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:

• 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:

• 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:

• 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:

• House Bill 1418, enacting Section 11-441, is that a substitute to county officers.
• House Bill 2594, amending Section 25-3-60, amending Title 11, Section 25-15-02, and Section 4-1-1-16,
• House Bill 2932, enacting Section 45-56,000, relating to withdrawal of groundwater.
• Amending Title 41, Chapter 21, Article 1, Section 41-105, relating to state...
• Winning Section 2834.13. I was advised that you.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, established a quorum, approved the prior journal, and moved through several Committee of the Whole calendars. On Calendar 1, HB 2192 (employment/video content matters of public concern) was amended and given a do pass recommendation. HB 2592 (government information technology) was amended to remove legislative approval of certain emergency or temporary AI-related rules and received a do pass recommendation. HB 2752 (Commerce Authority trade office) received a do pass recommendation after a Mesnard amendment and an Epstein amendment was debated; the Epstein amendment failed on division, and the bill was retained on the calendar. HB 2916 (traffic schools and instructors fingerprint clearance) was amended to allow work to begin while fingerprint clearance is pending and received a do pass recommendation. HB 2946 (development fees) was amended to address municipal distinctions based on dwelling size/bedrooms and received a do pass recommendation. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted. On Calendar 2, HB 2918, HB 2999, HB 1418, and HCR 2059 were considered. HB 2999 (special taxing districts/infrastructure finance districts) drew the most discussion; a Mesnard floor amendment made several changes to tax-rate, bond, and infrastructure provisions, and the bill was ultimately amended and given a do pass recommendation. HB 1418 (sheriff auxiliary authority) and HCR 2059 (county services) also received do pass recommendations. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted. On Calendar 3, HB 2035 (DCS kinship care placement requirements) was amended to change a reporting deadline and received a do pass recommendation. HB 241 (child neglect financial resources exception), HB 2594 (child confidentiality), and HB 2932 (groundwater transportation fee/withdrawal-related provisions) were also considered; HB 2594 and HB 2932 were amended and received do pass recommendations. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted. On Calendar 4, HB 2109 (portable wireless communication devices/distracted driving penalties for motorcycles), HB 2118 (mobile food vendors’ licenses), HB 2244 (eviction satisfaction of judgment), and HB 4011 (HOA duties) were all advanced, with committee or floor amendments adopted where offered, and the report was adopted. The Senate also took up an additional Committee of the Whole for HB 2440 (transition program), adopted a technical floor amendment, and advanced the bill. Later, the chamber adopted a proclamation recognizing Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University on its centennial and welcomed guests from the university. The Senate received a House request to return SB 1113 for further amendment and appointed free conference committees for HB 2133 and HB 2010. On third reading, HB 2592 passed 16-9-1, HB 2916 passed 26-1-3, HB 2946 passed 27-0-3, and HB 2999 passed 21-6-3, with Senator Epstein explaining her no vote on HB 2999 due to concerns about homeowner cost uncertainty. The Senate then adjourned until April 15, 2026.

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:

• 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:

• 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:

• It is my understanding that the governor would like to delete the section that says 3 months.
• So in the section where from doing so.
• <00:24:37.440> 88 the authority granted under section 88 the authority granted under section
• <00:35:42.240> 11 committee substitute removed section 11 committee substitute removed section
• to the authority granted under section to the authority granted under section 88<00:41:31.280>

Bills: SB141, SB124, SB56, SJR116, SB94, SB37, SB127, SB197, SB66, SB70, SB133, SB160, SB214, SB312, SB52, SJR62, SJR75

Keywords: legal advertisements, tax rates, public hearings, transparency, local government, sick leave, education, teacher retirement, benefits, employee compensation, Medicaid, nonopioid analgesics, pain management, health care regulation, utilization controls, physician shortage, health care access, medically underserved areas, medical education, workforce development

Transcript Highlights:

• That's in section one.
• That is in section six.
• That's in section one.
• That's in section one.
• That's in section one.

Bills: HF3228, HF2441

Keywords: workers' compensation, insurance programs, employee protection, Minnesota statutes, safety regulations, prevailing wage, certified payroll, payroll reporting, construction contracts, public works, project registration, labor standards, contractor compliance, subcontractor reporting, state government, Department of Administration, Commissioner of Labor and Industry, Metropolitan Council, highway construction, public construction

Transcript Highlights:

• Section three under the 356A.
• That's sections two and four.
• eliminating sections one and three. eliminating sections one and three.
• And then the final section is recourse. And then the final section is recourse.
• And then the final section is recourse. And then the final section is recourse.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, that's my motion. appropriation section I'd like to reduce appropriation section I'd like to reduce
• Um, I think maybe we should strike section one and pass section two.
• I think maybe we should strike section I think maybe we should strike section one one one and<00
• and pass section two. and pass section two.
• <00:49:30.320> one tied back into section one tied back into section one because<00:49:31.800

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

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:

• 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:

• Um first of all in the<00:02:32.080> first<00:02:32.319> section the first section the
• > 8<00:07:30.160> of<00:07:30.479> section that section subdivision 8 of section that
• <00:46:02.720> Section at? Section two, subdivision. Section at?
• Section two, subdivision.
• redact sections of certain pages. redact sections of certain pages.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section five is the first section of Representative Berg's House File 124, which authorizes gifts to
• Section ten is the second section from Representative Berg's House File 124 regarding gifts to agencies
• Section five is the first section of Representative Berg's House File 124, which authorizes gifts to
• need section five is the first section need section five is the first section of<01:35:14.719>
• <01:36:24.800> from section 10 is the second section from section 10 is the second section

Bills: HF1354, HF1901, HF2124, HF2130, HF2260, HF2099, HF104, HF134, HF1769

Keywords: public safety, school safety, active shooter, active shooter drill, violence prevention, threat reporting, anonymous tip line, See It, Say It, Send It, Minnesota Fusion Center, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, BCA, officer-involved death, missing person, endangered missing person, criminal background check, national background check, FBI fingerprint check, adult entertainment license, massage license, correctional facilities

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:

• <00:41:35.400> 3, amendment gets rid of uh section 3, amendment gets rid of uh section 3,
• Specifically on Section 10, there's a section that I want to make sure I understand correctly.
• <00:48:22.040> Again, Section 10 in its entirety. Again, Section 10 in its entirety.
• that issue took that section out. that issue took that section out.
• Sponsor, my question relates to Section<01:05:52.520> 3. Section 3.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House convened, opened with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance, established a quorum with 96 members present, excused absent members, and approved the journal from March 4, 2026. The chamber also received notice that the Senate had passed Senate Bills 50 and 191 and requested concurrence. Several bills were reported for second reading and committee action, including measures on schools, barbering, virtual currency kiosks, eminent domain, DUI, fire protection, school district reporting, teacher certification, legal representation, cost and fee reporting, dentistry, credit insurance, harmful practices, elections, child welfare, health data, Medicaid directed payments, workplace violence in health care, utilities, solid waste, carbon sequestration, and coal/energy affordability. House Bill 534 was sent to the Rules Committee after receiving prior readings, and House Bill 600 was brought up for third reading and passage. House Bill 600, relating to the collection of delinquent tax bills, was explained as allowing counties to use a consolidated procedure to collect multiple delinquent tax cases more efficiently, requiring county attorney contracts with the Department of Revenue to include that option, and extending to counties some property-tax collection tools already used by cities for delinquent and dilapidated properties. A member from Jefferson raised concerns that the bill could allow foreclosure on occupied properties and warned about potential harm to elderly or low-income homeowners; the sponsor responded that the bill was not intended to remove anyone from their property. The House passed HB 600 by a vote of 82-11, and a clincher was applied. House Bill 662, concerning regulation of low-voltage battery-charged security fences by local governments, was described as a business-friendly measure supported by the Chamber of Commerce and affected industries, intended to define the fences and reduce regulatory uncertainty in commercial and industrial zones without removing local regulation. It passed unanimously, 96-0, and a clincher was applied. House Bill 364, relating to benefits for Kentucky National Guard members, was amended by House Floor Amendment 1 to define Commonwealth emergency pay and hazardous duty for Guard members on state active duty during emergencies. Supporters emphasized compensation for Guard members responding to disasters and emergencies, and members cited recent flood and crash responses as examples of their service. The bill passed 96-0, and a clincher was applied. House Bill 534, an elections bill, was taken up with House Committee Substitute 2 adopted. The sponsor said the bill was the product of work by the Secretary of State, the Board of Elections, county clerks, KREF, and others, and was intended to strengthen election laws. Debate focused on a provision that would remove from voter rolls individuals convicted of felonies even while appeals are pending; one member argued this would disenfranchise people before appeals are resolved and sought to offer an amendment, but a motion to suspend the rules for that amendment failed with only 18 votes in favor. Another member said the substitute was the best version of the bill and indicated he would offer amendments, including changes to the felony-appeal language and campaign finance timing, while also seeking to remove a section requiring federal cooperation. The transcript cuts off during that discussion, before final action on HB 534 is shown.