Transcript Highlights:

• being generated from that process being generated from that process because<00:50:54.960> we're
• <00:58:49.640> which malting from the malting process which malting from the malting process
• electric to talk more about the process electric to talk more about the process mam<00:59:33.079
• starting in 2025 was the the processing starting in 2025 was the the processing capacity<01:04:53.440
• <01:09:23.839> this this a machine that will process this this a machine that will process

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:07:03.039> and combination of people, process, and combination of people, process, and
• <00:07:55.599> to integrity flag and alert process to integrity flag and alert process to
• . process. process.
• and encompass people, process, and encompass people, process, and technology<00:21:12.559> and
• integrity in the process. integrity in the process. >> Thank<00:47:29.359> you.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So if we were only going forward in the future, pay very close attention to the application process,
• So if we could look at, with a close attention to detail, the application process on this and continue
• the application process and I I<00:03:28.200> think<00:03:28.959> this<00:03:29.160>
• <00:03:39.800> What<00:03:40.080> are<00:03:40.360> what application process
• What are what application process.

Keywords: Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks - Room 210, 25 March, 2026; 1:00 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee heard from Allison Cruise of Canton, Mississippi, a nominee for the Board of Trustees of the Mississippi Outdoor Stewardship Trust Fund. Cruise described her personal background as an avid hunter and angler and expressed support for expanding outdoor access and conservation opportunities across the state. Senator Wicker, who said he was one of the authors of the legislation creating the fund, asked about her views on conservation and how the program could better serve the public. Cruise praised the board’s structure, said she valued the requirement for matching funds and project guidelines that emphasize hunting, fishing, and broad public access, and encouraged continued outreach so projects come from all regions of Mississippi. Wicker also stressed the need for careful attention to the application process, asking what applicants can do to make projects more feasible for consideration. Cruise responded that applicants should be audited entities with staff able to answer trust fund questions so the board can track money and ensure projects are sustainable. Wicker noted that many counties still have no funded projects and urged the board to remember that Mississippi is a large state and funding should not be concentrated only in certain corridors. A committee member later noted that Cruise’s portal looked good but mentioned a missing statement of economic interest, which Cruise said she had filed. The committee then moved to advise and consent, approved the motion without opposition, and reported the nomination to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• not changed the way that that process not changed the way that that process works.<00:21:19.760>
• We examine our processes.
• We examine our processes. Happy to dive. We examine our processes.
• What was the thought process here?
• What was the thought process here? work. What was the thought process here?

Bills: HF3217, HF2252

Keywords: bioindustrial facilities, economic development, renewable energy, advanced biofuels, state funding, HF2252, Minnesota bonding, volume cap, private activity bonds, tax-exempt bonds, public facility bonds, public facilities pool, unified pool, bond allocation, municipal finance, bond cap, housing bonds, residential rental projects, manufacturing bonds, enterprise zone bonds

Summary: The committee first approved the prior day’s minutes as amended, correcting the meeting number from the 46th to the 45th meeting. It then took up House File 3217, which would restore funding for the Minnesota Bioincentive Program. Representative Kisha argued the state should honor commitments made to companies that met program requirements and had not received full reimbursement. Testifiers from the Great Plains Institute and Minnesota Biofuels Association said the program has supported bioeconomy investment, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and generated strong economic returns, but has been underfunded, leaving unpaid claims. Members raised questions about whether the bill was retrospective and whether it should be reviewed by another committee; the bill was laid over for further consideration without a vote. The committee then heard House File 2252, a proposal to modernize Minnesota’s private activity bond volume cap by shifting unused allocation from the small issuer/manufacturing bucket to the public facilities bucket while leaving the overall cap unchanged. The bill’s public finance testifier said the current allocation formula is outdated, housing would remain the top priority, and the change would be budget neutral. Testifiers from the Minnesota Milk Producers Association and Minnesota Biofuels Association supported the bill, saying it would better align financing with rural infrastructure, clean water, manure management, renewable natural gas, dairy processing, and low-carbon fuel projects, and could lower borrowing costs for those sectors. Members questioned whether the bill fit the committee’s jurisdiction and noted it might be more appropriate for another committee; the bill was also laid over for further consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• process for reviewing and selecting. process for reviewing and selecting.
• So, it's a new management uh processes.
• or an old program through this process or an old program through this process would<00:22:25.919
• c> different<00:23:29.760> when The process is slightly different when The process is slightly
• <00:47:55.920> right of those RFPs that are in process right of those RFPs that are in process

Bills: SF2434

Keywords: housing, development fund, affordable housing, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, expenditure provisions

Transcript Highlights:

• But that was a part of the<01:15:12.760> process. the process. the process.
• through the process. through the process.
• <01:18:05.600> And process that we have here. And process that we have here.
• They've got two um processes.
• And then what is the process?

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process it bioremediates the soil. process it bioremediates the soil.
• LUC. >> Yeah, with the LUC, uh, because the declaratory order process, or the ruling process, right?
• declaratory order process, or the ruling process, process, process, right?
• through the declaratory order process. through the declaratory order process.
• , amendment through that process, amendment through that process, right?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills, with most measures drawing either support or comments rather than opposition. HB 2395, relating to taking marine deposits for research, education, management, or propagation, received support from the University of Hawaii and DLNR. HB 2585, relating to agricultural tourism, drew broad support for its intent to keep agritourism secondary to farming, but agencies and farm groups raised concerns about enforcement, county authority, and the rebuttable presumption language. Testifiers included OPSD, the Agribusiness Development Corporation, Hawaii Farm Bureau, a small farm operator, and others, with some urging clearer definitions, simpler registration, and protections for bona fide farms and hosted farm stays. HB 1728, on rainwater catchment systems, was supported in principle by DLNR, which cited drought conditions and said it deferred to counties and the Department of Health on safety and regulation. HB 1881, which would prohibit passenger ropeways on mountain lands, drew strong support from community testifiers who said it would help prevent development disguised as agritourism and protect forests and country lands. HB 1990, establishing penalties and possible foreclosure for unresolved zoning violations, received comments from the Attorney General recommending removal of AG references and more county-centered enforcement, while the Hawaii Association of Realtors warned the 30-day timeline could create problems for absent or unaware homeowners. The committee also heard HB 1712, which would expand and make permanent certain seats on the State Building Code Council. The Plumbers and Fitters union supported the bill, but BIA Hawaii requested amendments to add “licensed contractor” language, and architects and other professionals opposed the measure, arguing that increasing the council from 12 to 15 voting members would make it less efficient and harder to reach quorum. Finally, HB 2151, relating to hempcrete, was supported by a Kauai workforce development advocate and the Hawaii Farm Bureau, who said hempcrete could support agriculture, manufacturing, and affordable housing while reducing carbon and reliance on imported materials. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The sheriff's just saying is a review process.
• That process has worked very, very well. Here's the problem: the process is almost to a halt.
• That process has worked very, very well. Here's the problem: the process is almost to a halt.
• But you can imagine civil process, local reentry.
• So you have civil process, you have safekeeping.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission opened an informal discussion focused on developing recommendations for its September report on correctional consolidation and cooperation. Chairs Dan Hunt and Senator Brownsberger emphasized that the group is still in an information-gathering phase, but should begin putting ideas on the table, including possible written recommendations, further hearings, and additional facility tours. Members discussed whether the commission should seek more input from frontline stakeholders such as sheriffs, probation, parole, reentry centers, unions, and the judiciary, and whether recommendations should be organized around specific issue areas like medical costs, programming, reentry, and facility operations. A major theme was the need for a more integrated and consistent correctional system. Participants raised concerns about fragmentation across DOC, county sheriffs, probation, and parole, and suggested exploring step-down pathways, minimum security, pre-release, day reporting, and regional reentry hubs to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism. Several speakers stressed the importance of uniform standards, evidence-based programming, better data on outcomes and spending, and clearer alignment between custody conditions and rehabilitation goals. There was also discussion of looking to other states and international models, as well as revisiting older reports and plans, including the 2009 commission report and the 2010 corrections master plan. Facility-specific issues were also raised, including the need to examine women’s facilities such as Framingham, Bridgewater, and restrictive housing practices in light of suicide concerns and mental health needs. Members discussed the relationship between correctional custody and behavioral health, the role of the judiciary in sentencing and reentry planning, and whether judges should be better informed about available programming and step-down options. There was broad agreement that collaboration, transparency, and accountability should be strengthened, with some members urging that recommendations be based on firsthand facts and data rather than opinion alone. The meeting also included presentation of a written set of eight high-level recommendations compiled by advocacy and legal organizations, which focused on clearer and more consistent programming, equitable application of rules, and reducing punitive conditions that function like solitary confinement. The chairs said the document would be shared with members and posted online. No formal votes were taken during the discussion, and the meeting ended with plans to continue the conversation at a future session, including possible follow-up on reentry centers, restrictive housing, and other systemwide reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the reality is there is a process that allows for public input and comment, and a very involved process
• The capture of carbon is a new process. It is not.
• within state regulation approval process?
• within state regulation approval process?
• They have a predictable process, processes that are efficient and ensure that projects are done safely

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This touches a lot on regulatory and rate-paying processes, rate-making processes, but we're finding
• Like I said, Sentry Code lays out, Process.
• That collaboration is critical to the process.
• When the, in the, you know, processing site of Bellfield.
• The regulatory process, arguably, is four or five years.

Summary: The committee met to review advanced nuclear energy issues in North Dakota, beginning with approval of the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon presented an overview of the advanced reactor landscape, distinguishing light-water SMRs, advanced Gen 4 reactors, and microreactors. The presentation emphasized that light-water SMRs are the most near-term deployable and use familiar low-enriched uranium fuel, while many Gen 4 designs may require high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALU), which is not yet supported by a mature U.S. supply chain. Nucleon also noted that advanced reactors are being developed primarily for industrial heat applications, while microreactors are niche, higher-cost systems for remote or mission-critical uses. Committee members asked about fuel availability, safety, recycling, and whether large reactors such as AP-1000s were evaluated; the presenter said fuel development is proceeding in parallel but remains a bottleneck, and that siting and grid capacity often make SMRs more practical than gigawatt-scale plants in North Dakota. Representatives from the National Association of State Energy Officials described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, regional coordination, grants, tax incentives, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and pilot programs. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and said states are focusing on multi-state coordination, demand aggregation, regulatory coordination, waste management, workforce readiness, and community engagement. They also discussed affordability tools such as construction work in progress (CWIP), financing incentives, and consumer protections, citing examples from Kentucky, Texas, Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, Tennessee, and others. In response to questions, they explained that pilot programs often involve site-readiness and feasibility studies, and that the federal Nuclear Innovation Campus process is moving forward with multiple submissions while broader waste and recycling policy may require congressional action. The Public Service Commission said it would likely have a major role in any North Dakota nuclear project through certificate-of-public-convenience-and-necessity review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted gaps in current law for small reactors, co-located facilities, NRC coordination, and long-term site stewardship. The commissioner said the commission has no authority over a private, self-contained reactor not connected to the grid. The Department of Environmental Quality explained that the state regulates radioactive materials under its agreement-state authority, but NRC retains primacy over fission reactors; DEQ would likely assist with emergency planning and could have a larger role if fusion reactors emerge. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, requiring a dedicated radiological emergency preparedness program, training, drills, public outreach, and likely additional funding and staffing, with industry expected to bear much of the cost. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota’s water laws and prior-appropriation system are adequate for nuclear siting, that the Missouri River is the best likely source, and that no statutory or budget changes are currently needed from a water perspective. The committee recessed for lunch after these agency presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• This touches a lot on regulatory and rate-paying processes, rate-making processes, but we're finding
• This touches a lot on regulatory and rate-paying processes, rate-making processes, but we're finding
• We have a public notification process.
• Like I said, Sentry Code lays out, Process.
• One is the first word says it's a process. It is a long process.

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to review prior minutes and hear a series of presentations on advanced nuclear technology and state readiness. The committee approved the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon’s William Bridge outlined the advanced nuclear landscape, distinguishing near-term light-water SMRs from more advanced Gen 4 reactors and microreactors, and emphasized that fuel supply, especially HALEU, remains a developing supply chain. He said light-water designs are the most deployable in the near term, while advanced reactors may be better suited for industrial heat applications and could face a 2- to 3-year delay from fuel availability. Representatives from NASEO described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, pilot programs, financing tools, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and regional coordination. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and stressed that states are focusing early on emergency preparedness, community engagement, waste management, affordability, and consumer protections. They also noted that some states are creating nuclear-ready community programs and cost-recovery guardrails, while public utility commissions are examining long-term lifecycle costs and rate impacts. North Dakota agencies then outlined their potential roles. The Public Service Commission said it would likely be involved in public-interest review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted current statutes may not fully address long-term nuclear projects, co-location, or decommissioning. The Department of Environmental Quality said it would continue to regulate radioactive materials and likely support emergency planning, while fission reactor oversight remains federal. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, needing a radiological emergency program, training, exercises, equipment, and possibly industry funding. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota has sufficient surface water, especially from the Missouri River, but that water planning would be important; it did not recommend statutory or budget changes at this time. The committee recessed for lunch after these presentations, with no additional votes or actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• It would not suspend the variance process.
• Nothing else would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance.
• Nothing else would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance, or any other
• But that's a process for that, right?
• But there's a process for that.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The committee first disposed of several measures without debate, including deferrals of House Bill 460, House Bill 561, Senate Bill 322, and another deferred Senate measure, before taking up House Bill 819 by Chairman Cruz. HB 819 would replace Louisiana’s current workers’ compensation medical treatment schedule with ODG by MCG, a private evidence-based guideline system used in other states. Cruz and Troy Prevo argued ODG is more comprehensive, updated more frequently, and could reduce claim duration, medical costs, and premium rates; Dr. Jason Picard said Louisiana already uses ODG as a secondary reference for gaps in the state schedule and that the bill would not change appeals or variance procedures. Opponents, including injured-worker advocates Joseph Jola St. and Robin Crumholt, argued Louisiana’s current guidelines are working, that ODG is more cost-cutting and insurer-driven, and that the bill could increase denials and delay care. Members discussed amendments to add a two-year sunset, allow tacit approval when treatment follows the schedule, require payment within 30 days, and raise the carrier’s burden to challenge care; the committee adopted the amendments and then reported HB 819 favorably by a 7-6 vote. The committee then began Senate Bill 409 by Senator Myers, the Louisiana Living Donor Leave Protection Act. The bill would provide paid leave protections for living organ donors, set eligibility and verification procedures, and prohibit forfeiture of leave in certain circumstances for private employers. Myers said the measure is intended to remove job and paycheck barriers for people willing to donate organs and to support better transplant outcomes. Technical amendments were adopted at the start of the presentation, and the bill was introduced for further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The processes that are used.
• I just want to say I love this process.
• them, then while that process is going on, and this is a separate process than if a... ...of a municipality
• That's a whole separate process.
• And it should be handled through the International Code Council process and the process at every county

Bills: HB45, HB755, HB 1232, HB1555, HB2460, HB2702, HB2973, HB3120, HB3225, HB3314, HB3356, HB3371, HB3634, HB3638, HB4247, HB4283, HB4290, HB4302, HB4503, HB4511, HB4565, HB4581, HB4627, HB4632, HB4660, HB4668, HB4960, HB5042, HB45

Keywords: housing, affordable housing, rent control, landlord-tenant laws, housing rights, lobbying, public entities, expenditures, government code, transparency, Texas Ethics Commission, government regulation, lobbying restrictions, government accountability, taxpayer money, HB 1232, whistleblower, whistleblower protection, public employee, retaliation

Transcript Highlights:

• It is important to show the process to all of us, especially our younger population, because we do a
• It starts to show the true process of change.
• Being heard is part of the restorative process.
• Oh, we're processed. We were processed and convicted in the 13th Amendment that makes it legal.
• So thank you for being part of the process to all those folks. Right. Thank you. Thank you.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on a wide range of voting-access and election-administration bills. The largest portion of testimony focused on same-day voter registration (H. 834/S. 505), with support from Rep. Gentile, Boston and Chelsea officials, civic groups, and election administrators from Maine and Vermont. Supporters argued that same-day registration would help eligible voters who move frequently, miss deadlines, or face administrative errors, and would reduce rejected provisional ballots. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Vermont elections director Sean Sheehan testified that same-day registration has worked in their states without major administrative problems and has helped increase turnout. A Boston-based panel also described high rejection rates for provisional ballots and the burden of registration cutoffs on renters, students, immigrants, and low-income voters. A second major topic was restoration of voting rights for incarcerated people, including S. 524 and related House bills. The committee heard extensive virtual testimony from incarcerated individuals at MCI Norfolk and MCI Shirley, who said voting should be restored as part of rehabilitation, civic engagement, and reintegration. They described disenfranchisement as dehumanizing and argued that voting would help maintain family and community ties, reduce recidivism, and give incarcerated people a voice on laws affecting prisons and reentry. Rep. Erica Uyterhoeven also testified in support, saying the bill would restore municipal voting rights for incarcerated residents and align with broader efforts to expand political participation. The committee also heard testimony on bills affecting election administration and access, including a proposal to reduce or eliminate mandated early in-person voting in primaries and shorten the general-election early voting period, with supporters from the town clerks’ community arguing that low usage, staffing burdens, and costs justify the change. Opponents warned that reducing in-person early voting could hurt voters who do not use mail ballots and could disproportionately affect communities of color. Other bills discussed included decoupling the municipal census from voter registration, requiring periodic accessibility inspections of polling places, and a Somerville home-rule petition on non-citizen municipal voting and another on lowering the voting age in municipal elections. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• He said he was willing to help make the process smoother.
• So are we believing, is that the thought process that...
• So our plants here go through that process. Okay.
• The competition in this process happens at the pilot stage.
• Do we think the competing bidding process is important?” “Yes.

Bills: HB1163, HB1168, HR252, HR253, HCR103, HCR108, SB80, SB131, SB251, SB254, SB279, SB384, SB414, SB468, SB469, SB496

Keywords: fireworks, retail sales, fire safety, legislation, holiday celebrations, construction standards, precast concrete, DOTD, building regulations, minimum requirements, public projects, private projects, consumer protection, credit card fees, cash transactions, rounding practices, transparency, low-income, economic impact, residential construction

Transcript Highlights:

• This turns permitting into a high-risk process.
• So without that certainty, right, you can have gone through a full CEQA process.
• We'll look forward to continuing to work as the bill moves through the process.
• We have valued process. ...the clean energy transition.
• There are all sorts of processes that lead to projects being delayed.

Summary: The committee heard several bills related to environmental quality, housing, transportation, and waste policy. SB 1375, by Senator Cortese, would create a narrow CEQA exemption category for certain transit and rail projects that have already undergone extensive environmental review. Supporters, including VTA, the City of San Jose, BART, Caltrain, MTC, and Climate Reality Silicon Valley, said it would reduce duplicative review and speed projects like the Diridon Station modernization. Committee members emphasized added amendments requiring displacement, construction-impact, and natural resources plans, and the bill passed 5-0 as amended to Transportation. The committee then took up SB 1031 on compostable plastics labeling. The author and supporters such as Californians Against Waste and the California Compost Coalition argued the bill would reduce consumer confusion, curb contamination in compost and recycling streams, and direct OEHHA to study health and environmental impacts. Opponents including manufacturers, BPI, retailers, and other industry groups said the bill would effectively ban compostable products in California, harm businesses, and fail to fix the underlying National Organics Program issue. After extensive discussion about labeling, composting capacity, and costs, the bill passed 2-2 on call to Appropriations. SB 958, relating to the Midway Rising redevelopment project in San Diego, was presented next; supporters said it would help move forward a large housing and mixed-use project on city-owned land after years of review and voter approval, and it passed 3-0 on call to Local Government. SB 1075, the Clean Air Promise, drew the most extensive debate. The bill would strengthen implementation and enforcement of AB 617 community emissions reduction plans and local plans in overburdened communities. Environmental justice advocates and youth supporters backed the measure, while local governments, business groups, air district representatives, and industry groups warned it would create uncertainty, add land-use constraints, and act as a housing and cost driver. The author accepted several committee amendments and said the bill was still being worked on, but the motion to pass it to Local Government resulted in a 2-2 tie and the bill remained on call. SB 1064, by Senator Dahle, would reduce clean truck check testing frequency for low-use heavy-duty vehicles and equipment from twice a year to once a year. Agricultural and trucking witnesses supported it as a practical, cost-saving change, while air quality advocates opposed weakening a program they said prevents excess emissions and protects public health. The bill passed 4-0 on call to Transportation. Finally, SB 1258 was presented as a revised measure on remediation of hazardous waste sites on the Cortese list. The author said the committee amendments replaced the bill’s original approach, but he continued to argue that remediation should be aligned with housing development so contaminated infill sites can be cleaned up and built on more efficiently. Developers and environmental consultants supported the concept, saying current timing rules create risk and leave sites idle, while the committee continued to hear testimony as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is their process if you know what it looks like?
• Just wanting to know how this process works. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• It's not called that because it's in a private process.
• Are you, are they part of the process? Madam Chair. Madam Chair.
• How many head of beef are you all processing a day?

Transcript Highlights:

• And so an exemption occurs, Exemptions occur later in the process.
• of Revenue's oversight role in the trim process.
• It's a relatively intense process with a lot of ...do.
• They are all following the same general process.
• So they're not part of the millage-setting process. They are a completely different process.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• But through the course of the Sunset process, The bill and find that provision.
• Appreciate all the great work that you've done throughout the process.
• for seeking parole and going through the parole review process by BPP.
• As to the savings, we’re essentially getting people through this process.
• Then there's an FTO process after that, where you'll generally run about 30 exams.

Bills: SB552, SB1099, SB1124, SB1208, SB1372, SB1506, SB1667, SB1804, SB1806, SB1870, SB1936, SB1937, SB2180, SB2405, SB2569, SB2570, SB1646

Keywords: community supervision, criminal justice, illegal alien, deferred adjudication, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, SB 1099, undocumented immigrant, unauthorized immigrant, immigration status, felony sentencing enhancement, criminal penalty increase, Texas Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, affirmative finding, judgment finding, deportation, public safety, immigration enforcement, sentencing reform, felony offense

Summary: The committee heard a series of criminal justice bills, beginning with SB 1870 and SB 1727, both of which were adopted as committee substitutes and reported favorably to the full Senate. SB 1870 would bar local governments from adopting policies that decriminalize controlled substances or direct officials not to enforce state drug laws, with civil penalties enforced by the Attorney General for violations. SB 1727 was described as a technical change to make the draft a formal Legislative Council version of a TDCJ-related assault bill; both bills were also sent to the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then took up SB 2405, the major Sunset bill for TDCJ, the Board of Pardons and Paroles, Windham School District, and the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. Senator Parker explained that the bill continues and modernizes those agencies, requires a 10-year facilities and staffing plan, expands rehabilitation and reentry programming, improves parole-board consistency and training, and codifies various cleanup and inspector general recommendations. Sunset staff and agency witnesses discussed the bill’s data-sharing, program coordination, and projected savings from reducing delays in parole-voted programming; public witnesses generally supported the post-secondary education and reentry provisions, while some urged stronger statutory direction for Windham and more reform to medically recommended intensive supervision. The bill was left pending. SB 1804, SB 1099, SB 2569, and SB 2570 were also heard. SB 1804 would allow restitution for tattoo removal for human trafficking survivors and remove the age restriction so adult survivors can qualify; it was reported favorably and sent to the local calendar. SB 1099 would increase penalties for certain felony offenses when committed by a person determined to be unlawfully present in the country; immigration and civil rights witnesses opposed it as overbroad and difficult to administer, but it was reported favorably. SB 2569 would modernize unmanned aircraft reporting by requiring law enforcement agencies to post reports on public websites; it passed unanimously and was sent to the local calendar. SB 2570 would create a defense to prosecution for peace officers and correctional guards using less-lethal force weapons within the scope of their training; law enforcement witnesses supported it, civil rights and prosecutor witnesses raised concerns that it was too broad and could weaken existing use-of-force standards, and the bill was left pending for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're getting more politics involved in the impeachment process. We got an impeachment process.
• And we can't just, we can't punish the second part of the process when the first part of the process
• They have a similar process, and many of those states also have an impeachment process and a legislative
• address process, kind of like this.
• But there needs to be a process. Without a process, the people are without a voice.

Summary: The House and Governmental Affairs Committee met on Senate Bill 123, a proposed constitutional amendment to create a legislative process for removing judges for cause. Senator Morris said the bill was needed because of uncertainty in the current Constitution about whether impeachment applies to judges, given the Judiciary Commission’s role in judicial discipline. He argued the measure would provide a clearer, higher-threshold accountability mechanism, and the committee adopted a technical amendment renumbering provisions and later clarified that the bill uses a majority vote in the House and two-thirds in the Senate, consistent with impeachment-style thresholds. Much of the hearing centered on testimony from Anna Carter and her family, who supported the bill after the murder of Jacob Carter in New Orleans. They described his death and other cases they said showed judges releasing dangerous offenders despite repeated violations, missed electronic-monitoring check-ins, and other warning signs. They argued the bill would create a last-resort accountability tool when judicial decisions or supervision failures lead to preventable harm. Several committee members expressed sympathy and said the testimony highlighted serious problems in the justice system, though some also suggested the bill should address district attorneys, electronic-monitoring oversight, or broader systemic issues. Opposition came from members who warned the proposal was overly broad, could become a political tool, and might conflict with existing constitutional provisions governing impeachment and judicial discipline. They argued the Judiciary Commission and Supreme Court already provide a disciplinary framework and that the bill could chill judicial independence or create due-process concerns. The ACLU’s Sarah Whittington also opposed the bill, noting technical inconsistencies in the draft, questioning why impeachment had not been tried first, and arguing the measure singled out judicial discretion while leaving other elected officials’ discretion untouched. The committee took no final vote on the bill during the hearing, but did adopt the technical amendment.