Transcript Highlights:

• bill in terms of our local elected officials being concerned about the violations and about the retroactive
• And that is taking out some of those retroactive provisions. I think we're in debate. Yes.
• I just wanted to put clarity on this that those retroactive provisions have been deleted in your strike
• First of all, I want to thank you for listening to the retroactivity and removing it.
• This bill seeks to retroactively roll back those protections.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 1134, which would extend the use of qualified private providers in the building permit process to residential solar energy systems and certain single-trade inspections, and would allow computer-based plan review tools. The sponsor said the bill is intended to reduce long solar permitting delays and lower costs. A late amendment clarifying the word “application” was adopted, and after some discussion about local permitting problems and the need to work with municipalities, CS/SB 1134 was reported favorably, with Senator Pizzo voting no. The committee then took up SB 784, dealing with issuance of addresses and parcel identification numbers for plats. The bill sets a 14-day timeframe, and an amendment was adopted that would allow use of a private provider if the deadline is missed and would limit fee collection if verification is not completed. Members discussed whether the bill should include more flexibility and whether private providers are appropriate for this function, but the committee ultimately reported CS/SB 784 favorably. SB 1738, allowing counties that previously opted out of transportation concurrency to opt back in while maintaining current levels of service, was also reported favorably without significant opposition. Next, SB 1080 on local government land regulation was presented as a measure to speed up development permit and order approvals, limit repeated information requests, prevent hearing delays, and impose penalties for noncompliance. Local government testimony argued it would rush planning and weaken public input, while supporters called it common-sense streamlining. After debate, the bill was reported favorably, with several no votes. SB 1260, which clarifies county constitutional officer budget procedures and creates an appeal process for clerks and supervisors of elections similar to that used by sheriffs, was also reported favorably after members raised concerns about county budget timelines. Finally, the committee considered SB 420, as amended by a strike-all, which would prohibit counties and municipalities from adopting or funding DEI-related ordinances, programs, or policies, while carving out compliance with state and federal law and defining DEI-related terms. The amendment removed retroactivity and delayed the effective date, but members from both parties raised concerns about vague definitions, impacts on women- and minority-owned business programs, local commemorations, and the loss of attorney’s fees for prevailing counties. Public testimony was sharply divided, with many speakers opposing the bill as an attack on local control and inclusion, and a few supporting it as a merit-based standard. The amendment was adopted, but the bill drew extensive opposition in debate and was not yet reported in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would this be retroactive? I think that's an odd way to ask the question.
• So yes, I'm going to say that it would be retroactive back because about the tribes, that goes back.
• If it is retroactive, they're falling into the Indian tribes members. Thank you.
• That goes, they retroactive, they're falling into the Indian tribes, members. Thank you.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the committee substitute just adds retroactive language in the new Section 2.
• The way this is written suggests retroactive application. which is unconstitutional under our Texas Constitution
• Retroactive law or any law impairing the obligation of contract shall be made.
• forward on this legislation, we fix that unconstitutional problem in this—that it doesn't have retroactive

Bills: SB2215, SB2639

Keywords: zoning, municipality, municipal immunity, governmental immunity, local government, Chapter 211, Texas Local Government Code, land use, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, mandamus, attorney's fees, court costs, property rights, home rule city, code enforcement, planning and zoning, land development, municipal ordinance, historic landmark

Transcript Highlights:

• deposited into the state general fund for the payment of essential government services, with a retroactivity
• deposited into the state general fund for the payment of essential government services with a retroactivity
• Additionally, what the bill does is it repeals retroactively to tax year 2026...
• The bill does is it repeals retroactively to tax year 2026 the corporate income tax credit for pollution
• distribution of revenues for infrastructure improvements for manufacturing facilities effective retroactively

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• deposited into the state general fund for the payment of essential government services, with a retroactivity
• deposited into the state general fund for the payment of essential government services with a retroactivity
• Additionally, what the bill does is it repeals retroactively to tax year 2026.
• The bill does is it repeals retroactively to tax year 2026 the corporate income tax credit for pollution
• distribution of revenues for infrastructure improvements for manufacturing facilities, effective retroactively

Summary: The meeting covered a series of fiscal year 2027 budget and budget-related bills, beginning with the general appropriations and tax package. Staff and the chair highlighted a budget built around about $1.4 billion in tax cuts, a one-time 2.5% agency reduction, major funding for state employee health insurance, corrections, flood and wildfire relief, and other supplemental appropriations. The chair repeatedly urged support for the package, emphasizing the size of the tax cut and noting that the committee’s joint vote had only three no votes out of 28 members. Members then reviewed several smaller budget implementation bills affecting racing and gambling, capital outlay, commerce and defense innovation, corrections, environment and water policy, higher education, human services, K-12 education, county finance, tax administration, state data governance, and state office rent rates. Key provisions included extending or modifying funds and fee structures, transferring surplus or unneeded monies, creating or revising oversight boards and pilot programs, increasing K-12 funding by 2% for inflation, adjusting university retention limits, expanding SNAP and housing-related requirements, and changing tax conformity and credits. Several members asked clarifying questions about specific items such as electric vehicle charging funds, mobile home relocation payments, university funding, and the new health insurance oversight board. The chair also explained the tax bill’s major changes, including conformity to federal tax law, a larger dependent tax credit, changes to deductions, repeal of certain tax credits, veteran property tax relief, limits on data center tax incentives, and provisions affecting manufacturing infrastructure and unemployment insurance administration. The committee discussed the Budget Stabilization Fund, debt repayment, and education rollover balances, with the chair arguing for using surpluses to pay down debt. The final item discussed was a behavioral health bill creating a home and community-based services program for adults determined to be seriously mentally ill, with a stated FY 2027 total fund appropriation of $7.8 million contingent on federal approval and matching funds. The meeting ended with a reminder that floor action would begin the next day at 10 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I see that this bill is retroactive. What's the reason behind making it retroactive?
• The bill is retroactive relating to the bonds, but it would... well, I shouldn't say retroactive.
• I don't know if we would necessarily consider it retroactive.

Summary: The Finance and Tax Committee considered several tax-related measures. SB 674, allowing county property appraisers to budget for and pay hiring or retention bonuses with Department of Revenue approval, was supported by property appraisers and reported favorably. C.S. for SJR 318, as amended, would create a tangible personal property exemption for agricultural land used in agricultural production or agritourism; the amendment clarified the property’s location and allowed the Legislature to define conditions, and the resolution was reported favorably with support from Farm Bureau and the Florida Chamber. The committee also advanced C.S. for SB 1664, as amended, which requires locally approved discretionary taxes to be reauthorized by voters when they expire and sets rules for taxes tied to revenue bonds. Local government and tourism-related groups raised concerns about impacts on tourist development taxes, beach funding, transportation surtaxes, and long-term planning, while supporters argued voters should periodically reaffirm taxes; the bill was reported favorably. C.S. for SJR 1510 and its implementing bill, SB 1512, were both amended to sharply narrow a proposed long-term lease property tax exemption to one qualifying property and to single-family homes, mobile homes, and condominiums; counties and cities opposed the measures as tax shifts, but both were reported favorably. The committee then took up SPB 7034, the Senate tax package, which includes permanent sales tax exemptions for certain clothing and bullion, multiple tax holidays, a temporary motor vehicle fee reduction, a property tax study, corporate and insurance tax credit changes, a communications services tax freeze, and other tax provisions, with staff estimating $2.1 billion in total revenue reduction. Testimony included support for studying property taxes and strong opposition to the firearm and ammunition tax holiday from students and advocacy groups, who argued it was unsafe and inappropriate; others urged adding combined reporting or removing tourist development tax changes. After debate, the committee reported the package favorably and also approved a motion to submit it as a committee bill. The meeting ended after Senator Bernard recorded an affirmative vote on tab 5 and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We would like the committee to consider including some kind of retroactivity for sentences, and I know
• Retroactivity for sentences, and I know that that is not something you're in favor of.
• And by the way, sir, it's not retroactive, and I do not intend to bring a bill to make it retroactive
• Smithman will have a comment or question after sending you Senator, I think the question about retroactivity

Bills: HB43, SB81, SB178, SB138, SB89, SB183, HB27, HB188, HB199, HB190, SB117, HB43, HB27

Keywords: criminal procedure, split sentencing, probation, Class A felony, Class B felony, minimum confinement, custodial sexual misconduct, sexual misconduct, inmate abuse, prisoner exploitation, correctional staff, jail staff, detention center, probation officer, parole officer, Department of Corrections, Department of Youth Services, sheriff, county jail, municipal jail

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if we can't be retroactive, I'd like it to be as soon as possible.
• So, if we can't be retroactive, I'd like it to be as soon as possible.
• amendment I asked that it be retroactive amendment I asked that it be retroactive to<01:27:51.560
• there's no such thing as retroactive. there's no such thing as retroactive.
• , if we can't be retroactive, if we can't be retroactive, I'd<01:28:14.880> like<01:28:15.280

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That bill provides relative to the 2024 Regular Session and retroactivity of certain ethics code provisions
• That bill provides relative to the 2024 Regular Session and retroactivity of certain ethics code provisions
• the statute it actually put it into the statute, and the second was that the Senate amendment was retroactive
• They made it retroactive to a date I forgot. We just struck the retroactive part.
• It also keeps the retroactive application back to January 1, 2026. I move to concur.

Bills: HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HCR112, HR307, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR79, HCR104, HB75, HB410, HB719, HB750, HB944, HB1098, HB1220, HB1252, HB359, HB210, HB468, HB1117, SB382, HB368, HB552, HB732, HB870, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB149, SB208, SB274, SB300, SB312, SB387, SB389, SB401, HR74, HB998, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, SB237, HB36, HB42, HB74, HB119, HB159, HB258, HB259, HB302, HB414, HB459, HB848, HB956, HB1017, HB1028, HB1095, SB217, SB283, SB469

Keywords: oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding, taxpayer liability, public liability, offshore wells, onshore wells, coastal erosion, Department of Conservation and Energy, natural resources

Transcript Highlights:

• So this would retroactively increase their consequence?
• Would you agree that typically we enact legislation that looks forward and does not include retroactivity
• I don't believe this is retroactive.
• And so as a fundamental constitutional principle, I don't know. forward and does not include retroactivity
• I don't believe this is retroactive.

Bills: SB1475, SB1447, HB2288, SB1521, SB592, SB1533, HB1276, SB201, SB1477, SB1232, SB1255, SB1327, SB1525, SB1721, SB667, SB1436, SB1317, SB604, SB1325, SB1496, SB2007, SB1567, SB2112, SB1980, SB1735, SB1558, SB1491, SB1287, SB1378, SB1369, SB1441, SB137, SB483, SB843, SB1433, SB1257, SB1365, SJR49, HJR1090, HJR1091, HJR1092, HJR1093, HJR1095, HJR1094

Keywords: memorial, infrastructure, transportation, dedication, Toby Keith, employees insurance, contract awarding, certifications, state procurement, insurance plan, teachers, retirement, postretirement employment, earnings limitations, Oklahoma, artificial intelligence, AI, generative AI, chatbot, conversational AI

Summary: The House convened, called the roll, offered prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and recognized the Nurse of the Day and several student and athletic groups, including Career Tech students, charter school students, Meridian Tech students, and Carl Albert championship teams. A lengthy personal privilege/farewell-style speech was delivered by Representative Lepak, reflecting on his service, family, staff, and legislative colleagues, and offering general advice about public service and the legislative process. The chamber then took up several Senate bills. SB 1369, creating a 988 revolving fund to support Oklahoma’s mental health lifeline, passed 85-7. SB 1441, clarifying penalties for drones contacting critical infrastructure, passed 80-2. SB 137, adding DUI/GBI to electronic monitoring ineligibility and clarifying Department of Corrections language, passed 72-18 after questions about retroactivity and administrative authority. SB 843, raising the minimum ADA threshold from 400 to 550 for school districts to hire relatives of board members, passed 77-4, and its emergency clause also received the required two-thirds vote. The most extensive debate centered on SB 483, which would have authorized county commissioners to establish a relocation assistance program for people seeking to move to supportive housing or services. Members raised concerns about homelessness policy, county capacity, public-private partnerships, safeguards, and possible misuse or “bussing” of people between communities. The bill ultimately failed 35-52, and notice was given of a possible motion to reconsider. Later, SB 1433, requiring agencies to publicly post guidance documents and note they lack the force of law, passed unanimously; SB 1257, updating THC-related language in controlled substances law, passed 68-13; and SB 1365, updating promotional fund language for state retail outlets, lodges, gift shops, and golf courses, failed 43-42, with notice of reconsideration also given. The House then moved to recess until 1:15 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to another challenge we face is retroactive denials, where insurers initially approved claims
• This practice of retroactive denials creates financial unpredictability, and it makes it very difficult
• There's been so many different times in which retroactive denials have been an issue, as we know, and
• In which retroactive denials have been an issue, as we know, and you're right, consumers wind up going
• And I must remind you that these were not retroactive.

Summary: The committee met to hear five banking and insurance-related bills. HB 1549, an Office of Financial Regulation agency bill to help more efficiently regulate financial institutions, was amended to match Senate companion language and then passed unanimously. HB 1231 would extend physician payment and prior-authorization protections similar to a prior dental law, including limits on virtual credit card payments as the sole payment method; physicians and medical groups supported it as a way to reduce fees and retroactive denials, while insurers were not heard in opposition, and the bill passed unanimously. The committee then heard HB 999, which would make gold and silver legal tender and allow transactions in bullion through electronic debit mechanisms. The sponsor and several proponents framed it as an inflation hedge and economic freedom measure, while questions focused on definitions, transaction costs, and vendor participation. The bill passed on a mostly party-line vote, with one member voting no. The committee also approved HM 4363, a memorial urging Congress to establish a sovereign wealth fund; the sponsor described it as a way to steward national wealth, and the memorial passed with one dissenting vote. Finally, the committee took up HB 1551, which would create a prevailing-party attorney fee framework in insurance contract disputes. The sponsor argued it would restore balance, deter meritless litigation, and help consumers with valid claims recover fees, while insurers, business groups, and defense attorneys warned it would revive one-way fee shifting, increase litigation, and raise premiums. Consumer advocates and some members supported it as necessary to give policyholders meaningful recourse. After debate, the bill passed favorably, with one member voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:14:13.360> language One removes the retroactivity language One removes the retroactivity
• emergency clause and retroactivity? emergency clause and retroactivity?
• <02:25:37.359> retroactively.
• Um that is retroactively retroactively.
• retroactive application of this bill. retroactive application of this bill.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Orders entered within the first year after the live birth of a child would be retroactive to 9 months
• They're already going to have retroactive child support.
• They're already going to have retroactive child support.
• So if there was a retroactive child support amount put on there, it would begin accruing interest at
• So if there was a retroactive child support amount put on there, it would begin accruing interest at

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Assemblymember Brian, I just want to thank the author for addressing the retroactivity.
• Thank you for addressing that component, the retroactivity portion of it.
• Just to answer your question, the retroactivity amendment would address this.
• Just to answer your question, the retroactivity amendment would address this concern.
• Thank you for amending to take out the retroactivity.

Summary: The committee heard several bills. SB 911, by Senator Becker, would require notification and verification of defensible-space compliance when homes in high wildfire severity zones are transferred, using the preliminary change of ownership report; supporters said it would improve wildfire resilience and insurance availability, while county assessors opposed the use of the PCOR and urged a different recorded document. Members generally supported the bill but raised concerns about the 12-month compliance window and the need to keep working with assessors; the bill was held pending a quorum and later placed on call. SB 1016, by Senator Blakespear, would create a pathway for a higher-level mental health evaluation when a Care Court petition is dismissed because the person is too ill to participate or otherwise needs more intensive care. Supporters, including psychiatrists, family members, and local officials, said Care Court is leaving many severely ill people untreated and that the bill would connect them to existing LPS processes. Opponents, including Disability Rights California, county behavioral health directors, counties, and other advocacy groups, argued it would expand involuntary detention, bypass existing pre-petition screening safeguards, and undermine Care Court’s voluntary nature. The bill passed the committee on a roll call vote and was placed on call. SB 1112, by Senator Archuleta, would create a faster court process for victims of illegal or excessive “bandit towing” to recover their vehicles by posting a bond and obtaining a release certificate. Support came from Enterprise Mobility and the author, who said the bill targets bad actors and helps equalize leverage for vehicle owners; the California Auto Body Association sought an amendment to exclude auto repair shops. The committee passed the bill as amended to Appropriations and placed it on call. SB 1119, by Senator Padilla, would impose child-safety requirements on AI chatbots, including risk assessments, crisis-response protocols, parental controls, limits on time and data use, reporting, audits, and a private right of action. The bill was driven by testimony from the mother of a teenager who died by suicide after prolonged chatbot interactions; industry and business groups opposed or sought amendments, citing overlap with recent law, vague standards, and prescriptive design mandates. Members expressed strong support for the bill’s goals while urging tighter definitions, and the bill was moved on a roll call vote and placed on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• sure how this would go on a retroactive sure how this would go on a retroactive basis<01:32:21.280
• Some parts may be possible to do retroactively, some may not.
• Some parts may be possible to do retroactively, some may not.
• Some parts may be possible to do retroactively, some may not.
• Is there a reason why we couldn't do that retroactively?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion broadly around whether school building aid should remain a state program, how to address limited revenues, and whether the current system should continue to prioritize debt service and the existing formula or move toward a different model such as per-pupil allocations, a dedicated fund, or a split between new construction and renovation. He also raised questions about whether leasing should be included and how to manage any new fund under current law and the school building authority structure. Representatives and department staff discussed the current backlog of applications, the age and condition of school facilities, and the possibility that large projects can consume available funding for a year while other districts go unsupported. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities introduced himself and provided technical context on the program and current debt levels. Representative Luneau argued that under the ConVal decision, the state’s responsibility includes school buildings, construction, and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property wealth. He noted that construction and renovation have long been recognized categories and asked about leasing, which staff said is already supported in statute for charter schools and possibly CTE, with a cap of 30% of annual lease cost or $50,000. The discussion also covered CTE facilities: staff explained that capital funding for CTE centers is state-funded, that federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction, and that the current rotational capital model means only a few centers are funded each year, which may not match changing program needs. A committee studying CTE capital needs was referenced, along with concerns that the report from that work had not yet been received. Representative Papich urged the subcommittee to focus on policy, principles, and structure rather than just numbers, saying the current system produces a few winners and many districts that never receive aid. He favored a simpler, more equitable per-capita or formula-based approach, while acknowledging the need for a transition plan for projects already in the pipeline. The chair later cautioned against mixing maintenance and operations with construction and renovation, noting that operation and maintenance are already part of the adequacy formula and should not be confused with capital funding. No votes were taken during the meeting; the discussion was exploratory, with members and staff laying out competing approaches and identifying issues for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no provision in the bill that talks about retroactivity." "Senator Smith.
• I'm good." "...the bill that talks about retroactivity. Senator Smith. I'm good on questions.
• Possibly reach out 20 years retroactively to hurt a company in the future.
• A retroactive contract after a job is done, just because the intent of the bill may say that...
• A retroactive contract after a job is done, just because the intent of the bill may say that...

Bills: S0198, S0422, S1236, S1356, S1456, S1722

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosks, money services business, regulation, financial services, consumer protection, cryptocurrency, registration, ADS-B, automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, aviation, airports, airport fees, landing fees, departure fees, touch-and-go landing, general aviation, pilot privacy, airspace radius, aircraft tracking

Summary: The committee first postponed SB 1456, then heard SB 1236, which would condition state economic development incentives on employers using secret-ballot union elections and prohibit neutrality agreements. The sponsor argued the bill protects workers from coercion and applies only to companies receiving taxpayer-funded incentives; opponents said it was government interference, likely to hurt contractors, apprenticeships, and business growth, and raised concerns about federal preemption and Attorney General enforcement. After debate, the committee reported SB 1236 favorably on a recorded vote. The committee then considered CS/SB 198, a measure to regulate cryptocurrency kiosks by requiring operator registration, fraud warnings, transaction limits, blockchain analytics, receipts, and refund protections for certain first-time transactions tied to fraud. Supporters from the banking industry, AARP, and others said the bill would help stop scams that are targeting seniors and vulnerable adults; one industry witness supported the bill but suggested narrowing the limits for existing users and shortening the new-customer period. The committee reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee took up CS/SB 1356 on dog breeding, pet sales, and breeder registration. The sponsor said the bill is intended to curb puppy mills, improve animal welfare, and add consumer protections, while an amendment removed state oversight of local animal shelters. Pet store representatives supported much of the bill but objected to the three-day waiting period for financed purchases, expanded reimbursement, and unfair trade practice penalties; others argued the bill would add red tape and litigation. The committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee also heard SB 1722 on app stores and minors, which would require age verification, parental consent for minors, app-content disclosures, and enforcement by the Department of Legal Affairs. Supporters said the bill would help parents protect children online; opponents warned it could force collection of sensitive personal data, create privacy and constitutional problems, and duplicate existing parental tools. Members debated the balance between child safety and privacy, and the committee reported the bill favorably. Finally, the committee heard CS/SB 422 on ADS-B aviation data, which would bar use of ADS-B information to calculate certain landing or access fees; an amendment added departures to the restriction. Pilots supported the bill as a safety and privacy measure, while airport representatives opposed it as undermining airport finances and shifting costs. The amendment was adopted, and the hearing on the bill began with testimony from both sides.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, that part was before the committee, before, was supposed to be retroactively applied.
• Now, that part was before the committee before, was supposed to be retroactively applied.
• committee before was supposed to be the committee before was supposed to be uh<00:25:01.279> retroactively
• 02.799> it<00:25:02.960> was<00:25:03.159> not<00:25:03.919> so uh retroactively
• applied it was not so uh retroactively applied it was not so that<00:25:04.480> fixes<00:25:04.880

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Figures, I understand this is Senator Figures, I understand this is not<00:31:43.039> retroactive
• It does not have any not retroactive.
• , it was retroactive for all time<00:31:50.640> and<00:31:50.880> I<00:31:51.039> did
• There's no retroactivity.<00:31:54.480> Senator<00:31:54.799> figures. retroactivity.
• Senator figures. retroactivity. Senator figures.

Bills: HB63, HB19, HB80, HB41, HB20, HB60, HB100, HB71, HB91, HB93, HB63, HB19, HB80, HB41, HB20, HB60, HB100, HB71, HB91, HB93

Keywords: paternity, child custody, joint custody, parental rights, family law, domestic violence, shared parenting, Ebony Alert, missing youth, public safety, law enforcement, racial equity, human trafficking, victim restitution, civil action, criminal prosecution, labor servitude, sexual servitude, class A felony, class B felony

Transcript Highlights:

• The retroactive provision has been removed.
• bill in terms of our local elected officials being concerned about the violations and about the retroactive
• And that is taking out some of those retroactive provisions. I think we're in debate. Yes.
• First of all, I want to thank you for listening to the retroactivity and removing it.
• This bill seeks to retroactively roll back those protections.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 1134, which would extend and clarify the use of qualified private providers and computer-based tools in the building permit and inspection process for residential solar energy systems. The sponsor said the bill is intended to reduce long delays in solar permitting and make the process faster and cheaper; Senator Pizzo questioned whether the problem was limited to specific local governments, and a late-filed amendment clarifying the word “application” was adopted. After brief testimony from an industry representative supporting the measure, the committee reported the bill favorably, with Senator Pizzo voting no. Next, the committee considered SB 784, dealing with issuance of addresses and parcel identification numbers for plats and new development. The bill sets a 14-day timeframe, and an amendment was adopted that would allow use of a private provider if the deadline is missed and would bar fee collection if the local government fails to act within five business days. County representatives said they wanted to keep working on the bill and raised concerns about the private-provider language and the short deadlines, while several senators discussed whether the process should be handled earlier on the front end. The committee then reported the bill favorably. The committee also passed SB 1738 on transportation concurrency, which would let counties that previously opted out of concurrency opt back in by maintaining current levels of service. SB 1080, a local government land regulation bill, was described as a measure to speed development approvals by setting stricter timelines, limiting repeated information requests, and imposing penalties for noncompliance; local-government testimony opposed it as a loss of local control, while builders supported it. After debate, SB 1080 was reported favorably. SB 1260, which clarifies county constitutional officer budget procedures and creates an appeal process for clerks and supervisors of elections similar to sheriffs, was also reported favorably after members discussed possible adjustments to avoid burdening county budget negotiations. Finally, the committee took up SB 420, as amended by a strike-all, which would prohibit counties and municipalities from adopting or funding DEI-related ordinances, policies, programs, offices, or contracts, and would expose officials to misfeasance/malfeasance claims and local governments to lawsuits. The sponsor said the amendment removed retroactive language, delayed the effective date, and added definitions and contract-certification requirements, but many senators and public speakers argued the bill was overbroad, vague, and would chill local efforts such as Black History Month, women-owned business programs, minority contracting, and community outreach. Supporters said it would ensure merit-based government action and consistency with state standards. The amendment was adopted, but the bill drew extensive opposition testimony and debate over its scope and potential conflict with federal and state law.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the committee substitute just adds retroactive language in the new Section 2.
• The way this is written is retroactive application, which is unconstitutional under our Texas Constitution
• Ex post facto means before-the-fact retroactive law or any law impairing the obligation of contracts
• this legislation that we fix that unconstitutional problem in this bill so that it doesn't have retroactive

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 2215, which would clarify that property owners may challenge municipal zoning ordinances that are adopted without following Chapter 211 procedures, and would expressly waive municipal sovereign immunity for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus actions in those cases. The bill sponsor and witnesses argued it would simply enforce existing notice, hearing, and due process requirements and give landowners a practical remedy when cities fail to comply. Testimony in support came from attorneys and a landowner describing alleged zoning actions in Selma that they said occurred without proper notice or hearings and caused significant financial harm. After questions, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2639, which would add disclosure and compensation requirements for local historic designations, including compensation based on the greater of repair/restoration costs or the difference in appraised value with and without the designation. The bill author said it was intended to address situations where historic designation delays or blocks redevelopment and to ensure property owners are fairly compensated. A property owner testified in support, describing an Austin case in which a demolition permit led to historic designation and what he said was a costly forced rehabilitation. Opponents, including a preservation advocate and an East Austin resident, argued the current process is already rigorous, rare, and balanced, and that the bill would undermine cities’ ability to preserve historic places and community heritage. During closing on SB 2639, the chair raised a concern that Section 3B appeared to apply retroactively to pending cases, which he said could be unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws. The committee did not resolve that issue during the hearing, and the bill was left pending. The committee then adjourned.