Transcript Highlights:

• proceeds are allocated to the N MTSF. proceeds are allocated to the N MTSF.
• results in a 90% reduction in allocation results in a 90% reduction in allocation to<01:28:53.520
• above would revert the allocation above would revert the allocation formula<01:28:57.600> to<
• allocation to the MTSF is maintained. allocation to the MTSF is maintained.
• <01:40:23.280> If impact fees. Is there any discussion? If impact fees.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then lastly, a change at the request of the university regarding the allocation of its funds among
• No new money was allocated, but they just… received no new money but just wanted a change in how it was
• Because you got, you know, Pell Grant and all of that stuff that has to be allocated if they're not going

Bills: SCR 22, SB 53, SB 204, SB 266, SB 268, SB 291, SB 292, SB 296, SB 304, SB 305, SB 413, SB 447, SB 455, SB 462, SB 493, SB 504, SB 519, SB 522, SB 532, SB 541, SB 667, SB 670, SB 673, SB 681, SB 687, SB 711, SB 746, SB 765, SB 783, SB 827, SB 850, SB 860, SB 888, SB 897, SB 901, SB 927, SB 955, SB 963, SB 984, SB 989, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1023, SB 1033, SB 1058, SB 1062, SB 1101, SB 1119, SB 1172, SB 1173, SB 1215, SB 1220, SB 1227, SB 1228, SB 1229, SB 1238, SB 1239, SB 1245, SB 1248, SB 1254, SB 1259, SB 1273, SB 1277, SB 1302, SB 1332, SB 1341, SB 1346, SB 1350, SB 1352, SB 1353, SB 1355, SB 1358, SB 1370, SB 1371, SB 1378, SB 1403, SB 1404, SB 1415, SB 1437, SB 1448, SB 1450, SB 1464, SB 1493, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1566, SB 1569, SB 1589, SB 1598, SB 1644, SB 1709, SB 1719, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1810, SB 1841, SB 1895, SB 1930, SB 2039, SB 2289, SB 2312, SCR 1, SCR 6, SCR 27, SCR 32, SB 2232, SJR 4, SJR 27, SJR 40, SB 22, SB 33, SB 36, SB 37, SB 38, SB 95, SB 209, SB 249, SB 311, SB 365, SB 605, SB 618, SB 619, SB 732, SB 745, SB 760, SB 762, SB 779, SB 783, SB 785, SB 819, SB 871, SB 883, SB 1057, SB 1059, SB 1067, SB 1080, SB 1171, SB 1210, SB 1255, SB 1265, SB 1271, SB 1313, SB 1314, SB 1316, SB 1318, SB 1320, SB 1332, SB 1365, SB 1426, SB 1470, SB 1494, SB 1541, SB 1559, SB 1567, SB 1592, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1677, SB 1706, SB 1750, SB 1758, SB 1786, SB 1791, SB 1810, SB 1818, SB 1841, SB 1851, SB 1871, SB 1967, SB 2024, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 2365, SB 2420, SB 2425, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 4, SJR 40, SJR 27, SJR 39, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SCR 1, SCR 27, SCR 32, SCR 42, SCR 6, SB 779, SB 1470, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1210, SB 264, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 1370, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1877, SB 1277, SB 732, SB 731, SB 268, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 1371, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 37, SB 2232, SB 819, SB 2078, SB 2252, SB 1962, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1577, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 1030, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 2411, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 34, SB 1261, SB 552, SB 1099, SB 1646, SB 2180, SB 1804, SB 1937, SB 1936, SB 2569, SB 1372, SB 1208, SB 1124, SB 1506, SB 1806, SB 1868, SB 2361, SB 2314, SB 769, SB 1409, SB 2122, SB 434, SB 1214, SB 1951, SB 2183, SB 2046, SB 1667, SB 1870, SB 1727, SB 2405, SB 2127, SB 1975, SB 1760, SB 1734, SB 1335, SB 2066, SB 2129, SB 2246, SB 2439, SJR 4, SJR 40, SB 36, SB 249, SB 311, SB 365, SB 745, SB 785, SB 871, SB 1057, SB 1067, SB 1171, SB 1255, SB 1265, SB 1271, SB 1313, SB 1316, SB 1318, SB 1365, SB 1426, SB 1559, SB 1592, SB 1677, SB 1706, SB 1786, SB 1871, SB 1967, SB 2148, SB 38, SB 95, SB 760, SB 883, SB 1059, SB 1210, SR 384, SR 385, SR 389, SB 38, SB 95, SB 760, SB 779, SB 883, SB 1059, SB 1210, SB 1470, SCR 1, SCR 6, SCR 22, SCR 27, SCR 32, SB 53, SB 204, SB 266, SB 268, SB 291, SB 292, SB 296, SB 304, SB 305, SB 413, SB 447, SB 455, SB 462, SB 493, SB 504, SB 519, SB 522, SB 532, SB 541, SB 667, SB 670, SB 673, SB 681, SB 687, SB 711, SB 746, SB 765, SB 783, SB 827, SB 850, SB 860, SB 888, SB 897, SB 901, SB 927, SB 955, SB 963, SB 984, SB 989, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1023, SB 1033, SB 1058, SB 1062, SB 1101, SB 1119, SB 1172, SB 1173, SB 1215, SB 1220, SB 1227, SB 1228, SB 1229, SB 1238, SB 1239, SB 1245, SB 1248, SB 1254, SB 1259, SB 1273, SB 1277, SB 1302, SB 1332, SB 1341, SB 1346, SB 1350, SB 1352, SB 1353, SB 1355, SB 1358, SB 1370, SB 1371, SB 1378, SB 1403, SB 1404, SB 1415, SB 1437, SB 1448, SB 1450, SB 1464, SB 1493, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1566, SB 1569, SB 1589, SB 1598, SB 1644, SB 1709, SB 1719, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1841, SB 1895, SB 1930, SB 2039, SB 2232, SB 2289, SB 2312, SB 1772, SB 1810, SB 1540, SB 2660, SB 1540, SB 2660

Keywords: SCR 22, Senate Concurrent Resolution 22, official state gun, state symbol, cannon, artillery, Texas Revolution, Battle of Gonzales, Come and Take It, Alamo, San Jacinto, Twin Sisters, Sam Houston, Angelina Eberly, Texas history, historic weapon, commemorative resolution, state emblem, Texas heritage, Gonzales Memorial Museum

Transcript Highlights:

• appear to make the largest impact on feasibility in all of the scenarios: not zoning, not parking, not fee
• No LIHTC, no bond cap allocation, no state appropriation.
• Cities would still retain authority over zoning, design review, planning approval, fees, occupancy, and
• program, but would allow this third-party plan checker process to exist, paid for through developer fees
• A developer would pay the fees for the third-party plan checkers to perform their roles, and that would

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-finance and permitting reforms aimed at making affordable and middle-income housing projects “pencil.” The first panel focused on the welfare property tax exemption, with witnesses arguing that annual recertifications are outdated, burdensome, and costly for both residents and operators. They urged streamlining by aligning eligibility rules with TCAC or HCD monitoring, allowing one-time qualification at occupancy, and preserving exemptions for projects that remain in compliance, especially as insurance costs and operating deficits are rising sharply. A major portion of the meeting centered on social housing and community land trusts under SB 555. HCD described the state’s ongoing study, due by December 31, 2026 and to be included in the 2027 annual report, and outlined public engagement already completed with residents and practitioners. Community land trust and policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action beyond the study, including expanded tax abatements, public land use, soft loans, and simpler capital stacks. They emphasized that the model should include mixed-income and “missing middle” households, and several members discussed the stigma around the term “social housing,” suggesting a rebrand toward generational or multi-generational housing to broaden public support. The committee also discussed a proposed certified professional program modeled on Vancouver, Canada, to speed plan checks and inspections by allowing state-certified private professionals to perform certain code-compliance functions under local oversight. The witness said this would reduce delays, repeated reviews, and cost overruns while preserving local authority over zoning and enforcement. Members raised concerns about local control, infrastructure costs, and political resistance, but expressed interest in exploring a pilot and further recommendations. In the final panel, housing advocates supported allowing HCD loan funds to be disbursed during construction rather than only after completion. They said this would reduce interest costs, improve project feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes without new appropriations. Members agreed the current system is fragmented and outdated, and several speakers and legislators repeatedly called for streamlined, more flexible financing and permitting tools to support housing production.

Transcript Highlights:

• appear to make the largest impact on feasibility in all of the scenarios: not zoning, not parking, not fee
• , and the highly competitive nature of affordable housing tax credits and private activity bond allocations
• No LIHTC, no bond cap allocation, no state appropriation.
• Cities would still retain authority over zoning, design review, planning approval, fees, occupancy, and
• A developer would pay the fees for the third-party plan checkers to perform their roles, and that would

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related proposals and policy ideas. One speaker urged changes to the welfare property tax exemption for affordable housing, arguing that annual income recertifications are outdated and burdensome, and proposing a one-time qualification at move-in, streamlined monitoring through TCAC or HCD, and continued exemption protection for projects that remain in compliance. The witness said rising insurance costs and administrative burdens are hurting cash flow and threatening the viability of affordable housing operations. A major portion of the meeting focused on social housing and the SB 555 study. HCD described its ongoing study process, including public engagement with residents, practitioners, and experts, and noted that California already has many building blocks for social housing, such as public land tools, long-term affordability mechanisms, community land trusts, and tenant protections. Community land trust and housing policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action, expanded public subsidy, tax abatements, public land, and simplified financing, and they emphasized the need to reframe the concept for the “missing middle” and middle-class households to build broader political support. Committee members discussed stigma around “social housing,” the need for a rebrand, and the possibility of a pilot program, especially on excess public land. The committee also heard a proposal for a certified professional plan-check system modeled on Vancouver, Canada. The presenter said California’s permitting delays, inconsistent reviews, and staffing shortages add cost and uncertainty even for streamlined projects, and proposed allowing state-certified private professionals to perform plan checks and inspections under state oversight while local governments retain zoning and enforcement authority. Members discussed local control concerns, infrastructure costs, and the need to reduce delays and uncertainty in the entitlement process. Finally, the committee heard testimony supporting changes to HCD loan disbursement so funds can be used during construction rather than only after completion. Witnesses said this would reduce interest costs, improve feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes with existing funding. The discussion also referenced AB 1053 as the vehicle for implementing that approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• The other is from the community solar facility to collect your subscription fee to the facility.
• Under SB 321, the subscriber fee will be shown Under SB 321, the subscriber fee will be shown on the
• They'll forward the subscriber fee, then they will pay it to the community solar facility.
• If the bill customer does not pay their subscriber fee, that cost is not passed on to other utility customers
• In addition, we really value the representation afforded to agriculture through the seats allocated to

Bills: SB9

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met and first considered SB 321 with Senate Amendment 1, the community solar utility billing bill. The sponsor explained that it would consolidate the two-bill system for community solar subscribers into one utility bill, with the utility forwarding the subscriber fee to the solar facility through an escrow mechanism so costs are not shifted to other ratepayers. Testimony from the solar industry, the Public Advocate, and environmental advocates supported the measure, emphasizing easier enrollment, fewer barriers for low-income customers, and guaranteed savings. The committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, but after a roll call vote it was released from committee. The committee then heard SB 9 with Senate Amendment 1, a wetlands protection bill creating a state non-tidal freshwater wetlands permitting program. The sponsor and DNREC described a framework of exemptions, general permits, and individual permits based on wetland type and value, with an advisory committee to develop regulations. Witnesses explained that “exceptional value” wetlands would include unique wetland communities and high-functioning wetlands, and that the bill was intended to preserve important habitat while allowing farming, drainage, and other exempt activities to continue. Some members raised concerns about flooding, land classification, and the balance of the advisory committee, while supporters said the bill was the product of broad stakeholder consensus and would protect wetlands without unduly harming agriculture or development. Public comment on SB 9 was strongly supportive from environmental groups, the Delaware Native Species Commission, the Home Builders Association, the Farm Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, and affordable housing advocates, who said the bill balanced conservation with practical land use concerns. After remote testimony, the committee took a roll call vote and SB 9 was released from committee. The meeting concluded with remarks thanking the chair for her service and instructions for members to sign the backers before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the other is from the community solar facility to collect your subscription fee to the facility.
• Under SB 321, the subscriber fee will be shown.
• Under SB 321, the subscriber fee will be shown on the bill from the utility, so you'll just get one bill
• They'll forward the subscriber fee, then they will pay it to the community solar facility.
• In addition, we really value the representation afforded to agriculture through the seats allocated to

Bills: SB9

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met to consider two Senate bills. SB 321, with Senate Amendment 1, would change community solar billing so subscribers receive one consolidated utility bill instead of separate bills from the utility and the solar provider. Supporters said the bill would simplify enrollment and payment, improve customer retention—especially for low-income customers—and include safeguards such as guaranteed savings and an escrow mechanism to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers. After public testimony from solar developers, the Public Advocate, the Sierra Club, and others, the committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, so the vote was circulated to absent members and the bill was later reported out for floor action. The committee then heard SB 9, with Senate Amendment 1, a long-negotiated wetlands protection bill. The sponsor and DNREC explained that it would create a state non-tidal wetlands program with exemptions for certain agricultural, conservation, and routine activities, general permits for some lower-impact projects, and individual permits for higher-value wetlands. Witnesses described the bill as a compromise among environmental, agricultural, development, and local government stakeholders, while some members raised questions about flooding, landowner impacts, wetland delineation, and the role of the regulatory advisory committee. Public testimony was broadly supportive from environmental groups, the Farm Bureau, builders, engineers, and affordable housing advocates. The committee then voted to release SB 9 from committee. At the end of the meeting, members offered thanks and remarks recognizing the chair’s service and leadership on environmental and energy issues. Both bills were ultimately released from committee and reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, in this case, I have to say if the Legislature has made a commitment to allocate $200 million
• Schools and policymakers cannot accurately identify our needs, allocate resources, develop culturally
• This and what we're trying to address here is the inadequate allocation of resources to serve students
• the California Community Colleges and CSUs, and requests UC campuses, to defer housing deposits and fees
• the California Community Colleges and CSUs, and requests UC campuses, to defer housing deposits and fees

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard several education-related bills, with most of the discussion centered on student privacy, faculty health coverage, Native student data collection, mental health training for coaches, and human trafficking prevention education. AB 1159, the California Learner Personal Information Protection Act, would expand student data privacy protections to higher education, clarify existing ed-tech rules, and add limited enforcement. The author and supporters said current law is outdated and does not adequately protect sensitive student information, while some college-related stakeholders raised definitional concerns about preserving routine student communications and access to course materials. The bill was approved on a due-pass motion to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee and placed on call. AB 1171 would keep unspent funds in the part-time community college faculty health insurance program from being swept for other uses and would require all community college districts to begin negotiating participation by 2030. The author and supporters argued that part-time faculty often lack employer-sponsored coverage despite teaching most community college courses, while opponents said the bill was premature because participation is still growing and the program’s full-year spending data is not yet known. Members debated whether the Legislature should preserve the funding in statute or continue handling it through the budget process. The bill passed on a due-pass motion to Senate Appropriations and was placed on call. AB 1581 would require collection of tribal affiliation data for Native American and Alaska Native students in CalPADS to address severe undercounting and improve resource allocation. The author and tribal and education supporters said Native students are often misclassified, making it harder to provide culturally responsive programs and measure outcomes; committee members discussed how the reporting would work for multitribal and multiracial students and emphasized the need for tribal consultation and workable data definitions. The bill passed on a due-pass motion to Senate Appropriations and was placed on call. AB 1665, requiring mental health training for school coaches, was supported as a way to help trusted adults recognize warning signs and connect student athletes to services; it also passed to Senate Appropriations and was placed on call. AB 1766, which would expand human trafficking prevention education from kindergarten through 12th grade and address online grooming and exploitation, received strong support from the author, survivors, and advocacy groups, with testimony emphasizing earlier prevention and digital safety; the transcript ended during support testimony and did not include final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reality of these climate fees could ultimately cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
• When a builder builds that construction, they pay a builder fee.
• I know sometimes there's impact fees. Yeah, there are. It can be.
• , impact fees to establish parks.
• When we pay a Parkland fee, we have the choice of paying the fee to the city. or simply building a park

Bills: HB158, HB714, HB 1198, HB1630, HB1998, HB3509, HB3788, HB3875, HB3948, HB3977, HB4097, HB4313, HB4314, HB4317, HB158

Keywords: housing, veterans, surplus government property, affordable housing, funding sources, housing assistance, homeless prevention, landlord incentives, rural housing, domestic violence, community development, tenant readiness, program participants, financial assistance, homelessness, rental support, Texas Tenant Readiness Program, tenant assistance, housing stability, Texas Department of Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:18:43.920> nine we waive their child care fees, nine we waive their child care fees,
• <00:43:08.440> from<00:43:09.400> um administrative fee from um administrative fee
• So, obviously, you know, a 2% administrative fee doesn't get you particularly far at that amount.
• So, obviously, you know, a 2% administrative fee doesn't get you particularly far at that amount.
• Uh, to the point I just want to clarify, the third-party administrator fee is only for ECAP.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is there a reconnect fee and disconnect there is a reconnect fee there's no disconnect fee we will come
• They charge no late fee. There's here in Austin. It's only a 5% late fee. In Houston, it's 10%.
• That is, you only get fees for a landowner.
• Now, you don't necessarily get your attorney's fees.
• I say, if you win, you pay my fees.

Bills: HB1520, HB1525, HB1530, HB1535, HB2068, HB2091, HB2347, HB2372, HB2805, HB2815, HB2867, HB3154, HB3482, HB3483, HB3663, HB3781, HB3901, HB3915, HB4135, HB4153, HB4158, HB4329, HB4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• Three, does the allocation of allowances reflect legislative priorities?
• So we're shifting from allowance allocation over to the manufacturing decarbonization incentive.
• There's a small portion that's allocated every year based on the budget and the negotiations.
• And specifically, the fees are additional to what would have otherwise occurred.
• We've heard a lot about this being a subsidy; the industrial allocation is a subsidy.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 held a joint hearing on CARB’s proposed amendments to the cap-and-invest regulations. Opening remarks from senators emphasized the 2025 reauthorization of the program through AB 1207 and SB 840, and focused on whether CARB’s April revisions faithfully implement legislative intent while balancing climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Several senators raised concerns that the proposal could reduce GGRF revenues, weaken funding for transit, affordable housing, wildfire prevention, drinking water, and other community programs, and shift too much support toward industry. Others stressed the need to protect businesses and consumers from higher costs and to avoid leakage and refinery closures. Senator Cortese’s statement, read into the record, warned that the proposal could jeopardize transportation funding commitments. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments respond to legislative direction and public comment, and described four main changes: increased electric bill credits, a larger manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI), additional compliance support for industry, and removal of post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. She said the proposal keeps the cap aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, maintains affordability protections, and is intended to reduce emissions while minimizing leakage and supporting in-state jobs. CARB staff also said the MDI would have guardrails, require applications and reporting, and be tied to emissions-reducing facility upgrades. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are highly uncertain and are updated periodically based on auction data. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could materially affect environmental ambition, industry support, utility credits, and GGRF revenues. LAO highlighted that the MDI could add allowances above the cap, potentially reducing certainty that 2030 targets will be met, and noted that the proposal appears to shift more allowances to industry and fewer to GGRF than current regulations. LAO also said the proposed GGRF estimate of about $8 billion through the decade could be insufficient to fully fund lower-priority tiers of programs. In questioning, senators pressed CARB on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether free allowances or MDI funds would actually lower prices at the pump, how leakage is measured, and whether the Legislature’s budget assumptions would need to be revised before final action. No votes were taken during the hearing; the discussion was informational and focused on questioning CARB and fiscal staff ahead of the board’s planned May 28 consideration of the amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• There was authority that you had provided for us to do an allocation.
• There was authority that you had provided for us to do an allocation at the end of calendar year 2024
• , and the law allows for any unused monies that had been previously allocated or appropriated to be used
• So there was another $4.3 million that was allocated at that time.
• there in those allocations I just talked about, and the total amount that's been spent to date.

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum and approved the March 18 minutes before hearing a series of informational updates. The Petroleum Council reported that North Dakota oil production is expected to remain relatively flat at just under 1.2 million barrels per day, with activity shifting northward in the Bakken as technology improves and three- and four-mile laterals boost well performance. The presentation also discussed oil and gas prices, gas taxation, flaring concerns, the importance of pipelines and other linear infrastructure, and enhanced oil recovery pilot projects supported by state and federal funding. Members asked questions about gas production taxes, natural gas liquids, and the outlook for drilling rigs and future production. The Office of State Tax Commissioner then reviewed the federal “big beautiful bill” and its estimated effect on North Dakota individual and business income tax collections. Staff explained that most of the individual income tax impact comes from the permanent increase in the standard deduction, while temporary provisions such as senior deductions, tip and overtime exclusions, and auto loan interest deductions have smaller or limited-term effects. They also noted that business tax changes, especially depreciation and expensing provisions, create a larger near-term cash impact, and that some FY25 collections likely reflected one-time oil field transactions that may have inflated the baseline used in earlier estimates. OMB provided updates on major capital projects and facility funding. For Capitol grounds improvements, officials described plans for 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding upgrades, public seating, lighting, tree management, and possible restroom and lobby reconfiguration, while also noting the governor’s residence security project and the discovery of human remains on the Capitol grounds. OMB and its consultants also reported on the state facility maintenance fund, including window replacement, boiler work, roof and foundation repairs, and a new facility conditions assessment covering more state buildings. Updates were also given on the new state hospital in Jamestown, the Minot state office building, and the use of federal state fiscal recovery funds, including possible future reallocations to the Department of Corrections. Finally, Legislative Council staff summarized the interim compliance report on legislative intent and trust fund activity, highlighting the status of lines of credit, Bank of North Dakota profit transfers, the statewide litigation pool, the new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, corrections planning, HHS program updates, and a likely future general fund request for the unemployment insurance modernization project. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes; the meeting was primarily informational, with members asking clarifying questions throughout.

Transcript Highlights:

• The point I was trying to make is with the fees and probably the salaries that they would save, because
• They're just regulated, like getting a permit, paying a small fee, and having specific hours they can
• The state allocated funds to cities for cleanup.
• We're allocating savings to Texas taxpayers by allowing you to relocate, where local cities will tell
• The vendor got a fee per citation for every ticket that they issued, and then they sent out a demand

Bills: HB341, HB791, HB1564, HB1695, HB1722, HB1729, HB1772, HB2003, HB2954, HB2989, HB3084, HB3134, HB3135, HB3309, HB3611, HB3679, HB3727, HB3832

Keywords: affordable housing, zoning, development, community support, local regulations, bicycle lanes, traffic collisions, Texas Department of Transportation, study, public safety, bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters, road safety, transportation study, HB 791, Central Catholic High School, San Antonio, specialty license plate, specialty plates

Transcript Highlights:

• As more land is changing status from fee land to trust land, it only increases that shortfall.
• to, or, yeah, fee taxable to non-taxable, and so it's a little hard to answer that.
• And yes, we are doing fee-to-trust because the whole county at one time was a reservation.
• Very small administrative fee, tiny, to be honest.
• Very small administrative fee, tiny, to be honest.

Summary: The meeting focused heavily on behavioral health and substance use treatment, especially the IMD exclusion and whether North Dakota should pursue a Section 1115 waiver to allow Medicaid reimbursement for services in institutions for mental diseases for adults ages 21 to 64. Turtle Mountain representatives described major local needs, including limited access to care, high syphilis rates, and the importance of timely public health data. They also discussed the tribe’s recovery center, which opened the prior year, now operating five levels of care with 16 beds, and the desire to expand capacity, possibly through an IMD waiver or related policy changes. Committee members also raised related issues such as rural health transformation funding, telehealth, workforce retention, and the need for better coordination between tribal and state public health systems. A central issue was Turtle Mountain Public Health’s long-running effort to secure a data use agreement with the state so it can receive surveillance data and respond directly to infectious disease cases among tribal members. Speakers said the tribe had a successful COVID-era agreement that allowed faster contact tracing and case management, but that agreement ended with the pandemic. They argued that current delays in sharing data, especially for sexually transmitted infections, leave the tribe unable to respond quickly, while the state and county epidemiology workload is too distant and stretched to be effective. Committee members expressed support and said they would look into the issue, noting that other tribes have secured similar agreements. The committee also heard a detailed presentation from the National Health Law Program on the IMD exclusion. The presenter explained that federal Medicaid law generally bars payment for care in facilities with more than 16 beds, but that states can use other tools such as state plan amendments, managed care arrangements, telehealth, and community-based services. He said IMD waivers are administratively complex, time-limited, and have shown mixed results in other states, with some gains in residential treatment access but limited evidence of improved overdose outcomes or stronger community-based care. He urged the committee to consider broader continuum-of-care solutions and cautioned that waivers alone are not a cure-all. No final vote was taken on the bill draft during the portion shown, but the committee discussed the proposal to appropriate $49,000 and one FTE to HHS to pursue an IMD waiver and report back in the next interim. Members also debated the policy rationale for the 16-bed limit, the role of the state versus tribal sovereignty, and whether the bill should move through the Health Care or Human Services committee in the future.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 2282 increases the arrest warrant fee, raising it from $50 to $75.
• House Bill 2282 relating to the amount of the reimbursement fee by a defendant for a peace officer's

Bills: SB203, SB317, SB731, SB801, SB823, SB867, SB1232, SB1380, SB1798, SB2082, SB2603, SB2607, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2919, SB3074, HB2, HB6, HB18, HB43, HB47, HB120, HB143, HB149, HB171, HB180, HB285, HB305, HB449, HB647, HB742, HB748, HB908, HB1024, HB1240, HB1306, HB1397, HB1443, HB1445, HB1533, HB1866, HB1902, HB2001, HB2011, HB2026, HB2282, HB2355, HB2402, HB2434, HB2440, HB2492, HB2516, HB2518, HB2560, HB2674, HB2688, HB2697, HB2712, HB2713, HB2715, HB3153, HB3161, HB3421, HB3424, HB3464, HB3486, HB3510, HB3627, HB3966, HB3986, HB4042, HB4044, HB4076, HB4263, HB4384, HB4396, HB4413, HB4426, HB4429, HB4945, HB4996, HB5033, HB5246, HB5436, HB5515, HB5667, SJR5, SB3, SB4, SB9, SB20, SB21, SB23, SB27, SB33, SB34, SB40, SB75, SB213, SB269, SB379, SB458, SB528, SB647, SB648, SB650, SB681, SB740, SB840, SB843, SB924, SB1061, SB1120, SB1121, SB1150, SB1188, SB1198, SB1202, SB1253, SB1318, SB1333, SB1405, SB1423, SB1535, SB1566, SB1574, SB1621, SB1709, SB1789, SB2037, SB2078, SB2268, SB2544, SB2570, SB2601, SB2778, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB2308, HB2525, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3038, SB3045, SB1538, SB3071, SB3065, SB823, SB3062, SB3074, SB1380, HJR133, HB2715, HB2, HB26, HB388, HB2712, HB1633, HB685, HB1606, HB1458, HB1240, HB2791, HB1397, HB2061, HB647, HB4738, HB2563, HB128, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB5180, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB5652, HB2025, HB3395, HB18, HB2516, HB2713, HB24, HB519, HB609, HB1592, HB120, HB1533, HB2421, HB2273, HB2464, HB2011, HB5084, HB3424, HB4396, HB43, HB5686, HB2518, HB4310, HB180, HB149, HB4945, HB2434, HB3161, HB3745, HB4044, HB5155, HB5667, HB4996, HB2697, HB2492, HB2355, HB2282, HB2001, HB1902, HB1866, HB1445, HB1443, HB1306, HB1024, HB908, HB305, HB285, HB449, HB171, HB47, HB3464, HB2637, HB4263, HB5436, HB4429, HB3986, HB3966, HB3510, HB2560, HB2026, HB2688, HB4076, HB5246, HB3487, HB3486, HB4226, HB216, HB742, HB2402, HB143, HB5033, HB4413, HB4042, HB2440, HB4426, HB49, HB4112, HB3233, HB2310, HB5515, HB3627, HB2674, HB322, HB1481, HB126, HB3062, HB3421, HB3180, HB2530, HB2524, HB1916, HB3153, HB5650, HB4894, HB3120, HB1629, HB103, HB3234, HB3680, HB5698, HB3171, HB5693, HB2694, HB5664, HB3732, HB2508, HB2293, HB1991, HB2014, HB5331, HB5247, HB4751, HB4690, HB4668, HB4464, HB4395, HB4063, HB3833, HB3623, HB3214, HB3512, HB3250, HB3016, HB2520, HB2221, HB2213, HB3824, HB2067, HB1732, HB1562, HB700, HB1545, HB252, HB146, HB5596, HB1851, HB3619, HB3071, HB3556, HB851, HB4230, HB5320, HB5651, HB5670, HB5665, HB5437, HB5679, HB5699, HB5661, HB5662, HB5654, HB5672, HB5656, HB5149, HB4903, HB4743, HB4666, HB4377, HB4535, HB4129, HB3812, HB3801, HB3595, HB3057, HB2035, HB721, HB35, HB346, HB2974, HB2512, HB5695, HB5694, HB5671, HB5674, HB5688, HB1586, HB5154, HB2038, HB163, HB413, HB3463, HB3185, HB2761, HB2593, HB2348, HB2073, HB1828, HB1422, HB75, HB1871, HB108, HB2306, HB2017, HB1135, HB144, HB3689, HB5308, HB101, HB2193, HB5666, HB5677, HB5682, HB5680, HB5658, HB5696, HB4144, HB3159, HB3254, HB3866, HB3010, HB4520, HB3642, HB3928, HB3815, HB2686, HB2012, HB1960, HB227, HB654, HB1690, HB2128, HB4158, HB4530, HB4630, HB5659, HB1523, HB2078, HB2427, HB145, HB1973, HB3333, HB3697, HB3546, HB3225, HB3181, HB3133, HB3053, HB2885, HB2820, HB2294, HB2253, HB1661, HB1506, HB1234, HB640, HB621, HB551, HB521, HB493, HB272, HB229, HB223, HB201, HB186, HB119, HB2080, HB2818, HB5394, HB4795, HB4466, HB4454, HB3940, HB3749, HB3151, HB3284, HB1403, HB1106, HB2844, HB2851, HB1500, HCR141, HCR118, HCR127, HCR40, HCR59, HCR10, HCR135, HCR142, HCR9, HCR76, HCR108, SB823, SB1380, SB3074, HB47, HB143, HB149, HB171, HB285, HB305, HB449, HB742, HB908, HB1024, HB1240, HB1397, HB1443, HB1533, HB1866, HB1902, HB2001, HB2011, HB2355, HB2402, HB2434, HB2440, HB2492, HB2560, HB2688, HB2697, HB2712, HB3153, HB3161, HB3421, HB3424, HB3464, HB3486, HB3510, HB3986, HB4042, HB4076, HB4263, HB4413, HB4426, HB4429, HB4945, HB4996, HB5246, HB5515, HB2, HB2282, HB3627, HB5033, SR560, SR561, HB1904, HB2240, HB3686, HB3793, HB4202, HB1904, HB2240, HB3686, HB3793, HB4202

Keywords: student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, monuments, memorials, public property, historical significance, civil penalties, local governance, SB 731, Texas, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, TDHCA, low-income housing tax credits, LIHTC, affordable housing, senior housing, 55 and older

Transcript Highlights:

• Requiring occupation licenses and permits, imposing fees, creating criminal offenses, and authorizing
• House Bill 2402, relating to the determination of fees, charges, and rates for certain benefits under
• House Bill 2402, relating to the determination of fees, charges, and rates for certain benefits under
• align distribution systems into the broader field of gas pipeline systems, allowing for an aligned fee
• House Bill 4042 relates to the applicability of certain safety provisions and regulatory fees administered

Bills: SB203, SB317, SB731, SB801, SB823, SB867, SB1232, SB1380, SB1798, SB2082, SB2603, SB2607, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2919, SB3074, HB2, HB6, HB18, HB43, HB47, HB120, HB143, HB149, HB171, HB180, HB285, HB305, HB449, HB647, HB742, HB748, HB908, HB1024, HB1240, HB1306, HB1397, HB1443, HB1445, HB1533, HB1866, HB1902, HB2001, HB2011, HB2026, HB2282, HB2355, HB2402, HB2434, HB2440, HB2492, HB2516, HB2518, HB2560, HB2674, HB2688, HB2697, HB2712, HB2713, HB2715, HB3153, HB3161, HB3421, HB3424, HB3464, HB3486, HB3510, HB3627, HB3966, HB3986, HB4042, HB4044, HB4076, HB4263, HB4384, HB4396, HB4413, HB4426, HB4429, HB4945, HB4996, HB5033, HB5246, HB5436, HB5515, HB5667, SJR5, SB3, SB4, SB9, SB20, SB21, SB23, SB27, SB33, SB34, SB40, SB75, SB213, SB269, SB379, SB458, SB528, SB647, SB648, SB650, SB681, SB740, SB840, SB843, SB924, SB1061, SB1120, SB1121, SB1150, SB1188, SB1198, SB1202, SB1253, SB1318, SB1333, SB1405, SB1423, SB1535, SB1566, SB1574, SB1621, SB1709, SB1789, SB2037, SB2078, SB2268, SB2544, SB2570, SB2601, SB2778, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB2308, HB2525, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3038, SB3045, SB1538, SB3071, SB3065, SB823, SB3062, SB3074, SB1380, HJR133, HB2715, HB2, HB26, HB388, HB2712, HB1633, HB685, HB1606, HB1458, HB1240, HB2791, HB1397, HB2061, HB647, HB4738, HB2563, HB128, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB5180, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB5652, HB2025, HB3395, HB18, HB2516, HB2713, HB24, HB519, HB609, HB1592, HB120, HB1533, HB2421, HB2273, HB2464, HB2011, HB5084, HB3424, HB4396, HB43, HB5686, HB2518, HB4310, HB180, HB149, HB4945, HB2434, HB3161, HB3745, HB4044, HB5155, HB5667, HB4996, HB2697, HB2492, HB2355, HB2282, HB2001, HB1902, HB1866, HB1445, HB1443, HB1306, HB1024, HB908, HB305, HB285, HB449, HB171, HB47, HB3464, HB2637, HB4263, HB5436, HB4429, HB3986, HB3966, HB3510, HB2560, HB2026, HB2688, HB4076, HB5246, HB3487, HB3486, HB4226, HB216, HB742, HB2402, HB143, HB5033, HB4413, HB4042, HB2440, HB4426, HB49, HB4112, HB3233, HB2310, HB5515, HB3627, HB2674, HB322, HB1481, HB126, HB3062, HB3421, HB3180, HB2530, HB2524, HB1916, HB3153, HB5650, HB4894, HB3120, HB1629, HB103, HB3234, HB3680, HB5698, HB3171, HB5693, HB2694, HB5664, HB3732, HB2508, HB2293, HB1991, HB2014, HB5331, HB5247, HB4751, HB4690, HB4668, HB4464, HB4395, HB4063, HB3833, HB3623, HB3214, HB3512, HB3250, HB3016, HB2520, HB2221, HB2213, HB3824, HB2067, HB1732, HB1562, HB700, HB1545, HB252, HB146, HB5596, HB1851, HB3619, HB3071, HB3556, HB851, HB4230, HB5320, HB5651, HB5670, HB5665, HB5437, HB5679, HB5699, HB5661, HB5662, HB5654, HB5672, HB5656, HB5149, HB4903, HB4743, HB4666, HB4377, HB4535, HB4129, HB3812, HB3801, HB3595, HB3057, HB2035, HB721, HB35, HB346, HB2974, HB2512, HB5695, HB5694, HB5671, HB5674, HB5688, HB1586, HB5154, HB2038, HB163, HB413, HB3463, HB3185, HB2761, HB2593, HB2348, HB2073, HB1828, HB1422, HB75, HB1871, HB108, HB2306, HB2017, HB1135, HB144, HB3689, HB5308, HB101, HB2193, HB5666, HB5677, HB5682, HB5680, HB5658, HB5696, HB4144, HB3159, HB3254, HB3866, HB3010, HB4520, HB3642, HB3928, HB3815, HB2686, HB2012, HB1960, HB227, HB654, HB1690, HB2128, HB4158, HB4530, HB4630, HB5659, HB1523, HB2078, HB2427, HB145, HB1973, HB3333, HB3697, HB3546, HB3225, HB3181, HB3133, HB3053, HB2885, HB2820, HB2294, HB2253, HB1661, HB1506, HB1234, HB640, HB621, HB551, HB521, HB493, HB272, HB229, HB223, HB201, HB186, HB119, HB2080, HB2818, HB5394, HB4795, HB4466, HB4454, HB3940, HB3749, HB3151, HB3284, HB1403, HB1106, HB2844, HB2851, HB1500, HCR141, HCR118, HCR127, HCR40, HCR59, HCR10, HCR135, HCR142, HCR9, HCR76, HCR108, SB823, SB1380, SB3074, HB47, HB143, HB149, HB171, HB285, HB305, HB449, HB742, HB908, HB1024, HB1240, HB1397, HB1443, HB1533, HB1866, HB1902, HB2001, HB2011, HB2355, HB2402, HB2434, HB2440, HB2492, HB2560, HB2688, HB2697, HB2712, HB3153, HB3161, HB3421, HB3424, HB3464, HB3486, HB3510, HB3986, HB4042, HB4076, HB4263, HB4413, HB4426, HB4429, HB4945, HB4996, HB5246, HB5515, HB2, HB2282, HB3627, HB5033, SR560, SR561, HB1904, HB2240, HB3686, HB3793, HB4202, HB1904, HB2240, HB3686, HB3793, HB4202

Keywords: student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, monuments, memorials, public property, historical significance, civil penalties, local governance, SB 731, Texas, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, TDHCA, low-income housing tax credits, LIHTC, affordable housing, senior housing, 55 and older

Transcript Highlights:

• > program<02:07:09.679> is allocated for that program is allocated for that program is
• no not currently any funding allocated no not currently any funding allocated in<02:07:17.679>
• about a $25 increase on the mooring fee about a $25 increase on the mooring fee to<02:15:16.960>
• <02:17:35.040> So<02:17:35.840> a fees on your boats registration.
• So a fees on your boats registration.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides language that reduces the 50% cap of added fees to 25%.
• First, it could charge the same rates, fees, and charges to the extraterritorial customers that it is
• After holding a public hearing, the rates, fees, and charges must be just and equitable and based on
• Used to derive the rates, fees, and charges for the municipal customers.
• Unfortunately, as the bill is written, doesn't just impact costs and fees.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Internal Revenue Service's fee structure begins at a couple hundred dollars and includes fee amounts
• To rely on a structure that could bring in small fees for several months to sustain the salaries for
• Complex requests would likely respond to the less complex requests quickly, but the fees would likely
• These are just a few ways the fee-based program is unsustainable.
• Be worked out regarding timing, fee structure, etc.

Bills: HF2048, HF2360, HF2006, HF950, HF912, HF3140, HF2931

Keywords: individual income tax, retirement contributions, tax corrections, annuity contracts, tax year attribution, tax credit, economic development, community investment, data disclosure, Minnesota regulations, tax increment financing, municipal authority, job creation, transferred increment, public hearing, nonresident employees, income tax exemption, Minnesota taxation, employment duties, tax withholding

Transcript Highlights:

• , SB 208 requires local governments to charge development permit and development order application fees
• , SB 208 requires local governments to charge development permit and development order application fees
• It means any person holding fee simple title to real property as of July 1, 2026, located within a rural
• And then there were some counties getting a little out of hand with permit fees and development fees,
• And then there were some counties getting a little out of hand with permit fees and development fees,

Summary: The Senate convened with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several member introductions of guests and staff. The chamber then took up returning messages from the House and acted on several bills, including transportation facility designations (SB 628), affordable housing/Live Local Act changes (HB 1389), utility services (HB 1451), education (HB 1279 substituted for SB 7038), data centers (SB 484), and land use/development regulations (SB 208/HB 399). Several other measures were temporarily postponed, including education, emergency services, and environmental rule ratification bills. On SB 628, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-4. On the affordable housing bill, senators discussed the fourth iteration of the Live Local Act, including a new provision allowing certain affordable housing on religious institution property, removal of accessory dwelling unit language, and changes to tax exemption and expiration provisions; the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 35-0. On the utility services bill, the House amendment shortened the surcharge phase-out timeline and advanced reporting dates; the Senate concurred and passed the bill 30-6. The education package was substituted with the House companion, amended to include agreed-upon provisions on student health and safety, early learning, math, virtual instruction, career and technical education, school choice, accountability, tuition protections, and financial aid, and passed 36-1. The data centers bill drew extensive debate over transparency and ratepayer protections. Senators questioned the removal of the Senate’s nondisclosure agreement prohibition, the 12-month confidentiality period, and whether costs could be shifted to residential and commercial customers. Supporters said the amendment strengthened ratepayer protections and maintained local land-use authority, while critics objected to the loss of transparency and the possibility of local NDAs. After debate, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-6. The land use and development bill generated the most contentious discussion. Amendments addressed a Fontainebleau/Miami Beach resort water park issue, a sunset provision, and a major rural boundary/property rights proposal affecting counties such as Orange and Seminole. Senators debated whether the rural boundary language protected property rights or undermined local planning and environmental safeguards, with concerns raised about takings, county liability, and the use of an Attorney General opinion. The transcript cuts off during extended debate on that amendment, so no final vote on the land use bill is shown in the excerpt.