Transcript Highlights:

• When we did encounter bumps in the road, he listened, took feedback, and made adjustments.
• 04:53.199><c> took</c> bumps in the road, he listened, took bumps in the road, he listened, took feedback
• </c><00:04:55.440><c> Most</c> feedback, and made adjustments. Most feedback, and made adjustments.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• from DHS over the course of feedback from DHS over the course of this<00:34:56.720><c> bill</c><00:34
• She then asked Representative Mohler for feedback on that.
• Representative Mohler said she is certainly always welcome to any kind of feedback.
• Representative Mohler said she is certainly always welcome to any kind of feedback.
• from the kinship licensing task feedback from the kinship licensing task force<01:31:49.600><c> that

Bills: HF1367, HF2732, HF1897, HF1424, HF1383, HF2728, HF2863, HF1685, HF2929

Keywords: child maltreatment, child abuse, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, labor trafficking, human trafficking, child protection, local welfare agency, county social services, Minnesota Department of Human Services, judicial review, district court appeal, venue, out-of-state abuse, cross-border investigation, Minnesota child welfare, family assessment, maltreatment determination

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, what is the feedback mechanism to the people where the harm may have been?
• As far as feedback loop to the councils, again, that really is sort of on a per ombuds person basis.
• As far as feedback loop to the overall.
• There isn't any sort of feedback basis.
• There isn't any sort of feedback loop<01:04:31.119><c> requirement</c><01:04:31.760><c> there.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, on the Senate side, we took a lot of obviously feedback from stakeholders and input.
• Chairman, on the Senate side, we took a lot of obviously feedback from stakeholders and input.
• Chairman, on the Senate side, we took a lot of obviously feedback from stakeholders and input.
• </c><00:14:42.399><c> from</c> took a lot of uh obviously feedback from took a lot of uh obviously feedback
• </c><00:36:54.240><c> on</c> interim, the committee heard feedback on interim, the committee heard feedback

Bills: HB0159

Keywords: student rights, free expression, K-12 education, speech protection, religious views, political speech, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And sometimes the campuses have little feedback.
• And sometimes the campuses have little feedback.
• Thank you for your feedback and your support of the board's work.
• And so first was to design that framework based on everybody's feedback.
• And so first was to design that framework based on everybody's feedback.

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review how North Dakota might identify and address low-producing academic programs and to discuss draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the NDUS explained that the State Board of Higher Education is already developing a system-wide policy, using models from other states such as Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Connecticut. She described how low-producing programs are typically flagged by multi-year enrollment or completion thresholds, then reviewed for workforce demand, mission fit, cost, accreditation, and regional need before any action is taken. Committee members asked about what counts as a program, how costs are analyzed, whether certificates are included, how exemptions work for mission-critical or high-demand fields, and whether the board or legislature should set the rules. Johnson said the board is the appropriate body to lead the process, but legislators could use funding leverage if they wanted to encourage action; the chair asked the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal uses fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder undergraduate rate of $7,000 per FTE and a graduate/professional rate of $10,500, plus incentives for completions in in-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council walked through the projected funding effects, noting that the model would increase funding for NDSU and reduce it for UND in the current biennium, with different results in the next biennium as enrollment changes are recognized. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the definition of in-demand programs, the treatment of research funding, and the exclusion of state-appropriated dollars from the external grants calculation. The chair emphasized that the numbers were illustrative and that appropriators would set the actual dollar amounts later. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. That model uses fall census FTE without a weighted economic factor, applies a higher undergraduate rate, and adds completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other completions. Members noted that the formula would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and discussed whether the nine institutions should be treated more uniformly or split into smaller groups because of their different missions and sizes. Committee members and staff repeatedly stressed that the formulas are still being refined and that some institutions would likely need hold-harmless adjustments or other transition measures. The meeting ended with the chair directing the committee to continue the discussion later and to expect further work on both the low-producing program policy and the funding formulas.

Transcript Highlights:

• And sometimes the campuses have little feedback.
• And sometimes the campuses have little feedback.
• Thank you for your feedback and your support of the board's work.
• And so first was to design that framework based on everybody's feedback.
• And so first was to design that framework based on everybody's feedback.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It was hastily written without consideration of the feedback of the hemp industry, the one stakeholder
• It was hastily written without consideration of the feedback of the hemp industry, the one stakeholder
• It was hastily written without consideration of the feedback of the hemp industry, the one stakeholder
• It was hastily written without consideration of the feedback of the hemp industry, the one stakeholder
• It was hastily written without consideration of the feedback of the hemp industry, the one stakeholder

Keywords: Call to Order 00:00 SB 100 Discussion 00:05 SB 100 Vote 06:42 SB 202 Discussion 08:35 SB 202 Vote 43:17 SB 17 Discussion 47:37 SB 17 Vote 48:08 SB 22 Discussion 49:22 SB 22 Vote 52:55 SB 133 Discussion 53:55 SB 133 Vote 55:15 SB 190 Discussion 56:00 SB 190 Vote 56:38 Adjournment 57:19, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 100, which would place cigarettes, vapes, and related nicotine products under the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) system, add enforcement tools against bad actors, and regulate nitrous oxide/laughing gas sales to those under 21. Supporters, including youth advocates Mallerie Jones and Griffin Kian Neth, argued the bill would reduce youth access to nicotine products through retail licensing, compliance checks, and escalating penalties. Higdon said the bill targets illegal sales rather than most retailers, and noted the measure also updates House Bill 11 from the prior year and raises the retail license fee from $250 to $500. The committee adopted the committee substitute and then passed the bill on a roll call vote, with members voting yes and no opposition recorded in the transcript. The committee then considered Senate Bill 202, focused on cannabis-infused beverages. Senator Julie Raque Adams said the bill was intended to create common-sense public health guardrails for a rapidly growing product category sold in gas stations, liquor stores, and vape shops, and to address enforcement gaps. She explained the committee substitute would define cannabis-infused beverages at a 5-milligram limit per 12-ounce can, place enforcement under ABC while keeping CHFS manufacturing and testing rules in place, require a University of Kentucky report back to the General Assembly, allow existing higher-dose inventory to be sold through June 1, exempt festivals and fairs until January 1, 2026, and allow stores to obtain licenses to continue selling the product. The committee adopted the substitute and then heard testimony from hemp-industry representatives and a consumer. Opponents of SB 202/SB 22, including Dee Taylor of the Kentucky Hemp Association, Cornbread Hemp co-founder Jim Higdon, Annie Rouse of Cannabuzz Barn, and consumer Nancy Roberts, argued the bill would hurt a legal Kentucky hemp industry, reduce consumer access, and force sales into liquor stores. They said the 100-milligram beverage referenced in debate is actually 10 servings with a resealable top, that hemp retailers educate customers, and that the industry already operates under 2024 regulations and needs better enforcement rather than new restrictions. Higdon and Rouse objected to the 5-milligram cap, the on-premise sales ban, the move to ABC enforcement, and the taxation approach, warning the bill could wipe out a large share of business and jobs. No final vote on SB 202 was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We expect to see this around mid-2027 to give you that feedback, but we...
• Around mid-2027, we’ll be able to give you that feedback, but we don’t have the data at this time on
• We have seen through feedback and improvement and engagement that this has been taken up and they’re
• It was based on Proposition 98 availability and some feedback from the field that they'd like a higher
• And I appreciate that feedback.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We expect to see this around mid-20207 to give you that feedback. but we we don't ...around mid-2027
• We have seen through feedback and improvement and engagement that this has been taken up and they're
• doing ...through feedback and improvement and engagement that this has been taken up and they're doing
• The response was that part of the proposal comes from feedback from the field and from what they are
• And I appreciate that feedback.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three education budget items: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), differentiated assistance/statewide system of support, and universal school meals plus kitchen infrastructure grants. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to provide $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding and $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended instead fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, and committee members questioned how the rate was determined, how much funding is actually spent, and whether overlapping funding from ELOP, ACEs, and 21st Century programs is being tracked. CDE said ELOP is showing positive attendance and math outcomes, but some requested data will not be available until mid-2027; members also raised concerns about double-funding, transparency, and whether middle and high school students are being equitably served. On differentiated assistance, CCEE outlined the statewide system of support and the various tiers of universal, targeted, supplemental, and intensive assistance. Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to replace the current DA structure with a more stable universal and targeted assistance model, funded at $131.9 million ongoing, with a three-year support cycle aligned to LCAP and ESSA timelines and broader State Board authority to revise eligibility criteria. The LAO objected to considering the proposal before the State Board finalizes the new performance criteria, and committee members expressed concern that moving to a three-year cycle could delay support for LEAs that newly fall into need mid-cycle. There was also discussion about whether the proposal would weaken subgroup-based equity guardrails or give the State Board too much discretion over who qualifies for support. For school meals and kitchen infrastructure, Finance proposed $1.8 billion ongoing for universal meals and an additional $100 million ongoing plus $100 million one-time for a fourth round of kitchen infrastructure and training grants. The LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the unmet need is not yet clear. CDE said prior investments have improved meal participation, efficiency, and menu variety, but many schools still lack the facilities for scratch cooking and face construction, electrical, and procurement barriers. Members asked for more data on how prior grants were used, which schools are benefiting, and whether funds could also support lower-cost food access strategies such as pantries, while noting federal restrictions on some meal-service innovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to see if the bids come in within budget, but at that time, you know, the feedback that he's
• We're going to see if the bids come in within budget, but at that time, you know, the feedback that he's
• We're going to see if the bids come in within budget, but at that time, you know, the feedback that he's
• We're going to see if the bids come in within budget, but at that time, you know, the feedback that he's
• </c> comments that we'd like to get feedback comments that we'd like to get feedback from<00:24:57.640

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:05 Capitol Renovations Update 00:00:40 Damage from Recent Disaster Discussion 00:33:25, 958, all

Summary: The committee met for its third meeting of the session and received an update on the Capitol renovation project from Finance and Administration Secretary Holly Johnson and State Budget Director John Hicks. They reported the project budget remains $291.52 million, with Messer Construction as construction manager, and said the temporary legislative chamber completion has slipped into 2025 because of wiring, voting machine, KET camera, and canopy work. They outlined the current bid schedule: site and utility bids due February 27, 2025; roofing and fourth-floor structural work due April 24; major renovation bids due May 23; bid review in late May and early June; roofing and fourth-floor work beginning in late June; and overall construction starting July 7, 2025. A major focus of the discussion was the project contingency, which officials said is only $10.8 million for an older building with significant unknown conditions. They explained that earlier investigations led to about $60 million in value engineering cuts, including more than $40 million tied to unexpectedly extensive terrace damage on the north, south, and east sides. The terraces were originally expected to need only minor work, but officials said investigations showed reconstruction would eventually be necessary and could not be handled by simple restoration. They also said the mechanical equipment plan changed from a basement location to a vault under the east parking lot, and that the west terrace will still see some ADA-related work. Committee members questioned why the terrace work was not included in the current budget, whether doing it later would cost more, and why bids and construction planning had taken so long. Officials said the terraces were left out because of cost, that future work would likely be more expensive because of market escalation, and that the timing reflected extensive investigation needed to produce reliable bids. Members also raised concerns about scaffolding and the temporary chambers; officials clarified that the scaffolding discussed was for the separate Capitol Dome project, not the chamber project, and said the Dome scaffolding is part of that project cost and is expected to come down in early 2027. They said the temporary chambers are expected to be used for three sessions, through the 28th session, with a return to the Capitol planned for the 29th session, and that public tours of the Capitol would likely end around June depending on the bid results and construction schedule.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any feedback to that from Department of Finance?
• Is there any feedback at the moment on the availability of those funds for this purpose?
• And so we'd be interested in your feedback.
• Was there feedback that that was not enough, or was this a mathematical, that was not enough, or was
• Even with your feedback there, waiting to see what the number shows in a couple weeks.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Then we'll wrap up with some next steps and feedback, and then lastly, public comment.
• And that feedback will then be taken and developed into guidelines, which will then be part of the design
• much information as possible from that document because that was also a culmination of a lot of feedback
• Also, when we had the public comment period last year, we did get feedback on what everybody would like
• Also, when we had the public comment period last year, we did get feedback on what everybody would, the

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• We would be interested in getting feedback on that. If you have any further comments on that.
• feedback, and public comments as provided by the Administrative Procedures Act.
• First, 2025, after considering internal feedback, external feedback, and public comments as provided
• The feedback is overwhelming.
• The feedback is overwhelming. Nearly 700 incarcerated individuals have made it clear.

Summary: The hearing focused first on sexual abuse, harassment, and retaliation in California’s women’s prisons, with testimony from CDCR wardens, the Office of Inspector General, advocacy groups, and formerly incarcerated survivors. Legislators and witnesses described a pattern of staff misconduct, fear of retaliation, gaps in reporting, and the need for stronger accountability, better investigations, and more outside access for survivor support organizations. CDCR said it has expanded training, body-worn and stationary cameras, outside partnerships, and PREA-related response procedures, while the Inspector General requested additional funding and staff to monitor more grievances and staff sexual misconduct cases under SB 1069. Members pressed CDCR on why accused staff are not always placed on leave, how cases are referred to prosecutors, and whether current protections are enough; several members argued the state should aim to investigate all complaints and do more to prevent retaliation and repeat abuse. The second issue was rehabilitative and reentry programming in women’s prisons. CDCR’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs and the wardens highlighted education, vocational training, substance use treatment, peer support, and community reentry programs, citing increased enrollment and recent graduates earning diplomas, degrees, and certifications. They said these programs are intended to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Formerly incarcerated advocates and community providers argued that current offerings are still too limited, outdated, and not aligned with today’s job market, especially around digital literacy and transferable credentials, and they urged more funding for community-based, trauma-informed, gender-responsive programming. A coalition representative asked for a $20 million continuation and expansion of the Wright Grant program, and members discussed additional budget requests for reentry and related women’s services.

Transcript Highlights:

• This increase was made possible by acting on direct stakeholder feedback, strategically strengthening
• You know, I think that when we're thinking about all the avenues in which we are soliciting feedback,
• we're consuming Thinking about all the avenues in which we are soliciting feedback, we're consuming
• feedback.
• It's one of the avenues in which we appreciate being able to hear direct feedback.

Summary: The committee first considered the confirmation of Dr. John Lattell to the Florida Board of Medicine. In questioning, senators focused heavily on his views on abortion, vaccines, ivermectin, hormonal birth control, and the role of CDC/FDA guidance in board discipline cases. Dr. Lattell said the board should apply Florida statutes, described himself as strongly pro-life and skeptical of some federal health guidance, and said he would be sympathetic when judging fellow physicians because of his own experience in practice. Supporters praised his medical background, military service, and family medicine experience, while opponents argued his stated views could affect his ability to fairly discipline other doctors. The committee voted 5-2 to recommend confirmation, with Senators Polsky and Rouson voting no. The committee then took up the confirmation of Taylor Hatch as Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Hatch outlined her background at DCF and APD and described department priorities including streamlining services, improving child welfare and behavioral health systems, expanding peer support, and reducing SNAP error rates. Members asked detailed questions about Hope Florida, the number and role of Hope Navigators, agency responsiveness on bill analyses, and accountability for community-based care contractors. Hatch said Hope Florida is a partnership-based navigation effort aimed at self-sufficiency, that 143 Hope Navigators are in place, and that the department is working to improve transparency and oversight through contracts, audits, and a proposed funding model. Senators also pressed Hatch on the Hope Florida Foundation’s compliance history and on forensic audits of community-based care agencies, especially Northwest Florida Health Network. Hatch said the foundation is now in compliance and under audit, and that the contractor had completed corrective actions and was operating within current accountability limits. She said DCF had not yet conducted new forensic audits under her tenure but was preparing another round and was considering using contracted-services dollars to support that work. The discussion ended with continued questioning on oversight, staffing, and whether the agency could provide more formal bill analyses going forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• feedback.
• So far, there's some that are getting feedback in late or today for the first time.
• So we're going to hear a lot of testimony today, and we'll continue to take that feedback.
• We've taken in the feedback we've received so far.
• I also appreciate the prime sponsor reaching out several times for our feedback.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on four bills. SB 5925 would expand the Attorney General’s civil investigative demand authority to investigate possible violations of the U.S. and Washington constitutions, certain labor and civil rights laws, law enforcement use-of-force issues, and jail-related statutes. Supporters, including the Attorney General’s office, Teamsters 117, and Working Washington, said the bill would make investigations faster and more effective, especially in wage theft and discrimination cases. Opponents, including police, sheriffs, cities, counties, and retail and business groups, argued it would give the AG broad investigative power without enough threshold showing, could burden local governments and employers, and raised constitutional concerns about speech and search protections. No vote was taken. SB 5906 would codify and expand protections for non-public spaces in schools, child care facilities, health care facilities, higher education institutions, and county auditor election areas by limiting immigration enforcement access without a judicial warrant or court order and restricting collection of immigration-related information about students and families. Supporters said the bill would reduce fear, protect privacy, and make existing Keep Washington Working policies clearer and more durable, with testimony from immigrant rights groups, faith organizations, students, PTA, and health advocates. Some organizations, including health care and child care stakeholders, supported the goal but asked for amendments to clarify definitions, create model policies, add training and enforcement provisions, and adjust warrant/subpoena language. The committee also heard strong opposition concerns about federal immigration enforcement, but no action was taken. SB 6070 would expand missing-person tools by allowing certain digital investigative tools to be used in missing endangered person cases, creating new Abney and Purple Alerts for missing Black people and people with disabilities, and broadening the definition of missing endangered person. Supporters included prosecutors, law enforcement, tribal and disability advocates, families of missing persons, and students who argued that faster alerts and better digital tools save lives and address racial and disability disparities in missing-person responses. Testimony described delays in prior cases and the need for more urgent, targeted alerts. The committee then heard SB 6002, which would regulate automated license plate reader systems, set registration, use, retention, audit, and disclosure rules, and prohibit certain uses such as immigration enforcement and surveillance near protected locations. The sponsor said the bill is intended to create statewide guardrails for a technology already in use, and testimony was expected to continue after the excerpt ended; no vote or final action was recorded in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd appreciate your feedback, or is this something that you know from a competitiveness perspective that
• have been companies that turned down opportunities here because of that, so I'd appreciate that feedback
• I appreciate your feedback, or is this something that you know from a competitiveness perspective that
• have been companies that turned down opportunities here because of that, so I'd appreciate that feedback
• 08.360><c> I'm</c><00:25:08.679><c> I</c><00:25:08.760><c> want</c><00:25:08.880><c> to</c> that feedback

Keywords: 00:01 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:34 Economic Development Cabinet 27:51 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee met without a quorum, so the minutes from the last two meetings were not approved. Secretary Noel of the Cabinet for Economic Development then gave a broad overview of the cabinet’s work and an update on the Kentucky Product Development Initiative (KPD), with Deputy Secretary Katie Smith and General Counsel Matt also present. He said the cabinet’s strategy is to focus on high-wage job creation, especially in automotive transformation, business and financial professional services, tourism, logistics, agri-tech, aerospace, and other high-tech sectors, while also supporting small and medium-sized businesses and existing employers. Noel highlighted several program results and examples, including average incentivized wages approaching $27 per hour, 877 jobs and $346 million in investment through hub operations, $90 million through Commonwealth Ventures, help for hundreds of companies through the Kentucky Intellectual Property Alliance, work with 220 companies through the Kentucky Science and Technology Council, nearly 3,000 students in Advanced Kentucky, and more than 1,100 participants in Kentucky Valor. He also cited 35,000 workers trained through Bluegrass State Skills, 177 businesses helped by the small business tax credit, and 77 entertainment incentive transactions totaling about $200 million and 7,400 jobs. On the grant side, he said the cabinet had approved 155 projects under a federal grant program, committing $99 million, with outreach aimed at smaller communities and all 120 counties. The main focus of the second half was KPD. Noel described it as a program that requires more than basic due diligence, emphasizing community readiness, local vision, title and mineral-rights review, sewer validation, and consultant review. He said 109 projects had been awarded in the earlier rounds, and in 2024 there were 45 requests for information seeking $81 million against $35 million in available funding, showing strong demand. He also said the cabinet has worked with local economic developers through five regions aligned with area development districts, and that the secretary, deputy secretary, or commissioner of business development must attend the regional meetings, with 100% attendance reported for the key three last year. In response to questions, he said Jefferson County’s lack of KPD projects so far likely reflects where local land and development strategies are in the process rather than a lack of interest, and he said the cabinet has not heard that Kentucky’s occupational safety and health rules are clearly helping or hurting competitiveness, though he offered to look into it further.

Transcript Highlights:

• So my understanding, Senator Salomon, and much of this feedback comes from our planning directors who
• Again, this is feedback I'm getting from people who do this work on the ground, not a technical expert
• I just wanted to get some commentary and feedback to work on it. So thank you. Thank you.
• Interestingly, a mix of feedback.
• Interestingly, a mix of feedback.

Bills: SB5633, SB6279, SB6291, SB6274, SB6309, SB5903, SB6016, SB5820, SB6132, SB6189

Keywords: land subdivision, zoning, property development, local government authority, real estate, infrastructure, wildfire, wildland urban interface, WUI, building code, fire-resistant construction, defensible space, hazard map, risk map, state building code council, department of natural resources, fire marshal, regional fire defense board, roofing standards, exterior walls

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on SB 5633, a major rewrite of subdivision law. Staff described changes that would move many subdivision decisions from legislative bodies to administrative personnel, limit or eliminate public hearings for plats, expand notice to nearby landowners, clarify pre-application conferences, require concurrent review of related permits, and set a 100-day decision timeline for preliminary plats. Supporters from the building industry, Realtors, and some city officials said the bill would streamline an outdated process, reduce delays and costs, and help housing production. County and city representatives, while praising the stakeholder process and some technical improvements, raised concerns about eliminating public hearings, local accountability, and implementation details. The committee also heard testimony on SB 6279, which would incorporate the Wildland Urban Interface code into the state building code after wildfire maps are completed, with local amendment authority and consultation requirements. Fire marshals and some environmental advocates supported the goal but asked for clearer environmental protections, more transparency in mapping, and more local flexibility; builders and county officials opposed or sought changes, warning about costs, timing, and the practicality of applying the code before maps are finalized. The committee then heard SB 6309, which would streamline permitting for Sound Transit and other regional transit authority projects by allowing permit applications before land acquisition is complete, allowing rail facilities to exceed some local height and setback limits when practicable, and exempting certain land divisions tied to condemnation for essential public facilities. The committee waived the five-day notice rule for the bill, and the sponsor and Sound Transit representatives said the measure would reduce delays and help deliver light rail and bus rapid transit more efficiently while preserving local coordination and cultural resource review. The committee also heard SB 6291, which would extend from two to four years the period during which local health jurisdiction wastewater inspectors may work under supervision before certification; public health officials supported the change as a workforce and training fix, saying the current timeline is too short and costly. Finally, SB 6274 would require comprehensive plans to identify infrastructure barriers, including frontage and street standards that affect infill and middle housing, and to review those standards for consistency with housing and transportation goals. Builders and some planners supported the bill as a way to reduce costly frontage mandates, while city and advocacy witnesses asked for clearer definitions and cautioned about impacts on safety, accessibility, and local street design.

Transcript Highlights:

• a challenging bill for a lot of cities and I've been hearing some pretty consistent and intense feedback
• a challenging bill for a lot of cities and I've been hearing some pretty consistent and intense feedback
• All right, and I'll just remark that the prime sponsor, Senator Hunt, got feedback.
• restrictive than those required for other types of development in the zone. consistent and intense feedback
• All right, and I'll just remark that the prime sponsor, Senator Hunt, got feedback.

Bills: SB6069, SB6167, SB6201, SB6205, SB6001, SB6026, SB6054, SGA9278, SGA9279

Keywords: affordable housing, homelessness, homeless shelter, emergency shelter, emergency housing, supportive housing, permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, low-income housing, very low-income, extremely low-income, housing crisis, land use, zoning, local preemption, urban growth area, UGA, planning, development regulations, permitting

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 6201, which would create property tax and real estate excise tax exemptions for property used as affordable housing by social housing agencies, with a 50% occupancy threshold for households at or below 80% of area median income and a 15-year covenant requirement. Staff outlined the bill’s tax and fiscal impacts, and the prime sponsor, Senator Slatter, described it as a tool to expand permanently affordable workforce housing. Testimony from social housing advocates supported the measure, saying the exemptions would lower project costs and rents, while a committee member raised questions about how the occupancy requirement would be verified at the time of purchase. The public hearing on SB 6201 was later closed after testimony from Seattle Social Housing representatives. The committee also heard gubernatorial appointments to the Washington State Housing Finance Commission from Pedro Espinoza and Diana H. Perez, both of whom described their construction, public service, and housing-related backgrounds and their interest in expanding homeownership and housing access statewide. Members asked about their experience and local housing needs, and both nominees emphasized the importance of housing affordability and collaboration with local governments. Senate Bill 6205 was briefed and heard, proposing accountability changes for the Community Reinvestment Account, the Affordable Housing Program, and the Covenant Homeownership Program. The bill would bar officers and family members from benefiting from grants, require Commerce to prioritize grants based on need, broaden priority for organizations serving people disproportionately impacted by homelessness, and require biannual evaluations of grants and loans. Senator Braun said the bill was intended to address reported misuse and improve transparency and trust in state-funded housing programs. The committee then heard and later acted on several bills in executive session: it adopted a technical substitute and passed SB 6001 on scissor stairs; rejected Goehner amendments but passed SB 6026 on limiting commercial-ground-floor requirements in housing zones; adopted a substitute and passed SB 6054 on fire-hardened building materials in common interest communities; and later heard SB 6069 on step housing, where supporters said it would reduce local barriers to shelters and supportive housing while cities and counties argued for more flexibility and operational agreements. The committee also heard SB 6167, which would prohibit homebuyers from stacking multiple state-funded down payment assistance awards, with the sponsor saying it would spread limited funds to more households and opponents/testifiers raising concerns about access and fairness.

Transcript Highlights:

• We often have very little feedback from those project developers as to whether they implement them, how
• I don’t—we don’t have the feedback to say either way, so it appears that it is, yes.
• practices that are voluntary to implement by a project developer and we often or very rarely have feedback
• from those project development. often or very rarely have feedback from those project developers or
• And without notification or a feedback loop, they have no way to weigh in on the appropriateness of that

Bills: SB3074, HB49, HB2440, HB3556, HB3619, HB3866, HB4042, HB4112, HB4271, HB4413, HB4426, HB5033

Keywords: SB 3074, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Water Code, permit applications, environmental permitting, administrative record, ex parte communications, legislative communications, governor, lieutenant governor, state legislators, district projects, public records, recusal, conflict of interest, substantial interest, agency transparency, environmental regulation, permit renewal

Summary: The committee heard and laid out several natural resources and environmental bills, with testimony focused on balancing development, public health, wildlife protection, and regulatory authority. SB 3074 would allow the governor, lieutenant governor, and legislators to communicate in writing with TCEQ about matters before the commission, with safeguards requiring the communication to be part of the record and allowing other parties to respond; a committee substitute narrowed it to written communications about permits only, limited legislator communications to facilities in their districts, and adjusted conflict-of-interest rules. HB 3556, as substituted, would require notice to Texas Parks and Wildlife for certain very tall structures in specified coastal counties and give TPWD a limited right to seek injunctive relief if mitigation is insufficient to prevent material harm to migratory birds; supporters said it would address ignored wildlife recommendations and protect key flyways, while opponents argued the bill was too broad, singled out wind energy, and gave one agency unusually strong enforcement power. HB 49 would expand liability protections for produced-water recycling and beneficial use; supporters said it would encourage reuse of a large wastewater stream and reduce disposal pressures, while opponents warned it could shield operators from responsibility before the science and standards are mature. HB 4413 would authorize mass-balance accounting for renewable biomass feedstocks, and HB 3866 would regulate intermediate bulk container recycling facilities near homes, with a committee substitute adding a grandfather clause and making implementation contingent on funding. The committee also heard bills affecting air and energy regulation. HB 5033 would create a trigger to end vehicle emissions inspections if federal law changes to allow it; the substitute removed a Supreme Court-related trigger, and the lone public witness opposed the bill, warning it would worsen air quality and harm nonattainment areas. HB 4112 would clarify that on-site storage of high-level radioactive waste is allowed at current and future nuclear reactors and university research reactors only for waste generated at that site; the substitute clarified the language and removed an inoperative permit condition, and witnesses from environmental and nuclear groups said the clarification was needed to prevent unintended restrictions while avoiding off-site storage. HB 2440 would prohibit state agencies from using air-quality rules to ban or restrict vehicles based on energy source, including internal combustion vehicles, and no public testimony was offered. HB 4271 would require TCEQ to hold public meetings on request for composting facility authorizations; the substitute limited the requirement to future applications and was presented as a transparency measure after a denied local request and extensive public comments. Additional bills addressed landowner protections and Railroad Commission oversight. HB 3619 would require the Railroad Commission to restore surface land after plugging or replugging operations and indemnify landowners from damages tied to authorized entry; a witness supported the bill but urged fixing a separate statutory loophole that he said allowed operators to enter unrelated tracts without notice. HB 4042 would extend Railroad Commission pipeline safety and fee provisions to propane distribution systems by removing the word “natural” from the relevant definitions. HB 4426 would set a 10-year permit term for commercial surface disposal facilities, allow renewal based on compliance history, and require renewal applications 120 days before expiration. The committee took no votes because a quorum was not initially present, and each bill was left pending after testimony and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, I'd open it up now for you all to provide feedback. We'll start with Ms. Patel.
• So more of a stump speech than a question, but open to take feedback. and input.
• No, I think we'd say, I know we've received some feedback that maybe some of the initial language was
• I think we want to make sure that we're getting that data and feedback through reporting.
• I'd ask if the Department of Education wants to provide some feedback on An alternative approach and

Keywords: 988, house, all