Video & Transcript Research : 'proxy proposal'
Page 146 of 500
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Proposals are in review.
- you propose to the state to meet this need?
- that can potentially influence Texas Forest Service evaluation of the proposals.
- Uh, the way I understood it earlier was that, uh, what was being proposed.
- Uh, what you're saying is, uh, or what you're proposing is, um.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Committee on Housing Afternoon Subcommittee (04/22/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- Huge change you're proposing here. Okay.
- Huge change you're proposing<00:10:24.560>
here. <00:10:25.839>Okay. - <00:10:26.640>
Um, <00:10:27.200>with <00:10:27.519>regards proposing here. - Um, with regards proposing here. Okay.
- So would you propose to get rid of road frontage? Is that what you're saying? lines.
Summary:
The subcommittee opened discussion on SP 170 and worked through the bill section by section, focusing first on housing discrimination language and then on land-use and development provisions. On the housing section, members discussed adding “school enrollment status” or a similar term as a protected class to prevent municipalities from steering students into specific zones, especially in Durham. Some members questioned whether “status” was too vague and suggested “enrollment status” or “school enrollment status” for clarity. Public testimony raised concerns that adding a new protected class could have broader implications beyond this bill and could affect municipal zoning authority, while supporters argued the language was needed to prevent discrimination against students in housing access.
The committee then heard testimony on provisions limiting municipal authority over septic test pits and well-siting requirements. DEES officials and a builder testified that state standards are already protective of groundwater and surface water and that some local requirements are more stringent than the state’s, adding cost and delay to housing projects. Supporters said uniform state standards would make housing development faster and more predictable. Opponents warned that local rules can protect aquifers, wellhead areas, and drinking water in specific communities, and that removing municipal flexibility could weaken those protections. The subcommittee appeared comfortable keeping these sections, though members discussed whether to clarify the language and whether some local review authority should remain.
The meeting also covered road-length limits, caps on the number of lots on dead-end roads, and subdivision design rules. Members generally supported prohibiting municipalities from using maximum road length or lot caps to block development, with one amendment suggested to allow such limits where adequate water and sewer capacity is lacking. The committee also discussed allowing utilities and infrastructure such as septic systems, wells, electric systems, drainage structures, and shared leach fields to be placed in subdivision open space or perimeter buffers when those areas are not protected wetlands or shoreland. Finally, the committee reviewed a provision requiring municipalities to stamp and accept plan changes within three days after initial review, with members explaining that the goal is to prevent repeated, incremental changes from dragging out the approval process. No final votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but members indicated general comfort with several sections as amended or clarified.
HI
Hawaii 2025 Regular Session
HSG/TRN Joint Public Hearing - Thu Mar 13, 2025 @ 8:59 AM HST
Transcript Highlights:
- And I'm not sure why this bill was proposed, also because there are a couple of other bills out there
- And I'm not sure why this bill was proposed, also because there are a couple of other bills out there
- And I'm not sure why this bill was proposed, also because there are a couple of other bills out there
- And I'm not sure why this bill was proposed, also because there are a couple of other bills out there
- And I'm not sure why this bill was proposed, also because there are a couple of other bills out there
Summary:
The meeting included a joint public hearing of the House Housing and Transportation committees, followed by a Transportation Committee hearing. In the joint hearing, members considered SB 662 SD1, which concerned transportation and included two parts: transferring certain streets to the city and clarifying police authority on state streets. The chair recommended moving the bill out as an HD1 with Part One removed, explaining that the street-transfer issue should be worked out by the county and state and that removing it would improve the bill’s chances. The committees voted to pass the measure with amendments, and the recommendation was adopted.
The Transportation Committee then heard several bills. SB 1095, relating to license plates, would increase decal size restrictions for special number plates; the Department of Transportation offered written comments, with testimony split between two individuals in opposition and one in support, and no questions were raised. SB 344 would require skateboard users under 16 to wear helmets; DOT supported the bill, as did TRIAA Hawaii, the Injury Prevention Coalition, and other individuals, while two individuals opposed it. SB 30 would require all moped riders to wear helmets regardless of age; DOT supported it, but Moped Doctors and Hawaiian Style Rentals and Sales opposed it, arguing the bill was overreaching, could be hard to enforce, and should be more narrowly targeted or replaced with education efforts.
The committee also heard SB 1216, which would tighten noisy muffler and exhaust enforcement by conditioning inspection certificates, adding inspection-station penalties, increasing fines, and prohibiting repair or installation of noisy systems. DOT supported the measure, and Waiʻanae Neighborhood Board testified in support, while Moped Doctors and the Motorcycle Industry Council opposed it, saying the bill would burden inspection stations, create liability concerns, and raise questions about insurance-related language as applied to mopeds. The hearing included discussion of enforcement, inspection burdens, and whether the bill’s insurance references applied to mopeds. No final vote was taken on the Transportation Committee bills in the portion provided, and the hearing adjourned after testimony and discussion.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Human services panel considers HF1005 3/4/25
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- The phased implementation proposed today in this bill encourages us to think long term about how we're
- and this proposal requires significant State<00:09:10.640>
resources <00:09:11.640>this <00:10:39.800>- a phased approach and are very proposed a phased approach and are very much<00:09:14.519>
looking - The increased reimbursement rates proposed in this bill will improve access to care and advance health
in increased reimbursement RIS proposed in increased reimbursement RIS proposed - a phased approach and are very proposed a phased approach and are very much<00:09:14.519>
Summary:
House File 105 was presented by Representatives Beerman and Baker and then laid over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill. The bill would implement the remaining mental health and physician service recommendations from DHS’s rate study, including raising certain Medicaid reimbursement rates to at least 100% of Medicare where a Medicare equivalent exists, increasing community-based children’s and adult mental health rates and behavioral health home rates, and phasing in additional increases over three years. The authors said the proposal also addresses master’s-level clinician reimbursement and fee-for-service hospital inpatient mental health services, and they emphasized that the changes are intended to improve access, transparency, and provider stability.
Both authors argued that low MA reimbursement rates are driving access problems across Minnesota, especially for children, families, and rural communities. They said providers are struggling to hire and retain staff, clinics are closing or shrinking, and patients are facing long waits, boarding in hospitals, or delayed care. Representative Baker said the issue is personal and described the bill as a phased, long-term approach because of state budget limits and the size of the cost, which he said is in the hundreds of millions but still awaiting a fiscal note.
Public testimony was strongly supportive overall. A family physician said higher rates would improve access, keep clinics open, and help patients avoid emergency care, while a Children’s Minnesota mental health leader described more than 1,200 pediatric boarding episodes in 2024 and said outpatient investment is needed to reduce pressure on emergency and inpatient services. A rural provider said her organization had to close an in-home children’s mental health program because of insufficient reimbursement, harming access in underserved counties. A psychologist testifying for the Minnesota Psychological Association supported the bill’s general direction but objected to repealing the pay differential for doctoral-level psychologists, arguing that doctoral training is more extensive and that eliminating the differential could worsen workforce shortages. After testimony and member questions about the bill’s scope and cost, public testimony was closed and the bill was laid over.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- See groins have worked, and that's sort of the proposed plan for Kahana Bay is a groin project.
- See groins have worked, and that's sort of the proposed plan for Kahana Bay is a groin project.
- See groins have worked, and that's sort of the proposed plan for Kahana Bay is a groin project.
- See groins have worked, and that's sort of the proposed plan for Kahana Bay is a groin project.
- Um, so this proposed after killing it.
Bills:
SB2606, SB3253, SB237, SB3252, SB1178, SB2322, SB2019, SB3043, SB3014, SB2972, SB1190, SB2488
Keywords:
wildlife sanctuary, environmental conservation, Hawaii, nonprofit corporation, freshwater preservation, community stewardship, biodiversity, ecological heritage, conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F
Summary:
The committees heard testimony on several measures related to wildlife, conservation, shoreline adaptation, and climate governance. On SB 2606, which would establish the Freshwater State Recreational Area Wildlife Sanctuary Corporation, the Department of Land and Natural Resources said it had concerns about employee eligibility and was not yet prepared to comment further on the bill’s ramifications. After testimony ended, a senator asked DLNR to follow up with more detail, and the department said it would relay the questions to leadership and respond later. No vote was taken on the measure during the excerpt.
On SB 3253, which would create the Hawaii Conservation Sanctuary as a nonprofit entity to work with DLNR, the department said it supported the bill. In discussion, DLNR said Hawaii has not done anything like this before, described a similar model in New Zealand, and estimated that developing such a sanctuary could cost millions of dollars. Members also discussed whether the concept would fit with existing efforts such as Hakalau, and DLNR said the bill could apply to private or state lands depending on the site. No action was taken.
The most extensive discussion was on SB 237, which would expand state and county authority to develop adaptation pathways for relocating infrastructure away from sea level rise and coastal flooding areas. DLNR supported the bill, saying it prioritizes public trust resources over economic development or private property. The Kahana Bay Steering Committee and the Shoreline Preservation Coalition opposed the measure, arguing it was too focused on managed retreat and should include a broader range of shoreline responses, such as erosion mitigation, groins, sand nourishment, and other interim protections. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development said it appreciated the bill’s intent but wanted broader language that would allow more tools in the toolbox. Members debated whether retreat is inevitable, whether different shorelines require different approaches, and whether the bill should be more flexible. No vote was taken.
The final measure discussed was SB 3252, which would amend the powers and duties of the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, create a coordinator position, and appropriate funds. The commission’s coordinator testified in support, while OPSD opposed the bill, saying it would remove the two cabinet-level co-chair positions, raise accountability concerns, and duplicate some of OPSD’s functions. In questioning, members debated whether the current commission structure has been effective, who would appoint or confirm the coordinator, and whether the bill would improve transparency and implementation. OPSD said it supported more statewide interdepartmental funding for climate planning and staffing, but had concerns about the proposed governance changes. No vote or final action was taken in the excerpt.
KY
Kentucky 2025 Regular Session
Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary (10-16-25)
Transcript Highlights:
- The way that this facility is proposed demonstrates that security and safety measures can be balanced
- Population of the proposed facility.
- Population of the proposed facility. Population of the proposed facility.
- like the one that's proposed? like the one that's proposed?
- He said he is not for the proposal because it is much too small.
Keywords:
Meeting Start: 00:00:00
Roll Call: 00:00:05
25 RS HB 534 - AN ACT relating to actions for forcible entry and detainer: 00:01:45
25 RS SB 111 - AN ACT relating to juvenile justice: 00:23:46
Children's Advocacy Centers of Kentucky: 01:13:26
Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) Treatment in State and County Correctional Facilities: 01:25:28, 958, all
Summary:
The committee approved the September 18 minutes and then heard testimony on House Bill 534, which would automatically seal dismissed eviction filings and protect youth from public disclosure in forcible detainer cases. Rep. Susan Tyler Whitten and George Ecklan of the Coalition for the Homeless said the bill is aimed at reducing housing barriers for Kentuckians, especially those with dismissed cases, while preserving landlords’ rights to pursue rent, collections, damages, and other legal remedies. They said the proposal was developed with input from landlords, clerks, judges, AOC, and service providers, and noted that similar laws exist in other states. Several members, including Sen. Neimes, Rep. Deetsz, Rep. Cole Carney, and Sen. Thomas, expressed support while emphasizing that the bill is narrowly tailored to dismissed cases and should not affect legitimate landlord claims; Sen. Wheeler raised concerns about cases involving settlements or delays and whether future landlords should know about them. The sponsors responded that the bill only covers dismissed actions, that dismissals require a judge’s order, and that the goal is to remove barriers created by records that remain publicly visible even when a case is resolved.
The committee then took up Senate Bill 111 on juvenile justice. Commissioner Randy White, Kentucky Hospital Association President Nancy Galvanny, and Dr. Clark Lester of the University of Kentucky said the bill would require a secure state-run facility for youth with high-acuity mental health needs in detention and, until that is built, create a process with incentives for private hospitals to provide inpatient treatment with safeguards and increased compensation. They argued that detention is not an appropriate setting for severely mentally ill, violent youth and that private psychiatric hospitals often refuse these referrals or discharge them early. Dr. Lester cited recent referral data showing high denial rates for juvenile justice youth in private hospitals in August and September, often due to aggression, and described a case in which repeated placement attempts failed because of violent and self-harming behavior. The presenters said the bill is intended to fill a service gap and improve safety and outcomes for youth, staff, and hospitals, but no vote or final action on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
- The valuation method in this bill proposed that this bill proposes is actually how restitution is calculated
- It can include that this bill proposes is actually how restitution is calculated.
- This is not a radical proposal; it is a proven model.
- For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no on this proposal.
- This bill sets forth proposals for closing three loopholes.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Housing Committee Meeting - 2026-04-07
Housing Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- So, you're writing a lot of proposals for things where you get a no.
- So, you're writing a lot of proposals for things where you get a no.
- So, you're writing a lot of proposals for things where you get a no.
- So, you're writing a lot of proposals for things where you get a no.
- >
recommendations present uh the proposed recommendations present uh the proposed recommendations
Bills:
SF2434
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Higher Education Finance and Policy Committee 3/24/26
Higher Education Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- , governor has proposed, governor has proposed, um<01:02:45.119>
the <01:02:45.599>hole - governor's proposal and about um you governor's proposal and about um you know<01:09:04.960>
changing - >
remove <01:17:31.600>these they're proposing to remove these they're proposing to remove - Uh, we're proposing these changes in direct response to litigation.
- So that is the reason that we proposed that change for that program.
Keywords:
firearms, guns, gun rights, gun control, campus safety, public college, university, postsecondary institution, higher education, visitor carry, concealed carry, open carry, campus policy, Minnesota Statutes 624.714, petty misdemeanor, parking lot carry, firearm possession, public safety, college campus, student carry
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:29:21.800>
rule actually taken out of proposed rule actually taken out of proposed rule - So this will help to address that. proposed. Um but the specific language, proposed.
- proposed HD1. proposed HD1.
- <01:59:31.520>
I'm <01:59:31.640>going <01:59:31.760>to propose I'm going to propose - <01:59:33.960>
and <01:59:34.080>the a proposed working group and the a proposed working
Keywords:
conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge
Summary:
The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit.
The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach.
The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- we do need to address it and we propose we do need to address it and we propose a<00:55:11.200><
- >> It was not part of the proposal.
- >> It was not part of the proposal.
- >> It was not part of the proposal.
- >> It was not part of the proposal.
Bills:
HB1183, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1663, HB1664, HB1859, HB2116, HB2271, HB2276, HB2335, HB2360, HB2387, HB2472, HB1805, HB2469, HB1815, HB1860, HB2117, HB2118, HB2437, HB2438, HB2604, HB1590, HB2156, HB2268
Keywords:
retirement, pension, law enforcement, public safety, Hawaii Revised Statutes, indebtedness, salary recovery, employee compensation, deductions, financial management, collective bargaining, employee relations, impasse procedures, arbitration, public employment, HB1661, cafeteria plan, Section 125, Internal Revenue Code, flexible spending account
WY
Transcript Highlights:
- Again, I don't have a copy of the proposed. >> Oh, but the initial... >> The initial when you read it
- don't have a copy of the proposed. don't have a copy of the proposed.
- <00:52:26.160>
amendment >> so on the proposed amendment >> so on the proposed - , can I propose an option<01:10:08.480>
here? - Chairman, for the proposed >> Mr.
Bills:
HB0045
MD
Transcript Highlights:
- A lot of them are proposed by the minority party.
- A lot of them are proposed by the minority party.
- Please proposed by the minority party.
- heard and in the proposed budget, is proposed<01:24:41.520>
to <01:24:41.679>be <01:24: - <01:24:49.440>
of proposed budget includes transfers of proposed budget includes transfers of
Summary:
The House convened with 117 members present, then 123 after a quorum call, and proceeded through routine introductions and referrals, including introductory House bills 959 through 1018, House Joint Resolution 8, House Simple Resolution 1, several Senate bills, and bond initiatives referred to Appropriations. The main floor item was House Bill 1, concerning investor-owned electric and gas utility cost recovery limitations, which was on third reading and final passage.
Debate on HB 1 focused on whether the bill would meaningfully lower utility bills and whether it was necessary given existing Public Service Commission authority. Supporters argued the bill would prevent ratepayers from bearing the cost of executive bonuses and other compensation above $250,000, saying utilities can still pay those costs from shareholder profits and that the measure would save money for customers, even if only modestly. Opponents argued the PSC already has authority to review executive compensation, warned the bill could be largely symbolic or misleading, and said it might encourage utilities to shift bonuses into base salaries or harm recruitment and service quality. Several members also argued the bill did not address other drivers of high bills, such as riders and program costs, and one member said the General Assembly itself was responsible for rising energy costs.
No final vote on HB 1 was shown in the transcript excerpt, but members on both sides stated their intended positions, with supporters urging a yes vote and opponents indicating they would vote no. The discussion ended with another member beginning remarks about taking on concentrated corporate power and standing with working people.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Energy Finance and Policy Committee 4/3/25
Energy Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- So we're working towards that in this proposal.
- Maybe it's rejected and and it proposal.
- And I haven't looked enough into that proposal yet to see if that's the case.
- the amendment proposed. the amendment proposed.
- Why have the setback that you're proposing on roads? Representative Burkel: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- This is a modest price tag when you compare it to the much larger equalization proposals that could cost
- that could cost Equalization proposals that could cost our<00:04:38.280>
state <00:04:38.680>< - Is that like part of this, or are there other proposals to do that? I think this is a great idea.
- Is that like part of this, or are there other proposals to do that?
- Board, after holding a meeting and allowing public testimony on the proposed renewal.
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
House Energy Finance and Policy Committee 3/6/25
Energy Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- They are doing important things like supporting the proposed buildout of a Niron Magnetics factory in
- The first proposal is an operating adjustment.
- The second proposal is funding for a dedicated...
- <01:21:48.840>
to enterprise-wide adjustment proposed to enterprise-wide adjustment proposed - Finally, the last two proposals in front of you...
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the proposal offered by Representative Harter
- by representative Proposal offered by representative Harter<00:31:05.960>
to <00:31:06.200> - understand that what we are proposing understand that what we are proposing for<00:42:56.000>
- <01:04:30.400>
this <01:04:30.559>new that is why we are proposing this new that is - why we are proposing this new tax<01:04:31.079>
credit <01:04:32.000>we <01:04:32.119><
Keywords:
data centers, tax exemption, Minnesota statutes, economic development, employment growth, income tax, tax brackets, tax adjustments, Minnesota, tax policy, underutilized buildings, adaptive reuse, building conversion, historic preservation, downtown revitalization, vacant property, vacancy reduction, refundable tax credit, income tax credit, grant in lieu of credit
DE
Delaware 2025-2026 Regular Session
Delaware Nuclear Energy Feasibility Task Force Jun 29th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- As Senator Hansen indicated, you all made a tremendous amount of progress through proposed findings and
- Recommendation four in this listing is really a combination of three recommendations proposed some time
- So I have to say, I saw your proposal.
- So I have to say, I saw your proposal.
- Then it sounds like we need a motion for the proposal to...
Summary:
The meeting focused on finalizing recommendations from the Delaware Nuclear Energy Task Force, with most of the discussion centered on how the state should organize itself to evaluate and potentially pursue nuclear power. Public commenters strongly supported nuclear energy, emphasizing energy reliability, economic competitiveness, data center demand, and the need for Delaware to act quickly. Several speakers argued that Delaware is falling behind neighboring states and should not delay if it wants to attract developers and preserve access to federal tax incentives.
Members then worked through revisions to the recommendations, especially the section on state actions moving forward. There was broad agreement that Delaware needs a clearly empowered leadership structure, but disagreement over the best form: a cabinet-level energy agency, an expanded existing agency such as DENREC, a dedicated coordinator, an expanded Sustainable Energy Utility, or a separate quasi-independent authority. Some members favored a nimble, one-off entity with bonding and financing authority; others cautioned against creating a new body outside state government and stressed the need for coordination with existing agencies, public oversight, and cost discipline. The group also discussed adding responsibilities such as site identification, public engagement, coordination with PJM and federal agencies, and financing tools, while removing or folding in items that seemed duplicative or too broad.
The committee also revised earlier modules to broaden the focus from small modular reactors to nuclear power more generally, while keeping the task force’s original SMR work in view. Members agreed to keep recommendations on state and local regulatory readiness, financial mechanisms, permitting coordination, and public engagement, and to add a recommendation for Delaware to participate as an observer in the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative through NASEO and NARUC. The committee approved the revised Module Four recommendations by vote, with one abstention from Tom Noyes. Minutes from the prior meeting were also approved with minor corrections.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Protecting Public Trust / Prioritizing Infrastructure Projects / Offering Students More Choices Mar 27th, 2026
Minnesota Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- look at some of the bonding proposals look at some of the bonding proposals you've<00:04:10.400>
- The governor has proposed a $97 million bonding bill.
- So, how do you pick and choose between the proposals you get? Who gets funded and why?
- A lot of people are unhappy. >> We've mentioned what the governor has proposed and then the requests
- um and then the requests you've proposed um and then the requests you've received.<00:07:30.000>
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
Special Committee on Property Tax Reform Jan 20th, 2026 at 12:00 pm
Special Committee on Property Tax Reform
Transcript Highlights:
- We heard a lot of... ...proposals and tax bond issues as no tax increases.
- that's obviously designed to signal something to the voters positive about the tax proposals.
- Just the tax increase proposals.
- Advertising for no tax increase on a tax proposal, you need to explain to the taxpayers.
- Advertising for no tax increase on a tax proposal, you need to explain to the taxpayers.