HF1082 DE6 bundles training increases, new offenses and grant priorities into public-safety finance vehicle

Committee staff reviewed the DE6 amendment to House File 1082, explaining the amendment incorporates multiple public-safety provisions from separate bills and several budgetary effects.

A staff member described line items that include a House File 2742 nonfatal-shooting clearance grant ($1,000,000 in FY2027), Office of Justice Programs items tied to a domestic-violence task force (House File 3946: $214,000 in FY27 and $100,000 in FY28), and a $100,000 appropriation for a first-responder uniform identification task force (House File 3095). Staff calculated a Department of Public Safety subtotal for those entries.

Staff also summarized four bills with expected Department of Corrections bed impacts that create new felony provisions: impersonation of a peace officer (House File 3404), a medical-facility-security fourth-degree assault (House File 3405), theft from a vulnerable adult (House File 3465), and grooming penalties (House File 3489). Staff presented dollared estimates for bed impacts in the tails biennium and a DOC total for the current biennium and tails.

The amendment increases the Philando Castile training reimbursement to an even $6,000,000 per year in the version included in DE6; staff said the rounded increase yields a multiyear cost to the post board and provided an estimated annual cost in the 26-27 window. Other DE6 language described decommissioning requirements for public-safety vehicles before sale (from a bill by Representative Hewitt) and a task force on a standard identification system with no changes from the committee version.

Staff noted changes to Representative Frazier’s House File 2742: the grant that had been proposed as ongoing funding would instead receive a one-time appropriation in session law, and prioritization language was altered so that half of the appropriation must go to agencies outside the metropolitan area; a prior cause requiring demonstration of excessive unsolved cases and inadequate staffing was removed.

Several members asked clarifying statutory-construction questions, including a vice chair’s question about the grooming definition and potential age-differential cases. Nonpartisan counsel responded that the grooming sub-offense applies when the defendant is in a position of authority (for example a school employee) and that other age-differential rules in criminal statutes address peer relationships.

No formal committee vote on DE6 or on the attached provisions is recorded in the transcript; staff emphasized that the committee was walking the language and that official action was not taken that day.