Transcript Highlights:

• Meanwhile, when governments regulate interchange fees, it causes banks and other parts of the payment
• So the most useful action that this commission can take is to support the X9QR pay code standard.
• And so the government is behind driving that adoption.
• So we have an instant payment system here in the U.S., but it's not mandated by the government.
• And there's a new standard of pay codes, QR pay codes, that was introduced very late last year that would

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• create and enact a new subdivision to subsection 2 of Section 12-60-24 of the North Dakota Century Code
• To amend and reenact sections 43-17-27.1 of the North Dakota Century Code relating to physician continuing
• and you will see the addition in Section 1 of the bill as it impacts Chapter 43-40 of the Century Code
• new sections of Chapter 43-15 and a new subsection to Section 43-48-03 of the North Dakota Century Code
• Century Code, relating to approved laboratory tests, and to provide for an effective date.

Bills: HB1621, HB1624, HB1623, HB1622, HB1625, HB1626, HB1627, HCR3038

Keywords: presidential physical fitness test, physical education, fitness assessment, student fitness, school curriculum, graduation requirements, elementary school, middle school, high school, public schools, nonpublic schools, superintendent of public instruction, exceptions, disability accommodations, North Dakota studies, computer science, cybersecurity, health education, concept-based fitness class, school standards

Summary: The North Dakota House convened in special session with prayer, roll call, and a quorum present, then took up several rural health-related bills. Senate Bill 2401, as amended, required physicians to complete one hour of continuing education in nutrition and metabolic health each renewal cycle and also added language allowing criminal history background checks for the Board of Occupational Therapy Practice. Supporters emphasized the role of nutrition in reducing chronic disease, and the bill passed 92-0. The House then considered Senate Bill 2402, which expanded pharmacists’ limited prescriptive and therapeutic substitution authority for certain low-acuity conditions and clarified related lab-test and communication requirements. Members discussed examples such as motion sickness, cold sores, lice, hypoglycemia, COVID and flu testing, emergency access to medications and supplies, and limits excluding certain drug classes; the bill passed 91-1. Senate Bill 2403 created a temporary medical facility emergency operating loan option through the Bank of North Dakota for qualifying rural hospitals facing severe financial distress, with extensive debate over the targeted nature of the aid, anti-gifting concerns, repayment terms, and the hospital’s turnaround plan; it passed 80-12. Senate Bill 2404 appropriated funds for NDIT to address federal digital accessibility requirements and for the Public Service Commission’s litigation efforts related to transmission costs, with a backup loan authorization available if needed; it passed 92-0. At the close of the session, leaders thanked members and staff for their work on the rural health transformation package, a committee notified the Governor and the Senate that the House had completed its business, absent members were excused, and the House adjourned sine die.

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment is coded A1.
• The first engrossment as amended. amendment is coded A13. I recognize a amendment is coded A13.
• The amendment is coded A14. I recognize a member from Ramsey, Representative Her. Mr.
• The amendment is coded A12. I recognize a member from Olmsted, Representative Leebing.
• <00:10:16.240> and subsidized by the federal government and subsidized by the federal government

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment is coded A5.
• I recognize a amendment is coded A3.
• The amendment is coded A2.
• The amendment is coded A2.
• Will Ghislaine Maxwell be released from government custody?

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate File 4760, a public safety package, and first adopted an amendment to insert House language into the Senate file. Members then heard brief explanations of several included provisions, including a section from House File 3870 that would make Office of Justice Programs research and victim-related data private, clarify privacy for data collected by the Missing and Murdered Black Women and Girls office and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives office, and remove outdated statutory language. Representative Novotny also described the package as combining a number of previously passed stand-alone bills and a few additional provisions. The chamber then adopted amendments A5, A7, and A8. A5 inserted House language and adjusted an effective date related to public employer discretion in hiring; A7 allowed the Office of Legislative Auditor to request BCA fingerprinting and federal tax information as required by federal rules; and A8 clarified language affecting jail medical services and custody-related safeguards after collaboration among Representative Witty, the sheriffs association, the Department of Corrections, and advocates. Representatives Hansen, Moller, and Witty all urged support for those changes. A proposed A3 amendment from Representative Duran, which would have kept the current age of delinquency rather than implementing the previously enacted change, drew extensive debate. Supporters argued counties, law enforcement, and other stakeholders were not ready for the change and lacked infrastructure, while opponents said the 2024 law was intended to address serious gaps in juvenile justice and child welfare and should take effect as planned. After a roll call, the House rejected A3 by a vote of 66 yeas to 67 nays. The transcript then indicates another Duran amendment, A2, was called up, but the excerpt ends before its disposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, certainly there would be some commitment on the, you know, the government form.
• Certainly there would be some commitment on the, you know, the government for that.
• We don't have countywide planning and zoning, and we don't have code enforcement out in the county, as
• And if we want to run the government, we have taxes, but at the same time... ...thing, and if we want
• to run the government, we have taxes.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're actually building homes to the modeled codes instead of... people you have on here.
• and Standards to add Construction Codes and Standards to add to<00:10:45.600> that.
• I don't know how that interacts with the federal government.
• Can you just explain that a government. Can you just explain that a little<00:19:21.919> bit?
• In a moment when the federal government In a moment when the federal government is<00:35:47.119>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So towns are governments. They do not have rights. Government does not have rights. It has powers.
• Being involved in local government, and I'm involved in my local government, the flavor of my town is
• and I'm involved in my local government and I'm involved in my local<00:42:33.520> government,
• government and our live fear, die state. government and our live fear, die state.
• the state government um, play out. the state government um, play out.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It has nothing to do with the state statutes that govern.
• It has nothing to do with the state statutes that govern or don't govern the Arizona Rangers.
• I believe many of our organizational governing documents are not being followed.
• Our governing documents don't allow that.
• So the governing body would be the Arizona POST.

Bills: SB1048, SB1071, SB1092, SB1314, SB1391, SB1400, SB1401, SB1452

Keywords: juvenile services, Coconino county, rehabilitation, detox center, financial appropriation, Arizona Rangers, statutory repeal, security, state law, regulatory changes, probation, dangerous crimes, children, Arizona Revised Statutes, criminal justice, juvenile offenses, appropriations, salary increase, corrections, public safety

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:21.600> cannot that a local unit of government cannot that a local unit of government
• <00:27:13.760> reviews, things like checks uh code reviews, things like checks uh code reviews
• I think that the idea that local governments would be incentivizing or requiring this private governance
• <00:37:45.920> I private governance is a problem. I private governance is a problem.
• <00:38:00.000> can talk about how local governments can talk about how local governments can

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 2614 was heard with a delete-everything amendment adopted at the outset. The bill, as explained by the authors, would prevent local governments from requiring amenities or common property that effectively force the creation of a homeowners association, while still allowing developers to create HOAs voluntarily when needed. The authors said the language was negotiated with stakeholders, including the League of Minnesota Cities, and was intended to be moved on to the Housing Committee for further discussion. Supportive testimony came from Housing First Minnesota and the Minnesota Homeownership Center. They argued that unnecessary HOA mandates can raise housing costs, reduce homebuyer choice, and shift public infrastructure costs onto homeowners through dues in addition to property taxes. Testifiers cited examples involving single-family developments, a Burnsville case involving a large roof assessment and disputed ACH withdrawal, and the Heritage Park development in Minneapolis, where an HOA was required but later became difficult to dissolve. They said the bill would preserve HOAs where they are genuinely needed, such as townhomes or shared-amenity developments. Members raised questions about the removal of county-specific language in the amendment, the meaning of the bill’s references to services and common property, and whether the bill would still allow neighborhood signs or other developer-requested features. A major point of concern was stormwater ponds and drainage infrastructure: one member argued that prohibiting cities from requiring HOA maintenance of such facilities could shift costs to taxpayers, while the authors responded that the bill was meant to stop cities from mandating discretionary amenities and that maintenance issues had been partly addressed in the amendment. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, but the amendment was adopted and the bill was discussed for referral onward.

Transcript Highlights:

• and county government. and county government.
• and county government. and county government.
• county government. county government.
• and county government. and county government.
• . government. government.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is governed by forces outside of the city's control.
• input after 26 years in local government input after 26 years in local government I<00:20:45.320
• seek them when they seek code seek them when they seek code flexibility<00:32:35.919> and
• elections finance and government elections finance and government as<01:03:02.920> as<01:
• as as amended uh and government as as amended uh and government operations<01:03:05.480> as

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1987, the Minnesota Starter Home Act, and first adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which made minor cleanup changes, removed sections two and three, adjusted ADU language, and tweaked density language. The bill authors described the measure as a bipartisan effort to address Minnesota’s housing shortage by allowing more starter homes, duplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, while also limiting some local zoning barriers and preserving city protections in certain sensitive areas. They emphasized that the state has a large housing gap, rising home prices, and that the bill is intended as one part of a broader housing package. Supportive testimony came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Housing First Minnesota, Habitat for Humanity, AARP Minnesota, and Americans for Prosperity. These witnesses argued that workforce and starter-home shortages are hurting families, employers, and economic growth; that restrictive zoning and lengthy approval processes raise costs; and that more middle housing and ADUs would expand options for older adults, caregivers, working families, and people seeking homeownership. Several supporters said the bill would reduce regulatory barriers, lower development costs, and help communities add needed housing supply. Opposition or cautionary testimony came from city and municipal representatives, including officials from Cambridge, Eagan, and Mankato, as well as the League of Minnesota Cities and related groups. They argued that local governments already are approving substantial housing growth and need flexibility to manage zoning, parking, infrastructure, stormwater, and community input. They warned the bill could weaken local control, remove practical standards, and create unintended impacts such as more rental conversion in some neighborhoods or development without adequate infrastructure. No final vote on the bill itself was shown in the transcript beyond adoption of the A1 amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next six slides relate to the primary government of the state.
• The next six slides relate to the primary government of the state.
• The financial information on these slides, relate to the primary government of the state.
• This change in methodology, and the related payable due back to the federal government.
• So we did have excess funds, And they were, you know, returned to the government.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Next up we have HB 511, public records code inspector body cameras.
• People don't ask the government to police pronouns or identities.
• And a government that does not manufacture new fights.
• But government-compelled personal expression is not.
• That's efficient government.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:10.240> service private practice and government service private practice and government
• Something to fully fund the government Something to fully fund the government before<02:43:22.319
• it in these RMPs, and it's based on robust input from communities, stakeholders, the public, on government-to-government
• <04:44:48.320> consultation government-to-government consultation government-to-government consultation
• <04:45:37.120> have does, or that tribal governments have does, or that tribal governments

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, September 3, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or the state government.
• As such, a zip-code requirement is unnecessary for workers' compensation policies.
• In a separate section of the code, I move adoption.
• Code.
• All it does is codify what is already an administrative code.

Summary: The Senate opened with an invocation and then took up several conference committee matters and resolutions. It granted the House request for a conference committee on House Bill 46 and adopted a conference report on Senate Bill 37, which was described as higher education governance reform, including stronger board authority, changes to faculty senates, general education requirements, and a new ombudsman office. Senators also adopted a large package of resolutions and HCRs by voice vote. A major focus was Senate Bill 12, the “Parental Bill of Rights,” whose conference report was adopted after extended questioning. The bill was described as giving parents more access to school materials and grievance procedures, requiring parental consent for student clubs, and restricting school district employees from assisting with social transitioning or related gender-identity instruction. Senators raised concerns about effects on students already socially transitioned and on parental rights in medical or psychological decisions; the author said the House language was retained in key areas and that districts would need policies and parent notification. The report passed 20-11. The Senate then adopted a resolution allowing the conference committee on Senate Bill 1, the state budget for fiscal years 2026-2027, to go outside the bounds, and later adopted the budget conference report. Senators highlighted major funding for public education, property tax relief, public safety, health and human services, child care, water and transportation infrastructure, and the Texas Energy Fund. The budget discussion also covered higher education, mental health facilities, community attendant wages, rural hospitals, DFPS case management, child care assistance, and a study rider on TRS. The report passed unanimously, 30-0. Finally, the Senate suspended rules to take up Senate Bill 8 and adopted its conference report. The bill requires counties with jails or jail contracts to participate in the federal 287(g) immigration enforcement program, with sheriffs choosing among available models and counties receiving tiered grants to help cover costs. Supporters framed it as a public safety measure targeting criminal illegal aliens, while opponents questioned whether it would divert local resources and increase fear in immigrant communities. The report was adopted after debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the challenges is that we all agree, or at least I think, it's better if the federal government
• I just want to briefly mention that traditionally hash codes, one-way hash codes, is something that's
• No optimizations, no hard coding, no hardware acceleration, nothing complex—that’s it.
• Oh, and feel free to skim this code; it's coming out.
• Oh, and feel free to skin this code is coming out.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee and Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational hearing at Stanford on the intersection of artificial intelligence, copyright, transparency, and California’s creative economy. Chairs and members emphasized that the hearing was not on a specific bill and no vote would be taken. Opening remarks framed the issue as balancing protection for artists and other rights holders with the need to keep AI innovation and related economic activity thriving in California, while noting that federal action is unlikely and that state policy may influence national standards. The first panel featured Professor Pamela Samuelson and Stanford researcher Rishi Bommasani. Samuelson reviewed the current copyright litigation landscape, including dozens of lawsuits over AI training, and explained the fair use framework, the Google Books precedent, and the uncertainty around newer theories such as market dilution. She said states can likely regulate transparency, deepfakes, privacy, and safety, but warned that some proposals may be preempted by federal copyright law. Bommasani described widespread opacity around training data among major California AI companies, discussed AB 2013 and the EU AI Act as transparency models, and identified gaps in disclosure design, enforcement, and whether transparency alone can address copyright and IP concerns. Members asked about open-source models, opt-outs, machine unlearning, user data, and state options for protecting creators. The second panel included SAG-AFTRA board member Jason George, Animation Guild president Danny Lynn, and OpenAI copyright counsel Mark Gray. George and Lynn argued that AI training on performers’ and artists’ work without consent or compensation threatens jobs, bargaining power, and reputations, and they supported stronger transparency and licensing requirements so creators can identify when their work is used. Gray said AI is already being used as a productivity tool and highlighted partnerships between AI companies and publishers, record labels, and studios, while arguing that specific harmful uses such as deepfakes should be regulated directly rather than restricting general-purpose AI development. Committee members discussed labeling and watermarking of AI-generated content, transparency around model use, and whether state law should require more detailed disclosure of training data; no formal action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• President, members, we stand here in Minnesota at the center of government fraud.
• Some of them ostensibly are people who are also defrauding our government. Mr.
• <00:39:42.000> of amendment uh that are from the code of amendment uh that are from the code
• They have now modified the technology that you can just show your QR code, and the QR code can get into
• code and the<01:25:34.320> QR<01:25:34.639> code<01:25:34.880> can<01:25:35.120>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with a prayer, pledge, and roll call, confirmed a quorum, and then moved through routine business including first reading and referral of Senate File 5019 to the Health and Human Services Committee, along with referral of Senate resolutions 73 to 75 to Rules and Administration. Senator Westrom’s motion to withdraw Senate File 3893 from Finance, give it a second reading, and place it on general orders was adopted. The chamber then took up House File 3556, which renames Minnesota’s Community Solar Garden Program as the Melissa Hortman Community Solar Garden Program. Senator Hoffman presented the bill as a tribute to Speaker Melissa Hortman’s role in creating and advancing community solar in Minnesota, with Senator Marty and others supporting the recognition. The bill was read a third time and passed on final passage by a vote of 59-7, with the title agreed to. Senate File 1251 followed, a bipartisan bill to remove the June 2026 sunset on crossbow use during archery season and make the allowance permanent. Senator Pa and supporters cited a DNR study showing no negative impact on deer or turkey populations and argued the change would improve participation among women, youth, and older hunters. An A3 technical amendment was adopted, and the bill passed 67-0. The Senate then considered Senate File 3868, a bill to ban cryptocurrency kiosks in Minnesota due to fraud concerns. The author and supporters described widespread scams targeting seniors and others, citing losses in Minnesota and national fraud data. An A2 amendment requiring lawful-presence verification for foreign remittance transfers was ruled not germane, and the chair’s ruling was upheld on a 34-33 appeal. Debate then began on an A3 amendment related to cash transfers through airports, with members arguing over germaneness and the scope of the fraud-prevention bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• States Code Section 1357G, States Code Section 1357G, or<00:10:19.680> any<00:10:19.839> other
• agreements with the federal government. agreements with the federal government.
• So it kind of prevents... the federal government to do the job of the federal government to do the job
• to the residential landlord tenant code. to the residential landlord tenant code.
• United States code section 11101 A15U. United States code section 11101 A15U.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1768, which would prohibit state and county law enforcement agencies and officials from entering into federal immigration-enforcement agreements under 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) and from assisting in certain immigration enforcement actions except in limited circumstances. The Office of the Public Defender, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi all testified in strong support, arguing the bill would protect due process, reduce fear in immigrant communities, preserve trust in local police, and keep local resources focused on public safety. Testifiers said cooperation with immigration enforcement can chill court attendance, crime reporting, and cooperation with police, and they emphasized that the bill would not stop federal enforcement or affect other deputization agreements for environmental or other criminal matters. Committee members asked whether any 287(g) agreements currently exist in Hawaiʻi; testifiers said they were unaware of any and believed the bill would maintain the status quo. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 1548, which would reduce the maximum sentence for misdemeanors from one year to 364 days and allow people previously sentenced to one year to seek sentence modification. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Legal Clinic, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, and the William S. Richardson School of Law immigration clinic all supported the measure, saying the one-day change could prevent severe immigration consequences such as detention, removal, and bars to relief that can be triggered by a sentence of 365 days or more. Testifiers stressed that the bill would not change criminal liability or public safety, but would align Hawaiʻi law with similar reforms adopted in other states. Members questioned whether the change would affect citizens or create an automatic immigration process; witnesses responded that the issue is the federal immigration consequence tied to the maximum sentence, not actual time served, and that citizens would not face that consequence. The transcript ends during continued discussion of HB 1548, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• I saw that there was some funding, for example, for a couple of those from the federal government.
• Because as these structures make structural changes, if it involves code enforcement officers or code
• So the law that you're speaking of, no, it wouldn't change this, but the existing law governing these
• the lack of definition of um the code the lack of definition of um the code enforcement.<01:40:55.520
• code enforcement over<01:41:14.080> it.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began with introductions and a description of the day’s process: a full committee work session on four bills, with no public testimony, followed by caucus and then executive action. The first bill discussed was HB 113, concerning OHRV operation on certain highways in Windsor. Representative Nab presented an amendment that would require a public hearing and Department of Transportation approval, modeled on procedures used in Coös and Grafton counties. Members discussed whether Windsor had already held a local vote or hearing, whether minutes from a town meeting existed, and whether the amendment truly preserved local control. A Windsor resident testified informally that the town had not taken a final vote and that the matter had been left to the state. Committee members also raised concerns about noise, dust, public safety, and the fact that the road in question would connect OHRVs on a state road rather than a trail system. The chair closed the work session on HB 113 and said the committee would return after caucus to vote on the bill and amendment. The committee then took up HB 595FN, relative to coastal resilience zones. Representative Nat said the bill addressed flooding concerns in both coastal and inland New Hampshire, but that the sponsor viewed it as too complex and had recommended breaking the issue into separate parts in future legislation. On that basis, Nat said it was appropriate to ITL the bill, and noted that the sponsor supported that course. No further discussion followed, and the work session was closed. Next was HB 629FN, funding the operation, maintenance, and repair of state dams. Representative Darby explained that the original bill had proposed both a waterfront frontage tax and a $5 charge tied to boat registration, but that the amendment would replace the bill by removing the frontage tax, moving the $5 dam-maintenance fee to the boat decal section of statute, and changing the effective date to January 1, 2027. Darby said the larger fee had raised concerns about impacts on current-use property and enforcement, while the revised $5 fee would raise roughly $500,000 to $600,000 annually. Representative Dunn thanked Darby and said the Marine Trades Association supported the revised approach. A question was raised about whether the original prime sponsors supported the amendment; the chair said they were on board, and Darby added that the proposal reflected recommendations from a prior study committee. The committee then closed HB 629FN and opened SB 27FN, relative to dwellings over water. On SB 27FN, Representative Derby said he opposed the bill because it would take away public access rights and amounted to a one-off legislative solution for a private concern. Representative Donnelly asked how many similar structures might be affected and whether the Department of Environmental Services knew of other cases; DES responded that there was one other related case under settlement compliance and no other active cases with the same issue. In follow-up discussion, DES clarified that the proposal was not a shoreland 50-foot setback issue, but rather involved structures extending over public water. The discussion remained focused on the scope of the bill and its potential precedent-setting effect, with no vote taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We were established by the statute, and we're governed by, under the insurance code, by the workers'
• I'm the Executive Director for the Council. created in 1993 under Texas Government Code Chapter 2308
• Expense for local government.
• Strong, self-governed communities.
• , which is. 209 of the property code.

Bills: HB406

Keywords: local economic development, notification, workforce development, municipal agreements, county contracts, 1184, house, all