Transcript Highlights:

• for are providing greater incentives for are providing greater incentives for them to come there and
• that will help them for incentives that will help them for incentives that will help them manage their
• Incentives down on student loan debt. Incentives down on student loan debt.
• And this one is to really incent them to earn that to really incent them to earn that to really incent
• students, adult try to in incent students, adult try to in incent students, adult learners that are

Bills: HJR 4, HJR 6, HB 195, HB 13, HB 143, HB 135

Keywords: occupation tax, securities, financial regulation, tax exemption, legislative amendment, capital gains tax, realized gains, unrealized gains, investment income, asset sale, capital assets, wealth tax, estate tax, trust tax, tax limitation, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, property tax, sales tax

Transcript Highlights:

• of what comes in through net metering or, if you're a qualifying facility, your energy and your incentives
• That's where the greatest growth has been, and I think that's what we're trying to incent here, too,
• This is a change from the current structure in letting clients choose their incentive program.
• If they want to continue having an incentive program, they will have this additional cost of the SMART
• It's consistent with the federal incentives, the federal regulations for geothermal incentives, and for

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on H. 4144, the Governor’s Energy Affordability, Independence, and Innovation Act, with the administration arguing the bill would lower bills in the short and long term while expanding clean energy supply and innovation. The Governor and Secretary said the bill would reduce or restructure charges on customer bills, reform Mass Save, expand securitization as a financing tool, speed interconnection, create energy-ready zones, strengthen consumer protections in competitive supply, and allow broader state procurement of energy resources. They said the package could save consumers billions over time and would help address high energy costs, especially during extreme heat and winter spikes. Committee members pressed the administration on several provisions, especially securitization, asking whether the bill requires an apples-to-apples comparison of total costs over time, including interest and lost tax revenue, versus paying through rates. Administration witnesses said DPU review and public comment would be required and said they would work to clarify the language if needed. Members also questioned the bill’s solar and procurement provisions, including reduced net metering compensation for some large facilities, the scope of all-resource procurements, and whether hydro, solar, and nuclear would be included; the administration said those resources were contemplated and that procurement would still be reviewed by DPU. Other questions focused on the short-term relief from bill changes, the treatment of low- and moderate-income discounts, and whether the bill’s heat pump and Mass Save reforms would help customers who cannot afford upfront costs. Several witnesses and committee members discussed Mass Save reforms, including securitization of program costs, on-bill financing, pre-approval of rebates, and shifting program administration away from gas utilities. Administration witnesses said the changes were intended to reduce volatility, lower administrative costs, and better align costs with long-term savings. Questions also touched on geothermal permitting, municipal participation in offshore wind procurement, and the proposed repeal of the ballot requirement for nuclear power, which the administration defended as preserving future options under heavy review. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described. Supportive testimony came from labor, environmental, business, planning, and development groups. The AFL-CIO, NECA, and the Environmental League of Massachusetts backed the bill, emphasizing lower bills, job creation, labor standards, just transition protections, and cleaner energy. NAIOP, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and MAPC supported provisions on energy-ready zones, interconnection reform, microgrids, extreme-heat shutoff protections, and Mass Save improvements. A HEET representative praised the bill’s use of securitization, geothermal, and utility financing tools but urged guardrails and workforce protections. Overall, testimony was broadly favorable, with most witnesses calling for refinements rather than opposing the bill outright.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 721 by Hall relating to prohibiting the disbursement of economic and tax incentives to entities
• business and commerce. 727 by Johnson relaying the creation of a small non-road engine purchase incentive
• Senate Bill 728 by Johnson relating to an incentive program to promote beverage container recycling to

Bills: SJR1, SJR2, SJR5, SJR33, SJR34, SJR35, SJR37, SJR38, SJR39, SCR12, SB4, SB40, SB701, SB702, SB703, SB704, SB705, SB706, SB707, SB708, SB709, SB710, SB711, SB712, SB713, SB714, SB715, SB716, SB717, SB718, SB719, SB720, SB721, SB722, SB723, SB724, SB725, SB726, SB727, SB728, SB729, SB730, SB731, SB732, SB733, SB734, SB735, SB736, SB737, SB738, SB739, SB740, SB741, SB742, SB743, SB744, SB745, SB746, SB747, SB748, SB749, SB750, SB751, SB752, SB753, SB754, SB755, SB756, SB757, SB758, SB759, SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764, SB765, SB766, SB767, SB768, SB769, SB770, SB771, SB772, SB773, SB774, SB775, SB776, SB777, SB778, SB779, SB780, SB781, SB782, SB783, SB784, SB785, SB786, SB787, SB788, SB789, SB790, SB791, SB792, SB793, SB794, SB795, SB796, SB797, SB798, SB799, SB800, SB801, SB802, SB803, SB804, SB805, SB806, SB807, SB808, SB809, SB810, SB811, SB812, SB813, SB814, SB815, SB816, SB817, SB818, SB819, SB820, SB821, SB822, SB823, SB824, SB825, SJR1, SJR2, SJR5, SJR33, SJR34, SJR35, SJR37, SJR38, SJR39, SCR12, SB4, SB40, SB701, SB702, SB703, SB704, SB705, SB706, SB707, SB708, SB709, SB710, SB711, SB712, SB713, SB714, SB715, SB716, SB717, SB718, SB719, SB720, SB721, SB722, SB723, SB724, SB725, SB726, SB727, SB728, SB729, SB730, SB731, SB732, SB733, SB734, SB735, SB736, SB737, SB738, SB739, SB740, SB741, SB742, SB743, SB744, SB745, SB746, SB747, SB748, SB749, SB750, SB751, SB752, SB753, SB754, SB755, SB756, SB757, SB758, SB759, SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764, SB765, SB766, SB767, SB768, SB769, SB770, SB771, SB772, SB773, SB774, SB775, SB776, SB777, SB778, SB779, SB780, SB781, SB782, SB783, SB784, SB785, SB786, SB787, SB788, SB789, SB790, SB791, SB792, SB793, SB794, SB795, SB796, SB797, SB798, SB799, SB800, SB801, SB802, SB803, SB804, SB805, SB806, SB807, SB808, SB809, SB810, SB811, SB812, SB813, SB814, SB815, SB816, SB817, SB818, SB819, SB820, SB821, SB822, SB823, SB824, SB825

Keywords: bail denial, illegal aliens, felony offenses, constitutional amendment, law enforcement, SJR 2, Senate Joint Resolution 2, homestead exemption, property tax relief, school property tax, ad valorem tax, residence homestead, school district taxes, Texas Constitution Article VIII, public school finance, homeowner exemption, elderly exemption, senior tax relief, disabled exemption, tax year 2025

Transcript Highlights:

• Cineville. 721 by Hall relating to prohibiting the disbursement of certain economic and tax incentives
• Senate Bill 727 by Johnson relating to the creation of a small non-road engine purchase incentive program
• Senate Bill 728 by Johnson relating to an incentive program to promote beverage container recycling to

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's a real incentive for them to play by the rules.
• <03:46:14.279> for brought up about having an incentive for brought up about having an incentive
• I believe they have a financial incentive that creates a conflict of interest.
• I believe they have a financial incentive that creates a conflict of interest.
• <04:57:29.558> are<04:57:29.680> all incentives are all incentives are all there<04:57:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing and then an executive session on HB 650, a housekeeping-style bill from the Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds. Testimony explained that the bill would remove references to two already-repealed dedicated funds, split the state parks dedicated fund so Cannon Mountain winter activities would be tracked separately from the rest of the parks system, and place a $1 million cap on the robotics education fund so excess money would revert to the general fund. Supporters said the changes were mainly administrative but would improve accounting and avoid timing issues; committee members asked about a typographical error in the bill text and whether the measure was more than housekeeping. The committee later voted 16-0 to recommend HB 650 ought to pass, and then placed it on the consent calendar. The committee also opened a public hearing on HB 585, which would revise the property tax exemption for religious organizations. Representative John Janigian, the sponsor, said the bill was intended to help small churches and other religious groups that own parsonages or worship buildings but no longer have a resident pastor, allowing them to rent space or use property for church purposes without losing the exemption so long as the money is used for church operations, maintenance, or outreach. He described his Salem church’s parsonage being taxed after it was no longer occupied by a pastor, and said the bill would prevent similar burdens on small congregations. Former Representative Betty Gay testified in support, describing prior assessor actions in Salem that taxed church land and buildings very aggressively, while a Municipal Association representative testified in opposition. Committee members raised questions about how terms such as “regularly recognized and constituted denomination” would be defined, whether the bill could be applied consistently to larger denominations with multiple parishes, and whether legislative research should review past treatment of similar cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• Third, are state-supported financial incentives necessary to advance nuclear energy in Texas?
• This is the best state to build in, and if we can provide them a little bit of incentive, then we will
• For a multi-billion-dollar project like ours, the opportunity to seek incentives on the order of $100
• Are the feds giving any incentives like they do for solar, such as tax credits?
• I leave it to this body to figure out what those incentives look like, but I do think the state of Texas

Bills: SB1468, SB1612, SB1789, SB2530, SB2571, SB2717, SB2967

Keywords: utility systems, Texas A&M, regents authority, construction, improvement, construction contracts, trust funds, property rights, mechanics lien, contractors, trustee liability, mechanic's lien, liability, attorney's fees, windstorm insurance, Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, insurance regulation, administrative penalties, coastal counties, catastrophe year

Transcript Highlights:

• providers it stabilizes<00:03:53.640> existing<00:03:54.200> capacity<00:03:54.879> incentive
• stabilizes existing capacity incentive stabilizes existing capacity incentive and<00:03:55.519><
• it as a way, once again, I think it's a common-sense approach to try to bolster and provide that incentive
• <00:17:53.400> um<00:17:53.520> do<00:17:53.640> I provide that that incentive
• um do I provide that that incentive um do I think<00:17:53.960> that<00:17:54.120> a<00

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 633, which would provide property tax relief for in-home family child care providers. An amendment was adopted first that converted the bill from a state-paid credit into a 50% market value exclusion. The author explained the bill as a way to reduce property tax burdens on family child care homes, stabilize a shrinking sector, and help preserve child care capacity, especially in rural areas. He cited declining numbers of licensed providers, rising costs, and long-term losses in family child care slots. Public testimony was generally supportive. A family child care provider’s relief provider described rising costs for utilities, insurance, and taxes, and said home-based care remains important for families who do not want center-based care. A representative from Leading Care Public Policy said family child care is in crisis, emphasized the continuity and community connection of home-based care, and supported the bill as a way to equalize support for providers. Members also discussed the policy choice between a credit and an exclusion, with some arguing a credit would be more targeted and equitable, while the author said the exclusion was the most practical way to move the bill forward. House Research explained that because the bill is structured as an exclusion, most of the benefit would be shifted to other local taxpayers rather than paid by the state, though there could be a small state cost through increased property tax refunds. Members raised concerns that the exclusion would interact with homestead exclusions and might favor higher-value homes, while supporters argued it would directly lower costs for child care providers and could help expand capacity. The committee closed testimony and voted to re-refer House File 633, as amended, to the Committee on Taxes, where the motion prevailed.

Transcript Highlights:

• , including decarceration, increased visitation, racial diversity among the staff, and positive incentives
• /c> racial diversity among the staff racial diversity among the staff positive<00:23:14.320> incentives
• <00:23:15.320> there's<00:23:15.720> no<00:23:16.360> incentive positive incentives
• there's no incentive positive incentives there's no incentive in<00:23:17.880> in<00:23:18.640

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs met on January 29, 2025, and first took up deferred SB 259 on record keeping. The chair said Honu Police Department had submitted support, and the committee recommended passage with amendments, including a technical change to the effective date on page 4, line 6 to July 1, 2077. Vice Chair Elefante voted yes; Senators Fevella and Rhoads were excused; the recommendation was adopted. The committee then heard SB 603 and SB 608, both relating to veterans benefits consulting and compensation. The Attorney General’s office recommended amendments to address First Amendment, Contracts Clause, and savings-clause issues, and testimony was mixed, with several supporters from veterans-related organizations and several opponents, including some testifiers from the public and industry groups. The committee later adopted chair recommendations to pass both bills with amendments, including preambles about protecting veteran consumers from misleading or unfair practices, savings clauses, and effective-date changes to July 1, 2077. SB 601, relating to law enforcement search notices and securing entrances, drew support from the Office of the Public Defender and a private citizen who described the bill as a response to warrantless searches and a transparency measure; there was also opposition from Maui County police and one other testifier. The committee then moved to SB 871 on arson, where the Department of the Attorney General raised drafting and constitutional concerns and the Public Defender opposed the measure as vague, overbroad, and creating problematic sentencing provisions, while HPD supported it as a public-safety tool. The chair ultimately recommended SB 871 pass with amendments softening mandatory language, adding parole language, and changing the effective date to July 1, 2077; the recommendation was adopted. The final measures were SB 1130, exempting certain construction rebuilding materials from general excise tax in federally declared disaster areas, and SB 104, restricting solitary confinement in correctional facilities. The Department of Taxation requested third-party certification and a later effective date, and the committee adopted amendments reflecting those requests and moving the effective date to January 1, 2026. On SB 104, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation opposed the bill, citing staff assaults and existing policy updates, while the Oversight Commission, Public Defender, and multiple advocates supported it as a safeguard with oversight and due process protections. The committee passed SB 104 with amendments, including adopting the commission’s definition language, changing terminology to “restrictive housing,” and setting the effective date to July 1, 2077.

Transcript Highlights:

• eligible for the same types of incentive eligible for the same types of incentive programs<00:38
• that if we're we're giving an incentive that if we're we're giving an incentive to<00:38:42.480>
• giving an incentive to this form<00:38:47.079> too.
• incentives across the board. incentives across the board.
• Is there some kind of incentive peak.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• gives a tremendous Financial incentive gives a tremendous Financial incentive to<00:25:37.840>
• <00:26:27.399> or do not provide an incentive or do not provide an incentive or disincentive
• incentive incentive to<00:40:16.800> um<00:40:17.200> financially<00:40:18.280> to<
• you'd have the perverse incentives you'd have the perverse incentives because<00:59:22.000> the
• <01:39:12.960> in really serious perverse incentives in really serious perverse incentives

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• , particularly around the research and development tax incentive, which is something I have been talking
• So I think that weakening these incentives for investment, while they may generate...
• So I think that weakening these incentives for investment, while they may generate increases in revenue
• Additionally, implementing a permanent business credit limitation will weaken the important incentives
• greatly appreciate the increased allocations to students experiencing homelessness and to the CTE incentive

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders described as the compromise budget expected to move to the floor later that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core programs from federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget plan, saying it uses higher-than-expected revenues and reserve balances to reject some proposed reductions and fund temporary restorations and new spending in areas such as education, child care, health care, housing, homelessness, and public safety. Department of Finance representatives said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced framework and the effort to address out-year deficits, while noting the plan includes additional spending and revenue changes. Sisney also previewed floor bills including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125, with SB 122 described as a modification to the tax credit proposal and SB 125 as the managed care organization tax proposal. Subcommittee chairs then described the major policy choices in their areas. Health chair Addis said the budget responds to federal health care rollbacks by protecting Medi-Cal, clinics, hospitals, dental care, and other safety-net services, while also supporting reproductive care, gender-affirming care, and county health systems. Education chair Alvarez highlighted increased school funding, expanded learning, special education, teacher support, community colleges, and a change to Cal Grant eligibility for older community college students. Other chairs emphasized child care expansions, homelessness and housing funding, prison closure and criminal justice savings, wildfire mitigation, county support for Medi-Cal and CalFresh administration, and accountability measures tied to homelessness and corrections spending. Several members also raised concerns or priorities, including the impact of the MCO tax on providers, the need for more support for local journalism, transit and climate funding, biotech and R&D incentives, and continued work on Prop 98 and long-term revenue solutions. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided, but members broadly expressed support for the budget framework and the need to continue negotiations with the administration before final passage. The committee discussion repeatedly framed the budget as a response to federal policy changes and a choice to protect vulnerable Californians while maintaining fiscal responsibility. The vice chair, citing LAO warnings about future volatility and limited reserves, pressed Finance on whether the budget represented a record-sized state budget and whether revenues were also at record levels, underscoring concerns about the state’s preparedness for a downturn.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a without a tax incentive you do not have a film industry. They will not come.
• California right now is talking about a 35% tax incentive, and you're barely competitive at the 22%.
• um and I I understand you're incentive um and I I understand you're saying<00:46:55.520> that
• This is a without a tax incentive you do not have a film industry. They will not come.
• California right now is talking about a 35% tax incentive, and you're barely competitive at the 22%.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 422, relating to school impact fees. The Education Committee recommended passage with amendments, and Ways and Means concurred. The amendments would repeal the construction fee component of the school impact fee while retaining the land impact fee and in-lieu fee requirements, remove related statutory language, exempt certain developments from school impact fees, raise the unit threshold for satisfying the land component to 100 units, require the School Facilities Authority to adopt rules and policies, and require a report to the Legislature on the effect of repealing the construction portion of the fee. The measure was also given a sunset date of June 30, 2029, with the committee report to note that the changes are intended to test the efficiency and efficacy of the fee structure and could be made permanent if the report supports that outcome. The committees adopted the recommendation, with one senator initially voting no and then changing to yes after the amendments were explained. The meeting also included a separate hearing on House Bill 1155, concerning procurement for Department of Transportation projects and construction manager/general contractor procurement. DOT testified that it supported the concept but wanted to narrow the bill, saying the current language was too broad and that the goal was to allow more innovative procurement while preserving selection safeguards. The State Procurement Office said it supported the bill’s language but was willing to work with DOT on alternative wording. Several construction-related organizations, including subcontractors, iron workers, elevator constructors, and building trades representatives, opposed the bill, arguing that exemptions from the procurement code would weaken protections such as retainage, equality, and prompt payment and could invite favoritism or corruption. In response to those concerns, the chair proposed amendments limiting the exemption to DOT, narrowing the qualifying contracts, adding a two-year sunset, requiring a report after the first year, and clarifying that project management could not be procured under the section. The amended recommendation passed, though several members voted with reservations. A separate item, House Bill 476, was briefly called up at the end of the agenda, with a recommendation to pass with amendments to increase a rate from 7.25% to 8%, but discussion was not completed in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um how how incentives are marketplace.
• We do a lot of things on commercial payers, we do a lot of things on Medicare payers about incentives
• We do a lot of things on commercial payers, we do a lot of things on Medicare payers about incentives
• We do a lot of things on commercial payers, we do a lot of things on Medicare payers about incentives
• We do a lot of things on commercial payers, we do a lot of things on Medicare payers about incentives

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, and I totally agree, and I want to add too that that's why these incentives matter in terms of
• matter in terms of why these incentives matter in terms of enabling<01:15:44.640> people<01:15
• There's been some federal incentives.
• We have had legislation for state incentives, but they've never passed. So, I feel very marketed.
• use of incentive dollars than trying<01:47:00.080> to<01:47:00.320> create<01:47:01.679

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint informational briefing focused on the Hawaii Department of Transportation’s work under the Navah settlement, which was described as a first-of-its-kind climate agreement tied to the state’s constitutional public trust and clean-environment obligations. Speakers said the settlement was intended to accelerate progress toward Hawaii’s 2030 and 2045 clean energy goals, especially by addressing transportation, the state’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. They emphasized that the agreement formalizes milestones, reduces dependence on changing administrations, and includes a role for the legislature alongside the courts and executive branch. DOT and Earthjustice representatives outlined the main settlement deliverables: creation of a new Office of Energy Security and Community Outreach, formation of a youth council, and development of an emissions reduction plan that will be updated over time. They also highlighted a new project-level greenhouse gas/VMT scoring tool, described as the first of its kind in the nation for DOT-wide use, to evaluate the climate impact of transportation projects. The presentation tied these efforts to prior legislative actions, including the state’s climate emergency declaration, net-zero/net-negative targets, and Act 131’s requirements for multimodal network planning and emissions reporting. A substantial portion of the briefing was devoted to the youth council, which reported 20 members selected from 83 applicants, representation from across the islands, and work on bylaws, committees, and outreach. Youth members described feedback they gave on the energy security plan, a student leadership summit presentation, and future plans to meet with legislators and participate in the Climate Future Forum. DOT also said the settlement’s transportation strategies include clean fuels, electrification, aviation sustainable aviation fuel, marine shore power, and carbon sequestration, including expanded native tree planting and fire mitigation work. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the briefing. Members discussed implementation challenges, including cost and supply constraints for aviation and marine decarbonization, but DOT said industry stakeholders were not rejecting the goals, only raising affordability and timing concerns. Officials also noted that a GIS map for network gaps was in development and that the settlement’s pedestrian, bike, and transit connectivity requirement would compress roughly 15 years of work into five years, with an estimated annual commitment of $40 million to $50 million.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah. or even just market rate you know that incentive capital for them to realize those projects so
• And so there wasn't an incentive for communities. to fix their water loss, their leaky pipes.
• And did they come to y'all asking for an incentive?
• We want to make sure that we don't give an incentive for these bad actors.
• We want to make sure that we don't give an incentive for these bad actors to hoard our water.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it’s more of a retention kind of incentive? It’s more of a retention kind of incentive. It is.
• So that was the thought process behind it, and hopefully with an incentive to get to the six-year mark

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from Tom Franta, founding executive director of the Mountaineer Charter School Alliance. He described the new nonprofit’s goals of supporting West Virginia charter schools through advocacy, legal and compliance assistance, shared operational services, professional development, communications, and network-building. Franta emphasized that charter schools face major facility and financing challenges, and he urged use of existing public buildings, low-interest revolving loans, credit enhancement tools through the West Virginia Economic Development Authority, and federal matching funds to help level the playing field for charter schools, including both brick-and-mortar and virtual schools. Members asked about what he meant by “level the playing field,” and Franta said charter schools receive 99% of basic state aid but lack access to the full range of public education funding and dedicated facilities support, forcing them to divert dollars toward buildings rather than classrooms. He said the goal is to ensure parents choosing a public charter option can expect appropriate funding. After the presentation, the chair announced Senate Bill 171 was removed from the day’s agenda. The committee then considered Senate Bill 166, which creates an exception to West Virginia Invest grant eligibility so individuals who already have a post-secondary degree may still receive support if pursuing an associate degree or certificate in emergency medical services. The committee reported the bill to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass, and under the original double committee reference, first be referred to the Finance Committee. Next, the committee took up Senate Bill 428, with a committee substitute that splits the bus operator title into three pay grades based on years of service and raises the cafeteria manager title from pay grade D to E. Senators asked whether duties would change; counsel and the sponsor said the bill is intended as a retention incentive, with no change in responsibilities, and that the fiscal note would remain the same. The committee adopted the committee substitute and then reported the bill to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation, again first referring it to the Finance Committee. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• , ADU, which would give incentives, ADU, which would give incentives, especially<01:11:45.280>
• Reed's amendment offers an incentive for municipalities to consider allowing that second ADU.
• Reed's amendment offers an incentive for municipalities to consider allowing that second ADU.
• Have you used any incentives? Have you actually built anything?
• We do think incentives have a place in this conversation.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first took up House Bill 1598 and an amendment, 2026-0463H. Elliott Barry and Nick Norman testified that the amendment reflected a hard-fought compromise balancing concerns from all sides, and they urged no further changes. With no questions from members, the subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend the bill with the amendment to the full committee, 3-0, and closed the subcommittee. The housing committee then moved through several executive session bills. HB 1010 was amended with 2026-0274H, described as clarifying and implementing prior housing law (HB 631) governing residential units above office and retail space; the amendment was adopted unanimously and the bill was reported ought to pass as amended on a 17-0 vote and placed on consent. HB 65 was then voted ought to pass and also placed on consent, with members saying it was duplicative of the compromise reached on HB 1010. HB 1349 was reconsidered for a clarifying vote and again received unanimous support for its prior disposition, 17-0, and was placed on consent. The committee next took up HB 1523, which concerned homeowners associations. An amendment, 2026-0380H, removed Section 5’s Attorney General enforcement mechanism, added HOA conflict-of-interest approval language, and delayed the effective date to give stakeholders more time; it was adopted unanimously. The bill then passed 18-0 as amended and was put on consent. The committee also voted ITL on CACR 16, a constitutional amendment related to sleeping or homelessness issues, after debate over unintended consequences and whether it protected a basic right; the vote was 10-8, with a majority report assigned and a minority report to be written. Later, HB 108, dealing with inclusionary zoning, was voted ITL 10-8 after members argued the bill imposed unrealistic burdens and could halt development; a minority report was noted with amendment 0149H. HB 7, concerning ADUs and restrictive covenants, was also voted ITL 10-8 after discussion of unintended consequences and a proposed amendment to encourage second ADUs; it was sent to the regular calendar with a minority report and amendment 0289H. HB 1120, on water-related subdivision requirements, was ITL’d 17-1 and placed on consent, with one member noting a study amendment had been offered. HB 1143, addressing housing-provider obligations and municipal enforcement powers, was ITL’d 17-1 and placed on consent. Finally, HB 1145, a fee/tax proposal tied to housing development, was ITL’d 11-7; members debated whether it would discourage development, and a minority report was assigned.

Transcript Highlights:

• long-term property tax exemption for qualifying multifamily projects, this bill creates a meaningful incentive
• Predictable, structured incentives like these outlined in Senate Bill 283 help projects pencil in markets
• And I understand, okay, there's an incentive, and there's a zoning aspect, and it could all happen.
• bit, but I am concerned that it's not getting where you want to go because it creates a reverse incentive
• To go because it creates a reverse incentive in my mind. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sherer.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That means what we're doing is we're using this as a new recruitment incentive.
• governments that are trying to recruit those good jobs into our communities, and making sure that our incentive
• So that's why we think this is a very important opportunity for us to enhance our existing strong incentive
• fusion economy participants, the state has an opportunity to strengthen existing tax and financial incentives
• States are offering a lot of different incentives across markets.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 1076, Addis, Cal-ABLE program: due pass as amended to strike financial incentive provision and make
• AB 1045, Avila Farías, CSU and UC service learning: do pass with amendments to make financial incentives
• AB 1045, Avila Farías, CSU and UC service learning: do pass with amendments to make financial incentives
• AB 674, Connolly, vehicle incentives: hold in committee.
• AB 401, Martucci, Career Technical Education Incentive Grants: holding committee.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee held its May 23, 2025 suspense hearing and opened by emphasizing the difficult budget environment, rising costs for constituents, and the need to make tough choices. The chair said many bills would be held, amended to reduce costs, or made two-year bills because the state could not afford broad program expansions this year. The committee also noted the agenda was organized alphabetically by author and that results would be posted later that day. The committee then acted on a large suspense file, taking up hundreds of Assembly bills across topics including housing, health care, education, labor, public safety, climate, water, transportation, elections, and technology. Many bills were held in committee, while many others were approved with cost-saving, clarifying, or author’s amendments. Examples included measures on CalABLE, Covered California enrollment, wildfire and insurance issues, reproductive health, school and college programs, prison and juvenile justice matters, AI and data privacy, and local government and utility regulation. Several bills were converted to two-year bills to continue discussion. Throughout the hearing, the committee repeatedly voted on bills by A roll call or B roll call, often with Republicans not voting on amended measures. Some bills were advanced with notable amendments, such as narrowing scope, removing appropriations, delaying implementation, or striking costly provisions. The committee also approved a number of committee bills and omnibus measures, including emergency management, judiciary, insurance, and water-related bills. At the end of the hearing, the chair stated that the committee had moved 435 bills to the Assembly floor, either as do pass or do pass as amended, and adjourned the meeting.