Transcript Highlights:

• appropriation bonds.
• system um uh and uh appropriation bonds system um uh and uh appropriation bonds uh<00:35:11.680>
• Andrew Lee, is that if we were to bond for appropriation bonds of $394 million, that's going to be $32
• Andrew Lee, is that if we were to bond for appropriation bonds of $394 million, that's going to be $32
• that we might not even have a bonding that we might not even have a bonding build<00:51:06.240><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• In some bond elections, Texas voters reject bond propositions placed on a ballot by their local governments
• approved as a general obligation bond.
• Are bonds only anticipation notes or do bonds include Both types.
• So a bond is a certificate of obligation or a general obligation bond.
• of the bond?

Transcript Highlights:

• And the bonded dollars are GO, general obligation bonds. "General obligation bonds, right."
• obligation bonds. obligation bonds.
• 08.680> bonds<00:50:09.040> and Bond Bank handles municipal bonds and Bond Bank handles
• municipal bonds and other<00:50:09.440> bonds.
• issue their bonds and pay their bonds issue their bonds and pay their bonds and<00:56:39.960>

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• bonding or our debt service limit.
• bonding or our debt service limit.
• bonding or our debt service limit.
• bonding or our debt service limit.
• bonding or our debt service limit.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So the CHIS is our all-payer claims database, and because of Supreme Court law, we are not—our president
• So the CHIZ is our allpayer<00:13:43.519> claims<00:13:43.920> database<00:13:44.880>
• > and<00:13:45.519> um<00:13:45.680> because allpayer claims database and um because
• allpayer claims database and um because of<00:13:46.320> Supreme<00:13:46.720> Court<00
• >> That's the LPAR claims database. So, it's the comprehensive health information system, maybe.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began by discussing 15 retained bills and the chair’s preference to keep them alive through interim study rather than kill them, using them as vehicles for further discussion and possible later amendments. The chair said the bills would be executed out by November and then move to the House floor in January, and members generally agreed that interim study was the prevailing motion for the retained bills. Several health-related bills were then discussed. On Senate Bill 247, concerning pharmacy network exclusion when PBM reimbursement is below acquisition cost, members said the issue had been presented differently in prior discussions and noted unfamiliar intermediaries such as PSAOs; the bill was viewed as too complex to resolve immediately, so interim study was favored. A bill on treatment alternatives to opiates was said to need an amendment from the Insurance Department, and a bill on self-funded employer access to claims data was described as having changed substantially through amendment; the sponsor explained it was intended to incentivize self-funded plans to opt into the state’s all-payer claims database (CHIS) so their data could be used for cost analysis, and members indicated a separate bill would be brought later. The committee spent the most time on a glucose monitoring bill, with testimony from a sponsor and a parent of a type 1 diabetic describing the medical benefits of continuous glucose monitors, especially for preventing dangerous lows and managing fluctuations. Opponents and committee members raised concerns about the cost of a mandate, the effect on premiums in the individual and small-group markets, and whether the bill should require coverage without a prescription; one member cited medical literature suggesting limited evidence for non-insulin users. The chair concluded the bill was headed to interim study and said the committee would do further homework on the economic impact, especially for type 1 coverage. The meeting then moved on to a bill about insurer audits and clawbacks, where the Insurance Department commissioner explained that the issue involved several separate provider-payment problems that had recently come to the department’s attention and that the department would provide a report and work with the sponsor on next steps.

Transcript Highlights:

• They either issue the bonds and make loans from those bonds, or they bring all their issuances together
• And this is a 2025 bond issue.
• who's going to underwrite the bond.
• So our bonds have a 10-year call.
• to pay off bonds.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, they are bonded and the bonding company, if these bonds aren't paid, they're going to start seizing
• , if these bonds and the bonding company, if these bonds aren't<00:05:19.759> paid,<00:05:20.240
• impair or invalidate leans or bonds. impair or invalidate leans or bonds.
• issue refunding bonds. issue refunding bonds.
• with interest of bond holders. with interest of bond holders.

Keywords: Energy - Room 409, 3 March, 2026; 1:30 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 1049, which was explained as a House vehicle used to insert two previously introduced Senate bills: the rural water oversight committee bill and a measure expanding PSC authority to reject certain certificated areas for municipalities serving customers more than one mile outside city limits, with water utilities added to the existing electric utility language. The committee adopted the strike-off amendment and then passed the amended bill, which was reported out. Next, House Bill 1305 was taken up. The bill would expand oversight of municipally owned electrical distribution systems by allowing the Public Service Commission to conduct audits, but it included a reverse repealer because further work was still needed. The sponsor said he wanted to ensure systems that do not need auditing are not unnecessarily included. The committee adopted the strike-off amendment and then reported the bill. The final and most detailed item was a bill creating the Metro Jackson Water Authority. The sponsor described it as a response to Jackson’s water crisis and warned that without action the city could face bankruptcy and bondholder enforcement. The bill would create a new authority covering Jackson water and wastewater service areas, establish a board with appointments by the mayor, governor, lieutenant governor, and others, transfer operations when the court-ordered process ends, and give the authority powers over rates, contracts, bonds, procurement, reporting, and related financial matters. A committee member asked whether population-based language would capture any city other than Jackson; the sponsor said Jackson is the only city over 100,000 population and acknowledged a drafting issue, noting the reverse repealer was included because the bill was not yet perfect. After the strike-off was adopted, the committee voted to report the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• or a PR bond.
• He had to grant a cash bond.
• We had a defendant who was on a $150,000 bond. bond for capital murder that was now charged with another
• Galveston County and posted bond.
• He was out on bonds posting $1,650. $50,000 because he also was on bond for aggravated robbery in Fort

Bills: SJR2, SB4, SJR36, SJR2, SB4, SR42, SR74, SR76, HCR5, SB710, SB710

Keywords: SJR 2, Senate Joint Resolution 2, constitutional amendment, 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, voter approval, November 2025 ballot, local government, Ways & Means

Transcript Highlights:

• other agency from cancelling bonding other agency from cancelling bonding dollars<00:26:36.640><
• standard and pores uh around bond standard and pores uh around bond issuances.
• credit to housing infrastructure bonds credit to housing infrastructure bonds uh<00:58:31.920>
• thing I believe as trunk highway bonds. thing I believe as trunk highway bonds.
• highway bonds. highway bonds. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so it's really important that we get this bonding authority in place.
• and to support the debt service on the bonding.
• I'm sure you remember how important it was that we added that amendment tying bonding projects, new bonding
• So the bond, the way it's set Up, the bond revenues will replace the road funds in the identified STIP
• Chairman, is lose all the state road fund to this bonding project.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They do use the state's bonding rating, bonded rating.
• was funded with bond proceeds either to defease bonds or for capital improvements.
• It's any bond issue.
• It's any bond issue.
• , I don't like bonds.

Bills: HB2016, HB2104, HB2105, HB2174, HB2256, HB2289, HB2477, HB2903, HB2939, HB2979, HB2996, HB4103

Keywords: tax penalties, filing, tax returns, administration, Arizona Revised Statutes, agricultural property, classification, county assessor, property inspection, appeal process, property tax, agricultural classification, Department of Revenue, property valuation, inspection notice, inspection report, on-site inspection, full cash value, rural land, farm land

Summary: The committee first approved the March 9, 2026 minutes and held House Bills 29 and 2939 at the sponsor’s request. It then took up House Bill 2016, which would eliminate the late-filing penalty for taxpayers with zero income tax liability; after discussion about whether taxpayers still need to file to establish that they owe nothing, the committee adopted an amendment narrowing the bill to income tax filers and passed the bill 4-3. The Department of Revenue said it was neutral on the bill but supported the amendment. The committee next heard House Bill 2289, which updates the property-value examples used in bond/override election pamphlets and truth-in-taxation notices from older low values to $300,000. Supporters said the figures are outdated and should better reflect current home values; opponents questioned whether $300,000 was the best benchmark and whether adding another example would confuse voters. The bill passed 4-3. The committee also approved House Bill 4103, which bars school districts from calling bond elections if enrollment is below 50% of capacity. Supporters argued districts should use or monetize excess space before asking taxpayers for more debt, while school administrators and others said the measure would block needed maintenance, safety upgrades, and local decision-making. It passed 4-3. Two related agricultural property bills, House Bills 2104 and 2105, were both amended and passed 4-3. HB 2104 creates a four-year period after a successful agricultural property tax appeal during which assessors generally may not reclassify or reinspect the property absent changes in use, ownership, splits, or improvements. HB 2105 requires advance notice of inspections and inspection reports and provides a three-year inspection exemption after the most recent inspection, with similar exceptions. Farm and ranch groups said the bills provide fairness and certainty after successful appeals; county assessors opposed them as limiting oversight and creating unequal treatment. The committee also passed House Bill 2256 unanimously, which sets notice and title procedures for salvage auction dealers when insurance claims are denied or unpaid, and House Bill 2979 unanimously, which updates credit union regulatory timelines and procedures. Later, the committee passed House Bill 2996 unanimously, clarifying that certificates of insurance are informational only and cannot expand coverage or rights, with penalties for misrepresentations. It also heard House Bill 2174, which renames and updates regulation of insurance modeling and data organizations, requires model filings, and revises related reinsurance provisions; the discussion focused on how DIFI would regulate models versus the companies that create them, but no vote was taken in the portion provided. Finally, House Bill 2477 was introduced to conform Arizona’s 529 plan to federal law by increasing the K-12 withdrawal limit to $20,000, adding post-secondary credentialing expenses, and allowing rollovers to ABLE accounts and Roth IRAs if requirements are met; the sponsor and Treasurer’s Office supported it as a cleanup/conformity measure, and discussion began on how the new rollover options would work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Sandy passing a bonding bill?
• <00:04:09.519> proposals look at some of the bonding proposals look at some of the bonding
• money would go into bonding this year. money would go into bonding this year.
• >> Yes, it can because this is the bonding >> Yes, it can because this is the bonding
• are, you know, there's um four bonding are, you know, there's um four bonding leads<00:09:06.320

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't say that the bonds—the bonds—the tax can still be imposed even past when the bonds are paid
• is paid off and in future bonds.
• The bonds are still being paid off.
• To only cover the bonds.
• used to pay the bonds.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:10.080> bill this year to pass that bonding bill this year to pass that bonding bill
• midnight to go here's the bonding bill. midnight to go here's the bonding bill.
• say and this is it, the bonding bill. say and this is it, the bonding bill.
• <00:19:44.799> bill<00:19:45.039> for standalone bonding bill for standalone bonding
• certainly since we didn't get a bonding certainly since we didn't get a bonding bill<00:20:28.960

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Baby bonds are a powerful tool to help address these challenges.
• Bonds, something that interests me, I guess.
• And baby bonds, as I mentioned, would not be an asset.
• No, the trust is the entire corpus of the baby bonds money, right?
• Baby bonds are significant government investments.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on a proposed Massachusetts baby bonds program, including H. 3429, S. 2146, and the Treasurer’s related bill H. 48. Treasurer Goldberg and a broad coalition of advocates, researchers, health professionals, and people with lived experience said the program would create trust accounts for children born into low-income families or in DCF custody, with funds available at age 18 for education, homeownership, business startup, or other long-term asset-building uses. Supporters argued the program would help close the racial wealth gap, improve economic mobility, and not affect eligibility for financial aid or public benefits. Committee members asked about administration, investment returns, eligibility, and withdrawal rules; the Treasurer said the accounts would be held in trust and managed by her office with an advisory board, with funds accessible at 18 and usable through age 35 if the beneficiary remains a Massachusetts resident. No vote was taken during the testimony shown. The committee also heard testimony on legislation establishing Lobular Breast Cancer Awareness Day, including S. 2666 and H. 4625. Senator Ross, Representative Badger, physicians, survivors, and advocates described invasive lobular carcinoma as difficult to detect because it often grows in lines rather than forming a lump, can be missed on mammography, and is underfunded and underrepresented in research and clinical trials. Witnesses said the bill would codify an annual October 15 proclamation to raise awareness, improve diagnosis, and encourage more targeted research and treatment. Committee members asked why the disease is so hard to detect, and medical witnesses explained the imaging challenges and the lack of lobular-specific protocols. The witnesses urged favorable reports. The committee then took testimony on H. 4648, a bill concerning the purchase or lease of Fenn Farm in Stockbridge by the Stockbridge-Munsee community. Representative Davis, the Stockbridge Land Trust president, and the tribal president testified that the bill would remove a conservation restriction tied to a state MVP grant so the tribe could manage the land without a restriction that they said would conflict with tribal sovereignty and Indigenous stewardship practices. They said the parcel is a sacred site connected to Monument Mountain and that the restriction is unnecessary because the land is already surrounded by conserved property. The witnesses asked for favorable action on the bill. Finally, the committee heard testimony on H. 3416, a resolution urging Congress to create a national infrastructure bank. Representative Senna and several advocates argued that an off-budget infrastructure bank could finance major repairs and upgrades to roads, bridges, rail, water systems, broadband, and housing without adding to the state budget, while creating jobs and supporting economic growth. Witnesses cited historical precedents for national infrastructure banks and said Massachusetts could benefit substantially from such a program. The transcript shown does not include a committee vote or final action on the resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, it's, and that $1.3 million was in, I think, a previous bond bill.
• So this is the bond cap credit, not special obligation bonds.
• from the GO bonds.
• Certainly, if you're adding special obligation bonds, they'll look at the special obligation bonds and
• Bonds would be issued, so it's not a one-and-done.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, State Assets, and Capital Expenditures held its first public hearing on House Bill 4257, a transportation bonding bill. The administration testified in support, describing the bill as a $1.185 billion authorization: $300 million for Chapter 90 municipal road funding and $885 million for statewide transportation capital programs. Officials said the bill would increase municipal aid by 50%, with $200 million distributed under the traditional Chapter 90 formula and $100 million based solely on road mileage to better help rural communities. They also highlighted $500 million for bridge and pavement lifecycle asset management, $200 million for culverts and small bridges, and $185 million for congestion, safety, ADA, sidewalk, and multimodal improvements. Committee members asked about how municipalities would apply, how the road-mile formula would affect rural towns, and how the bill would interact with federal funding uncertainty and debt financing. Administration witnesses explained that projects would be administered through MassDOT district offices and Grant Central, that the bill would not backfill rescinded federal funds, and that the proposal would likely use special obligation bonds backed by Fair Share revenues to reduce pressure on the Commonwealth’s general obligation debt limit. Members also pressed the administration on the shift from general obligation to special obligation financing and on whether the Chapter 90 increase keeps pace with inflation. Administration officials said the special obligation structure would be credit-rated separately and was intended to expand available capital without affecting the GO bond cap, while acknowledging that the Commonwealth’s debt portfolio would grow. They said the Chapter 90 increase would roughly restore purchasing power lost since 2012, though construction inflation has outpaced general inflation. Several members and witnesses emphasized the importance of the road-mile formula for rural communities and the need for technical assistance for small towns. The Massachusetts Municipal Association testified in strong support of the bill, calling Chapter 90 and the new infrastructure authorizations critical for cities and towns facing federal uncertainty and rising costs. The Massachusetts Aggregate and Asphalt Pavement Association also supported the bill, citing the importance of the funding for road and bridge work, the construction season, and the industry’s economic impact. A committee member asked about asphalt price inflation, and the witness said liquid asphalt costs rose sharply after COVID, including increases of around 20% in some years. At the end of the hearing, the chair said members would receive a poll by email to move the bill out quickly, and the committee then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is to directly appropriate climate bond funding for the purposes specified in the bond, in
• Throughout the rest of the bond, the funds go to a department.
• On the other hand, most of the bonds had the exemption written into it.
• bond counsel.
• Backfilling reduces the amount of progress we've made with the bond.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the administration’s spending plan for Proposition 4’s climate smart agriculture and biodiversity chapters, along with related trailer bill language. CDFA outlined proposed funding for existing programs such as SWEEP, Healthy Soils, Urban Agriculture, and invasive species work, plus new or phased-in programs including year-round and mobile farmers’ markets, tribal food sovereignty, and regional farm equipment sharing. The Department of Conservation described funding for the California Farmland Conservancy Program and Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program, while the Department of Finance and LAO discussed pending allocations and generally found the overall approach reasonable, though LAO suggested the Legislature may want more statutory guidance and reporting, especially for new programs. Members focused on implementation details, equity, and accountability. Questions covered how programs would serve vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, whether new solicitations would be reopened for previously oversubscribed grants, how outcomes are tracked, and how to structure guidance for new programs such as farm equipment sharing. The chair emphasized that the Legislature wants clearer direction on program design and noted that AB 2313 should guide implementation of the regional farm equipment sharing allocation. The committee also discussed the administration’s request to directly appropriate bond funds to departments and to exempt bond program guidelines from the Administrative Procedures Act; LAO supported the APA exemption with possible legislative guardrails for public notice and comment. The committee then heard on the farm-to-school proposal, with CDFA requesting $24.9 million General Fund for incubator grants, technical assistance, and network support. CDFA said the program has reached nearly half of California schoolchildren and has shown strong demand and positive evaluation results. LAO supported the core program but recommended rejecting the $3 million technical assistance component as too broad and suggested the Legislature consider using Proposition 98 for some of the funding. Members debated that point, with some expressing concern about using General Fund dollars for a new discretionary request during a tight budget year. The biodiversity and nature-based solutions chapter included funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, state conservancies, and tribal nature-based solutions. WCB described major recent investments and proposed projects tied to 30 by 30, habitat restoration, tribal partnerships, and public access. Members raised concerns about long-term stewardship, the size of the WCB allocation, and whether the Legislature should receive more detail on how funds will be distributed. The committee also heard requests for Bolsa Chica wetlands maintenance and Rincon Island decommissioning funding from the State Lands Commission, with members questioning long-term liability, remediation costs, and the role of private oil operators. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with public comment from stakeholders largely supporting the APA exemption, farm-to-school funding, biodiversity investments, and related conservation programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Every year should be a bonding year. Every year should be a bonding year.
• in appropriation bonds for lead service<00:08:48.880> lines.
• dollars in appropriation bonds to be in dollars in appropriation bonds to be in the<00:09:25.040>
• <00:09:45.640> as cash or appropriation bonds as cash or appropriation bonds as Senator<00
• probably won't be a bonding bill.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House and Senate capital investment leaders held a public discussion focused primarily on lead service line removal and the need for a new bonding bill. Rep. Fue Lee and Chair Jeff Franzen said Minnesota’s existing state and federal lead-line funds will be exhausted by the 2026 construction season, warning that without action there would be no lead removal program in 2027. They framed the issue as a bipartisan public health and infrastructure priority, emphasizing that no amount of lead is safe and that regular capital investment is needed to keep communities moving forward. Testimony from Raquel Vasquez of St. Paul Regional Water Services, Bradley Peterson of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, and Joel Smith of LiUNA Minnesota and North Dakota described the scale of the problem and the progress made so far. Vasquez said St. Paul’s pilot program is working, with costs coming down and about 6,000 of roughly 26,000 local lead service lines expected to be replaced by the end of the season, but warned that 18,000 to 20,000 would remain without more funding. Peterson said there are about 100,000 known lead service lines statewide and more than 200,000 still being assessed, with replacement costs averaging $10,000 to $15,000 per line. Smith stressed that funding gaps would stall momentum, leave at least 90,000 lead pipes in the ground, and cost the state thousands of union jobs. In response to questions, Sen. Sandy Pappas said she supports including $100 million in appropriation bonds for lead service lines in the Senate bonding proposal, while acknowledging the need is closer to $250 million. House leaders said they were discussing the size and contents of the bonding bill and were considering both general fund cash and appropriation bonds, with affordability for homeowners a key concern. The chairs also discussed broader bonding priorities, including other water, sewer, road, and facility projects, and noted that decisions would depend on whether leadership can reach agreement on a final bonding package before the end of session.

Transcript Highlights:

• On those criminal cases where we do not allow a personal bond, they still can set up a bond to get out
• a hundred dollar bond was appropriate then they can certainly set that.
• They can set a dollar bond I suppose or they may choose to set a $50,000 dollar bond because they're
• And he was let out of bond, low bond, so he got out of the low bond and guess what?
• Is the money going back to the whoever or whatever entity posted the bond?

Bills: SJR1, SB9, SB40, SJR36, SJR1, SJR5, SB9, SB40, SJR1, SB9, SB40, SR62, SR92, SR95, SR108, SR110, SR111, SR113, SR114, SR117, SR120, SB314, SB314

Keywords: bail denial, illegal aliens, felony offenses, constitutional amendment, law enforcement, bail reform, defendants, pretrial detention, public safety, criminal justice, charitable bail organizations, bail bonds, public funds, political subdivision, injunctive relief, taxpayer rights, bail, criminal justice reform, El Paso, economic development

Transcript Highlights:

• What most school districts do is they hire bond counsel, and bond counsel offers all of it.
• You're just getting bond counsel handling it all.
• You said current law they can wrap the fee into the bond, but what if the bond fails?
• I want to understand the context of how the current structure works when a bond fails, how bond counsel
• did have to pay for the bond counsel.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several education-related bills. HB 2318 would impose term limits on school district governing board members in districts with at least 250 students, with a four-year break before a former member could run again; the sponsor said it was meant to bring in new ideas after problems in a district, while opponents argued voters should decide and raised concerns about the timing of the change. It passed on a 6-5 vote. HB 2312 would allow certain federally recognized patriotic youth groups to address students during school hours and require equal access for such groups; supporters framed it as a way to expand youth opportunities, while opponents objected to use of instructional time. It also received a due pass recommendation on a 6-5 vote. HB 2320 would require school districts to hire an independent municipal advisor before calling a bond election and, if successful, for each bond issue. The sponsor argued this would lower underwriting fees and save taxpayers money, citing data showing lower average fees when advisors were used; testimony from the Arizona Tax Research Association and a school accountability group supported the bill, while members raised questions about costs if a bond fails and about how public information is presented. The bill passed 7-3 with two present votes. HB 2376 would prohibit districts from buying or leasing school property when an operating charter or private school is on the site, aimed at preventing a district from using a purchase to manipulate enrollment counts and trigger state construction funding; members debated whether the underlying allegation was hearsay, but the bill passed 7-5. HB 2378 would tighten conflict-of-interest rules for the School Facilities Oversight Board by barring the architect and engineer members from having school-construction business. The sponsor said it was prompted by a reported conflict involving Tolleson Union and a board chair’s firm; some members supported the ethics rationale while others said the bill did not address broader issues, and it passed 8-4. HB 2379 would require school district governing board members to complete biennial training on duties and responsibilities, with county superintendents required to offer the training and ADE as a backstop; the committee adopted an amendment making county training mandatory and allowing intergovernmental agreements, and the bill passed 7-5 after debate over unfunded mandates, whether ASBA should be included, and whether charter boards should also be covered. Finally, HB 2380 would require board and subcommittee meetings to be held in-district, keep meeting materials online for five years, and require prior approval for out-of-state travel or later ratification with possible reimbursement; rural school representatives warned it could hinder regional collaboration and create administrative burdens, and discussion continued on how to preserve executive-session confidentiality and public access.