Transcript Highlights:

• I think we provided them with some good feedback that hopefully, once the stakeholder group convenes,
• I don't know if there's a working group or a process.
• The work group will be open to selected participants from a variety of groups, including waiver members
• The work group will be open to selected participants from a variety of groups, including waiver members
• The call for nominations went out on March 5, and the first work group will kick off in mid-April.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The group rigorously discusses the implications of new rules, and if the group agrees to the change—and
• through the executive process the group through the executive process the group rigorously<00:16
• agrees to the new rules and if the group agrees to the change<00:16:22.600> and<00:16:22.759>
• We have a sharp group of individuals that we circulate this to, and it's a humbling process for us to
• This group of rules is particularly important to fiscal staff.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Finance Committee met for its first 2025 meeting, with co-chairs Senator Marty and Senator Pratt opening the session and members and staff introducing themselves. No bills were heard; the meeting was focused on orientation and on reviewing the committee’s budget rules for the new biennium. Committee members and staff from both caucuses, Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB), and legislative fiscal offices were introduced before the presentation began. MMB fiscal staff Brian D. and committee fiscal staff explained that budget rules are a nonbinding agreement between MMB and House and Senate fiscal staff that guides how fiscal proposals are tracked and understood. They reviewed the history of the rules, noting that the current document reflects the most substantial update since the rules were first adopted in the early 2000s, and that the 2025 version was reorganized into eight sections after extensive interim work by House, Senate, and MMB staff. The presenters emphasized that the rules are updated annually, are intended to promote consistent fiscal tracking and transparent communication, and are used as guidance for budget bills rather than as law. The presentation highlighted several substantive rule areas: general tracking rules and comparison points for budget documents; appropriation drafting guidance; treatment of transfers, revenues, and inflation; planning estimates and “budget tails”; and rules for extending, canceling, or reappropriating existing appropriations. Staff also described new or revised provisions, including guidance on understanding current-law changes, using Department of Revenue estimates for tax revenue, and treating inflation in the forecast as a general pressure estimate rather than appropriated dollars. The committee was asked to review the updated rules, but no vote or formal action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we can go to the next slide where I can talk a little bit more about that group.
• So, we can go to the next slide where I can talk a little bit more about that group.
• <01:01:05.080> talked maintaining that and this group talked maintaining that and this group
• <01:35:19.880> doesn't the the the little core group doesn't the the the little core group
• <01:41:51.160> that has like three oversight groups that has like three oversight groups that

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're seeing a convergence of this group with other groups.
• We see a sharp decline in births among the younger age groups.
• Having committees and working groups on screen time, right?
• Our Mariachi group, Our Mariachi group received a star on the Walk of Fame in Las Vegas.
• We also have a Conjunto group, which is like a regional music band.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We figure these groups together.
• having an involved and committed group having an involved and committed group of<00:43:41.760>
• ,<01:04:05.039> but happening. and it's a big group, but happening. and it's a big group,
• <01:43:04.000> seeking numerous traffic safety groups seeking numerous traffic safety groups
• A Washington state study uh found group.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• time we want them to be singing group time we want them to be singing everywhere<00:07:38.520> when
• And also in your PowerPoint, you can see it was 80% compared to 60% in the control group.
• <01:00:54.880> and compared to 60% in the control group and compared to 60% in the control
• We had a book club kind of group.
• <01:31:40.760> on<01:31:41.280> this<01:31:41.639> going groups on this going groups

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, we have a very special group of young people with us in the west gallery.
• Welcome to the Senate to the group.
• This is a superstar group we have with us today. A past awards, they're numerous to many years.
• So, members, this is a group that excels in this area.

Bills: HB3312, HB3700, HB2981, HB2961, HB3016, HB4478, HB4326, HB3025, HB3710, HB4125, HB2951, HB3082, HB4142, HB4106, HB1752, HB3268, HB4440, HJR1067, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1156, SB1157, SB1158, SB1159, SB1161, SB1162, SB1163, SB1164, SB1165, SB1166, SB1149, SB1167, HJR1024, SB1174, SB1175, SB1176, HB3419, HB3748, HB4335, HB3057, HB3279, HB4428, HB3420, HB3040, HB4140, HB1638, HB3298, HB4113, HB1082, HB4301, HB3269, HB3587, HB4226, HB4324, HB4339, HB4342, HB3278, HB3996, HB4236, HB4352

Keywords: firearm safety, public schools, education policy, student safety, gun control, opt-out option, grading system, student assessment, academic integrity, state funding, opinion conduct, open meetings, school boards, transparency, public access, education governance, HB2961, TSgt Marshal Dakota Roberts Gold Star Survivor Act, Gold Star family, Gold Star recipient

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to have the other group now. Representative Chatfield, can you introduce your group?
• Gary, do you want to stand up and introduce your group?
• We have another group over here. Can you introduce yourselves also?

Transcript Highlights:

• Different groups that it would say at the end, here's what some people thought, here's what other people
• Just want to say that ARP would like to be part of the group that works on the consumer guide.
• Okay. ...be part of the group that works on the consumer guide. Okay. Secretary Lipson, Jim.
• that we include the groups that have just indicated that they would like to be there.
• But I just can't be hamstrung to get it done by having a big group of people.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met to review its draft final report on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with most of the discussion focused on whether recommendations required unanimous consensus and how to handle disagreements in the report. Members agreed that consensus meant no stated opposition, and several participants argued that unresolved issues should still be described in the report rather than omitted. The chairs said the report would include agreed-upon recommendations, note areas without consensus, and preserve written comments or dissent letters submitted by members. The draft report’s findings and slides were reviewed charge by charge, including CCRC definitions, financial condition, entrance fee refunds, regulatory oversight, advertising practices, and closure/change-of-ownership procedures. Members suggested several factual and wording edits, including clarifying financial data sources, correcting a presenter’s name, refining language about entrance fee use and refund timing, and revising statements about Attorney General authority and CCRC advertising. There was also discussion about the need to distinguish nonprofit and for-profit CCRCs and to better explain how different care levels and licensing structures are described. On recommendations, the commission kept the proposal to advance the disclosure bill (S. 478) and update the consumer guide, but removed a recommendation for annual open board meetings after objections that it was inadequate. The group spent considerable time debating whether to recommend resident representation on CCRC boards, timely refund requirements for entrance fees, and possible state registration or definition changes for CCRCs, but no consensus was reached on those items. The chairs said the final report would be completed by the statutory August 1 deadline, with final written comments due before then and the report and meeting materials posted on the legislature website.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do have a group here on the South Gallery, Kathleen Skinner, who is with the State Department of Education
• Speaker, members, in the South Gallery, we have the 32nd Annual Cattlemen's Leadership Academy group.
• on a city council that you now have a group that has control of that council.
• Members in the South Gallery, if I could ask you all to stand, we've had a very patient group up there
• This is the first time... ...the freshman group from Calumet Public Schools.

Bills: SB1290, SB1530, SB1847, HR1050, SB169, SB1377, SB1990, SB1991, SB1778, SB1579, SB1992, SB3, SB2028, SB1928, SB2127, SB2117, SB1439, SB1930, SB330, SB1191, SB2110, SB2134, SB2069, SB2095, SB1613, SB1246, SB1976, SB1346, SB1509, SB2071, SB259, SB1314

Keywords: 2-1-1 services, revolving fund, Department of Human Services, crisis pregnancy, abortion, legal funding, research funding, development rebate, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, tax incentives, higher education partnerships, Medicaid, ADvantage Waiver, home-based services, eligibility criteria, healthcare, senior services, Taiwan, Oklahoma, sister-state relationship

Transcript Highlights:

• And the important thing that, as I'm talking to hospitals and talking to clinics and physician groups
• And so go ahead and be a part of a larger group where you're making an application.
• The Horn Group, who is now the BDO Group, So did you—how'd you come across those guys to help with this
• I have some personal experience when they were the Horn Group with the ESG program.
• It's what I indicated earlier: a group of people who are doing the review.

Summary: The committee heard extensive public testimony from youth advocates and public health speakers urging action on vaping. Witnesses said flavored products and social media are driving youth use in Arkansas, described nicotine addiction and health harms, and asked lawmakers to prohibit vaping in public indoor spaces, align vape rules with smoke-free laws, and expand prevention efforts. Committee members thanked the speakers and encouraged them to continue building support for future legislation. The main presentation was an overview of Arkansas’s Rural Health Transformation Program, a five-year federal initiative funded through CMS. State officials said Arkansas received about $209 million for the first year and may receive roughly $1 billion over five years if performance is strong. They emphasized that the program is intended for targeted, locally driven transformation rather than general operating support, debt relief, or new construction, and outlined four initiatives: Heart, PACT, Rise, and Thrive, focused on prevention, access and coordination, workforce development, and technology. Officials said applications would open in the spring, with a reimbursement-based process and a goal of launching all four initiatives by June. Members asked detailed questions about eligibility, rural definitions, school gardens, faith-based and nonprofit partnerships, mobile clinics, EMS, behavioral health, residency slots, and whether urban providers serving rural patients could apply. Officials said the program would favor regional collaboration, could support targeted renovations and expansion of existing programs, and would allow residency growth and some equipment or infrastructure purchases, but not food purchases or permanent new construction. They also said a committee of state health and finance officials would review applications, with heavy technical assistance and an expectation of quick turnaround. The committee also reviewed two DHS/Health Department rules. One implemented Medicaid and CHIP coverage and care coordination for eligible incarcerated youth before and after release, including targeted case management and screening services, with no public comments received. The other updated audiology licensing rules to reflect recent acts expanding scope of practice and changing the renewal deadline. Both rules were reviewed without objection, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the important thing that, as I'm talking to hospitals and talking to clinics and physician groups
• And so go ahead and be a part of a larger group where you're making an application, and then we'll tell
• The Horn Group, who is now the BDO Group— So did you—how'd you come across those guys to help with this
• I have some personal experience when they were the Horn Group with the ESG program.
• It's what I indicated earlier: a group of people who are doing the review.

Summary: The committee first heard extensive public testimony from youth and advocates urging stronger restrictions on vaping. Speakers described vaping as a youth-targeted public health problem, citing flavored products, social media marketing, nicotine addiction, brain development concerns, school disruption, and exposure to harmful aerosol. They recommended prohibiting vaping in public indoor spaces and aligning vape rules with smoke-free laws. Committee members praised the speakers and encouraged them to continue building support for future legislation. The main presentation was on Arkansas’s Rural Health Transformation Program, administered through DFA. Secretary Jim Hudson and program director Brad Andi explained that Arkansas received about $209 million in the first year under the federal program, with potential for roughly $1 billion over five years if performance is strong. They emphasized that the program is meant for long-term rural health transformation, not general operating support, debt relief, or new construction. The state’s plan centers on four initiatives: HEART for prevention and community health, PACT for access and provider collaboration, RISE for workforce development, and THRIVE for technology and telehealth. Officials said applications will be handled through upcoming notices of funding opportunity, with a focus on local, shovel-ready projects, regional collaboration, and transparency. Committee members asked how the program would work for hospitals, clinics, nonprofits, schools, faith groups, and urban providers serving rural patients. Officials said eligibility is broad if applicants can show a connection to rural health, and that targeted renovations, mobile units, school-based clinics, farm-to-school or garden projects, EMS equipment, residency expansion, and behavioral health initiatives may fit if they align with the plan. They stressed that the program cannot fund working capital, routine maintenance, or new buildings, but can support repurposing space and collaborative networks. Members also raised concerns about protecting existing rural providers from being displaced, and officials said applications would be reviewed by a state committee with technical assistance and a reimbursement-based process. The committee then reviewed and took no objection to several DHS and Health Department rules. DHS presented a Medicaid/CHIP rule implementing federal requirements for incarcerated youth, including pre- and post-release coverage, care coordination, targeted case management, and screening services, with no public comments received. The Health Department also presented a licensing rule for audiology and speech pathology that implements recent acts and changes the renewal deadline; that rule was likewise reviewed without objection. The meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Kobayashi Group in support. Um, yes, Kobayashi Group in support. And we provided our testimony.
• I'm Alana Pakala, CEO of Kobayashi Group, and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
• It establishes a working group to revise the HHFDC qualified allocation plan and proposed revisions to
• Part two will specify that the working group will comply with any and all federal requirements.
• <00:19:06.720> will will specify that the working group will will specify that the working

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard and then took action on a series of housing-related bills concerning HHFDC, HPHA, inclusionary zoning, nonprofit housing trusts, housing project exemptions, the rental housing revolving fund, and a new for-sale housing program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC and HPHA, with additional support from groups such as Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Holo Collaborative, the Kobayashi Group, and others. On SB 2424, the Kobayashi Group argued the bill would help open housing to a broader pool of local households, including buyers slightly above income limits who still cannot afford market-rate housing. On SB 2342, the chair asked HHFDC for final figures on rental housing revolving fund appropriations since 2016 and was told the amount was about $1.1 billion, including conveyance tax revenue. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 2189 with amendments, noting concerns about transparency and accountability in HHFDC’s loan-award process; SB 2190 with amendments; SB 2234 with amendments; SB 2177 with amendments; SB 2194 unamended; SB 2342 with amendments; SB 2060 with amendments; and SB 2070 with amendments. The committee deferred SB 2195 and SB 2196 after testimony comments, and deferred SB 2063 because the chair said SB 2060 would be used instead as the vehicle for mixed-income subaccount changes. SB 2424 was discussed in hearing but then deferred in decision-making pending legal advice on issues including owner-occupancy, county income restrictions, buyback rules, and county council approval. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2062 and its proposed SD1, but deferred that measure because the relevant changes had already been incorporated into SB 2060 SD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can we leverage something that's already in place, maybe achieve some economies of scale by grouping
• <00:07:24.000> of<00:07:24.160> scale<00:07:24.400> by<00:07:24.639> grouping
• <00:07:25.039> like some economies of scale by grouping like some economies of scale by grouping
• <00:20:28.720> like<00:20:29.039> type of products, grouping like type of products,
• grouping like type solutions<00:20:29.840> into<00:20:30.159> a<00:20:30.400> common

Keywords: 0:20 Rollcall 2:28 Definition of Legacy system and demands of modern workplaces 10:48 Discussion of funding and planned expenditures 22:26 Contingency funding 23:16 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on Personnel, Public Retirement, and Finance heard a presentation from the Commonwealth Office of Technology on legacy IT modernization funds and how they are used to address outdated, unsupported, or unsustainable systems. David Carter and Carrie Welch explained the state’s definition of a legacy system under KRS 7A.180, emphasizing not only vendor support issues but also changing business needs, regulatory compliance, and the loss of institutional knowledge for older systems. They described the office’s review process for determining whether a project qualifies, including assessing business risk, comparing options such as upgrades, replacements, shared solutions across agencies, or commercial products, and then matching the project to available funding. The presenters said COT reports twice a year to the Interim Joint Committee on Appropriations and Revenue on progress with legacy modernization projects. They reported 30 projects funded to date, with 18 completed, and said remaining projects are still moving forward while agencies continue to identify modernization needs. They highlighted examples of completed work, including modernized security cameras, replacement of unsupported systems, migration of documents to the Commonwealth Enterprise Content Management Platform, restoration of vendor support, a digital policy acknowledgement portal, replacement of the State Police dispatch system, and digitization of paper records for faster retrieval and better disaster resilience. Members asked for more detail on how the $10 million request would be allocated, including system-by-system spending, the split between software, hardware, vendor contracts, and staff time, and how the office determines when a system needs replacement. COT said it did not have a system-by-system or cost-category breakdown at the hearing but could provide one later, and explained that the funds are intended for development and first-time acquisition costs rather than ongoing maintenance. They also said the $5 million annual request was based on prior years’ experience and that agencies often contribute some funding themselves, so the program could still operate if appropriated less than the full amount. The committee then approved the minutes and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• That said, I can't think of a better group to present to us on U.S.
• is where we are very proud to say, of course, that our efforts are still part of a team collective group
• I think we're the same group. Okay. We're the same group, okay. Yeah. Mr.
• Thank you to the group for presenting, and I'm interested in... Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Olivia.
• Thank you to the group for presenting.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• criminal conduct and investigations involving licensed child welfare agency staff, otherwise known as group
• This includes contracted individuals from group homes that the state and the taxpayers fund.
• My name is Lori Ford, and I am with the AZ DCSO... ...and I am with the AZ DCS Oversight Group, which
• Parents are entitled to a second opinion if a group of doctors who call themselves experts—child abuse
• I sent it to the entire group. It should be in your inbox.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• all have the exact same packet that was a presentation I gave to the National Sovereign Wealth Fund. group
• It's a group of 12 funds, sovereign wealth funds, just like us in the nation.
• That's when groups of people are generally earning their highest wages, or they're about to earn the
• So we've got a decent group of deferred members that will receive a future benefit.
• If the state is willing to provide the money to increase it even higher, I'm sure Randy and his group

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of expenditure groups for the municipalities, a little bit different picture here.
• You can see that the number one expenditure group for municipalities was general government services.
• So really, a lot of their expenditures are grouped in just three categories.
• About 45% of their total was in that expenditure group.
• And within this grouping, the largest single revenue source is ad valorem taxes at almost 50%.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for a listening session focused on a presentation by Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research on local government revenues and expenditures. Baker reviewed statewide financial data for counties, municipalities, and independent special districts, using 2018-19 as a baseline year because it was stable and pre-COVID. She explained that counties rely heavily on taxes, with ad valorem taxes making up about 73% of county tax revenue and about 24% of total county revenues statewide, while municipalities rely more on charges for services and have a lower statewide ad valorem share of about 14.7%. She also noted wide variation across local governments, with some counties and cities highly dependent on property taxes and others using them minimally or not at all. Special districts were shown to be very different from counties and cities, with hospital-related revenues and expenditures dominating many of them, while water management districts were more reliant on ad valorem taxes and focused expenditures on the physical environment. Baker also summarized expenditure patterns: counties spent the largest share on public safety, while municipalities spent the largest share on general government services, followed by physical environment and public safety. She emphasized that local government structures vary widely and that the committee should study what characteristics are associated with greater property tax reliance. She said the next research steps would be to extend the analysis through later years, including the COVID and inflation period, and to examine institutional and legal factors that shape local fiscal structures. Members asked about unfunded mandates, fuel taxes, reserves, school taxes, millage rates, and how property taxes relate to specific services such as police and fire. Baker said the current analysis did not yet account for mandates or school taxes and that further work could examine links between revenues and expenditures, commercial versus residential tax burdens, and other factors. After the presentation, members reported back on local meetings with counties and municipalities. Several described large differences in millage rates, revenue mixes, and the impact of any property tax changes on fiscally constrained counties versus larger, wealthier ones. Concerns were raised about how local governments would replace lost revenue, especially for public safety and emergency response, and members discussed the need to consider both revenue replacement and ways to rein in spending. The co-chairs said the committee would continue gathering information, send members follow-up homework and requests for panel suggestions, and invite additional input from constituents, stakeholders, and local governments. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions beyond adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• This means that a person could make repeated trips transporting voters in groups of six or fewer and
• So, I was curious if you met with the Secretary of State or disability rights groups, and if not, if
• filling out all of these forms that are currently only required if a person is transporting voters in groups
• This could suppress souls to the polls if there's a group of folks going to vote on a Sunday from a church
• HB 2139 simply extends the current curbside voting law to two new groups of people: parents or legal

Bills: HB2139, HB2253, HB3632, HB4171, HB4309, HB4508, SB760, SB1470

Keywords: voting access, polling place, disability, caretaker provisions, ballot delivery, election code, HB 2253, Texas Election Code, bond election, bond issuance, local government, election cancellation, disaster declaration, natural disaster, emergency election, county election officer, polling place notice, open meeting, election workers, voter safety

Transcript Highlights:

• do want to especially thank Senator Creighton's staff for taking such extensive time to work with a group
• For taking such extensive time to work with a group of municipalities on a few potential amendments.
• In May 2021, the Austin firefighters, following the efforts of other firefighter groups, passed a ballot
• Since that time, I formed a firefighter stakeholder group to develop legislation that would correct the
• Call up the next group, and... Okay, thank you for your testimony. Call up the next group.

Bills: SB208, SB628, SB777, SB1042, SB2354, SB2477, SB2521, SB2523, SB2608, SB2703, SB2778, SB2835, SB2965, SB2367, SB3044

Keywords: workforce housing, capital investment fund, affordable housing, housing development, Texas housing laws, loan programs, community development, Texas housing, zero-interest loans, low-income housing, nonprofit organizations, construction, economic stability, housing affordability, capital investment, Texas housing policy, county fire code, fire marshal, local government code, interlocal agreement

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government considered and voted on several bills, adopting committee substitutes on Senate Bills 1237, 1708, 1844, 1454, 2520, and 2541. In each case, the committee substitute was explained as narrowing or clarifying the filed bill, and the committee voted to report the substitute version to the full Senate, usually with a recommendation that the filed bill not pass. The committee also recommended each of those measures for the local and uncontested calendar. SB 1237 concerned property tax exemption eligibility for charitable organizations; SB 1844 addressed annexation and disannexation limits tied to city services; SB 1454 clarified housing authority tax exemptions and agreements with districts; SB 2520 dealt with a school district tax ceiling comparison; and SB 2541 reduced the unused increment period from three years to two years. The committee then heard extensive testimony on SB 2354, which would allow developers to hire qualified third-party professionals for plat review, permit review, and inspections if local governments are delayed. Supporters included affordable housing providers, builders, Pew Charitable Trusts, housing advocates, and legal groups, who said the bill would reduce permitting delays, lower costs, and help housing production. A Corpus Christi representative testified as neutral, asking for amendments to preserve city final inspection authority, document sharing, and floodplain enforcement. Urban counties opposed the bill as written, arguing it removed too much local oversight, though they acknowledged work on a committee substitute. SB 2354 was left pending. The committee also heard SB 2703, which would clarify that condominiums are not subdivisions for local platting purposes. Builders and a land use attorney supported the bill, saying it would reduce confusion and duplicative regulation; the bill was left pending. SB 777, dealing with firefighter collective bargaining and impasse procedures, drew support from Austin and Texarkana firefighter representatives and the City of Austin, who said the committee substitute reflected stakeholder agreement and preserved voter-approved local procedures; it was left pending. SB 2965, concerning annexation and emergency service district response obligations, drew support from ESD and fire association witnesses who said it would prevent service gaps after annexation, and opposition from local officials who argued it gave unelected ESD boards too much power and lacked neutral review; it was also left pending. The committee then recessed subject to call of the chair.