Transcript Highlights:

• Senate File 122 modifies the calculation of a school district's aid and levy limitations upon return
• <00:45:37.640> limitations the proposal Aid and Levy limitations the proposal Aid and Levy
• <00:47:25.440> dollars<00:47:26.359> uh<00:47:26.440> for they can use Levy
• dollars uh for they can use Levy dollars uh for maintenance<00:47:27.720> and<00:47:27.920>
• rink they cannot combine to do the levy rink they cannot combine to do the levy only<00:47:38.359

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um this is a levy of county excise want. Um this is a levy of county excise want.
• on the other taxes or fees levied on the other taxes or fees levied on the products.
• The county commission may levy 1975. B. The county commission may levy 1975. B.
• on the other taxes or fees levied on the other taxes or fees levied on the products.
• There is levied an annual 1975. B. There is levied an annual 1975. B.

Bills: HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 26, HB 30, HB 37, HB 116, HB 630, HB 879, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1318, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 2703, HB 2809, HB 2890, HB 2970, HB 3307, HB 3526, HB 5092, SB 128, SB 203, SB 317, SB 393, SB 397, SB 644, SB 731, SB 801, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1073, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1232, SB 1250, SB 1262, SB 1285, SB 1310, SB 1359, SB 1444, SB 1483, SB 1705, SB 1782, SB 1861, SB 1897, SB 1944, SB 2023, SB 2043, SB 2082, SB 2133, SB 2215, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2309, SB 2532, SB 2549, SB 2566, SB 2617, SB 2619, SB 2639, SB 2688, SB 2696, SB 2717, SB 2790, SB 2841, SB 2847, SB 2850, SB 2857, SB 2891, SB 2919, SB 2928, SB 2972, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 1, SB 260, SB 1506, SB 1637, HB 37, HB 109, HB 334, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2081, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 644, SB 1086, SB 1230, SB 1310, SB 1361, SB 1553, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2344, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2600, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2785, SB 2790, SB 3047, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HJR 1, HB 1130, HB 1689, HB 2884, HB 1393, HB 2559, HB 26, HB 3012, HB 1327, HB 109, HB 1238, HB 2890, HB 9, HB 4215, HB 2970, HB 37, HB 1899, HB 1593, HB 2607, HB 3526, HB 3810, HB 5092, HB 388, HB 2809, HB 1151, HB 913, HB 3307, HB 879, HB 116, HB 12, HB 2703, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 30, HB 21, HB 2712, HB 2692, HB 1633, HB 1318, HB 685, HB 630, HB 4753, HB 2742, HB 303, HB 198, HB 1535, HB 762, HB 148, HB 1520, HB 5061, HB 2286, HB 1606, HB 1041, HB 132, HB 11, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 2023, SB 1310, SB 2972, SB 1073, SB 2847, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 507, SB 1434, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1122, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 1085, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 1200, SB 1845, SB 2458, SB 801, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 2797, SB 2076, SB 2876, SB 1640, SB 1449, SB 1181, SB 1359, SB 1234, SB 2926, SB 2841, SB 1528, SB 2891, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 1285, SB 1237, SB 2819, SB 629, SB 2608, SB 1602, SB 2009, SB 2460, SB 867, SB 640, SB 1698, SB 2680, SB 2994, SB 2747, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1483, SB 1444, SB 1553, SB 1556, SB 1703, SB 2133, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2622, SB 2955, SB 2334, SB 1861, SB 2043, SB 1367, SB 2857, SB 128, SB 3058, SB 2044, SB 2363, SB 2565, SB 1888, SB 3048, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3036, SB 3057, SB 3056, SB 3043, SB 3050, SB 3063, SB 3035, SB 1790, SB 1778, SB 203, SB 3061, SB 2799, SB 2790, SB 2688, SB 2515, SB 1230, SB 2522, SB 2639, SB 2459, SB 3051, SB 2655, SB 2251, SB 1884, SB 2617, SB 2751, SB 2928, SB 2566, SB 1897, SB 1749, SB 1361, SB 2549, SB 2553, SB 2919, SB 1782, SB 1705, SB 2696, SB 1944, SB 2215, SB 644, SB 1232, SB 2850, HB 45, HB 48, HB 1261, HB 1465, HB 1778, HB 2596, HB 5238, HB 33, HB 1188, HB 210, HB 1022, HB 1458, HB 5560, HB 1240, HB 1950, HB 2027, HB 2768, HB 2788, HB 2791, HB 3146, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 1893, HB 3700, HB 4850, HB 4187, HB 1397, HB 4885, HB 4804, HB 3751, HB 3611, HB 2775, HB 2061, HB 2003, HB 1729, HB 1242, HB 791, HB 2029, HB 647, HB 2522, HB 4738, HB 3033, HB 3594, HB 3474, HB 2563, HB 2802, HCR 90, SJR 87, SB 2969, SB 3073, SB 2497, SB 1798, SB 2603, SB 2607, SB 781, SJR 34, SB 17, SB 314, SB 455, SB 509, SB 529, SB 541, SB 693, SB 761, SB 963, SB 1023, SB 1968, SB 2122, SB 2308, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 2544, SJR 87, SB 1285, SB 1359, SB 2857, SB 3073, HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 116, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1899, HB 2970, HB 3307, SB 1073, SB 1310, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 2847, SB 2972, SB 128, SB 2043, SR 393, SR 511, SR 518, SR 520, SB 314, SB 455, SB 761, SB 1023, SB 2122, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 17, SB 509, SB 644, SB 1230, SB 1361, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2790, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HB 37, HB 109, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 1086, SB 1553, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294

Keywords: constitutional amendment, property tax, ad valorem tax, tax exemption, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property, equipment exemption, machinery, local government finance, school district revenue, county taxes, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax relief, commercial property, appraisal district, chief appraiser, rendition statement, property tax relief

Transcript Highlights:

• counties to have to opt-in, and the county… to have to opt in, and the county to be the one that's levying
• If the county wants to opt in, and they want to choose to levy it, then I want them to have that right
• But I don't want us to levy a fee and have everyone… want us to levy a fee and have everyone opt out
• except for the fact that… just as it is except for the fact that the county would have to opt in and levy

Bills: HB52, HB89, HB141, HB52, HB89, HB141

Keywords: income tax, CHOOSE Act, education funding, ABLE account, tax credits, poverty threshold, legislative funding, HB89, Medicaid, pregnant women, pregnancy, prenatal care, ambulatory prenatal care, presumptive eligibility, temporary Medicaid coverage, Alabama Medicaid Agency, maternal health, low-income women, health coverage, eligibility determination

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:32.240> revenues<00:15:32.720> from LTFM levy revenues from LTFM levy revenues
• have authorize these funds and this levy have authorize these funds and this levy for<00:16:42.560
• And that has the effect of reducing future property tax levies for the district.
• And that has the effect of reducing future property tax levies for the district.
• . levy. levy.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• increases, it created limited exceptions that allow municipalities to spend above their property tax levy
• LB 34 created the property tax levy caps.
• So an emergency... ...but only for purposes of overriding the levy cap.
• What this bill does is... ...exempted from the levy cap. That is already the state of the law.
• But then, yeah, LB 34 allows for the levy lid in the next year to be exceeded by a municipality for a

Bills: LR509, LR510, LR511

Keywords: congratulations, Nebraska Sandhills Cowboy Hall of Fame, Deloris Marshall Adamson, recognition, achievement, service, retirement, Nebraska Legislature, public service, legislature, Nebraska, 956, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's kind of like the batter and the cake, and levies school districts do are supposed to be the icing
• But education funding has not kept pace with inflation, and levies have had to supplement the batter.
• We would buy that down; it could be the local option levy.
• You know, this amendment puts us on a path where we would be able to eliminate $4 billion in levies.
• Then, funds can be used to pay back any school shift that exists below the 90-10 shift and then a levy

Transcript Highlights:

• Sections 3 and 4 relate to Senate File 128 from Senator ... levies in districts with class 4C12 levies
• Um sections three and four relate levy.
• Um the district's had certified levies.
• A the burden on the property tax levy.
• could result in the largest levy could result in the largest levy increases<01:58:38.480> in<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And you're saying that they could levy the county citizens.
• What's the non-levied? What's the levied?
• Ad valorem tax levied by counties and municipalities shall be used only for this.
• I could go into Holmes or Levy, 8.2 millage rate.
• Per mill, $3 million, it's going to impact Levy 9.1. I've got Lafayette at 10 mills.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• small businesses, but this will be a $51 million hit on counties statewide to the 36 counties that levy
• Because you said all—there's 37 counties that levy it?
• Well, there's 266 cities that levy it, and they do use it in a variety of ways.
• Because you said all, there's 37 counties that levy it?
• Well, there's 266 cities that levy it, and they do use it in a variety of ways.

Summary: The Committee on Community Affairs met with a quorum present and took up SB 122, which would repeal Chapter 205 on local business taxes while allowing municipalities to continue imposing a gross-receipts-based business tax on merchants. Senator Trumbull presented the bill for the sponsor, and committee members questioned what services local governments fund with local business tax revenue and whether the bill should be considered alongside broader property tax changes. County and city representatives opposed the bill, arguing that local business taxes are capped home-rule revenues used for general fund services such as public safety, zoning and licensure checks, economic development, and business support, and warning that repeal would shift costs to residential taxpayers and reduce local flexibility. Senator Shreve said he would vote no because of ongoing property tax discussions, while Senator Pizzo said he would support the bill but wanted clearer accounting of how the revenue is spent. The committee voted 5-1 to report SB 122 favorably. The committee then held a housing panel discussion focused on Florida’s housing shortage, affordability, and supply constraints. Dr. Samuel Staley said Florida is in a housing crisis driven largely by insufficient supply, arguing that the state needs roughly 100,000 additional units per year just to keep up with in-migration and that local planning systems often do not prioritize housing enough. He urged more emphasis on measurable impacts, streamlined permitting, accessory dwelling units, smaller lot sizes, and other market-responsive tools. Ann Ray of the Shimberg Center said Florida is seeing more single-family and multifamily construction but that production is concentrated in a handful of counties, while condo construction remains limited; she also noted that rents and home prices spiked sharply in the early 2020s and remain above pre-2020 levels, with nearly 905,000 low-income renters cost-burdened. Leslie Deutsch of John Burns Research said the national housing market is slow, Florida has a severe affordability problem, and builders are lowering prices and offering incentives but still face high land, labor, materials, and insurance costs. In committee discussion, senators focused on whether Florida should encourage more density, including townhomes, build-to-rent products, modular housing, and redevelopment of existing sites rather than relying on large new subdivisions. Members also discussed the role of local zoning, impact fees, density bonuses, and state incentives tied to housing targets. Several senators said Florida’s growth and affordability challenges require updating land development codes and planning for where future residents will live without overbuilding rural or environmentally sensitive areas. The chair closed by emphasizing that density can support affordability and that Florida should use existing footprints more efficiently.

Transcript Highlights:

• The responsibility to ensure that the impact of this bill is to lower the tax levy in that district.
• , members of the committee, that we do take that very seriously, and our goal is to lower that tax levy
• The responsibility to ensure that the impact of this bill is to lower the tax levy in that district.
• , members of the committee, that we do take that very seriously, and our goal is to lower that tax levy
• , members of the committee, that we do take that very seriously, and our goal is to lower that tax levy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in addition to the state-imposed 0.75% sales tax, counties have the option to levy up to 0.5% and
• There is a restriction that no more of that property tax levy stream can account for more than 10% of
• So, in addition to the state-imposed 0.75% sales tax, counties have the option to levy up to 0.5% and
• There is a restriction that no more of that property tax levy stream can account for more than 10% of
• So, in addition to the state-imposed 0.75% sales tax, counties have the option to levy up to 0.5% and

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Working Group met on January 15, 2025, with Chair John Kosnik opening by saying the committee expected to pass a transportation bill this year and emphasizing efficient use of transportation revenues, maintenance of roads and transit, and safety. Members and staff introduced themselves, and several representatives noted their interest in roads, bridges, and regional transportation needs. Kosnik also said he had spoken with Representative Kel about leadership arrangements and stressed that bipartisan support would be needed for a transportation bill. House Fiscal Staff’s Andrew Lee and House Research’s Matt Burus then gave an overview of transportation finance, focusing mainly on highways and transit. Burus explained Minnesota’s highway funding structure, including the constitutional Highway User Tax Distribution Fund and the related Trunk Highway Fund, County State-Aid Highway Fund, and Municipal State-Aid Street Fund. He reviewed the main revenue sources: the motor fuels tax, motor vehicle registration tax, motor vehicle sales tax, portions of the general sales tax tied to auto parts, vehicle rentals and leases, and the retail delivery fee. He noted several changes from 2023 legislation, including indexing of the gas tax, creation of the Transportation Advancement Account, and the retail delivery fee, which began in July 2024 and therefore would affect fiscal year 2025 rather than the fiscal 2024 data shown. The presentation also covered how highway dollars flow through constitutional formulas, including the 95/5 split from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, with the 5 percent set-aside used for town roads, town bridges, and flexible highway purposes such as turnbacks. Burus distinguished trunk highway bonds from general obligation bonds and explained that both are debt-financing tools for transportation projects, but with different repayment sources and uses. No votes or formal actions were taken at this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative McFarland: This removes the authority from local governments to levy a local business
• tax for developers continuing to levy taxes.
• My apologies, that is levy and economic development additional tax, but Representative Botana and I are
• We're just talking about the tax that is levied for, as the Chair said, the privilege of doing business
• McFarland: licenses, corporate income tax, when is it enough tax to levy on a business?

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:13:15.280> Amendments, Mill Levies Amendments, Mill Levies Amendments, and<01:13:17.440
• Uh, and line to assess that mill levy.
• frustrated about what that mill levy frustrated about what that mill levy looks<01:24:43.360>
• levy is not necessarily for every special<01:25:48.560> district.
• So be thoughtful those mill levies.

Bills: SF0082

Keywords: registered agents, corporate governance, entity ownership, business regulations, transparency, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Lake City Levy Authority, Representative Altendorf, is in prop two property tax exemptions for the
• <00:03:27.640> the<00:03:27.800> Lake<00:03:28.040> City<00:03:28.320> Levy
• Um the Lake City Levy thresholds.
• Um the Lake City Levy Authority<00:03:29.040> Representative<00:03:29.560> Altendorf<00

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House considered the conference committee report on House File 2438, the 2026 tax bill. Representative Gomez outlined the main provisions, saying most fiscal changes were tied to federal tax conformity. He also described several other items in the report, including a two-year extension of the pass-through entity tax workaround, a sustainable aviation fuel provision, a one-time $125 million increase in homestead credit property tax refunds, a one-year removal of the cap on the beginning farmer tax credit, a four-year tax exemption for PGA tickets, permanent aid to certain school districts, a direct file program, changes related to homestead resort classification thresholds, local property tax and income tax provisions, local government aid for the new city of Northern, a four-year extension of local homeless prevention aid, and Department of Revenue policy, technical, TIF, local, and public finance items. After the report was presented, the House adopted the conference committee report and ordered the bill repassed as amended by conference. The clerk then gave the bill its third reading as amended. Following third reading, Representative Niska moved to lay House File 2438 on the table. The motion prevailed, and the bill was tabled.

Transcript Highlights:

• property, to increase the homestead exemption, to provide a limitation on the use of ad valorem taxes levied
• 150,000, which is not in the budget sum in the actual amendment now, and that then to 250 for all levies
• 150,000, which is not in the budget sum in the actual amendment now, and that then to 250 for all levies
• Dixie, Levy, Lafayette, Florida League of Cities spoke.
• And they outlined that the levy cap avoids all dangers. It does not eliminate the revenue source.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 150,000, which is not in the budget sum in the actual amendment now, and that then to 250 for all levies
• 150,000, which is not in the budget sum in the actual amendment now, and that then to 250 for all levies
• other than those imposed ...now, and that then to 250 for all levies other than those imposed by the
• Dixie, Levy, Lafayette. Florida League of Cities spoke.
• And they outlined that the levy cap avoids all dangers. It does not eliminate the revenue source.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand homestead property tax relief, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses. Senator Avila presented the measure as a major property tax reform intended to provide relief to homeowners and restrain local government spending, while opponents argued it would shift costs to fees, services, and state appropriations and could harm local budgets, public safety, schools, and other services. Several senators also raised concerns about the ballot language and the lack of a completed fiscal analysis. The chamber considered and rejected multiple amendments. Senator Sharif’s income-based “circuit breaker” amendment failed, as did Senator Smith’s sunset clause amendment and Senator Berman’s amendment to rewrite the ballot statement for greater accuracy. During questioning, Avila said the revised language was meant to preserve flexibility for local governments and that future legislatures could set implementing procedures and, if necessary, prohibit certain local expenditures by general law. He also confirmed that the proposal would not affect refinancing or portability, and said the measure would not prevent local governments from continuing to fund many services such as libraries, parks, animal control, code enforcement, mosquito control, public housing, county health departments, and elections. Debate on final passage was extensive. Supporters described the proposal as overdue relief for homeowners and a way to force local governments to prioritize spending, while critics called it a risky tax shift that could reduce local revenue by billions and force cuts or higher fees. Some senators emphasized concerns about public safety funding, mental health and social services, and the accuracy of the ballot summary; others argued the measure would give voters a chance to decide on property tax reform. After debate, the resolution was rolled over for third reading and the Senate continued discussion, but the transcript provided does not include a final vote on the joint resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• And 5A was the levy of the taxes.
• And 5A was the levy of the taxes.
• And 5A was the levy of the taxes.
• And 5A was the levy of the taxes.
• And 5A was the levy of the taxes.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, approved the prior day’s journal, and then took up a large third-reading consent calendar containing many House bills, most of them dealing with appropriations, fund transfers, repeals of programs or cash funds, and related budget adjustments. The calendar included measures affecting broadband infrastructure, early childhood prevention services, school food programs, reading and assessment programs, higher education funding, human services funding models, disaster and transportation funds, public safety communications, and several other state cash funds and reserve requirements. Most of the bills passed with broad support, though several drew recorded no votes from individual senators on specific measures. Before the consent calendar vote, Senator Catlin recognized a Montrose leadership class visiting the chamber. The Senate then adopted the consent calendar, with the clerk recording numerous individual no votes on particular bills. Among the more notable measures passed were bills related to the Healthy School Meals for All program, the state education fund, the Affordable Housing Financing Fund, kinship care, judicial discipline, public defender/prosecutor behavioral health support, public safety personnel health benefits, multimodal transportation funding, unclaimed property transfers, tobacco education funds, and preschool funding. Several bills were approved unanimously or near-unanimously, while others had more divided votes. The chamber then debated Senate Bill 90, which exempts critical infrastructure from the Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act. Senator Snyder explained that the bill had been revised after stakeholder discussions with opponents, the governor’s office, and the attorney general’s office; the amendment L006 was described as narrowing and defining the exemption, giving the Attorney General rulemaking authority, and preserving district court review. Senator Carson supported the amendment and said it clarified that the bill focused on business-to-business and business-to-government equipment rather than retail consumer products. The amendment was adopted 35-0, and the bill then passed 22-13. The Senate also passed House Bill 1351 on the Healthy School Meals for All program, with Senator Kirkmeyer saying it repays money previously transferred from the state education fund and does not reduce program funding or transparency. House Bill 1353 on state-administered social studies assessments passed 25-10, and House Bill 1359 on school land mineral revenues passed 28-7. The final portion of the transcript shows additional House bills being read and passed, including measures on housing financing, reserve reductions, cash fund transfers, child welfare subsidies, kinship care, judicial discipline, public safety benefits, multimodal transportation, unclaimed property transfers, tobacco education funds, and preschool funding, with several senators recording no votes and Senator Kirkmeyer noting concerns about transparency in cash fund balances during the debate on House Bill 1405.

Transcript Highlights:

• but we're saying in here that no county ad valorem taxes can be used, but the district itself can levy
• A MUD has taxing as well as levying fees. Does that sales tax? I didn't get that far into it.
• A mud has taxing as well as levying fees. Does that sales tax? I didn't get that far into it.
• I didn't get that far into it, but any sales tax it could levy a sales tax.
• We have a taxing jurisdiction that doesn't get to levy a tax. I love it. You know, that's right.

Bills: HB1532, HB2731, HB3483, HB4308, HB4580, HB4582, HB5509, HB5663

Keywords: Lake Houston, dredging, maintenance district, flood control, environment, public works, HB 2731, roadside vendors, solicitors, county regulation, border counties, Mexico border, Transportation Code, unincorporated areas, right-of-way, public highway, parking lot, livestock sales, live animals, vendor regulation

Summary: The committee heard and discussed several local-government-related bills, mostly with committee substitutes. House Bill 2731 would let certain border counties regulate roadside vendors selling live animals in unincorporated areas and along public rights-of-way; the substitute narrowed the bill to live animal sales only and excluded livestock and other roadside commerce. House Bill 3483 would streamline TCEQ review of special utility district revenue bonds by removing tax-bond requirements that do not apply to SUDs. House Bill 4308 would create a county industrial development district framework, limited in the substitute to certain counties including Fort Bend County, to help finance industrial sites and related infrastructure. House Bill 5663 would create a Wood County Hospital District memory-care-focused district with no taxing power, intended to help pursue grants and other funding for a new facility. House Bill 4582 addressed attainable housing in Dallas and Tarrant counties, allowing local reimbursement tools for developers under a uniform, optional framework. House Bill 5509 would let municipalities suspend or revoke a hotel’s certificate of occupancy if law enforcement and a criminal court both find probable cause of human trafficking, with the substitute adding due-process protections. House Bill 1532 created a Lake Houston dredging and maintenance district funded by revenue from dredged material sales and revenue bonds, with no taxing authority or eminent domain. House Bill 23, heard as pending business, would revise the process for local governments to rescind development documents and adjust third-party reviewer liability and eligibility rules. House Bill 4580, concerning property tax exemptions for charitable organizations such as the Houston Rodeo, was amended to remove language about exempting revenue from property use and instead focus on land used for agricultural, youth, and educational support. Public testimony was generally supportive on the bills heard, with witnesses including county officials, utility and water association representatives, hotel industry representatives, and housing developers. Several speakers emphasized the need for faster financing or permitting tools, flood mitigation, housing affordability, anti-trafficking enforcement, or local economic development. Some members raised concerns about scope, precedent, consultation with affected senators, and due process, particularly on House Bill 4582 and House Bill 5509, but the committee largely accepted the committee substitutes as improvements. No public testimony was offered on several bills, and most measures were left pending before later being voted out. The committee took recorded votes on multiple pending bills and reported them favorably, often with committee substitutes adopted in lieu of the filed versions. House Bills 1532, 2731, 3483, 5509, 5663, and 4580 were reported out, with 1532 and 5663 passing unanimously and 3483, 2731, and 5509 also receiving favorable votes despite one present-not-voting on 3483. House Bill 23 and House Bill 4582 were left pending subject to call of the chair. The committee then recessed until adjournment or later.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you're saying that they could levy the county citizens.
• Ad valorem tax levied by counties and municipalities shall be used only for this.
• I could go into Holmes or Levy, 8.2 millage rate.
• Per mill, $3 million, it's going to impact Levy 9.1. I've got Lafayette at 10 mills.
• I could go into Holmes or Levy, 8.2 millage rate.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you're saying that they could levy the county citizens.
• What's the non-levied? What's the levied?
• Ad valorem tax levied by counties and municipalities shall be used only for this.
• I could go into Holmes, or Levy, 8.2 millage rate.
• Per mill, $3 million, it's going to impact Levy 9.1. I've got Lafayette at 10 mills.

Keywords: 999, senate, all