Transcript Highlights:

• This will allow DELDOT, who has brought us this bill, to more quickly complete smaller dispositions as
• This legislation would provide consistency for the thresholds for both the acquisition and disposition
• cases can be anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000 and can take 4 to 6 months to complete, making the disposition
• property no longer needed for transportation purposes, and this bill seeks to reduce the costs of dispositions

Summary: The Senate Land Use Committee met in hybrid format but did not have a quorum, so it did not approve minutes or take formal votes. The committee first heard House Bill 457, which would raise the appraisal threshold for certain DELDOT real property dispositions from $10,000 to $25,000 to match federal highway standards and reduce the time and cost of selling small surplus properties. There was little discussion and no public comment on that bill, and the chair indicated it would be circulated. The committee then took up House Bill 451, which would codify a disparate impact framework under Delaware’s Fair Housing Act. The bill was described as clarifying that housing policies or practices can violate the law even without discriminatory intent if they have an unjustified discriminatory effect on a protected class, using a burden-shifting test similar to federal law. The sponsor and DHSA said the measure was intended to preserve fair housing protections amid uncertainty at the federal level, and an additional amendment was discussed that would delay implementation for 180 days and require DHSR, with DSA and stakeholders, to conduct outreach, education, and training. Public testimony was divided. Supporters, including Housing Alliance Delaware, YWCA Delaware, and the Delaware Human and Civil Rights Commission, said the bill would protect against discriminatory outcomes, align state law with longstanding fair housing principles, and preserve recourse if federal enforcement changes. Opponents and housing-provider groups, including the Delaware Association of Realtors, Greater Wilmington Housing Providers, and the Delaware Apartment Association, argued the bill could create liability for neutral policies, rely on statistical outcomes landlords cannot easily measure, and increase litigation and costs; several asked for more time, a right-to-cure process, or further amendments. The committee adjourned without taking a formal vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Who defers to who? in that situation. Thank you for that question.

Bills: HB3419, HB4153, HB3430, HB3791, HB3277, HB4119, HB4408, HB3905, HB3968, HB3835, HB3386, HB2650, HB3742, HB3588, HB3748, HB4303, HB4311, HB3028, HB4428, HB4429, HB4132, HB1889, HB3265, HB1739, HB4434, HB3313, HB3852, HB4263, HB3413, HB3414, HB3415, HB3416, HB3417, HB3418, HB3420, HB2116, HB2206, HB3625, HB2939, HB3721, HB1823, HB2425, HB4440, HJR1087, HB4003, HJR1077, HB1770, HB1675, HB3627, HB3891, HJR1067, HB3462, HJR1053, HJR1054, HJR1044, HB3472, HB1225, HJR1019, HB4145, HJR1081, HB1746, HJR1069, HJR1050, HB1638, HB3327, HJR1055, HB3127, HB4488, HB2955, HB3781, HB3783, HB3802, HB2471, HB2937, SCR16, HB2960, HB3466, HB3262, HB3269, HB3152, HB4140, HB4142, HB3148, HB3378

Keywords: corruption, nonpublic information, government accountability, criminal law, public office, driver license, reading proficiency, minors, education requirements, alternative testing, attendance, remedial reading, public school, oath of enrollment, court financial obligations, cost hearing, payment plan, community service, court compliance program, debt relief

Transcript Highlights:

• regardless of their um disposition regardless of their um disposition status<00:11:00.800> requires
• <00:53:31.040> they families what method of disposition they families what method of disposition
• <00:54:20.559> Um<00:54:20.960> and disposition and care of the dead.
• Um and disposition and care of the dead.
• section on final deep uh disposition section on final deep uh disposition that<01:21:42.640>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That would solve a lot of the problem with some of the dispositions that we have to our rural affiliates
• Currently, data is gathered one of two ways: through the discharge disposition or a homeless diagnosis
• With the disposition, there's no disposition for homelessness, so It's not accurately captured, and then

Summary: The meeting focused on hospital “avoidable days” and the difficulty of discharging medically stable patients who still need post-acute placement or social services. Presenters from Saint Anthony Hospital Midtown, the Oklahoma Hospital Association, City Care, and OU Health described common barriers including lack of skilled nursing, rehab, long-term care, behavioral health, and hospice placements; insurance prior authorization delays; Medicaid and Social Security eligibility delays; guardianship and Adult Protective Services bottlenecks; limited home health and private duty nursing; and the challenge of placing unhoused, uninsured, or medically complex patients. Several speakers emphasized that these delays reduce bed availability, increase emergency department boarding, contribute to staff burnout, and expose patients to hospital-acquired conditions and other harms. The testimony included multiple examples of patients remaining in acute care for days, weeks, or even months after being medically ready for discharge, including patients awaiting guardianship, disability determinations, or placement in facilities willing to accept them. Speakers also highlighted special populations such as patients with behavioral health or substance use disorders, medically fragile children, patients with criminal histories, and unhoused individuals who need respite or hospice care. City Care described its planned 40-bed medical respite facility, set to open in 2027, as a way to provide clinical support and housing navigation for patients too sick to recover on the street or in shelters. Witnesses recommended policy and system changes such as standardizing preauthorization protocols, expanding rural swing-bed and home-based services, increasing public guardianship resources, improving data collection on homelessness, expanding private duty nursing hours, and creating more placement options for complex patients. They also suggested better coordination between hospitals, DHS, APS, the Health Department, and post-acute facilities, including a database of facility services to improve discharge planning and keep patients closer to home. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the transcript, but the chair indicated the issue would require collaboration across multiple agencies and partners.

Transcript Highlights:

• It places time limits on the disposition of summary judgment motions and adds to the definition of willful
• It places time limits on the disposition summary judgment motions and adds to the definition of willful
• allows the community to look and see how... ...how hard judges are working, and they can see the disposition
• resolved through default judgment motions, summary judgment motions, agreed judgments, and other dispositive
• orders that are waiting for them, because those things also move cases forward and move cases toward disposition

Bills: HB40

Keywords: law enforcement, sheriffs, constables, contracts, county authority

Summary: The Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence met to hear House Bill 1761, a broad judicial package focused on increasing judicial compensation and adding accountability and efficiency measures. The chair explained that HB 1707 and HB 2100 were withdrawn from the agenda, and that HB 1761 would be taken up first because many judges and stakeholders were present. The committee substitute for HB 1761 proposed a 30% increase in base judicial pay to $182,000, changes to judicial retirement linkage, stronger judicial conduct provisions, and efficiency measures such as targeted reporting for judges not meeting benchmarks, appellate in-person meeting encouragement, and time limits on certain motions. The chair and several supporters said judicial pay had reached “emergency status,” citing Texas’s low national ranking and difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified judges. Witnesses in support included presiding and district judges, the State Bar’s judicial section, business and trial lawyer groups, and prosecutors. They emphasized that many judges work long hours off the bench, handle warrants at night and on weekends, manage heavy dockets, and face recruitment problems in both urban and rural counties. Supporters also said higher pay would help attract experienced lawyers, retain judges, and improve court efficiency. Several witnesses and members discussed judicial accountability, including public reporting of court performance and the role of the Texas Supreme Court and presiding judges in setting benchmarks. Some members raised concerns that raw statistics can be misleading because judges also do substantial off-the-bench work and often help cover other courts’ dockets. There was also testimony and discussion about the bill’s conduct and discipline provisions. A representative of the Texas Civil Rights Project opposed parts of the bill that would tie pay raises to changes affecting judicial independence, warning about subjective bail-related discipline standards and possible chilling effects. The executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct cautioned against civil penalties for complainants, saying it could discourage good-faith complaints and create litigation risks. Other witnesses supported accountability reforms but urged caution about unintended consequences, especially for family and emergency cases and for judges handling warrants and other time-sensitive matters. After testimony, the committee withdrew the committee substitute and left HB 1761 pending, then recessed the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and we heard this last week about the expunction, um, of the, of those placed on deferred adjudication
• Will you defer to Mr. Rodriguez Ramos? Yes, sir. Thank you.
• dissemination of the evidence and must return the evidence back to the state or destroy it at the disposition
• To if they want to appeal, so cases don't necessarily end at disposition. And, and, uh.

Bills: HB47

Keywords: HB 47, Texas Tax Code, ad valorem taxes, property tax, voter-approval tax rate, tax rate election, taxing unit, injunction, taxpayer rights, property owner, local government finance, tax refund, attorney's fees, court costs, voter-approved tax increase, tax reform, municipal taxes, county taxes, school district taxes, bond election

Transcript Highlights:

• We heard this last week about the expunction. of those placed on deferred adjudication community supervision
• Will you defer to Rodriguez-Ramos? Yes, sir, thank you.
• dissemination of the evidence and must return the evidence back to the state or destroy it at the disposition
• I have an obligation to, if they want to appeal, so cases don't never . . . necessarily end at disposition

Bills: HB47, HB1552, HB1686, HB1953, HB2151, HB2355, HB2582, HB2697, HB2895, HB3073, HB3418, HB47

Keywords: sexual assault, victim rights, forensic examination, medical care, trauma-informed care, crime victims compensation, evidence retention, child sexual abuse material, child pornography, digital services, reporting requirements, children's protection, sex offender registration, indecent assault, educator-student relationship, criminal justice, legislation, crime victims, compensation fund, information disclosure

Transcript Highlights:

• body by law and authorize release of the body by law and authorize release of the body for final disposition
• on a certificate for final disposition on a certificate for final disposition on a certificate as prescribed
• body for shall authorize release of the body for shall authorize release of the body for final disposition
• by executing a final disposition by executing a final disposition by executing a certificate required

Bills: HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 26, HB 30, HB 37, HB 116, HB 630, HB 879, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1318, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 2703, HB 2809, HB 2890, HB 2970, HB 3307, HB 3526, HB 5092, SB 128, SB 203, SB 317, SB 393, SB 397, SB 644, SB 731, SB 801, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1073, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1232, SB 1250, SB 1262, SB 1285, SB 1310, SB 1359, SB 1444, SB 1483, SB 1705, SB 1782, SB 1861, SB 1897, SB 1944, SB 2023, SB 2043, SB 2082, SB 2133, SB 2215, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2309, SB 2532, SB 2549, SB 2566, SB 2617, SB 2619, SB 2639, SB 2688, SB 2696, SB 2717, SB 2790, SB 2841, SB 2847, SB 2850, SB 2857, SB 2891, SB 2919, SB 2928, SB 2972, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 1, SB 260, SB 1506, SB 1637, HB 37, HB 109, HB 334, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2081, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 644, SB 1086, SB 1230, SB 1310, SB 1361, SB 1553, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2344, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2600, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2785, SB 2790, SB 3047, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HJR 1, HB 1130, HB 1689, HB 2884, HB 1393, HB 2559, HB 26, HB 3012, HB 1327, HB 109, HB 1238, HB 2890, HB 9, HB 4215, HB 2970, HB 37, HB 1899, HB 1593, HB 2607, HB 3526, HB 3810, HB 5092, HB 388, HB 2809, HB 1151, HB 913, HB 3307, HB 879, HB 116, HB 12, HB 2703, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 30, HB 21, HB 2712, HB 2692, HB 1633, HB 1318, HB 685, HB 630, HB 4753, HB 2742, HB 303, HB 198, HB 1535, HB 762, HB 148, HB 1520, HB 5061, HB 2286, HB 1606, HB 1041, HB 132, HB 11, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 2023, SB 1310, SB 2972, SB 1073, SB 2847, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 507, SB 1434, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1122, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 1085, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 1200, SB 1845, SB 2458, SB 801, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 2797, SB 2076, SB 2876, SB 1640, SB 1449, SB 1181, SB 1359, SB 1234, SB 2926, SB 2841, SB 1528, SB 2891, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 1285, SB 1237, SB 2819, SB 629, SB 2608, SB 1602, SB 2009, SB 2460, SB 867, SB 640, SB 1698, SB 2680, SB 2994, SB 2747, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1483, SB 1444, SB 1553, SB 1556, SB 1703, SB 2133, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2622, SB 2955, SB 2334, SB 1861, SB 2043, SB 1367, SB 2857, SB 128, SB 3058, SB 2044, SB 2363, SB 2565, SB 1888, SB 3048, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3036, SB 3057, SB 3056, SB 3043, SB 3050, SB 3063, SB 3035, SB 1790, SB 1778, SB 203, SB 3061, SB 2799, SB 2790, SB 2688, SB 2515, SB 1230, SB 2522, SB 2639, SB 2459, SB 3051, SB 2655, SB 2251, SB 1884, SB 2617, SB 2751, SB 2928, SB 2566, SB 1897, SB 1749, SB 1361, SB 2549, SB 2553, SB 2919, SB 1782, SB 1705, SB 2696, SB 1944, SB 2215, SB 644, SB 1232, SB 2850, HB 45, HB 48, HB 1261, HB 1465, HB 1778, HB 2596, HB 5238, HB 33, HB 1188, HB 210, HB 1022, HB 1458, HB 5560, HB 1240, HB 1950, HB 2027, HB 2768, HB 2788, HB 2791, HB 3146, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 1893, HB 3700, HB 4850, HB 4187, HB 1397, HB 4885, HB 4804, HB 3751, HB 3611, HB 2775, HB 2061, HB 2003, HB 1729, HB 1242, HB 791, HB 2029, HB 647, HB 2522, HB 4738, HB 3033, HB 3594, HB 3474, HB 2563, HB 2802, HCR 90, SJR 87, SB 2969, SB 3073, SB 2497, SB 1798, SB 2603, SB 2607, SB 781, SJR 34, SB 17, SB 314, SB 455, SB 509, SB 529, SB 541, SB 693, SB 761, SB 963, SB 1023, SB 1968, SB 2122, SB 2308, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 2544, SJR 87, SB 1285, SB 1359, SB 2857, SB 3073, HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 116, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1899, HB 2970, HB 3307, SB 1073, SB 1310, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 2847, SB 2972, SB 128, SB 2043, SR 393, SR 511, SR 518, SR 520, SB 314, SB 455, SB 761, SB 1023, SB 2122, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 17, SB 509, SB 644, SB 1230, SB 1361, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2790, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HB 37, HB 109, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 1086, SB 1553, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294

Keywords: constitutional amendment, property tax, ad valorem tax, tax exemption, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property, equipment exemption, machinery, local government finance, school district revenue, county taxes, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax relief, commercial property, appraisal district, chief appraiser, rendition statement, property tax relief

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're here for H.R. 285 with Representative Brass, he's asked us to defer this bill, so H.R. 285.
• If you're here for H.R. 285 with Representative Brass, he's asked us to defer this bill, so H.R. 285.
• We simply ask that our essential services no longer be deferred.

Bills: HR118, HR196, HR237, HR285, HCR85, HB442, HB443, SCR5, SCR29, SCR33, SCR63, SB25, SB202, SB319

Keywords: water utility, tax credit, excessive rates, residential service, subcommittee, fallen trees, property damage, insurance, property values, hurricanes, storm damage, local government, homeowners, risk management, committee study, census, military population, Department of Defense, representation, federal funding

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to procurement guidelines, as you know, Chapter 30B covers disposition of publicly owned
• The only proper final disposition for artificial turf is in a well-lined landfill.
• I'll defer then to my colleague, Michael, from Somerville also, and let him finish. Thank you.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight heard testimony on several procurement-related bills. Senator Lovely and steel industry witnesses supported S. 2167/H. 3411, which would require preference for U.S. manufacturers on public construction projects using steel and other materials. They argued that Canadian and other foreign fabricators underbid Massachusetts firms because of exchange rates, subsidies, and different labor-cost structures, causing local job losses and economic leakage. Committee members asked about tariffs, market share, and whether the bill should be folded into broader municipal legislation; the witnesses said public work should stay in Massachusetts and that the bill would help preserve local industry and jobs. The committee also heard strong support for S. 2107, a bill to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities in state and municipal contracting. Work Inc. testified that a preference for contractors employing people with disabilities would expand competitive employment, reduce reliance on public assistance, and generate net savings for taxpayers. Members asked about the estimated savings and whether recent federal changes to benefits would affect the numbers; the witness said the figures may need updating but that the underlying employment opportunity remains important. Another bill, H. 3339/S. 2187, would prohibit state and municipal contracts for new artificial turf fields containing zinc, plastic, or intentionally added PFAS. Sponsors and supporters cited health risks, heat retention, injuries, and PFAS contamination, while committee members discussed local bans, disposal problems, and whether indoor facilities or alternative materials could be used. Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro testified in favor of H. 12 and H. 13, which would update Chapter 30B procurement thresholds and allow municipalities to bundle snow hauling and removal with plowing contracts. He said the changes would give local governments more flexibility, reduce confusion between school and municipal procurement rules, and make snow contracts more attractive to vendors. Members questioned whether quasi-public agencies and state entities should also be subject to 30B, and Shapiro said many public entities have their own procedures but that transparency and fairness should apply across the board. The committee also heard support for S. 2150, a software licensing bill aimed at preventing vendor lock-in by ensuring state agencies can run purchased software in the infrastructure that best fits their needs; the witness said restrictive licensing can drive up costs and create cybersecurity and modernization problems, and that similar laws have already passed in several other states.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then around dispositional decision-making, the state right now does not use a validated risk screening
• or assessment tool to inform different decisions—diversion, disposition, supervision decisions.
• So I would just simply defer to the lawyers that brought the case.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> I will defer to the municipal association.
• They had a suggestion to me on some wordsmithing on the definition of these terms, and I'll defer to
• It might come down to the county delegation if there's nobody else there. of these terms and I'll defer
• to of these terms and I'll defer to municipal<01:53:09.920> to<01:53:10.400> uh<01:53:
• EPC projects which address deferred EPC projects which address deferred maintenance<03:32:28.239

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, these data that I created here use that disposition code.
• You can see near the right side where it says disposition that's FIL.
• Well, in this disposition, I guess I'm looking at— I mean, they're identical in the case ID.
• I'll just note that we have seen a pretty significant increase in our special disposition alternatives
• And just as a reminder, for disposition alternatives, by statute the level of offense at sentencing matters

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the effects of H.R. 1 on Washington’s Medicaid, developmental disability, long-term care, and food assistance systems, followed by a separate discussion of juvenile rehabilitation caseloads and placement capacity. DSHS officials said HR1 could affect home equity rules, immigration-related eligibility, work requirements for some expansion-population enrollees, and provider taxes, while also creating a future opportunity for a new 1915(c) waiver. Advocates and providers warned that any state response that cuts home and community-based services would worsen already thin provider networks, increase waiting lists, push more people into hospitals or out-of-state placements, and strain families and workers. A pediatric behavioral health expert and a supported living provider said Medicaid reimbursement is already too low and further reductions would threaten outpatient, residential, and inpatient services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and severe behavioral needs. The committee then turned to SNAP and the state food assistance program. DSHS said HR1 would tighten work requirements and exemptions, end some immigrant eligibility for the federal program, eliminate the SNAP education program, raise state administrative costs, and eventually require Washington to share in benefit costs based on its error rate. Officials estimated large numbers of residents could lose or see reduced benefits, with significant added state costs. Anti-hunger advocates, a food bank director, and a SNAP recipient described the program as essential for low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities, and said the changes would increase paperwork, reduce benefits, and worsen food insecurity while also harming local food economies. Testimony emphasized that food banks cannot replace SNAP and that work requirements may be difficult to meet for caregivers, people with disabilities, and those facing child care or transportation barriers. In the juvenile justice portion, the Caseload Forecast Council presented the JR forecast, which is currently mostly flat through the end of the biennium but expected to grow modestly over the longer term. Members discussed how policy choices, including the 2019 JR-25 law, have increased lengths of stay for adult-sentenced youth in JR, while diversion and other reforms have affected regular JR trends. A court researcher explained the data available to help forecast admissions and noted ongoing efforts to improve data sharing with JR, AOC, and county systems, though staffing and system-lag issues limit how quickly data can be produced. Juvenile court administrators and DCYF officials described the community-based juvenile justice continuum, rising complexity in the JR population, overcrowding at Green Hill and placement constraints at Echo Glen and Harbor Heights, and the need for more flexible community transition and mental health capacity. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• > positive then obviously any action any positive then obviously any action any positive disposition
• we took on the amendment disposition we took on the amendment would<00:19:28.840> be<00:19:29.000
• It's not required cuz it's not final disposition. Okay. I'll do a division vote if that's okay.
• :05.200> final It's not required cuz it's not final It's not required cuz it's not final disposition
• . disposition. disposition.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But the youth might be there until they go to final disposition.
• Chair, to present our legislative budget request and defer to the Legislature on its ability to fund
• but I'm very proud of the agency that I've been a part of for the last 14 and a half years, and I defer

Summary: The Justice Budget Subcommittee met for an introductory overview of the justice budget and the major agencies within it. Chair Maney explained that the committee would hear broad presentations rather than detailed budget questions, and the first panel included the Department of Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections, Commission on Offender Review, Department of Law Enforcement, Office of the State Courts Administrator, and the Attorney General’s Office. Each agency described its mission, staffing, budget, and major responsibilities, with repeated emphasis on public safety, rehabilitation, staffing shortages, technology needs, and the importance of mental health services and education in reducing recidivism. Secretary Hall described DJJ’s prevention-to-aftercare continuum, including civil citation, detention, probation, and residential commitment programs, and highlighted reductions in juvenile arrests and commitments. Secretary Dixon said DOC’s biggest issues are staffing, overtime, and inflation, while noting progress in education, reentry, and a low recidivism rate. FDLE Commissioner Glass outlined the agency’s investigative, forensic, intelligence, and protective functions, including work on fentanyl enforcement and crime reporting systems. The State Courts Administrator emphasized the judiciary’s constitutional role, case volume, and challenges in providing interpreters, experts, and technology support. Chief Deputy Attorney General Guard described the office’s litigation, criminal appeals, consumer protection, and opioid recovery work, especially defending state laws and recovering opioid settlement funds. Members then asked questions about prison conditions, immigration enforcement, court filing fees, crime reporting, staffing ratios, and transnational gangs. Agency leaders responded that they were not aware of ICE contracts in some cases, that FDLE works with immigration authorities and detention facilities under existing authority, and that filing fees are a legislative policy decision. The committee also heard from the Justice Administrative Commission, prosecutors, public defenders, guardian ad litem, regional conflict counsel, and capital collateral regional counsel, who focused on indigent representation, dependency and death penalty cases, and persistent staffing and retention problems. No votes were taken, and the meeting concluded after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• For one-time expenditures, we would encourage you to think about deferred maintenance and instructional
• For one-time expenditures, we would encourage you to think about deferred maintenance and instructional
• And as our previous colleagues have said, I'd love to see some funding for deferred maintenance restored
• And while we would defer to the Chancellor's Office on more detail, we believe that this investment is
• We are still determining the legal disposition of the returned funding because it's not clear under statute

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Acquisitions and Restoration Council is required to evaluate requests for the disposition of conservation
• With requests for land exchange involving the disposition of conservation land, the governor and the
• So on slide number seven, you talk about the disposition of conservation land and how Article 10, Section
• And I'm not sure; I'm not familiar with the water management district dispositions.

Summary: The committee first received a Department of Environmental Protection presentation on Florida Forever and the sale or exchange of conservation lands. DEP described Florida Forever as the state’s main conservation land acquisition program, funded in recent years at high levels, and said most acquisitions since 2019 have been within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. The presentation also explained the legal process for disposing of conservation lands: requests are reviewed by the Acquisitions and Restoration Council, then the governor and cabinet decide whether land is no longer needed for conservation or whether an exchange provides a net conservation benefit. Senator Smith asked several questions about recent land-swap proposals, public notice, political influence, and whether any transactions had bypassed the usual sequence; DEP said applications can be withdrawn before ARC review, notice is posted seven days in advance, and the council and cabinet are the decision-makers. Senator Harrington asked about the difference between Florida Forever land sales and water management district surplus lands, and DEP said the reported 2.3 acres sold referred only to Florida Forever-funded projects. The committee then heard presentations from the Department of Health and DEP on PFAS and PFOA. DOH outlined what PFAS are, their common uses, possible health impacts, and ways Floridians can reduce exposure, including water filtration and avoiding certain products. DOH said it conducts well investigations, health consultations, fish consumption advisories, and monitoring in coordination with DEP and FWC. DEP followed with a more technical overview of PFAS regulation and cleanup, explaining federal testing and drinking-water standards, Florida’s provisional cleanup levels, and the state’s response at contaminated sites, including bottled water and filtration for affected residents. Senators asked about testing requirements for public systems and private wells, disposal of used filters, and how federal rulemaking and litigation could affect Florida’s standards; DEP said public systems are required to test under EPA monitoring rules, private wells are not directly required to test, and Florida may adopt its own standards if federal action does not occur by the statutory deadline. Finally, the committee took up SB 150, which would designate the flamingo as the state bird and the scrub jay as the state songbird. The sponsor argued the bill better reflects Florida’s identity and conservation values, noting the flamingo’s iconic status and the scrub jay’s status as a Florida-only species. Members asked lighthearted questions about mockingbirds, flamingo color, and feeding costs, and an appearance card was filed in support by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The committee debated the bill briefly and then passed SB 150 favorably by roll call vote, with all members present voting yes except Senator DiCeglie, who was excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• It places time limits on the disposition of summary judgment motions and adds to the definition of willful
• They can see the disposition rate of courts across the state.
• resolved through default judgment motions, summary judgment motions, agreed judgments, and other dispositive
• that are waiting for them, because those things also move cases forward. ...and move cases toward disposition

Bills: HB4011, HB2680, HB4325, HB4327, HB4944, HB1761, HB4688, HB3453, HB40, HB1707, HB4749, HB2322, HB3647, HB4139, HB4081, HB2203, HB2100, HB4170, HB3104, HB4623, HB40

Keywords: partition, heirs' property, real estate, co-ownership, family property, non-heir cotenant, right of first refusal, pilot services, liability limitation, maritime commerce, Matagorda Bay, Lavaca Bay, transportation code, maritime industry, civil liability, barratry, penalties, legal actions, damages, wrongful death

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not for deferred or straight probation; it's only for those on pre-trial intervention programs.
• previous cases, precedent, and it drastically misapplied the rational basis test without giving deference
• I'll defer to them. They'll answer it a little better than I will.
• And we need to continue to decide all the issues related to this case, including the disposition of property
• It is handled the same in Chapter 18 with other dispositions of property, and the language is very similar

Bills: HB 1194, HB 1221, HB1738, HB1913, HB2177, HB2178, HB2180, HB2229, HB2282, HB2448, HB2492, HB2777, HB2984, HB3357, HB3553, HB3602

Keywords: emergency protection order, protective order, magistrate, criminal procedure, victim safety, family violence, domestic violence, stalking, assault, magistrate's order, temporary protection, court order duration, defendant restrictions, Article 17.292, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, emergency restraining order, victim protection, firearm restriction, pretrial intervention, reimbursement fee

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, but I just want to add that what members of the public who came to testify said is not dispositive
• testify<00:39:51.520> said<00:39:51.920> is<00:39:52.240> not<00:39:52.560> dispositive
• <00:39:53.680> of<00:39:53.920> what testify said is not dispositive of what testify
• said is not dispositive of what the<00:39:54.400> intent<00:39:54.800> of<00:39:54.960
• Sharia law and political Islam represent an existential threat to the state and country and that any deference

Keywords: 1189, house, all