Transcript Highlights:

• We must also address how to review these cases retroactively.
• It does not exist in the application.
• It does address retroactivity.
• It does address retroactivity.
• We are not addressing retroactivity.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, many applications for group hosts have been delayed over the past year over questions about
• changes um if we had against retroactive changes um if we had language<00:54:31.280><c> like</c><00:
• Thank you. retroactive yeah thank you and um that retroactive yeah thank you and um that that'd<00:58
• , you know, prevent retroactivity.
• um you know prevent retroactivity um you know prevent retroactivity<02:00:21.320><c> um</c><02:00:21.520

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• records received by the Office of Financial Regulation relating to financial technology sandbox applications
• So the exemption is very specific, so it’s not exempting all information in the application.
• It specifically points to very specific information in the application that would be proprietary information
• And I should have asked this preliminarily: Is this retroactive?
• I do not believe it is retroactive. No. So, follow-up?

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and temporarily postponed SB 480 before taking up four bills. SB 282, relating to home service warranty association finance requirements, was explained as aligning Florida’s home warranty solvency rules with the framework already adopted for motor vehicle extended warranties. Two amendments were adopted: one correcting a cross-reference tied to the $100 million net worth option and another making a technical title change. A representative of the Florida Service Agreement Association waived in support, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee then considered two proposed committee bills preserving public records exemptions. SB 7008 would continue the exemption for certain records held by the Office of Financial Regulation related to financial technology sandbox applications, with staff explaining the exemption is narrow and intended to protect proprietary information. SPB 7010 would continue the exemption for sensitive records held by the Department of Financial Services when acting as receiver for an insolvent insurer, including policyholder personal information, claim data, and trade secrets; staff said the exemption mirrors existing protections and allows consumers to request their own information. Both measures were moved as committee bills and reported favorably. Finally, SB 592 revising the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program was heard. The bill narrows eligibility to certain condominiums, changes owner approval from unanimous consent to 75%, and clarifies eligible roof mitigation techniques. Two amendments were adopted: one requiring the grant work to match the initial inspection report and comply with inspection requirements, and another limiting grants to work that results in a mitigation discount. Testimony was supportive, including from home inspectors and AARP Florida, and senators praised the program’s benefits for hardening homes and lowering insurance costs. SB 592 was reported favorably, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are 147 points possible on the application through the CDE.
• CDE is currently scoring those applications now.
• Those two applications were approved on August 19, 2025.
• in insurance premiums, and I want to emphasize that retroactivity nature.
• in insurance premiums, and I want to emphasize that retroactivity nature.

Summary: The committee heard opening public comment and then took up several K-12 budget items in the Governor’s January proposal. On LCFF and necessary small schools, the Department of Finance described a 2.41% COLA, a roughly $2.2 billion increase for districts and charters, and a $30.7 million ongoing augmentation to raise necessary small schools funding by 20%. The LAO supported funding the COLA and said the small schools proposal had merit, but questioned the 20% figure and warned about a sharp funding cliff around the enrollment thresholds. Members and witnesses repeatedly raised declining enrollment, attendance, and the need to align funding with outcomes and local cost pressures. The chair and several members also asked whether consolidation, shared administration, or alternative formulas could better address small district costs, and the issue was left open for further discussion. The panel then discussed special education equalization. Finance proposed $509 million ongoing Proposition 98 funding to raise the statewide special education base rate to $999 per ADA, which would fully equalize SELPA base rates; the LAO said the same target could likely be reached with less money under current assumptions. CDE strongly supported equalization as an equity issue and said about 15% of students are identified with disabilities, with identification rising by roughly 20,000 to 25,000 students per year. Members raised concerns about staffing shortages, high caseloads, and the need to use any additional funds for inclusive practices, alternative diploma pathways, and the extraordinary cost pool. The committee also discussed whether the budget language should reflect the $509 million amount or the $999 rate, and the item was held open. For the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring $757.3 million one-time to complete the program, while the LAO recommended approval because learning loss remains unresolved and districts have generally used the funds for tutoring, supplemental instruction, and other academic supports. CDE explained that LEAs must revisit their needs assessments and that many districts are using the funds alongside other support systems, but members pressed for clearer accountability and better data on how much money actually goes to tutoring or other direct services. The committee then reviewed the Student Support and Professional Development Discretionary Block Grant, with Finance proposing $2.8 billion one-time and the LAO saying discretionary funding can help districts address local priorities but should be paired with fiscal oversight and possibly more targeted priorities. Members split between supporting flexibility for local needs and worrying that the grant could be used to cover ongoing structural deficits without clear evidence of student-outcome gains; the issue was also held open. Finally, the committee heard a high-level overview of school facilities funding under Proposition 2, with Finance proposing to continue $1.5 billion in bond spending in 2026-27. OPSC said that at the current pace all Prop 2 K-12 funds would likely be exhausted around 2029-30, and that demand is shifting toward modernization as enrollment declines in many areas. Members asked about school closures, reuse of unused sites, and the new small school district facilities program, which OPSC said is moving toward proposed regulations and would begin accepting modernization applications in November 2026 and new construction applications in January 2027. The committee also briefly noted community college facilities funding and asked for more information later in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill before you, Engrossed Senate Bill 5068, removes references to applicants who are lawful permanent
• And I think that this will help us create a bigger pool of qualified applicants.
• Provided that certain application conditions are met.
• And I think that this will help us create a bigger pool of qualified applicants.
• I've seen this firsthand in over 1,000 job applications that I've done.

Committee: House Community Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• They would define software application.
• This is not good practice when you go retroactively.
• They made that application.
• From what I understand, the applications to the DCA are quite high.
• Applicants rejected for failing to meet the labor-related requirements of the bill may resubmit an application

Committee: Senate Senate Budget and Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• This change is effective retroactively to that taxable year so that the change is consistent with the
• This change, too, because it is purely technical, is effective retroactively to when the substantive
• This change is effective retroactively to that taxable year so that the change is consistent with the
• This change, too, because it is purely technical, is effective retroactively to when the substantive
• This change is effective retroactively to that taxable year so that the change is consistent with the

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• deposited into the state general fund for the payment of essential government services with a retroactivity
• It also repeals retroactively to tax year 2026 the following individual and corporate income tax credits
• The bill also repeals the Rio Nuevo District State Tax Diversion Program, effective retroactively to
• Lastly, the bill contains a retroactivity clause of December 31, 2025, and with that, I'm available for
• Lastly, the bill contains a retroactivity clause of December 31, 2025, and with that, I'm available for

Summary: House Republican caucus met on April 29 to review the FY 2027 budget package and several related “budget implementation” bills, with Chairman Livingston noting that HB 2415 was being held. Staff and members walked through HB 4138, the General Appropriations Act (“feed bill”), which appropriates about $17.96 billion from the general fund and includes one-time fund transfers, 5% lump-sum reductions for most agencies, funding for the state health insurance plan, school facilities, child care, correctional officer stipends, public safety, and other prior-year items. Members emphasized that the budget reflected House and Senate negotiations after the governor left budget talks, and Republican leaders framed it as a package that lowers taxes, shrinks government, and funds priorities such as K-12, child care, foster care, and public safety. The caucus then reviewed a series of mostly standard budget bills: HB 4139 on gaming/racing assessments; HB 4140 on federal monies, the budget stabilization fund, and ACE initiative savings reporting; HB 4141 on capital outlay, highway construction, airport funding, and rural transportation match funds; HB 4142 on commerce and lottery distributions; HB 4143 on corrections reporting; HB 4144 on environmental provisions and water-related fund uses; HB 4145 on state employee health insurance premiums and DES reforms; HB 4146 on higher education funding provisions; HB 4147 on SNAP administration and error-rate reduction; HB 4148 on K-12 inflation adjustments, school facilities, and ASDB property-sale oversight; HB 4150 on county expenditure flexibility and state office rent rates; HB 4151 on the Department of Revenue’s integrated tax system funding and related charges; HB 4152 on tax conformity, deductions, and repeal of several renewable-energy tax preferences and the Rio Nuevo diversion; and HB 4153 on transportation reporting. Discussion repeatedly centered on health plan solvency, SNAP/ACCESS eligibility and fraud controls, school funding, rural transportation, and tax conformity and relief. The caucus also took up several blue-sheet bills: HB 2035 on extended-family placement notifications in child welfare cases; HB 2170 restricting certain PRC-controlled companies from state IT contracts; HB 2249 expanding Parents’ Bill of Rights provisions; HB 2573 on DUI interlock/restricted-license rules and psychotherapy definitions; and HB 2873, which was amended to allow withdrawal of referendum petitions before ballot qualification. HB 2415 was held. The Speaker closed by praising the caucus for its budget work, saying the package delivers tax relief, protects vulnerable populations and public safety, and reflects months of Republican negotiations, and the meeting adjourned to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• It removes a requirement that an applicant has to include information, including statements under oath
• work, which would include verification of the work from professional engineers that supervised the applicant
• people who have recently moved to Washington practicing for more than 30 days if they submit an application
• So that last piece that you discussed about the bill, it seems like it would, in some ways, retroactively
• take away the opportunity for ... ...retroactively take away the opportunity for a consumer to exercise

Summary: The Consumer Protection and Business Committee held public hearings on three bills. House Bill 2229 would update the professional engineers registration act by removing the U.S. citizenship requirement for board members, increasing pro tem board positions, giving the board more discretion over experience and continuing education requirements, removing some registration exclusions, and making various technical updates. The bill sponsor and the board described it as a cleanup and modernization measure, and a board representative said one naming change in the draft was unintended and would be corrected. No public testimony was taken before the hearing was suspended and later closed. House Bill 2274 would revise the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act after a Washington Supreme Court decision led to a wave of lawsuits over email subject lines. The bill would require a sender to have a “reliable basis” to know an email is held by a Washington resident, narrow when a subject line is actionable, require recipients to show they reviewed and relied on the email to recover damages, and repeal the act’s per se Consumer Protection Act violation while keeping statutory damages. Retailers, small business owners, hospitality groups, and e-commerce representatives supported the bill, saying the current interpretation is producing costly, technical lawsuits over ordinary promotional language and creating settlement pressure even without consumer harm. Consumer advocates opposed the bill, arguing it would weaken protections against deceptive subject lines and that the current law already targets false or misleading claims. The committee took no final action on the bill. House Bill 2294 would prohibit future negative use restrictions on real property that block grocery stores or pharmacies, with exceptions for existing restrictions, relocations, and certain retail centers. The sponsor said the measure is intended to improve food and pharmacy access, especially after grocery closures such as the one in Lake City, and noted similar local ordinances already exist. Food industry and grocery association witnesses generally supported the bill as a way to reduce barriers to food access and help independent grocers, while also asking for clearer guardrails to avoid unintended effects on legitimate business arrangements. The sponsor said she was open to working on enforcement and other details. The committee then moved to executive session and passed House Bill 1269, which would adjust pawn broker loan terms, interest, document preparation fees, storage fees, and allow online payment for renewals. Members described it as a modest increase after 11 years without changes, and the bill was reported out of committee with a due pass recommendation by voice vote, with 15 members voting in the affirmative.

Transcript Highlights:

• First party trusts are generally seen as sort of a retroactive measure.
• Um, so I take this as a retroactive measure in the event that something were to happen, they designate
• Um, so I take this as a retroactive measure in the event that something were to happen, they designate
• I could just be missing it, but I want to make sure that we aren't opening that up in some way. retroactive
• measure in the event that retroactive measure in the event that something<00:23:50.400><c> were</c><

Committee: Senate State & Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• WITHOUT DWELLING ON THEM WE PUT OUT AN APPLICATION AND WE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE TEACH PROGRAM
• FOR ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS.
• AVAILABLE AND HAVE BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED FOR ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT APPLICATION.
• ARE THE APPLICANTS NOT QUALIFIED?
• WILL PICK THREE APPLICANT WITH SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill is retroactive and requires an expedited resentencing hearing for persons currently incarcerated
• The fiscal note for the original bill estimates 24 to 48 cases would be impacted by the retroactive application
• We can't support a retroactive application.
• We can't support a retroactive application. If you move it forward, we'd ask it.
• that removed robbery in the second degree from a most serious offense, and it was not applied retroactively

Summary: The committee began with a work session from the State Investment Board, where staff described the board’s structure, $230 billion in assets under management, and its mandate to maximize returns at a prudent level of risk for pension and other state funds. They reviewed long-term performance, noting strong historical returns and explaining that the board generally invests public equities passively through low-cost index funds. Members also discussed sustainability practices, including ESG integration, proxy voting, climate and DEI blueprints, and the board’s view that divestment or asset-class restrictions can reduce returns and increase costs. Senators asked about deferred compensation, legislative influence over investment policy, and digital assets; staff said the board is slow-moving and that any major change would be studied carefully. The public hearing then focused on SB 5439, which would prohibit new thermal coal investments beginning in 2026 and require full divestment by 2030, with limited exceptions. Supporters argued coal is a poor long-term investment and a major climate and health risk, and several said the bill still gives the board flexibility to retain holdings in companies transitioning to clean energy. The committee also heard testimony on SB 6109, which would bar investments in private detention facilities and require divestment by 2030; supporters said state money should not profit from immigrant detention, while staff confirmed the board currently holds a small investment in Geo Group. SB 6304 would require responsible investment principles for the State Investment Board, including consideration of human rights, environmental degradation, corruption, and related risks, along with proxy voting guidelines and annual reporting. Testimony in favor emphasized ethical investing, climate risk, and avoiding complicity in human rights abuses, while board staff had earlier said they view such decisions through an investment-risk lens rather than a values-based lens. The committee also heard Substitute SB 5945, which would exclude most offenses committed before age 18 from counting as strikes under the state’s persistent offender law and would allow retroactive resentencing for affected people, with exceptions for first- and second-degree murder and serious sex offenses. Staff said the substitute would likely affect fewer cases than the original bill, with estimates ranging from about 10 to 24 resentencings. Public defense, prosecutors, and sheriffs’ representatives raised concerns about workload, victim impacts, and retroactive application, while supporters and pro bono providers said they were prepared to help with resentencing and reentry support. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sounds like Bay Area AQMD has not approved of this and there hasn't been an application received, correct
• ...so there's no permit application, no authority to construct, none of that. No? Okay, thank you.
• Bonta, if you could, or any of your witnesses, explain why June 4th, 2026, was selected as the retroactive
• The project's application is also required to submit an annual status report on the implementation of
• The ruling was that it was compliant with CEQA and any past litigation, or it was retroactive.

Bills: AB40 , AB2674 , SB328 , SB344

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: AB 2674, financial abuse, financial deception, elder financial abuse, bank fraud, scam prevention, consumer protection, depository institution, bank, credit union, suspicious transaction, fraud hotline, trusted third party, power of attorney, guardianship, conservatorship, elder abuse, senior citizen, treble damages, civil action

Summary: The Assembly Natural Resources Committee heard several measures, led by AB 40, which would require a full CEQA environmental impact report before approval of any new or expanded large coal terminal and require updated review if the project changes significantly. The author and supporters, including West Oakland community advocates and environmental groups, argued the bill was needed because an outdated environmental review did not analyze coal at the scale now proposed for the Oakland terminal and because West Oakland already bears heavy pollution burdens. Opponents, including business and terminal representatives, argued the project had already undergone extensive review and litigation and warned the bill would set a precedent for reopening settled approvals. Members questioned whether the air district had already approved the project and whether the bill was targeting a single facility. The author responded that the air district still had to issue a discretionary permit and that the bill was narrowly tailored to large coal terminals. The committee ultimately concurred in the Senate amendments to AB 40 on a recorded vote, with the bill passing out of committee. The committee also heard SB 344, which creates a project-specific pathway for San Diego’s Midway Rising redevelopment, a large mixed-use project with thousands of housing units, including affordable housing, parks, and a new arena. Support came from labor, the city, and business groups, while members raised questions about whether the bill was effectively insulating the project from CEQA litigation. The author said the bill does not exempt the project from CEQA but confirms the final EIR’s sufficiency once certified. SB 344 received a due pass recommendation and passed the committee. Finally, the committee heard SB 328 for the Concord Reuse Project Area, which would streamline implementation of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse plan by creating an exemption within the Surplus Land Act and related disposition process for qualifying projects. The author and supporters emphasized decades of planning, extensive environmental review, a project labor agreement, and commitments to 25% affordable housing and open space. After questions about enforcement of affordability and tribal consultation, the bill received a due pass recommendation and passed. The committee also adopted a consent resolution and passed AB 2674, a transparency measure requiring CARB to post landfill temperature and monitoring data it already receives.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> can be retroactive in some situations. can be retroactive in some situations.
• Uh, for retroactive effective dates.
• :25:03.279><c> less</c> retroactive effective dates are less retroactive effective dates are less common
• </c><00:25:41.919><c> in</c> road of making law that's retroactive in road of making law that's retroactive
• The speaker says that not making the bill retroactive would be a travesty.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:12:10.880><c> patient</c><00:12:11.880><c> and</c> But they're under no obligation to pay retroactively
• so it ends up being a retroactively so it ends up being a burden<00:12:30.440><c> including</c><00:12
• </c><00:26:40.399><c> among</c> interpretations and application among interpretations and application
• Chair: consistent application of the law and tax guidance from tax administrators is required so taxpayers
• um and then resisted my retroactively um and then resisted my efforts<00:32:06.519><c> to</c><00:32:

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Idaho Code, relating to the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit, and declaring an emergency, providing retroactive
• application, and providing an effective date.
• Section 67-1230 Idaho Code relating to the Idaho Parenthood and declaring an emergency, providing retroactive
• application, and providing an effect. rental choice tax credit advance payment fund and declaring an
• emergency, providing retroactive application, and providing an effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill further makes the fee retroactive to January 1, a provision...
• The retroactive date makes them whole.
• Back to your comments on the retroactivity piece of this.
• Back to your comments on the retroactivity piece of this.
• "The other issue that gives us concern is the retroactivity.

Bills: HB591 , HB765 , HB826 , HB870 , HB938 , HB1151 , HB1162 , HB1176 , HB1196 , HB1236 , HB1241

Committee: Senate Insurance

Keywords: liability insurance, coverage defenses, direct action, judgment enforcement, legal procedures, insurance referrals, compensation, non-licensed agents, consumer protection, insurance products, HB 870, Act 907, Louisiana insurance, health insurance, prescription drugs, generic drugs, biosimilars, formulary placement, drug formulary, cost-sharing

Transcript Highlights:

• They have complied with all of the applications that are required under law. Right.
• And it is also retroactive so that people can—those that have committed dangerous crimes against our
• Even if the sponsor amends HB 2966 to its mirror bill SB 1092 by removing the retroactivity and applicability
• SB 1092 by removing the retroactivity and applicability language, it would still create a blanket rule
• Lastly, the amendment applies all outlined requirements and conditions retroactively to January 1, 2022

Summary: The committee first approved prior minutes and announced several bills were being held at sponsors’ request, including HB 4117 and several House concurrent resolutions. It then heard HB 2811, which would expand obstructing governmental operations to include knowingly hindering a lawful arrest by a third party and make it a felony. Supporters, including a county attorney’s office representative, argued it would close a loophole and protect officers during arrests; opponents from criminal defense and civil liberties groups said it duplicated existing resisting arrest and hindering prosecution laws and could chill First Amendment activity such as filming police. After debate over prosecutorial discretion and constitutional concerns, the committee recommended HB 2811 do pass by a 3-2 vote with one member not voting. The committee next considered HB 2665, a “Cade’s Law” proposal to treat intentionally providing advice or encouragement through directed online communication to a minor to die by suicide as manslaughter. The sponsor and family members of suicide victims described the bill as a response to social media-driven encouragement of self-harm and urged stronger accountability. The bill drew no opposition testimony in the excerpt and passed with a 6-0 vote, with one member not voting. The committee then heard HB 2857, allowing ADCRR to store inmate medical records electronically and dispose of paper copies, which passed 5-1 after testimony from the department’s medical provider about space and efficiency. HB 2226 followed, requiring courts to ask about veteran status at initial appearance, notify prosecutors, and connect veterans with Arizona Department of Veterans Services and treatment or diversion options; an amendment shifted the notice duty from prosecutors to courts. The sponsor and veterans’ advocates said the bill would help identify veterans with PTSD or other needs and reduce recidivism, and the committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill unanimously, 6-0. The committee then took up HB 2168, which would require county board approval before the Attorney General could bring a public nuisance abatement action in superior court. The sponsor argued the AG had overreached in cases involving a dairy, an aluminum plant, and a rail line, while opponents said the bill would weaken statewide enforcement and protect corporate polluters; the bill passed 3-2 with two not voting. Finally, the committee heard HB 2966, which would bar early termination of lifetime probation for dangerous crimes against children and apply that restriction retroactively. Supporters framed it as protecting children and ensuring offenders serve full probation terms, while survivors, defense attorneys, and the Sex Offender Management Board’s concerns were cited in opposition, with critics warning about loss of judicial discretion, constitutional issues, and reduced incentives for compliance. The bill passed 4-2 with one not voting. The last item in the excerpt was HCR 2001, a voter referral measure to end early voting on the Friday before Election Day, require government-issued ID for voting, and prohibit foreign contributions; an amendment removed the early-voting cutoff and some ID-related provisions while adding on-site tabulation language and other changes. The sponsor argued it would improve election security and speed results, while counties and other opponents raised cost, implementation, and access concerns, especially around on-site tabulation and mail voting. The testimony portion of HCR 2001 was underway when the excerpt ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have complied with all of the applications that are required under law. Right.
• It is also retroactive so that people can—those that have committed dangerous crimes against our most
• Even if the sponsor amends HB 2966 to its mirror bill SB 1092 by removing the retroactivity and applicability
• language, it would still create... ...SB 1092 by removing the retroactivity and applicability language
• Lastly, the amendment applies all outlined requirements and conditions retroactively to January 1, 2022

Bills: HB2109 , HB2168 , HB2198 , HB2226 , HB2415 , HB2440 , HB2665 , HB2805 , HB2811 , HB2825 , HB2857 , HB2874 , HB2966 , HB4067 , HB4117 , HCR2001 , HCR2016 , HCR2051

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Elections

Keywords: distracted driving, portable wireless communication devices, motorcycles, traffic safety, civil penalties, public nuisance, nuisance abatement, abatement action, injunction, superior court, attorney general, county attorney, city attorney, board of supervisors, obscenity, obscene materials, adult materials, pornography, schools, parks

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for addressing that component, the retroactivity portion of it.
• Just to answer your question, the retroactivity amendment would address this concern.
• Thank you for amending to take out the retroactivity.
• Thank you for amending to take out the retroactivity.
• Thank you for amending to take out the retroactivity.

Committee: House Judiciary