Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and where is that fine line?
• No, you're fine. I apologize.
• And they're going to experience, no matter what the fine is, an unpayable fine at higher rates.
• The fine was too high. I had people who said, “You can keep the fine as is.”
• So we should have a speed limit without those fines. I'm a little upset. Out of order.

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:17.600> to find people and collect fines. to find people and collect fines. to address
• revenues generated by the fines revenues generated by the fines collected<00:05:29.840> on
• <00:10:28.399> for itself to to set the speed limits for itself to to set the speed limits
• , county to set the speed limits, county to set the speed limits, >> but<00:10:37.360> we're
• misdemeanors and a $50 fine on uh DUIs. misdemeanors and a $50 fine on uh DUIs.

Keywords: Highways and Transportation - Room 216, 30 January, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2269, the Mississippi Fully Autonomous Vehicle Enabling Act. The bill was described as simply extending the repealer date to July 1, 2029. A motion was made that the title was sufficient and the bill do pass, and it passed without opposition. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2614, which would authorize county sheriffs and deputies to use radar on county roads, subject to county board approval and population-based limits on the number of radar units. Senator Thompson said the measure was intended to reduce Mississippi’s high rate of speed-related highway fatalities, not to create revenue or speed traps. He explained that fines would be directed to the Mississippi Department of Education to support driver’s education programs, and that the bill includes a 1,000-foot buffer from municipal limits and a definition prohibiting speed traps. Members asked about engineering reviews of speed limits, opt-in/opt-out authority for supervisors, quotas, body cameras, and how the bill would affect counties that already use radar. Thompson said the bill does not require roadway reassessments, that county boards must approve radar use, that he would not oppose a quota-related amendment, and that a body-camera requirement would be beyond the bill’s scope and could burden departments that cannot afford it. Several senators spoke in support, citing public safety and sheriff support, while one senator raised concerns about transparency and public trust. The committee then voted that the title was sufficient and the bill do pass, and the motion carried.

Transcript Highlights:

• My concern is that it may be limited.
• be limited. be limited.
• So it doesn't limit, limit, limit, you know, I mean, you're still going to be able to introduce those
• So, it doesn't limit, limit, limit, you<00:04:20.880> know,<00:04:21.120> I<00:04:21.280
• There's limited slots per team slot. There's limited slots per school. school. school.

Bills: SB209, SB248, HB122, SB99, SB209, SB248, HB122, SB99

Keywords: sales tax exemption, Consumer Price Index, local government, clothing, school supplies, emergency preparedness, Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, APA, administrative law, judicial review, agency deference, Chevron deference, de novo review, contested case, state agency, regulatory power, individual liberty, statutory interpretation, rule interpretation, license revocation

Transcript Highlights:

• It's going to limit them the ability.
• And if we pass this bill, it limits the expense that comes out of their pocket, right?
• It will be up to $500, up from a $200 fine, upon a second conviction within one year.
• And the fine would be up to $1,000, up from $500, for a third or subsequent conviction.
• Speeding by less than 15 miles per hour would be a fine of up to $500, up from $200.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Infrastructure Committee first returned to engrossed House Bill 4419, which would require the West Virginia Parkways Authority to hold public hearings and give notice before increasing tolls, rents, fees, or charges, and would allow legislative auditing of related revenues and sinking funds. The committee debated two amendments related to E-ZPass transponders: one from the Senator from Jefferson to clarify that the Parkway Authority would not be required to read every plate failed on a 4-4 tie, and one from the Senator from Wetzel to codify a restriction on transferring single-fee transponders between vehicles was rejected after discussion with counsel and the Parkways Authority about current policy, convenience for users, and possible effects on the bill. The committee then approved a motion to send HB 4419 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass, but first be referred to Finance, and a separate motion to send it to Finance passed. The committee also considered engrossed House Bill 4563, on which Senator Randolph moved for a second reference to Finance because of fiscal concerns. After discussion of the newly filed fiscal note and the bill’s potential revenue impact, that motion failed by a 4-5 division vote. The committee then voted to report HB 4563 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 4538, which increases fines and penalties for failing to obey traffic control instructions or speeding in construction and work zones, and also references penalties tied to distracted driving provisions. Counsel noted the bill’s possible overlap with existing vehicular homicide penalties and that it had no fiscal note. Jason Pizzitella of the Contractors Association testified in support, emphasizing work-zone safety and recent fatalities, while senators from Fayette, Randolph, and Jefferson also supported the bill and discussed the need to protect workers and drivers. The committee adopted a motion to report HB 4538 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll leave aside why they got the fine and why they got the fine.
• a due process procedure, then it could be collectible. their $100 fine becomes a $400 fine and their
• with that and if and only if the uh fine with that and if and only if the uh fine is<00:24:37.240
• Fining is more for rule followers than rule breakers, because if you get a fine, it's like, oh, okay,
• It's often the limit, the high limits, the condition.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on January 30, 2025, and heard testimony on several condominium-related bills, beginning with HB 70. HB 70 would require a budget summary disclosure for condominiums. Supporters, including Community Associations Institute, a real estate broker, and several condominium owners, said the bill would improve consumer protection by giving owners and buyers a clearer, more understandable snapshot of an association’s financial health and reserve compliance. One supporter noted the bill should help reduce confusion caused by lengthy reserve studies and emphasized the importance of accurate disclosure. A testifier also urged the committee to hear other condominium bills quickly, including measures related to an ombudsman, managing agents, parliamentarians, and attorney’s fees. The committee then heard HB 106, which would change the process for condominium fines and disputes. Phil Nery of CAI and other supporters said the bill would strengthen due process by requiring clearer notice, allowing an internal board appeal, and then permitting small claims court review without attorney’s fees unless the fine is upheld. They argued this would prevent fines from escalating into costly legal disputes and provide a more linear, fair process. Some supporters suggested amendments, including clarifying that the statute controls over association documents and refining refund language. During questioning, members raised concerns about small claims limits and whether associations would be represented by volunteers or attorneys. One testifier initially in support later said he would not support the bill as written after hearing HPD’s concerns. HB 224, relating to property rights, drew opposition from the Department of the Attorney General and the Honolulu Police Department. Both agencies said the bill would improperly push law enforcement into a quasi-judicial role and could short-circuit existing due process procedures for occupants of residences. A realtor who had initially been listed in support changed his position after hearing the opposition testimony. The committee also heard emotional testimony from a resident describing a long-running squatter and utility theft problem at a neighboring property, which he said took years of court action and police involvement to resolve. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm fine. I'm fine. We got to get all the New York names out of here.
• I'm fine. I'm fine. We got to get all the New York names out of here.
• I'm fine. I'm fine. We got to get all the New York names out of here.
• I'm fine. I'm fine. We got to get all the New York names out of here.
• Limit, limit the coverage.

Bills: SJR4, SJR40, SJR81, SCR37, SCR39, SB22, SB32, SB33, SB36, SB38, SB95, SB209, SB249, SB311, SB326, SB365, SB458, SB609, SB660, SB664, SB693, SB732, SB745, SB760, SB762, SB779, SB783, SB785, SB868, SB871, SB883, SB921, SB955, SB993, SB996, SB1008, SB1057, SB1067, SB1151, SB1171, SB1210, SB1255, SB1265, SB1267, SB1271, SB1307, SB1313, SB1316, SB1318, SB1321, SB1332, SB1365, SB1426, SB1470, SB1484, SB1494, SB1559, SB1592, SB1596, SB1598, SB1637, SB1677, SB1706, SB1758, SB1762, SB1786, SB1809, SB1818, SB1822, SB1841, SB1871, SB1967, SB2064, SB2077, SB2112, SB2148, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SJR36, SJR81, SJR50, SJR4, SJR40, SJR27, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SB921, SB609, SB660, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB955, SB957, SB541, SB266, SB1415, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB1062, SB711, SB746, SB1404, SB1448, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB667, SB1059, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1484, SB1273, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1841, SB1008, SB2016, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB860, SB993, SB693, SB1537, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB984, SB619, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1877, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB731, SB268, SB1822, SB1589, SB397, SB1058, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB508, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB1371, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB1809, SB1080, SB745, SB826, SB989, SB1320, SB1437, SB2320, SB2289, SB1171, SB664, SB1637, SB2064, SB868, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB883, SB249, SB1318, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB365, SB1067, SB1786, SB326, SB1401, SB1592, SB1728, SB1265, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1559, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1677, SB95, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB871, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1316, SB1314, SB1313, SB1426, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB1871, SB36, SB855, SB1233, SB760, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB762, SB1271, SB1818, SB605, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB1967, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SJR39, SCR1, SCR27, SCR32, SCR42, SCR6, SB2232, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, emergency powers, legislative authority, governor powers, disaster management, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't have a set fine. It has a maximum fine of, I think, $300 would be the max.
• There would be a fine with a petty misdemeanor. But we just take out the specific fine.
• violation there is a there is a fine. violation there is a there is a fine.
• So what is the fine?
• which the speed limit is established. which the speed limit is established.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• state officials are limited.
• In the report, the fine was reduced to $4050.
• It's showing backwards on my computer and I, it's fine and it's fine. We can see it.
• Biederman, uh, the, the fine will stay as is at $500. All right, that's fine. No problem.
• $11,000 in fines.

Transcript Highlights:

• And where is that fine line?
• You can just fine them. And you recommend getting rid of the organizational fines too?"
• The fine was too hot. I had people who said, you can keep the fine as is.
• I had people who offered to pay triple the fine. ...who said, you can keep the fine as is.
• So we should have a speed limit without those fines. I'm a little upset. Out of order.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Fine: Thank you, Mr.
• Senator, fine. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Fine: Thank you, Mr. President.
• And Senator Fine, I guess... Senator Fine: Thank you. And I apologize. I misspoke.
• Again, Senator's fine. Pizzo's fine.
• Senator's fine.

Summary: The Senate opened with a quorum, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance, then read an amended joint proclamation expanding the special session call to include financial penalties for government officials, criminal penalties for offenses committed by illegal aliens, and programs and appropriations to support law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. No committee reports, governor’s messages, or House messages were on the desk before the chamber moved to the special order calendar. The main item was Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2B, the immigration bill, along with a late-filed strike-all amendment by Senator Gruters. Gruters said the amendment aligned terminology with federal law, increased penalties for crimes by unauthorized aliens, added transnational crime organizations to gang definitions, required stronger participation in the federal 287(g) program, created financial penalties for noncompliance, offered a $1,000 bonus for officers assisting ICE in large operations, directed more information-sharing with federal agencies, and barred DHSMV from issuing licenses or IDs to unauthorized aliens. He framed the bill as supporting President Trump’s immigration agenda and focusing on criminal illegal aliens rather than street-level enforcement. A long question-and-answer period followed, with Senators Polsky, Pizzo, Smith, Jones, Roscoe, Berman, and others pressing the sponsor on scope, legality, costs, and implementation. Questions focused on whether the bill would require participation beyond jails and detention centers, whether schools or churches could be affected, liability and immunity for local agencies, the size and purpose of the proposed appropriations, and the impact on undocumented students receiving in-state tuition waivers. Gruters and Senator Fine said the 287(g) provisions were intended to apply to jails and detention facilities, that green-card holders and lawful residents would not be affected, and that the tuition waiver repeal would end discounted tuition for students in the country illegally while not affecting their ability to attend. Fine also defended the mandatory death penalty provision for certain capital offenses committed by illegal immigrants, acknowledging it would likely be challenged in court but arguing the bill was designed to test and advance the policy. No final vote or other action on the bill is reflected in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• to pay that fine by a specific deadline.
• Terminating the program does not eliminate the track record of fines.
• They have warrants, they have additional fines, I don't deny.
• And they get pulled over, and then there's another fine and another court cost.
• There are no limits on the type of person who might be subject to that force.

Bills: HB1455, HB1777, HB2101, HB2136, HB2609, HB3142, HB3552, HB3846, HB4155, HB4514, HB4879, HB4995, HB5014, HB5139, HB5228, HB5436, HCR40

Keywords: mental health, jail diversion, law enforcement, reporting requirements, criminal justice, data collection, criminal justice reform, intellectual disability, mental illness, data reporting, public safety, reporting, substance abuse, sex offender, driver's license, identification, gunshot detection, unreported gunshots, municipal police, crime investigation

Transcript Highlights:

• The fine for this is $100.
• The fine for this is $100.
• The fine for this is $100.
• The fine for this is $100.
• prepayable fine. prepayable fine.

Keywords: 01:09 Roll Call 02:11 SB 7 12:42 SB 7 Vote 13:48 SB 30 17:26 SB 30 Vote 19:56 SB 28 46:35 SB 28 vote, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee met for its first meeting of the 2026 regular session, welcomed new member Senator Gary Clemens and an intern, established a quorum, and took up several bills. Senate Bill 7, sponsored by Senator Aaron Reid, would let counties voluntarily handle driver’s license renewals and duplicates locally through county clerks, circuit clerks, sheriffs, or county judge/executive offices, with a $25 convenience fee retained locally and interlocal agreements allowed. Reid said the bill was meant to address long travel distances, long lines, and delays, especially in rural areas, and emphasized it was not a mandate or an unfunded requirement. Senators asked about fraud, local interest, and stakeholder views; Reid said the bill would not directly change fraud but would increase local accountability, and he said most agencies were neutral or supportive. The committee reported SB 7 favorably with a “shall pass” recommendation on a roll call vote. The committee then considered Senate Bill 30, also sponsored by Senator Greg Elkins, a cleanup bill for the Motor Vehicle Commission that would allow restricted funds from license fees to carry forward from one fiscal year to the next instead of lapsing. Elkins said the change would let the commission use its own fee revenue for operations in future years, and the chair noted the commission’s work on dealer regulation and lemon law cases. Senator Burke asked what happened to the money under current law and whether there would be a cap on accumulation; Elkins said the bill would simply allow carryforward and did not set a cap. The committee approved SB 30 favorably with a “shall pass” recommendation. Finally, Vice Chair Douglas introduced Senate Bill 28, a hands-free/distracted driving bill sponsored by Senator Jimmy Higdon. Higdon said the measure was revised from prior versions to address concerns raised last year and would prohibit drivers from holding or supporting a mobile electronic device while driving, while still allowing hands-free use, navigation, emergency reporting, and certain device functions. He cited safety research, support from advocates, and the death of Kimberly Burns in a distracted-driving crash as motivation for the bill. The proposal also included enforcement limits, a $100 fine, no license points, signage at highway entry points, and distribution of fine revenue to trauma and veterans-related funds. The transcript cuts off during Higdon’s presentation before any committee questions or action on SB 28 are shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Fine: ...
• Senator, fine. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Fine: Thank you, Mr. President.
• Senator Fine: Sure.
• Pizzo's fine.
• Senator’s fine.

Summary: The Senate opened with a prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the reading of an amended joint proclamation expanding the Legislature’s immigration agenda. The proclamation added items calling for financial penalties for government officials, enhanced criminal penalties for offenses committed by illegal aliens, and programs and appropriations to support law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration law. The chamber then took up the special order calendar, beginning with Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2B, the immigration bill. Most of the meeting was devoted to debate and questions on the strike-all amendment to SB 2B. Sponsor Senator Gruters described the bill as a broad immigration enforcement package aligned with President Trump’s agenda. He said it would require greater cooperation with federal immigration authorities, strengthen participation in the 287(g) program, create a chief immigration officer and council, authorize financial penalties for noncompliance, provide bonuses for officers assisting ICE, and direct information-sharing with federal agencies. He also said the bill would bar DHSMV from issuing licenses or ID cards to unauthorized aliens and would end in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Senators Polsky, Pizzo, Smith, Jones, Berman, Osgood, and others questioned the scope of the bill, whether it would affect schools, churches, cities, nonprofits, and green-card holders, and how the 287(g) provisions would work in practice. Gruters repeatedly said the operational focus was on jails and detention facilities, not street-level enforcement. A major point of controversy was the bill’s proposed mandatory death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of certain capital offenses. Senator Fine said the covered crimes were the most serious capital felonies, including murder, child sexual battery, destructive-device offenses causing death, and certain trafficking offenses, and argued the provision was intended to withstand constitutional challenge. Senator Pizzo raised Eighth Amendment concerns and questioned whether the bill could mandate death sentences. The tuition waiver provisions also drew extended debate: Fine said the state would save about $41 million by ending discounted tuition for undocumented students, while Democrats argued the savings would not return to general revenue and that the policy would harm students who are already enrolled. Fine and Gruters said green-card holders would not be affected and that the bill targeted only students in the country illegally. The discussion also covered appropriations and implementation. Senator Smith asked about the bill’s large funding levels, and Fine broke down the spending as including $375 million for the chief immigration officer, $100 million in grants to local law enforcement, $29 million for the new Office of State Immigration Enforcement, and $10 million for an unauthorized-alien transport program. Gruters said the funds would reimburse local governments and help address staffing shortages, while critics questioned the lack of benchmarks and the fiscal impact. No final vote or disposition on the bill appears in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill merely places a civil penalty with a fine set at $10,000, or three times the amount of the fine
• I'm interested in the 5% limit.
• what we see as a good limit.
• But that limit is really on a local basis.
• Does this leave that limit? Limit intact, this doesn't do anything with that limit, right?

Bills: SB512, SB1024

Keywords: SB 512, Texas Finance Code, money transmission, money services business, money transmitter, money transmission licensee, terms of service, consumer protection, civil penalty, attorney general enforcement, account closure, refund of balance, financial services regulation, payments industry, fintech, prepaid accounts, remittance, licensee compliance, local government debt, municipal finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Senator Fine.
• Vice Chair, Senator Fine? Yes. Chair, Senator McLean? Oh, sorry.
• So we are going to try to, we are going to limit your. Yards.
• We can continue to look at that and fine-tune it.
• Vice Chair, Senator Fine: Yes. Chair, Senator McLean: Yes.

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:

• Fine: FOLLOW-UP? >> Sen.
• Fine: WHAT IS YOUR NAME? >> Sen. Fine: BY THE WAY. ONE SECOND.
• Fine: I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN. >> RENÉE. >> Sen. Fine: GREAT.
• Fine: I DIDN'T GET HER NAME. >> Sen. Fine: OKAY. THANK YOU.
• Fine: THANK YOU.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She's the Director of Fine Arts at Norman Public Schools. And we also have Tories Simms here.
• I hope you get a chance to meet them and let them tell you what fine arts means to them and what it's
• the pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed may, during my continuance in it, be limited

Bills: SB683, SB1579, SB1389, SB1387, SB1390, SB1391, SB2063, SB1829, SB2060, SB1842, SB1398, SB1212, SB2158, SB102, SB1772, SB1958, SB2010, SB1595, SB1687, SB1684, SB2049, SB1966, SB1989, SB1191, SB1258, SB1920, SB1936, SB2143, SB2122, SB330, SB2071, SB2169, SB2069, SB2095, SB2157, SB1806, SB1430, SB206, SB1547, SB1849, SB1428, SB1653, SB1984, SB1644, SB1561, SB1813, SB1570, SB1796

Keywords: education, tax credit, student support, private school, Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit, financial assistance, homeschooling, qualified expenses, property tax, valuation increase, taxpayer rights, homestead, protest process, school choice, tuition assistance, income limits, parental choice, accreditation, sales tax, motor vehicles

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, and we get along just fine in here.
• They limit what limit plea negotiations.
• limitations in charging and sentencing. limitations in charging and sentencing.
• a 6 months or $750 fine.
• up to a fine of $750. up to a fine of $750.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• understand that we do have a time limit. understand that we do have a time limit.
• if they have pending fines. if they have pending fines. >> Okay. >> Okay.
• and um the old owner didn't pay fines and um the old owner didn't pay the<01:14:29.040> fines.
• the fines. the fines. What<01:14:30.800> happens? What happens? What happens?
• fines? fines?

Bills: HB1739, HB1741, HB2606, HB2362, HB2608, HB2294, HB2431, HB2375, HB2582, HB2585, HB2231, HB1601, HB2424, HB1956

Keywords: transit-oriented development, zoning, land use, urban planning, density, local governance, housing, inclusionary zoning, inclusionary mandate, affordable housing, below-market-rate housing, inclusionary housing, development exaction, impact fee, housing affordability impact fee, needs assessment study, financial feasibility, rough proportionality, essential nexus, county ordinance

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 19, 2026, and the chair opened by emphasizing strict time limits and that all bills would be deferred if the agenda was not completed before the noon session. The first major measure discussed was HB 1739 HD1, which would preempt county land-use authority in transit-oriented development areas. The Department of Planning supported the bill, saying it could promote state-funded TOD and infrastructure, while the city and county’s position was raised in questioning. Unite Here Local 5 opposed the bill, arguing it would strip counties of self-determination, disrupt state-county policy collaboration, and remove a check on unrestrained development. Committee members pressed the supporters on whether the bill was really about higher density and whether it would override local zoning and sustainability concerns. The committee then heard testimony on HB 1741 HD1, a housing bill described by supporters as reducing inclusionary housing mandates and increasing supply. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii argued affordability mandates reduce overall housing production and raise market-rate prices, while a Zoom testifier said the bill would improve housing stability, health, and community outcomes for working families, kupuna, and young residents. Members asked about the bill’s needs assessment and who would conduct it, with a witness saying the counties would likely contract it out but that the bill did not clearly specify the reviewer. HB 2668 HD1, dealing with water heating systems, drew testimony from the Hawaii State Energy Office and industry representatives. Supporters generally backed adding heat pumps to the law, but one solar-water-heater industry witness asked for amendments to remove or extend the current 15-year statutory life limit for solar water heaters and to update outdated standards and variance rules. A Kauaʻi Climate Action Coalition witness opposed the existing solar-only structure, arguing heat pump water heaters are cheaper, align with climate goals, and should be allowed without a variance. The Energy Office said the current law already allows variances in some cases, suggested adding high-efficiency heat pump water heaters to the exemption, and said the 15-year figure may be too short, with 18 years mentioned as a possible alternative. The committee also briefly moved through several other bills, including HB 2606 HD1 on off-site construction and HB 2362 HD1 on housing, with no notable testimony or action recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Within five days, or you receive up to a $500 fine.
• You could probably point to the tax limitation and maybe the 50-cent debt limit, but otherwise, I'd say
• Or I shouldn't just say fines. Fines are various penalties.
• They are limited waivers of immunity.
• You mentioned the not cap, the limited waiver of $250,000, The not-cap, the limited waiver of $250,000

Keywords: 1184, house, all