; elected officials are exempt, while staff are not. They also said the State Patrol will fund the rollout from its own budget, with costs to be evaluated over time, and that tunnel key-card access will be restricted to everyone. The briefing ended with a plan to demonstrate the screening equipment upstairs.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, do we have an inflation-adjusted...
• Is total funding adjusted for inflation? So this, the bars are not adjusted for inflation.
• that adjusted for inflation, total school funding is pretty flat.
• So total funding, relatively flat. when you adjust for inflation.
• State funding, when you adjust for inflation, has declined.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 06.480> the<00:05:06.640> Pollution operating adjustments for the Pollution operating adjustments
• operating adjustments. operating adjustments.
• PCA, line 51 is a operating adjustment PCA, line 51 is a operating adjustment from<00:09:14.600>
• Line 109 is the operating adjustment.
• 58.680> carried<00:15:59.160> on The operating adjustment is carried on The operating adjustment

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The working group on the Omnibus Environment Bill opened with remarks from House and Senate co-chairs describing the agreement as a compromise with wins and tradeoffs for both sides, and thanking nonpartisan staff and administration agencies for helping negotiate the package. Staff then walked through the finance spreadsheet, explaining that the agreement met the group’s general fund target by combining new spending with cancellations and fund shifts across the Pollution Control Agency, DNR, BWSR, Metro Parks, the Zoo, the Science Museum, and other entities. Major fiscal items included PCA operating and permitting-efficiency funding, PFAS-related and mercury-related provisions, county feedlot reductions, closed landfill and remediation fund changes, groundwater and aquatic invasive species fee increases, DNR groundwater and AIS spending, ATV trail grants, watercraft enforcement, and several one-time appropriations and extensions for specific water quality and conservation projects. The policy walk-through covered Article 3’s community grants changes, including a requirement that grants benefit all regions of the state, permission to use some funds for trail maintenance and AIS management, prohibitions on awards to certain entities, and a DNR reporting requirement. Article 4 contained a range of natural resources and environmental policy provisions, including abandoned watercraft seizure and forfeiture authority, higher watercraft AIS surcharges, disabled veterans license fee reductions, a county-based replacement for the shotgun zone, a one-year crossbow extension, a continuous bass season, increased water use permit fees, PFAS sales exemptions for certain products, creation of the Sustainable Foraging Task Force, and a moratorium on DNR foraging rules shortened to July 1, 2026. Article 5 addressed state lands, including an additional Cass County land sale authority. Article 6 focused on PCA permitting reform, requiring more emphasis on complex Tier 2 permits in annual reporting, giving applicants five business days to fix deficiencies, allowing the PCA to decline expedited permitting when it lacks capacity, and letting the agency retain certain fees if expedited permits are completed early. It also included changes to environmental review procedures, feedlot permitting, and EQB rules. During member questions, Senator McEwen asked about the $952,000 ATV trail appropriation and whether projects must have permits before receiving funds; DNR Assistant Commissioner Bob Myers said no project list had been finalized and that grants would go through the existing process, with environmental review and readiness considered, but he said he would need to verify the exact permitting policy and follow up with the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then what happens is the EIA takes all the different adjustments—adjustments down, adjustments up—that
• Will be to each of the states after those adjustments based on each state's allocable share.
• And so there's the volume adjustment, which is typically a downward adjustment.
• There's the profit adjustment, inflation adjustment, which is typically an upward adjustment, and that
• And, of course, the infamous NPM adjustment, which is what we are arbitrating every year.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the two child care credits that we did, those are new adjustments to it that the governor did
• In my view, simple conformity is everything that occurs before the calculation of federally adjusted
• occurs before the calculation of federally adjusted gross income.
• Our starting point for our taxes is you take your federally adjusted...
• Those don't exist unless you also say, in addition to the federally adjusted gross income...

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The caucus focused on HB 2153, a tax conformity bill that would align Arizona statute with the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions affecting tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bill excludes three federal provisions from H.R. 1: the additional $6,000 senior deduction, the increase in the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. It also adds several Arizona-specific provisions, including a $6,000 deduction for certain retirement distributions for taxpayers age 65 or older, a $6,000 deduction for Roth IRA contributions, an increase in the dependent tax credit from $100 to $125, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC’s fiscal note was cited as a negative $441.3 million in year one, declining over the next two years. Chairman Livingston and other Republican members argued the bill was needed immediately because the Department of Revenue had already issued tentative forms assuming full conformity, creating confusion for taxpayers and businesses. They said the state needed a signed law as soon as possible to avoid amended returns, inconsistent filing rules, and uncertainty for small businesses. Livingston emphasized that the bill was intended to protect small businesses from having to keep two sets of books and said he was advising taxpayers not to file until the issue was resolved. Members also discussed the practical impact on small businesses, citing testimony that Arizona has about 700,000 small businesses employing well over a million people. Several exchanges clarified the difference between the governor’s November direction to the Department of Revenue and the bill before the committee. Staff explained that DOR normally assumes “simple conformity” and that the governor’s directive attempted to add “below-the-line” deductions through a worksheet, but that those items still require statutory authorization. Members said the governor’s action was confusing and characterized it as a press release rather than binding law. The committee also discussed the child care provisions, describing them as a federal-style deduction Arizona has not previously adopted and as one of the main new benefits in the bill. The caucus ended without a vote, and members were told the floor would begin at 10 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they assume all of the changes that have been made at the federal level to federally adjusted gross
• And they assume all of the changes that have been made at the federal level to federally adjusted gross
• All of the changes that have been made at the federal level to federally adjusted gross income, which
• Rather than the rates being adjusted over time and slowly, we may ...see spikes after this moratorium
• They share in that, so that would adjust their collections somehow?

Bills: HB2780, HB4029, HB4030, HCR2052

Keywords: judicial foreclosure, tax lien, redemption rights, excess proceeds, property auction, income tax, federal tax conformity, revenue analysis, legislative session, tax reporting, municipal fees, county fees, utility rates, moratorium, tax classification, local government, inflation, economic stability, tax increases, cost-of-living protection

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2780, a technical cleanup measure related to Arizona’s judicial tax lien foreclosure and excess proceeds process. The sponsor and a witness said the bill clarifies when a court should order a public sale, standardizes distribution of sale proceeds, and corrects inconsistencies left from prior reforms. No opposition was raised, and the committee approved HB 2780 unanimously on a 9-0 do pass vote. The committee then took up House Bill 4029, which would require the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to evaluate the revenue impact of federal tax conformity changes earlier in the process, and would require the Department of Revenue to issue tax forms consistent with statute. An amendment was adopted to have OSPB and JLBC each make the evaluation and to require a governor’s report if the impact is $100 million or more, along with new reporting deadlines for DOR. Supporters argued the bill would force earlier action on conformity and prevent tax forms from diverging from statute; opponents said it added bureaucracy and could delay filing. The committee approved HB 4029 as amended by a 5-4 vote. The committee also heard House Bill 4030 and the related HCR 2052, both aimed at limiting local tax and fee increases. HB 4030 would bar municipalities and counties from adopting, imposing, or collecting increased fees, transaction privilege taxes, and utility rates from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2030. The sponsor said the measure was intended to protect taxpayers from inflation and rising local costs. Cities, counties, and utility representatives opposed the bills, warning they would hinder infrastructure financing, water and wastewater projects, road improvements, and public safety services, and could force general fund subsidies or delayed maintenance. Supporters argued local governments have seen substantial revenue growth and should be restrained from further increases. The committee did not reach a final vote on HB 4030 or HCR 2052 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Twice a year we find ourselves adjusting our clocks. shifting an hour of daylight forward in the spring
• For parents, especially those with young children, adjusting to the time change is no simple task.
• And a difficult adjustment period that can last for weeks.
• And so we adjust to that.
• If you reverse it, then we're adjusting eight months of our calendar. Thank you, sir. Dr.

Keywords: daylight saving time, Sunshine Protection Act, health impacts, clock change, legislative discussion

Summary: The committee meeting was dedicated to discussing significant legislative topics, focusing particularly on the implications of daylight saving time (DST). Senator Scott advocated for the Sunshine Protection Act, which aims to eliminate the twice-yearly clock changes and keep daylight saving time year-round. He emphasized the negative health impacts associated with DST, including increased risks of heart attacks and accidents immediately following the time changes. Various witnesses provided personal testimonies and expert opinions, highlighting the confusion and health disruptions caused by the current time change practices.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be evaluating how the weapon screening process works and we'll make adjustments as needed to
• as needed to ensure adjustments as needed to ensure screening<00:03:17.519> is<00:03:17.680><
• As this process begins, we will continue to assess how it's working, and if adjustments are needed to
• are needed to improve adjustments are needed to improve efficiency<00:08:16.319> or<00:08:16.560
• Again this is we may have to adjust.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson and State Patrol Colonel Christina Bogoich announced that weapon screening will begin Tuesday at the Minnesota State Capitol, at the start of the 2026 legislative session. They said the change is based on an independent security assessment and the Axtell report’s top recommendation, and is intended as an added layer of protection rather than a weapons ban or a change in state law. Both officials emphasized that the Capitol should remain open, accessible, and welcoming while reducing preventable risks, citing increased threats nationwide and the recent murders of Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and Mark Hortman and the shootings of Senator John Hoffman and Yvette Hoffman. Officials said visitors will enter through four public access points, with all other exterior doors closed to public entry. The primary entrance will be the south ground-level entrance, with additional access through tunnels connecting to the Senate building, State Office Building, Parking Lot C, and the Judicial Center. They said the screening process should take only seconds for most people, with bags scanned separately and additional checks only if needed. Prohibited items will not be stored by the Capitol, and the public was told to plan ahead, carry fewer items, and follow staff instructions. The Capitol will close to the general public at 4:30 p.m. on weekdays unless legislative business is still underway, in which case accommodations will be made. In questions, officials said people with valid permit-to-carry authorization may still bring a firearm if it is otherwise legal, but they must declare the permit, show government ID, and go through screening. Elected officials are exempt and will have a separate lane, while staff will be screened. They also said the tunnels will be locked with restricted key-card access, and that the Senate is implementing its own screening, with questions about Senate doors referred there. Jacobson said the State Patrol will cover the costs within its existing budget, and that the process will be evaluated and adjusted as needed to keep it efficient and not a deterrent to visitors.