Transcript Highlights:

• The bill permits courts to award exemplary damages of at least $500 and ensures the prevailing party.
• In civil actions, individuals may recover attorney fees and court costs, and the bill includes a clear
• the definition of Texas wine and creates another avenue for additional wineries to qualify for the permit
• Permits or licenses are required for eligibility.
• , authorizing a fee of $33.85.

Bills: HB220, HB783, HB2240, HB3336, HB4202, HB4449, HB4904, HB3441, HB4284

Keywords: sexual assault, healthcare facilities, forensic examination, survivor support, emergency contraceptive, online impersonation, civil liability, social media, identity theft, defamation, counseling damages, injunctive relief, public health, safety regulations, community health, state standards, healthcare access, HB 3336, alcoholic beverage tax credit, spent grain

Transcript Highlights:

• And five, permit members to record a vote in the journal on individual amendments included in a motion
• evaluate this tax, study whether they have to pay it, and incur the fees related to that. and for compliance
• Board of Directors or for the Committee on Natural Resources. by vote relating to the collection of fees
• AB 4433 by Dean Ehrling. to the requirements of obtaining an inter-basin water transfer permit from the
• If you 4450 by Johnson relating to the procedures of approving certain projects and permits of occasions

Bills: HJR1, HJR2, HB9, HB22, HB908, HB1392, HB195, HB 13, HB143, HB135, HJR1, HJR2, HB9, HB22, HB908, HB1392

Keywords: constitutional amendment, property tax, ad valorem tax, tax exemption, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property, equipment exemption, machinery, local government finance, school district revenue, county taxes, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax relief, commercial property, death tax, inheritance tax, estate tax, property transfer

Transcript Highlights:

• Some fees date back to 1959, while the most recent fee adjustments for some programs were made in 2013
• Some fees date back to 1959, while the most recent fee adjustments for some programs were made in 2013
• We commissioned an independent fee study to demonstrate in detail appropriate fee recommendations for
• So our rationale for the... ...limited fee approval.
• So the fees reference refers to examination fees as they are charged every four years based on our statute

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee 5 on State Administration heard presentations from Go-Biz and the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation on the Governor’s budget proposals. Go-Biz described California Jobs First, the state’s 10-year economic development strategy, and emphasized support for small businesses, workforce development, and targeted investment in sectors such as ag tech, life sciences, semiconductors, and advanced manufacturing. Members raised concerns about federal policy changes, tariffs, tourism, housing, child care, and whether state incentives are truly additive; Go-Biz responded that it tracks federal actions closely, works with chambers and advocates, and uses programs like California Competes to target jobs that would not otherwise come to California. The committee then reviewed the proposal to restore the California Competes grant program with $60 million. Go-Biz said the grant would help businesses that cannot use the nonrefundable tax credit, and explained the program’s five-year contracts, milestone-based awards, and recapture provisions. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the grant could be effective but recommended stronger oversight and clearer eligibility criteria, while also noting the 30% cap in trailer bill language may be too restrictive given the smaller funding level. Public testimony supported the grant and suggested considering refundability or transferability for the tax credit to broaden access for smaller and startup businesses. Members also heard the CHIPS-related proposal for $25 million to support Natcast’s semiconductor design and collaboration facility in Sunnyvale. Go-Biz and public witnesses argued the state investment would help secure a major federal research facility, retain engineering talent, and leverage billions in broader investment, while the LAO recommended rejecting the item because of its dependence on uncertain federal funding and the state’s budget condition. The committee also considered a $17 million continuation of CA RISE, which supports employment social enterprises; Go-Biz and several grantees cited strong job placement and workforce outcomes, while the LAO recommended rejection absent a more rigorous evaluation, noting prior LA RISE evidence did not show long-term employment gains. Finally, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation presented budget requests for IT security and rent increases, and a trailer bill to raise fees across several programs. DFPI said decades-old fee schedules, inflation, and new regulatory responsibilities have created a structural deficit and warned the department could face insolvency without adjustments. The LAO recommended approving the fee increases only on a three-year limited-term basis and asked for more detailed revenue plans for programs not covered by the proposal, so the Legislature can assess actual collections and market impacts before making the changes permanent.

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides statutory support for DEES's current rules by requiring applicants for landfill permits to
• to provide detailed for landfill permits to provide detailed lee<00:06:09.919> management lee
• <00:08:36.159> Uh put in the paperwork for the permit.
• Uh put in the paperwork for the permit.
• <01:32:14.400> So License fees of $12 million a year.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , which the state's renewal of that fee is currently before the federal administration.
• fees or substantially increasing pre-existing fees, and it does not grant any fee waivers and requires
• all appropriate fees be paid.
• It makes permanent the new market tax credit that permits investors to receive tax credits for making
• It eliminates Medicaid enrollment fees or premiums for expansion population adults.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Vehicle registration costs, building inspections, permits, and recreation fees have all dramatically
• So, we are having to cover car registrations, building permit fees, the recreation department, any kind
• <00:41:27.200> fees,<00:41:28.079> the registrations, building permit fees, the registrations
• , building permit fees, the recreation<00:41:28.960> department,<00:41:29.680> any<00:41
• conditional use permit? conditional use permit?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee convened for a day of public hearings on nine bills, with plans to later execute several early bills and possibly additional measures under House Rule 44. Chair Diane Pauer outlined time limits for sponsors and testimony, announced a lunch break around noon, and noted substitute members would be arriving later. The first hearing was on House Bill 1107, which would allow municipal budget committees to have one to three alternate members. Representative Valon, the prime sponsor, said the bill was intended to help towns like Epping deal with quorum problems during the compressed budget season and noted that alternates are common on other local boards. The New Hampshire Municipal Association testified in support, saying the bill would increase flexibility and help fill seats. Committee members raised concerns about whether alternates should be elected, how they would be selected, whether they would be sufficiently informed to vote, and whether the bill’s one-year term language and rescission provisions were clear. The sponsor and NHMA said the process would be consistent with other local boards, that alternates would typically be appointed after elections, and that they would follow up on possible statutory clarification. The hearing closed with six remote supporters, one paper supporter, and no opposition reported. The committee then heard House Bill 1118, sponsored by Representative Colby, which would raise the daily amount municipal employees may hold before remitting funds to the treasurer from the current $1,500 limit to $3,500. Colby said the existing thresholds are outdated, have not been updated in about 20 years, and create burdens for smaller towns that must make frequent bank deposits, sometimes far from town offices. She said the bill would improve efficiency and allow staff to focus more on serving residents, while still allowing municipalities to keep lower limits if they choose. Members asked about how the remittance process works in practice, what amounts municipalities typically collect, and whether the change reflected a broader trend of updating cash-handling thresholds. The sponsor explained that the bill only changes the dollar thresholds in the relevant statutes and does not require municipalities to adopt the higher limit. The transcript cuts off before any final action on HB 1118 is reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• just suggest taking that out and just saying that, you know, you can buy basically a computer as permitted
• Implementation itself from the vendor, it was estimated around $750,000, and then the admin fee is the
• And then the admin fee is the actual costs and how the program manager actually, how their fees are structured
• So if it's truly a per-student kind of licensing fee, I think the $3 million would even be short because
• Now, maybe with the scale, maybe those fees come down per student if we're doing that many more.

Bills: HB1329

Keywords: government spending database, public expenditure transparency, open data, government transparency, school district spending, state spending, local government finance, education finance, budget database, expenditure reporting, salary transparency, benefits data, public records, Legislative Management study, North Dakota, school board training, superintendent, principal, business manager, higher education spending

Summary: The Education Division met with all members present and first took up House Bill 1329, which would create a transparency database and website for school spending information. Senator Schaible offered Amendment 0204 to turn the bill into a study, citing concerns that the proposal would impose major data-collection burdens on 168 school districts, require new data standards and privacy protections, and likely cost far more than the $500,000 in the bill. Several members supported transparency but agreed the implementation costs and technical feasibility were unclear. The committee adopted the amendment 4-1, then passed HB 1329 as amended on a 5-0 vote, with Senator Shively to carry the bill. The committee then discussed House Bill 1540, the education savings account/voucher bill. Representatives from the Bank of North Dakota and the Department of Public Instruction explained that they had not been consulted on the original drafting and outlined needed administrative changes, including clarifying the Bank as administrator, using a third-party program manager, involving DPI in rulemaking, adding audit and appeal procedures, and adjusting language on eligible purchases and school disqualification. They also said the current timeline was likely too aggressive to launch by the 2026-27 school year and estimated the program would require about 15 months to implement, with a fiscal note now around $5.1 million. Members also discussed policy-related amendments on means testing and application timing. Senator Shively proposed a 300% of poverty-level means test and a sign-up period to reduce costs and limit open-ended enrollment, while Senator Axman proposed a tiered approach that would keep all students technically eligible but phase in funding levels by income, preserving access for students who qualify for other federal supports. DPI said it could not currently disaggregate some data by family income and that the appeal process and procurement timeline still needed work. The committee did not move HB 1540 out that morning and instead recessed to continue discussion later after members had time to review the administrative and fiscal issues separately from the means-testing proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• really salient point, there are so many little discounts and provisions for all types of taxes and fees
• really salient point, there are so many little discounts and provisions for all types of taxes and fees
• Senate Bill 674 simply permits property appraisers, in addition to tax collectors, to budget and pay
• Dana Blickley, you are recognized, and Lauren... ...simply permits property appraisers, in addition to
• So, quick follow-up: Would you agree, though, that if a city is allowed or permitted or continues to

Summary: The committee took up several claims bills first and reported both favorably without debate. SB 20, relating to relief of J.N., a minor, would pay the remaining $400,000 of a $600,000 settlement after an 11-year-old was injured on a Hillsborough County sidewalk with a known defect; SB 14, relating to the estate of Pineal Januier, would authorize payment of the remaining $1.7 million of a $2 million settlement after a drowning at a Miami Beach youth center pool. Both bills were supported by the sponsors and the Senate Special Master’s favorable recommendations, and both passed on roll call votes. The committee then considered SJR 1510 and its implementing bill, SB 1512, both by Senator Avila, which would create a new property tax benefit for owners who lease a non-homestead residential property for more than six months in order to encourage more affordable rental housing. Local governments, the Florida League of Cities, and the Florida Association of Counties opposed the proposal, warning of major revenue losses, impacts on public safety and services, and uncertainty for local budgets; several senators also questioned whether landlords would pass savings on to renters and whether the measure would worsen density and parking issues. Despite the opposition, both measures were reported favorably after the sponsor said the bills would be refined and revised. SB 674, by Senator Wright, was reported favorably with support from property appraisers who said it would let them budget and pay hiring or retention bonuses, similar to authority already given to tax collectors, to help compete for specialized staff. CS for CS SB 268, by Senator Jones, also passed after an amendment adding congressional members; the bill would create a public-records exemption for certain home-address information for elected officials, and debate centered on balancing transparency with safety after members described death threats and harassment. The committee then approved SB 100, by Senator Fine, which would bar government buildings from displaying flags representing political viewpoints and allow active or retired military or National Guard members to use reasonable force to stop desecration of the U.S. flag; the bill drew extensive opposition from transparency, civil rights, and LGBTQ advocates who argued it was vague, unconstitutional, and aimed at pride flags, while supporters said government should not endorse political messages. Finally, CS for SB 1664, by Senator Trumbull, was reported favorably after a strike-all amendment. The bill would require voter reapproval every eight years for certain local discretionary taxes, including tourist development taxes and some local option taxes, unless pledged to revenue bonds. Cities, counties, tourism groups, and the lodging industry opposed it, saying the measure would create uncertainty, threaten tourism marketing and beach restoration funding, and make long-term infrastructure and debt planning difficult. Senator Trumbull argued the proposal simply gives voters a recurring chance to decide whether they still support the taxes and the projects they fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• . in holding fines and fees over the heads of people who cannot pay them.
• dollars worth of fees.
• and a reinstatement fee on top of that before someone can resume driving again.
• I just have to pay fees upon fees upon fees. So I really hope that you rule in favor of this bill.
• It is very... ...on fees. So I really hope that you rule in favor of this bill.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held a public hearing on several bills related to driver’s license suspensions, junior operator training, online driver education, and regulation of e-bikes/scooters. A major focus was the Road to Opportunity Act (H. 3662/S. 2368), which would end license suspensions and registration holds for unpaid fines and fees unrelated to road safety, create hardship waivers and payment options, and replace suspension with nonrenewal in some cases. Supporters included the Attorney General’s office, ACLU, CPCS, Greater Boston Legal Services, transportation and anti-poverty advocates, and several affected residents who described job loss, housing instability, and difficulty paying toll and fee debts. They argued the current system punishes poverty, disproportionately affects Black and Latino residents, and is costly to enforce. Some testimony also noted that the bill would preserve suspensions for dangerous driving offenses. District Attorney Marion Ryan testified in favor of two bills: one allowing partial payment plans for certain RMV penalties and another closing a loophole that makes the penalty for violating a hardship license less severe than driving after a full suspension. Senator Sear and Representative Reed also spoke for the Road to Opportunity Act, while the AAG said the Attorney General supports it. Committee members asked about RMV implementation and whether the agency supports payment plans; Ryan said the RMV has been cooperative but believes legislation is needed. No votes were taken during the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on bills affecting young drivers. Senator Lovely and Representative Cruz supported a bill to create a junior operator license training fund, expand access for low- and moderate-income families, require refunds in some cases, and allow earlier passenger privileges. Another bill would make virtual instructor-led driver education permanent; AAA and several driving school owners supported it as an access and convenience measure, while other instructors opposed it, arguing in-person instruction is safer and more effective. Finally, Senator Collins and others testified for a transportation safety bill regulating motorized bicycles, scooters, e-bikes, and mopeds, increasing fines, requiring insurance for commercial use, and requiring public hearings and accessibility review for new bike lanes. Advocates for blind and disabled pedestrians supported that bill, while some transportation and business voices backed it as a safety and planning measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• the goal of hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit
• Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by me, the chair.
• Riders will see savings directly in their booking fee as these insurances come down.
• There are six of them supported by an access line fee.
• That very same month, my Comcast bill, an internet bill, showed up with an access line fee.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee heard three bills. SB 371 by Senator Cabaldon would reduce uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage requirements for transportation network companies from $1 million to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, with committee amendments adding findings and declarations, higher limits than originally proposed, and a joint study on UM/UIM impacts. Supporters, including Uber, Lyft, business groups, and some consumer advocates, argued the bill would lower fares and increase driver earnings by reducing insurance costs. Opponents, including consumer attorneys, labor groups, and consumer watchdog organizations, warned it would cut protections for riders and drivers and might not guarantee savings would be passed through. The committee approved SB 371 on a due-pass basis and re-referred it to Appropriations by a 9-0 vote. The committee then heard SB 716 by Senator Durazo, which would create a Home Internet Lifeline Program to let eligible low-income households apply Lifeline subsidies to home broadband service. Proponents said the bill addresses broadband affordability after the federal Affordable Connectivity Program expired, and that it would help students, workers, and families access reliable internet. Opponents from the wireless industry objected to the funding mechanism, arguing the surcharge would fall unfairly on wireless consumers, while one broadband group moved to neutral after amendments. The bill was approved on a due-pass basis and sent to Appropriations, but the roll was held open and later completed with the bill passing 7-1. The committee also took up SB 480 by Senator Archuleta relating to autonomous vehicles as a consent item, with no presentation or debate. It was approved on a due-pass basis and re-referred to Appropriations by a 9-0 vote. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly focused on affordability, consumer protection, and whether savings from the bills would actually reach riders, drivers, or households.

Transcript Highlights:

• While there have been occasional permitting appeals resulting in interpretation by Massachusetts courts
• That translates to roughly a 20% to 50% increase in annual permitting levels for new homes relative to
• All wastewater treatment plants have a legally permitted limit on the number of gallons that they can
• A local option transfer fee could also allow communities,... ...obviously not sufficient.
• A local option transfer fee could also allow communities to create an additional funding stream.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-03, House Bill 5000, which would allow single-family homes on small lots in areas with adequate infrastructure. Committee chairs outlined the Article 48 process and the hearing format, then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Under Secretary Chris Clutchman of Housing and Livable Communities explained that the proposal would amend Chapter 40A’s Section 3 (the Dover Amendment) to require most municipalities, except Boston, to allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots of at least 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage and access to public water and sewer, while still allowing reasonable local regulations on setbacks, height, bulk, and short-term rentals. He distinguished the proposal from Chapter 40Y starter-home zoning, said implementation would likely require regulations to address issues such as wetlands, infrastructure capacity, and nonconforming lots, and answered committee questions about lot subdivision, MBTA Communities, and the relationship to existing zoning tools. Attorney Susan Murphy testified that the petition would significantly override local zoning and could create conflicts with existing statutes, including Chapter 40A Section 6 protections for certain nonconforming lots, subdivision control law, and other residential zoning districts. She raised concerns about how “access” to water and sewer would be defined, whether the measure could apply in business or industrial districts where residential uses are allowed, and whether the proposal could allow large homes on small lots without any affordability limits. She also warned that the measure could have significant infrastructure impacts and argued that the Legislature should consider broader, more comprehensive housing legislation rather than expanding exceptions to the zoning framework. Committee members asked both experts about frontage, lot size, infrastructure capacity, and how the proposal would interact with 40Y and MBTA Communities. The proponents, led by Andrew McCulla of the Legalized Starter Homes Coalition, argued that Massachusetts faces a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis, citing high home prices, high rents, declining listings, and outmigration of younger residents. They said the measure would legalize modest single-family homes on smaller lots, increase housing supply, and help first-time buyers and downsizing seniors, while leaving most other local rules in place. Other proponents, including representatives from Abundant Housing Massachusetts, the Charles River Regional Chamber, and individual residents, emphasized workforce retention, the need for more starter homes, and the view that large minimum lot sizes are a major barrier to production. Committee members pressed the panel on the lack of any home-size or affordability requirement, possible effects on 40B compliance, the number of new lots and homes that might result, and the fact that the ballot initiative would not be amendable by the Legislature. The hearing then turned to opponents from the Massachusetts Municipal Association, who urged the committee to take no action. MMA leaders said zoning should remain a local decision made by residents and elected local officials, and argued that the proposal would preempt local control with a one-size-fits-all mandate. They also said the measure is impractical because many communities with water and sewer are already at or near capacity, so infrastructure availability does not necessarily mean development capacity. The hearing ended during the MMA’s testimony, with no vote or final committee action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we don't charge origination fees. We don't charge prepayment fees.
• Uh, 11 final question, go back a little bit to the injection well permits.
• Are you limiting permits, new permits, or are you just trying to focus on, The, the already permitted
• Some of the wells that are also on my books were GLO permitted too.
• One little hang up we have though is the permitting process on that.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't charge origination fees. We don't charge prepayment fees.
• Are you limiting permits, new permits?
• Or are you just trying to focus on the already-permitted wells?
• Some of the wells that are also in my books were GLO permitted too.
• One little hang up we have, though, is the permitting process on that.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She drew members’ attention to page 17, where the amendment addresses fees and the process around data
• He added that the language from 2023 has built in a fee waiver, which the commissioner may grant. uh
• employees, that they get a fee waiver. employees, that they get a fee waiver.
• <00:25:43.160> waiver,<00:25:43.880> which<00:25:44.080> the built in a fee
• waiver, which the built in a fee waiver, which the commissioner<00:25:44.600> may<00:25:44.720

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Financial penties such as fines and fees Financial penties such as fines and fees and<00:15:52.160
• important for the the funds to the fees important for the the funds to the fees to<00:23:12.200>
• 267, and while Washington State is a much larger state and its fee is much steeper than the $500 fee
• 267, and while Washington State is a much larger state and its fee is much steeper than the $500 fee
• 267, and while Washington State is a much larger state and its fee is much steeper than the $500 fee

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Starting on line 139, this is a new fee increase to the broker dealer agent transfer fee, from $25 to
• language contained a tiered fee system. language contained a tiered fee system.
• The broker dealer fee, uh, is at 16.8 in the delete everything, and that's a fee increase requested by
• Are you talking about line 16.15 or increasing the fee from 25 to 60? The fee from 25 to 60?
• the fee from 25 to 60? Correct. Okay. the fee from 25 to 60? Correct. Okay.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Bills: HB1800, HB2095, HB1158, HB1518, HB1752, SCR23, SCR24, SCR25, SCR26, SCR27, SCR28, SCR29, SCR30, SCR31, SCR32, SCR33, SCR34, SCR35, SCR36, SCR37, SCR38, SCR39, SCR40, SCR41, SCR42, SCR43, SCR44, SCR45, SCR46, SCR47, SCR48, SCR49, SCR50, SCR51, SCR52, SCR53, SCR54, SCR55, SCR56, SCR57, SCR58, SCR59, SCR60, SCR61, SCR62, SCR63, SCR64, SCR65, SCR66, SCR67, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR71, SCR72, SCR73, SCR74, SCR75, SCR76, SCR77, SCR78, SCR79, SCR80, SCR81, SCR82, SCR83, SCR84, SCR85, SCR86, SCR87, SCR88, SCR89, SCR90, SCR91, SCR92, SCR93, SCR94, SCR95, SCR96, SCR97, SCR98, SCR99, SCR100, SCR101, SCR102, SCR103, SCR104, SCR105, SCR106, SCR107, SCR108, SCR109, SCR110, SCR111, SCR112, SCR113, SCR114, SCR115, SCR116, SCR117, SCR118, SCR119, SCR120, SCR121, SCR122

Keywords: supplemental appropriations, state budget, Hawaii budget, biennial budget, capital improvement projects, CIP, general fund, special fund, green fee, special land and development fund, clean energy revolving loan fund, agricultural development revolving fund, community grants, nonprofit grants, Office of Community Services, housing, affordable housing, homelessness, health care, mental health

Transcript Highlights:

• When time permits, can we go back to 713, please? Apologies, Madam Speaker.
• When time permits, can we go back to 713, please? Okay, let's finish up 715.

Bills: HB1952, HB1951, HB1929, HB2497, HB2208, HB2572, HB1953, HB2551, HB2549, HB1737, HB1628, HB1769, HB2493, HB2264, HB1997, HB2168, HB2427, HB1805, HB2180, HB2184, HB2219, HB2469, HB2233, HB2519, HB2141, HB1904, HB2201, HB2410, HB2007, HB2385, HB2444, HB2349, HB2235, HB1872, HB2416, HB2291, HB2292, HB2263, HB2359, HB2455, HB1509, HB1514, HB1515, HB1648, HB2164, HB2323, HB1825, HB2172, HB1888, HB2005, HB2387, HB2358, HB2119, HB2276, HB2472, HB1714, HB2325, HB1541, HB1960, HB2140, HB2315, HB2367, HB2388, HB1696, HB2333, HB2138, HB2332, HB2283, HB2059, HB2057, HB2589, HB2417, HB2337, HB1588, HB2217, HB2020, HB1915, HB1742, HB2026, HB1965, HB1546, HB2360, HB1563, HB1749, HB2614, HB1511, HB1753, HB1849, HB1641, HB2161, HB2194, HB1721, HB2284, HB2188, HB1897, HB1880, HB1573, HB1876, HB20, HB2137

Keywords: HB1952, Hawaii agriculture, University of Hawaii, CTAHR, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resilience, Kauai, agricultural research station, extension station, capital improvements, general obligation bonds, GO bonds, appropriation, ADA compliance, Americans with Disabilities Act, certified kitchen, greenhouse, laboratory, field research, cesspool decommissioning, invasive species

Bills: HB1952, HB1951, HB1929, HB2497, HB2208, HB2572, HB1953, HB2551, HB2549, HB1737, HB1628, HB1769, HB2493, HB2264, HB1997, HB2168, HB2427, HB1805, HB2180, HB2184, HB2219, HB2469, HB2233, HB2519, HB2141, HB1904, HB2201, HB2410, HB2007, HB2385, HB2444, HB2349, HB2235, HB1872, HB2416, HB2291, HB2292, HB2263, HB2359, HB2455, HB1509, HB1514, HB1515, HB1648, HB2164, HB2323, HB1825, HB2172, HB1888, HB2005, HB2387, HB2358, HB2119, HB2276, HB2472, HB1714, HB2325, HB1541, HB1960, HB2140, HB2315, HB2367, HB2388, HB1696, HB2333, HB2138, HB2332, HB2283, HB2059, HB2057, HB2589, HB2417, HB2337, HB1588, HB2217, HB2020, HB1915, HB1742, HB2026, HB1965, HB1546, HB2360, HB1563, HB1749, HB2614, HB1511, HB1753, HB1849, HB1641, HB2161, HB2194, HB1721, HB2284, HB2188, HB1897, HB1880, HB1573, HB1876, HB20, HB2137

Keywords: HB1952, Hawaii agriculture, University of Hawaii, CTAHR, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resilience, Kauai, agricultural research station, extension station, capital improvements, general obligation bonds, GO bonds, appropriation, ADA compliance, Americans with Disabilities Act, certified kitchen, greenhouse, laboratory, field research, cesspool decommissioning, invasive species

Bills: HB1952, HB1951, HB1929, HB2497, HB2208, HB2572, HB1953, HB2551, HB2549, HB1737, HB1628, HB1769, HB2493, HB2264, HB1997, HB2168, HB2427, HB1805, HB2180, HB2184, HB2219, HB2469, HB2233, HB2519, HB2141, HB1904, HB2201, HB2410, HB2007, HB2385, HB2444, HB2349, HB2235, HB1872, HB2416, HB2291, HB2292, HB2263, HB2359, HB2455, HB1509, HB1514, HB1515, HB1648, HB2164, HB2323, HB1825, HB2172, HB1888, HB2005, HB2387, HB2358, HB2119, HB2276, HB2472, HB1714, HB2325, HB1541, HB1960, HB2140, HB2315, HB2367, HB2388, HB1696, HB2333, HB2138, HB2332, HB2283, HB2059, HB2057, HB2589, HB2417, HB2337, HB1588, HB2217, HB2020, HB1915, HB1742, HB2026, HB1965, HB1546, HB2360, HB1563, HB1749, HB2614, HB1511, HB1753, HB1849, HB1641, HB2161, HB2194, HB1721, HB2284, HB2188, HB1897, HB1880, HB1573, HB1876, HB20, HB2137

Keywords: HB1952, Hawaii agriculture, University of Hawaii, CTAHR, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resilience, Kauai, agricultural research station, extension station, capital improvements, general obligation bonds, GO bonds, appropriation, ADA compliance, Americans with Disabilities Act, certified kitchen, greenhouse, laboratory, field research, cesspool decommissioning, invasive species