Transcript Highlights:

• I believe Section 3 relates to the revolving funds, yes.
• So, under Section 3, our concern is specifically looking at Article 7, Section 5 of the Constitution,
• So, under Section 3, our concern is specifically looking at Article 7, Section 5 of the Constitution,
• suggest just um removing Section 3 in suggest just um removing Section 3 in its its its entirety<01:10
• <01:26:50.400> uh repeal sections uh repeal sections uh 38366<01:26:52.560> subsection<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• by section but through the bill section by section but uh<01:40:46.000> and<01:40:46.159>
• or sorry section 19 starting on page 12. or sorry section 19 starting on page 12.
• Moving on to section 36. Well, section 36 to 38—I can see section 38 on page 26 here.
• couple more sections on the back. couple more sections on the back.
• Section 67 is multiple repealers.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• then you dip down to section 18. then you dip down to section 18.
• These are all under<01:04:40.160> section under section under section two.<01:04:42.599> Um
• part and the second part of section 18. part and the second part of section 18.
• Section 8 is very important.
• Section 8 is very on.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 43:15.400> that arbitration uh sections 14 and 15 that arbitration uh sections 14 and 15 that
• So the next section in the bill, if we go to section 10, it's on page 11: arbitration provisions.
• And then section 14. So, Mr.
• And then section 14. So, Mr.
• And then section 14. So, Mr.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 1 proposes an amendment to Section 84.0272, subdivision 1, to provide that appraisals are not
• Sections 2 and 3 propose amendments to Section 84.0272, subdivision 2, and Section 84.96.
• to Section<00:03:14.960> 84.0272, Section 84.0272, Section 84.0272, subdivision<00:03:17.440>
• excuse<00:04:18.239> me,<00:04:18.359> Section Section 6 through uh excuse me, Section
• come up with this section. come up with this section.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving now to section 3 on page 5.
• It's gonna be section 3.04 schedule of exempt positions. Section 3.04? Yes.
• Turning to page 2, section 2.
• Section 3 of the packet.
• Turning to section 3A on page seven. Section 3A on page seven includes a summary of federal funds.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She also said that under Article 12, Section 7, the state bears a fiduciary duty as trustee of crown
• discussion uh with regards to section discussion uh with regards to section two<00:30:57.600>
• two on the amendment uh to section two on the amendment uh to section 171-11<00:31:01.679> on
• <00:31:12.480> 171-11 section 171-11 section 171-11 on on on HRSA<00:31:16.480> will<00
• “If any dispute arises regarding the boundaries of land set aside under this section, the BLNR shall

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard HB 511, House Draft 1, relating to public lands. The bill would remove the requirement that a land survey be completed before public lands are set aside to a state department or agency. Testimony from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Land and Natural Resources was generally supportive of the bill’s intent, with requests for clarification. The Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council and Hawaii Farm Bureau supported the measure, arguing that surveys are costly and time-consuming and can delay transfers needed for agricultural use and land stewardship. One member of the public testified in strong opposition, arguing that eliminating surveys would weaken due process, transparency, and the state’s fiduciary duties over public lands. The chair then proposed amendments to narrow the bill’s effect. The amendments would create tiered survey requirements based on land risk: high-risk lands would still require a survey before transfer, while low-risk state agricultural lands with clear historical records could defer surveys if sufficient mapping or GIS data exists. If a survey is deferred, the recipient agency would have to complete one within five years unless exempted by the Board of Land and Natural Resources. The amendments would also allow GIS and related mapping tools for approximate administrative boundaries, require a centralized digital registry of public land transfers, and establish a mediation process for boundary disputes before litigation. Senator McKelvey said he had concerns about the original bill but would support it with the amendments. The committee chair recommended passage with amendments, noting the bill would also go to the Judiciary Committee. The committee adopted the recommendation by vote, with the chair and vice chair voting aye and Senator Dort voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• Question: Is this section identical to the section in SB 101?
• Um, section eight, line 34 is new.
• Any other questions on that section? Any other questions on that section?
• Section 10 is the repeal section<00:56:04.680> and<00:56:04.920> that<00:56:05.240>
• <00:56:15.160> that years, then there's two sections that years, then there's two sections

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 751 reviewed amendment 2026-1904H page by page, focusing on open enrollment rules, capacity definitions, statewide enrollment limits, denial criteria, transportation, and funding. Members discussed clarifying that districts may set capacity at zero if they truly have no room, creating a statewide enrollment cap of 500 that can increase by 25% if it reaches 90% utilization, and exempting seats already used by open enrollment students before October 1, 2026. They also discussed how the Department of Education would allocate seats through rulemaking, while local districts would still set capacity, with grandfathered seats preserved where districts already allow open enrollment. A substantial portion of the meeting centered on when districts may deny open enrollment applications. The amendment would allow denials for reasons such as chronic absenteeism or disciplinary history, while requiring districts to consider whether those issues are tied to disability, McKinney-Vento status, foster care, or bullying. Members emphasized that such factors are to be considered, not used as the sole basis for rejection, and noted that the bill separately prohibits receiving schools from accepting or rejecting applicants based on pupil needs, special education needs, disability, aptitude, or athletic achievement. There was also discussion of whether interdistrict transfers should count toward open enrollment capacity, with a suggestion that a carve-out may be needed. The committee also reviewed provisions on program-specific capacity, continuous enrollment, and transportation. It was explained that capacity can apply to a school, grade, program, or class, including CTE programs, and that students may be denied if a specific program is full or if they do not meet prerequisites. The group clarified that open enrollment pupils would maintain continuous enrollment without reapplying, though there was concern about how that would work if district capacity changes over time. Transportation would generally be the parent’s responsibility unless required by an IEP or 504 plan, though students may use an existing bus route if seats are available and the receiving district allows it. On funding, the committee noted that the amendment changes the earlier HB 751 approach and instead ties open enrollment funding to base adequacy, differentiated aid, and an additional grant modeled on charter school funding, with dates removed at the department’s request. Members also raised concerns about how open enrollment would interact with existing tuition agreements and whether districts could use the new pathway to alter or pressure those arrangements. Department staff said districts would still be required to maintain a school of record and provide an adequate education free of charge outside the open enrollment program, and that if open enrollment enrollment became unusually large relative to district adequacy enrollment, the issue could be brought to the state board. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 6 is very long, so it's Section 8 of Section 6. It says that the program shall allow.
• Uh section in section<02:06:05.360> seven section seven section seven there<02:06:07.119> is
• section six is very long so it's section section six is very long so it's section eight<02:06:32.239
• >> Section seven, section 7 and n. Yes. >> Section seven, section 7 and n. Yes.
• that's in section nine of section six. that's in section nine of section six.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section three starts on page nine and Section three starts on page nine and goes<00:06:34.320> to<
• /c><00:07:57.840> adds<00:07:58.080> clarifying Section 9 on page 13 adds clarifying Section
• > 10 section 10 section 10 inserts<00:08:08.160> an<00:08:08.720> exemption<00:08:09.920
• <00:08:24.400> 11 Also, on page 14, uh section 11 Also, on page 14, uh section 11 uh<00:08
• the<00:08:37.840> repealer, And then section 12, the repealer, And then section 12, the repealer

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The conference committee on House File 1141, the Omnibus Housing Finance and Policy Bill, reviewed the fiscal spreadsheet and policy language for the agreement. Staff explained the major funding items, including appropriations for greater Minnesota workforce housing, manufactured home park infrastructure grants, family homelessness prevention, supportive housing, a tenant hotline, and housing infrastructure bonds, along with a cancellation of unused Tyler settlement funds and a reallocation of Housing Development Fund earnings. Staff said the package was budget neutral over the forecast window. The policy walk-through also covered provisions on livestreaming Housing Finance Agency board meetings, limits on administrative retentions for new grant programs, restrictions and reporting on Housing Development Fund transfers and earnings, clarifying language for local public housing, an exemption related to lived-experience engagement, and access for legislative fiscal staff to agency accounting information. Members then considered several amendments. The A12 amendment, allowing certain local governments to invest long-term funds in housing-related investments, was adopted after a roll call showed support from all three caucuses. The A16 manufactured housing bill of rights amendment, which would have addressed park-owner practices, purchase opportunities, enforcement, and rent increases, was not adopted. The A18 amendment to allow additional flags in HOAs and other areas was also not adopted. The A17 amendment to limit private equity ownership of single-family homes to 100 units was not adopted. The A13 amendment to preempt local rent control was not adopted. Members on both sides said some of the rejected issues warranted further discussion in future sessions, while supporters argued they were needed to address housing affordability and ownership pressures. In closing discussion on the bill as a whole, members from both chambers praised the bipartisan process, the staff work, and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s collaboration. Supporters said the agreement would help build thousands of homes across the state, assist vulnerable Minnesotans, and improve transparency and accountability in housing programs. They also noted the bill’s mix of single-family, multifamily, manufactured housing, homelessness prevention, and policy reforms. The committee expressed intent to move the agreement forward to the House floor and ultimately to the governor.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:41:32.400> Section<00:41:32.880> two,<00:41:33.839> section hospital's budget
• Section two, section hospital's budget.
• Section two, section 21<00:41:35.359> VSA<00:41:36.079> 9456,<00:41:37.200> the<
• 40.880> of<00:41:41.119> hospital section repeals the notice of hospital section repeals
• <00:41:49.200> one process established in our section one process established in our section

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House began with devotional remarks and then handled several procedural referrals. Senate bills 198 and 323 were referred to the Committee on Ways and Means under House Rule 35A because they affect state revenue, and Senate Bill 326 was also referred to Ways and Means after the Transportation Committee reported it favorably with amendment. House Resolution 18, supporting preservation of the Julian Scott birthplace in Johnson, was read by title and referred to the Committee on Corrections and Institutions under House Rule 52. The chamber then read a series of adopted House concurrent resolutions honoring Vermont schools and individuals, including the Fair Haven Union High School Slater bowling team, the Hartford High School Hurricanes girls ice hockey team, the Hartford girls basketball team, Theres Black as Vermont Mother of the Year, and the Mount Mansfield Union High School girls tennis team. Members made brief announcements welcoming some of the honorees and guests to the chamber, including the Mount Mansfield tennis team, Theres Black, the Fair Haven bowling team, and others. The main floor action was on House Resolution 17, affirming that all Vermonters are presumed competent to communicate and must be provided communication resources of their choice. The Human Services Committee chair explained the resolution grew out of testimony on alternative communication methods, including facilitated communication and rapid prompting method, and said the committee heard from people with lived experience, professionals, and written testimony from medical and speech-language organizations. The committee reported the resolution out 9-0-2, and the House adopted it. The House then took up Senate Bill 209, relating to prohibiting civil arrest in sensitive locations, and proceeded to its third reading and concurrence-with-amendment question.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll adopt Sugar Creek Capital's amendment for section two in section one, section 235-110.8 HRS, to
• <01:25:44.320> 20H-161A section 20H-161A section 20H-161A as<01:25:46.480> follows.
• loans under section 21H-162. loans under section 21H-162.
• 21H<01:26:23.760> section<01:26:24.080> 3 Section 3 is amended 21H section 3 Section
• 3 is amended 21H section 3 section<01:26:24.800> 201H-163 section 201H-163 section 201H-163 HRS

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've now entered the review section of the agenda.
• Section G is cash fund appropriation requests.
• On the next page, we're on page 4 in Section K.
• Next page, page four in Section L.
• Yes, there's a section in our monthly reports.

Summary: The PEER Review Subcommittee met to consider a large agenda of appropriation, transfer, contract, and other review items. Members approved temporary appropriation requests in Sections B through F, including funding for prosecuting attorneys, education-related adjustments, school operating needs, labor licensing divisions, ARPA fund returns from Workforce Services, IIJA grants for state police CDL implementation and a forestry-related county grant, reserve fund transfers for teacher scholarships, school facilities, and economic development, and a Commerce reallocation tied to organizational realignment. Cash fund requests in Section G and budget classification transfers in Section H were also reviewed, along with pay plan requests in Section I, overtime requests in Section J, and multiple methods of finance in Section K. The committee also reviewed discretionary grants in Section L, including agriculture promotion board grants and DHS aging/adult behavioral health grants, plus RFQs, construction contracts, intergovernmental contracts, and out-of-state contracts in Sections M1 through M5. Several items drew questions from members. Workforce Services explained that $225,000 in TANF-related funds would be returned to the federal government because the two-year hold period for uncashed or moved checks had expired. Commerce officials described the $25 million site infrastructure grant program, saying it supports site development, due diligence, and infrastructure build-out at eligible sites of 30 acres or more, including rural communities, with grant agreements and matching requirements providing accountability. DHS and Education officials answered questions about the Care Solace mental health referral contract, saying it is a statewide concierge/referral service that helps schools connect students to Arkansas providers and follow up so students do not fall through the cracks; members asked for more information on provider selection, school-day scheduling, and Arkansas vendor participation. The committee held one item over: the DHS discretionary grant item for the RSVP retired senior volunteer program in L2, after concerns were raised about whether state general revenue was being used effectively and how much administrative overhead the providers retain. Members also questioned several contracts, including a DHS sole-source contract with EMSLink for document management software and a DHS bridge contract with Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care for Medicaid inspections of care reviews; in both cases, agency staff explained the need to avoid service disruption and said follow-up information would be provided. A Department of Corrections reentry center contract was discussed for its recidivism results, and ARDOT retirement-system investment contracts were briefly explained. The meeting ended after a lengthy discussion of the Medicaid Trust Fund balance, with DFA and DHS officials saying the state is expected to finish the fiscal year without exhausting the fund, that a restricted reserve of $100 million is available as a backstop, and that the larger question is what minimum balance should be maintained going forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• But under the communication sections, or E911 communication sections, it was the use of E911 funds.
• House Bill one section we them.
• There's over 560 sections. The House had almost 450 sections in House Bill 2.
• So almost 450 sections in House Bill 2.
• It deletes sections affordability board.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Assistant staff presented an overview of the Senate changes to the House-passed budget, focusing on revenue estimates, appropriations, and ending balances across the general fund and education trust fund. The presentation emphasized that the Senate’s budget reflected higher revenue assumptions than the House, driven in part by updated April revenue figures, changes to business, tobacco, and real estate transfer tax splits, and different assumptions about video lottery terminal revenue. The Senate also adjusted lapse estimates upward, especially for HHS, after receiving updated information that lapses could be much larger than originally assumed. The presenter walked through the major differences in the surplus statements for fiscal years 2025 through 2027. Compared with the House, the Senate budget generally showed higher revenues, lower or different appropriations in some areas, and larger balances carried forward, including a larger education trust fund balance and a different rainy day fund transfer. The Senate’s approach also changed several policy assumptions, such as maintaining liquor revenue dedication, removing the House’s meals-and-rooms distribution cap, changing the treatment of unique revenue, and altering the process for meeting a targeted revenue amount by giving the governor more flexibility. On the appropriations side, the Senate removed or modified several House reductions and added funding or adjustments in areas including the judicial branch, corrections, HHS, the Human Rights Commission, and certain settlement costs. The presenter also highlighted Senate changes in House Bill 2 and related budget provisions, including a new arts tax credit, a nursing home bed fee, changes to Medicaid premium assumptions, and differences in how motor vehicle inspection repeal and BLT-related revenue are handled. No votes were taken in the portion shown; the discussion was informational and comparative, aimed at explaining the Senate budget changes before conference committee negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 1 is just the language section; it's just the boilerplate appropriation format.
• Section 3 is for the Board of Animal Health.
• c><00:21:04.880> Aur animal health section four is for Aur animal health section four is for Aur
• Section 1 is the boilerplate appropriation format.
• Minnesota I am here to speak to section Minnesota I am here to speak to section 11<00:26:57.399>

Bills: HF1704

Keywords: Minnesota agriculture budget, Department of Agriculture appropriation, Board of Animal Health, Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Office of Broadband Development, farm bill, rural development, agricultural grants, soil health, livestock compensation, crop damage, meat inspection, poultry inspection, county agricultural inspectors, biofertilizer, nitrogen management, commercial nitrogen fertilizer, water quality, farm down payment assistance, beginning farmers

Transcript Highlights:

• That's sections two and four.
• Section three under the 356A.
• Going to the next section, section three, that's where we're talking about all of the exceptions.
• Going to the next section, section three, that's where we're talking about all of the exceptions.
• And then the final section is recourse. And then the final section is recourse.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• You guys reached the same conclusion, if I'm not... ...analysis of these code sections.
• or sections we wanted to recodify.
• Section or sections we wanted to recodify next as part of our own work plan.
• But there are some code sections that have, you know, 24.2 would become 24.3, which I think would be
• I think a decision on what code section we want to look at next.

Keywords: Code Commission, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also
• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also
• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also
• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also
• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• if you look at section one section one, if you look at section one on<03:27:52.160> on<03:27:
• So the only section is, um, well, it says new section under section C, right on page one, line 26, so
• So the only section is, um, well, it says new section under section C, right on page one, line 26, so
• So the only section is, um, well, it says new section under section C, right on page one, line 26, so
• section is um well it says new section section is um well it says new section under<03:42:56.479

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Walsh moves to amend the bill in Section 2, line 8, by striking out the following: '2025 regular election
• And by adding the following section: 'Section 4. Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect upon...'
• Walsh moves to amend the bill in Section 2, line 8, by striking out the following: '2025 regular election
• And by adding the following section: 'Section 4. Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect upon...'
• And by adding the following section. Section 4. Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect upon.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and then took up several routine reports and local bills. It adopted a resolution commending the AADC Family Network and recognizing October 23, 2025, as AADC Deficiency Awareness Day in Massachusetts. The House also concurred with a Senate petition on energy-conservation windows being referred to the Committee on Housing. The chamber then acted on a slate of bills scheduled by the Committee on Steering Policy and Scheduling. It advanced House Bills 1194, 2280, 2644, 2646, and 1301 to third reading, covering cleanup of accidental home heating oil spills, permitting reforms for businesses and landowners, fire protection, public fire safety and professionalism, and primary insurance. Each was taken up under suspension of Rule 7A and ordered to a third reading without objection. The House also passed several local bills to be engrossed: House Bills 3896 on recall elections in Berlin, 3901 exempting Natick’s assistant fire chief from civil service, 4212 allowing Lancaster to dissolve its animal control commission, and 4347 concerning Williamsburg Library Trustees. House Bill 4380, amending Agawam’s charter, was amended on the floor to change the election timing language and add an effective-date section, then passed to be engrossed as amended. The House then recessed briefly, adopted an order to meet the following Tuesday at 11 a.m., and adjourned to an informal session.