Transcript Highlights:

• Sharmila Kerwin, Levi Kerwin, and Joe Ivester. Morgan Davis. Thank you, ma'am.
• Um, Levi Kerwin registered as yourself and for the bill. Is that correct? Yes.
• Distinguished members of this committee, my name is Levi Kerwin. This is my wife of 28 years.
• And one final question, you mentioned a statistic, I believe it was you, Levi, a statistic of children
• And I'm and you are Levi Kerwin and from Arizona, correct? Levi Kerwin from Arizona.

Bills: HB 2646, HB 3941, HB 5153, HB 5155, HB 5394, HB 1106, HB 426, HB 4529, HB 3984, HB 4273, HB 1097, HB 3940, HB 1941, HB 4377, HB 3153

Keywords: child care, task force, high-quality care, affordability, prekindergarten partnerships, foster care, transitional living, Medicaid reform, youth assistance, independent living, services for youth, employment training, educational support, mental health services, health care, public health, child health program, reimbursement, local health entities, maternal health

Transcript Highlights:

• They haven't got their levies up to date yet.
• This was due to a levy failure in 1997 that flooded the town of Linda and the court essentially ruled
• that when the state took on responsibility for the operations and maintenance of those levies, if we
• knew that there were operations and maintenance of those levies if we knew that there were deficiencies
• To handle the flood, levies began to expand and be created in the same way, not necessarily engineered

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on flood risk and flood management in California, with opening remarks emphasizing that flooding is a statewide and growing threat due to climate change, including the possibility of extreme losses in a worst-case event. Members noted recent flooding in places such as San Diego, the Tulare Basin, and Pajaro, and framed the hearing as a way to better understand prevention, response, and how to capture excess water for later use. Jeffrey Mount of PPIC gave the main overview, describing California’s high flood exposure, the different flood types the state faces, and the mix of structural and non-structural tools used to manage them. He stressed that levees, dams, bypasses, land-use planning, flood insurance, and emergency response all matter, but that risk is rising because current standards are based on past hydrology rather than future climate conditions. He also warned that flood management is underfunded, that the National Flood Insurance Program is weak, and that federal support is increasingly uncertain. Members asked about groundwater recharge, permitting, NOAA and federal cuts, and which communities are most at risk; Mount said recharge can help but does not eliminate flood risk, and that small Central Valley communities and heavily developed floodplains are especially concerning. State officials Laura Hollander of the Department of Water Resources and Jane Dolan of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board described the state’s role in forecasting, emergency response, grants, planning, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. They highlighted aging infrastructure, the need for better coordination, and the state’s special liability in the Central Valley after the Paterno decision. Dolan reviewed the history of major floods and said the plan calls for about $1 billion per year over 30 years to meet current needs, while Hollander said the state works with local and federal partners on preparedness, response, and subventions projects. Both emphasized that floodplain planning, regional coordination, and faster permitting are important, but that more consistent funding is needed. A later panel from local flood agencies and districts reinforced those points, arguing that the state’s annual flood funding is below identified needs and that a proposed statewide flood and dam safety bond was reduced substantially in the broader climate bond package. Witnesses urged more routine maintenance funding, support for regional flood planning, and continued federal-state-local partnerships to reduce risk and maintain eligibility for federal assistance. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then also with the levy shifts, my real concern is if there is some surplus funds that it's not only
• And then also with the levy shifts, my real concern is if there is some surplus funds that it's not only
• this on, I will take this question offline, but commercial industrial property pay estate general levy
• this on, I will take this question offline, but commercial industrial property pay estate general levy
• this on, I will take this question offline, but commercial industrial property pay estate general levy

Bills: HF4, HF173

Keywords: tax relief fund, budget surplus, surplus revenue, tax rebate, tax refund, one-time refund, income tax, property tax, constitutional amendment, Minnesota Constitution, general fund, budget reserve, taxpayer relief, state surplus, fiscal forecast, wealthy taxpayers, high-income exclusion, 2026 ballot, referendum, surplus distribution

Transcript Highlights:

• The financial impact is going to depend on the size and/or the number of the assessments levied by the
• Um, regarding increasing housing costs, the revenue does decrease the total property tax levy again,
• or the tax effort the total tax levy or the tax effort required<01:17:49.600> uh<01:17:50.159
• that the taxpayers have to pay, the levy that the taxpayers have to pay, the property<01:23:40.560><
• total tax levy. total tax levy.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• FLEXIBILITY OVER DISTRICT FINANCES AND ALLOWS DISTRICTS TO USE THE 1.5 MILL DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL LEVY
• FLEXIBILITY OVER DISTRICT FINANCES AND ALLOWS DISTRICTS TO USE THE 1.5 MILL DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL LEVY

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• really come from two sources, the drivers and the operators of EV chargers, because there's a tax levied
• <00:08:28.720> uh<00:08:28.800> for because there's a tax levied uh for because there's
• a tax levied uh for folks<00:08:29.280> who<00:08:29.520> use<00:08:29.680> those
• Uh, and as we grow, those tax levies and whatever will continue to grow.
• Uh, and as we grow, those tax levies and whatever will continue to grow.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met with a quorum, approved the June 3, 2026 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Mike Proctor of Evolve Kentucky on electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. Proctor described Evolve Kentucky as a nonprofit formed in 2016 to promote EV adoption and charger deployment, said the group has helped place more than 135 chargers at 65 locations, and reported that Kentucky EV registrations have grown rapidly but still represent about 1% of the state’s roughly 3 million vehicles. He also outlined the group’s view that EV drivers and charger operators already contribute to state revenue through annual vehicle fees, charger taxes, utility taxes, and related business taxes, and cited figures showing rising revenue collections as EV adoption increases. A major theme of the presentation was that EV owners are paying their “fair share” rather than being overcharged. Proctor said the current $126 annual EV fee is roughly comparable to the fuel tax a typical gasoline vehicle would pay, and noted that public charging can add additional tax burdens for drivers who cannot charge at home, such as those living in apartments or condos. He also argued that EVs provide broader benefits, including lower noise and air pollution, grid-stabilizing nighttime charging, tourism spending at destination chargers, and reduced road wear for passenger EVs compared with much heavier vehicles. Members questioned Proctor about whether EV owners are paying more than their fair share, how the fee compares with gasoline taxes, and whether apartment and condo residents are disproportionately affected because they rely on public chargers. Proctor responded that the fee was intended to bring EV owners into parity with gas vehicles, not to overcharge them, and said some public chargers are free while others are used by drivers who cannot charge at home. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond the minutes approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• freeze the net tax capacity of a parcel or a district, um, that means that, you know, the part of the levy
• that, you know, the the the part<00:03:52.840> of<00:03:52.920> the<00:03:53.000> levy
• that would go on if you part of the levy that would go on if you were<00:03:54.480> counting<
• ><00:04:11.560> um<00:04:11.880> property<00:04:12.240> tax<00:04:12.560> levies
• that rely on um property tax levies. that rely on um property tax levies.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• statement than a question for y'all, but the uniqueness about your operations is that it can't be levied
• statement than a question for y'all, but the uniqueness about your operations is that it can't be levied
• :10:48.640> come<00:10:48.800> from Funding for this facility will come from a local levy
• The principal and interest easily translates into 10% annual tax levies without incorporating other cost
• <01:14:36.480> without into 10% annual tax levies without into 10% annual tax levies without

Bills: HF568, HF433, HF1689, HF3135, HF3137, HF3145, HF2887, HF2819, HF2802, HF2664, HF2267, HF799, HF800, HF3049, HF296, HF580, HF1438, HF1237

Keywords: special education, education funding, construction, Minnesota, regional educational programs, HF433, Cloquet Area Fire District, fire station, capital investment, bonding bill, state bonds, general obligation bonds, public safety, emergency services, fire protection, local infrastructure, Minnesota capital budget, DEED grant, municipal facilities, station construction

Transcript Highlights:

• is testimony in opposition to HB 504, requiring the $20-a-night transient accommodations tax to be levied
• tax to be levied per night um<00:15:24.480> if<00:15:25.079> that's<00:15:25.360> no
• $20 fee now we need to ensure that distribution section F and to replace it with language that would levy
• and to replace it with language that F and to replace it with language that would<00:26:05.640> Levy
• 07.840> for<00:26:08.559> uh<00:26:08.760> cabin<00:26:09.039> and Would levy

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism and on Water and Land heard testimony on HB 504, a measure relating to environmental stewardship and funding for natural resource protection and restoration. Supporters included multiple state agencies and advocacy groups, such as DLNR, HTA, Hawaiʻi Ocean Legislative Task Force, Resources Legacy Fund, the Hawaiʻi Climate Action Coalition, and others, who said the bill would create dedicated funding for environmental, climate, and cultural resource needs and help address wildfire, flood, coastal storm, and tourism-related impacts. Several witnesses emphasized that Hawaiʻi’s environmental funding gap is large and that visitor contributions should be directed to stewardship and restoration. Some supporters also urged that the measure be applied equitably across all visitor accommodations and related uses, including cruise ship cabins and state rooms, while a few suggested amendments to broaden coverage or create a working group for implementation. Opposition and concerns focused largely on the bill’s tax structure and legal/administrative issues. The Department of Budget and Finance and the Tax Foundation questioned the reimbursable general obligation bond special fund in part two, suggesting it be converted to a regular special fund or deleted. The Attorney General’s office said part two may violate the single-subject rule in the state constitution and recommended deleting it. The Department of Taxation said the proposed points-and-miles language would be difficult to audit and enforce, and Expedia and others said the proposed tax treatment of loyalty points and certain payment forms would be operationally difficult. Industry witnesses also warned the bill could raise costs in a high-tax destination and asked for more marketing support if the tax is increased. The committee also heard concerns that a new tax on cruise ship cabins could raise federal preemption issues. The chair noted the testimony count as 23 in support, 179 in opposition, and one with comments. No vote was taken in the portion provided, and the hearing ended with questions from senators and agency responses about possible amendments, enforcement, and constitutional concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• interestingly, in Article 11, Section 7, there's a provision that authorizes the state auditor to levy
• interestingly, in Article 11, Section 7, there's a provision that authorizes the state auditor to levy
• ><00:07:49.800> state<00:07:50.000> auditor<00:07:50.479> to<00:07:50.680> Levy
• <00:07:50.960> a authorizes the state auditor to Levy a authorizes the state auditor to Levy
• things like uh water empowerment levies things like uh water empowerment levies um<00:28:14.360>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Capital Investment Committee met on January 16 for an informational overview on state bonding and capital investment. House Research analyst Chelsea Griffin and House Fiscal analyst Andrew Lee explained the nonpartisan roles of their offices and then walked members through the basics of Minnesota bonding: how bonds are issued and repaid, how they are categorized, and the main legal authorities governing state general obligation bonds, including the state constitution, Minnesota statutes, and federal tax law. Griffin emphasized that state GO bond proceeds must be used for a public purpose, for a purpose authorized in the constitution, as specifically described in law, and must mature within 20 years. She also noted that state GO bonding is typically originated in the House and that capital projects financed with state GO bonds generally require a three-fifths vote in each chamber. The presentation also covered practical limits and requirements on bonding projects, including the distinction between state and local GO bonding, the role of bond counsel, restrictions on bond-financed property, the prohibition on reimbursing already-paid costs, and the full funding and non-state match requirements. In response to member questions, Griffin clarified that the full funding requirement in section 16A.502 means a project must be fully funded before the appropriation is available, while section 16A.86 reflects an expectation that local governments provide about half the financing for local projects, though the legislature can choose to fund more than half or waive a local match. She also said she did not believe a bill to make the 50 percent match requirement statutory passed last session. Lee then began a spreadsheet-based overview of the 2023 capital budget laws, explaining how capital investment spreadsheets are organized and how different fund types appear in the documents. He highlighted examples such as University of Minnesota projects funded with GO bonds and Minnesota State projects using user financing, where the system contributes a share of project costs from non-state sources such as tuition or system revenues. The committee did not take any votes or formal actions during this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• the city of Slidell, authorizes the governing authority of the city, subject to voter approval, to levy
• One just removed the requirement that the assessment had to be levied and collected on a quarterly basis
• One amendment removed the requirement that the assessment had to be levied and collected on a quarterly
• It could be collected and levied at any other time.

Bills: HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HCR112, HR307, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR3, HCR49, HCR66, HCR67, HB1, HB2, HB42, HB45, HB66, HB71, HB79, HB126, HB133, HB145, HB159, HB167, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB289, HB291, HB312, HB313, HB316, HB324, HB352, HB383, HB398, HB403, HB429, HB457, HB459, HB511, HB549, HB571, HB579, HB591, HB608, HB616, HB624, HB766, HB769, HB783, HB799, HB804, HB864, HB874, HB909, HB951, HB971, HB983, HB1005, HB1017, HB1051, HB1056, HB1095, HB1126, HB1129, HB1186, HB1193, HB1223, HB1224, HB1230, HB1235, HB1249, HB723, HB36, HB140, HB181, HB198, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB302, HB335, HB342, HB487, HB513, HB623, HB682, HB730, HB740, HB761, HB775, HB797, HB812, HB816, HB940, HB968, HB979, HB1028, HB1029, HB1038, HB1049, HB1084, HB1161, HB1194, HB1199, HB1201, HB1203, HB1247, HB1256, SB25, SB132, SB155, SB157, SB202, SB228, SB237, SB250, SB405, SB406, SB414, SB433, SB480, SB513, SB149, HB359, SB29, SB43, SB78, HB210, HB258, HB468, HB784, HB134, HB1117, SB42, SB274, SB382, SB449, SB300, HR74, HB463, HB715, HB998, SB80, SB268, SB444, SB479, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, HB74, HB119, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1236, SB208, SB217, SB283, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB469

Keywords: oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding, taxpayer liability, public liability, offshore wells, onshore wells, coastal erosion, Department of Conservation and Energy, natural resources

Transcript Highlights:

• the city of Slidell, authorizes the governing authority of the city, subject to voter approval, to levy
• One just removed the requirement that the assessment had to be levied and collected on a quarterly basis
• One just removed the requirement that the assessment had to be levied and collected on a quarterly basis
• It could be collected and levied at any other time.

Bills: HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HCR112, HR307, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR3, HCR49, HCR66, HCR67, HB1, HB2, HB42, HB45, HB66, HB71, HB79, HB126, HB133, HB145, HB159, HB167, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB289, HB291, HB312, HB313, HB316, HB324, HB352, HB383, HB398, HB403, HB429, HB457, HB459, HB511, HB549, HB571, HB579, HB591, HB608, HB616, HB624, HB766, HB769, HB783, HB799, HB804, HB864, HB874, HB909, HB951, HB971, HB983, HB1005, HB1017, HB1051, HB1056, HB1095, HB1126, HB1129, HB1186, HB1193, HB1223, HB1224, HB1230, HB1235, HB1249, HB723, HB36, HB140, HB181, HB198, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB302, HB335, HB342, HB487, HB513, HB623, HB682, HB730, HB740, HB761, HB775, HB797, HB812, HB816, HB940, HB968, HB979, HB1028, HB1029, HB1038, HB1049, HB1084, HB1161, HB1194, HB1199, HB1201, HB1203, HB1247, HB1256, SB25, SB132, SB155, SB157, SB202, SB228, SB237, SB250, SB405, SB406, SB414, SB433, SB480, SB513, SB149, HB359, SB29, SB43, SB78, HB210, HB258, HB468, HB784, HB134, HB1117, SB42, SB274, SB382, SB449, SB300, HR74, HB463, HB715, HB998, SB80, SB268, SB444, SB479, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, HB74, HB119, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1236, SB208, SB217, SB283, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB469

Keywords: oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding, taxpayer liability, public liability, offshore wells, onshore wells, coastal erosion, Department of Conservation and Energy, natural resources

Summary: The House met with a quorum, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then received Senate messages, committee enrollment reports, and a series of House resolutions. Members adopted or advanced numerous resolutions recognizing individuals and institutions, expressing condolences, and creating or continuing study task forces on topics including homeownership assistance, speech-language pathology assistant licensure, clean water, Medicaid reporting, voter accessibility, air monitoring, fire chief operations, maternal health, and other issues. Several Senate resolutions were also concurred in, and personal privileges were used to recognize the family of Susan Ann Taylor Bidding and to commend Anita Whitaker LaFontaine and her father, Green Whitaker, Sr. The House then moved through Senate bills on final passage. Bills approved included measures on registrar of voters compensation, dental coverage related to cancer treatment, paid parental leave planning for educators, election supervisor compensation days, weight management services, nursing facility quality oversight, a Slidell hotel occupancy tax subject to voter approval, medical debt interest-rate limits, Medicaid coverage for weight-loss medications, a shrimping-related butterfly net exception, public works design-build contracting, and a municipal lead-service-line replacement measure. Some bills were temporarily returned to the calendar, including measures on water utility service lines and registrar compensation, while others passed with strong bipartisan margins. The chamber also considered Senate amendments to many House bills and concurrent resolutions. Members concurred in amendments on topics such as hospital stabilization, student loan access for certain professional degrees, rural economic development, behavioral health and school policies, retirement and compensation provisions, food labeling, climate-change litigation, school emergency plans, anti-cancer medication coverage, domestic abuse procedures, and several infrastructure and workforce measures. A few bills were rejected for further conference, including some retirement, alternative power, and AI-related provisions. The session ended with the House taking a one-hour recess for lunch, with instructions to return by 12:45.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of course, we do Have a mill levy, and that's within that service area, which includes communities like
• So within that The mill levy is number one.
• So it's the mill levy and the funding, or if you will, the appropriation that is sent to operate in a
• that is the proper mechanism. for doing projects like this, as well as local support through mill levies

Bills: SB194, SB200, SB203, SB204, SJR3

Keywords: appropriation, higher education, sports facilities, community college, Luna Community College, KANW, educational radio, rural news, public education, funding, education, documentary, historical figure, Padre Antonio Jose Martinez, cultural heritage, research funding, federal funding, New Mexico, University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University

Transcript Highlights:

• But these are other significant sources that counties levy and then share with cities to address certain
• to fund infrastructure, or they might be relying on a county-wide impact fee that the counties are levying
• And I got responses back from 109 of our members that are levying impact fees.
• that, I was able to get that the median impact fee in Florida from our cities that they're currently levying

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• years serving my community, because of the targeted attacks against me, the hate speech that's been levied
• Yes, I'd just like to add, not only was I found in violation or charged with hate speech, they levied
• And because I spoke publicly that this had been filed against me, they levied a second charge, and so
• They levied a second charge because they want to keep everything in secret, in darkness, that other people

Bills: SB2101, SB2334, SB2633, SB2637, SB2713, SB2781, SB2782, SB3059, HB 1130

Keywords: minors, sexually explicit materials, public libraries, age verification, civil penalties, library collection review, alcohol storage, airline permits, beverage regulations, airport, commercial flights, alcoholic beverages, local option election, zoning regulations, municipality control, land use, state law, social media, bot accounts, misinformation

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs heard several bills, mostly on alcohol regulation, ethics procedures, the Alamo, and free speech in professional associations. SB 2633 would let the City of Garland hold local option elections on alcohol sales within designated zones and use zoning/land-use rules for alcohol-selling businesses; Senator Johnson and Garland officials said it would reduce the burden of the petition process and support economic development. SB 2637 would require social media platforms to disclose when posts are made by bot accounts and allow Attorney General enforcement; supporters framed it as consumer protection against misleading automated content, while members raised questions about how platforms would identify bots and how enforcement would work. SB 2334 would allow airlines with passenger transportation permits to store sealed alcoholic beverages within five miles of an airport in the same county, which the sponsor and an American Airlines witness said would improve logistics without changing permits, taxes, or alcohol sourcing. The committee also heard SB 2781 and SB 2782, both related to Texas Ethics Commission procedures. SB 2781 would cap civil penalties tied to certain campaign contribution violations by former legislators who later lobby, and SB 2782 would require TEC to adopt discovery control plans and align discovery rules more closely with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to limit costly, open-ended discovery. Both bills were left pending after no public testimony. SB 3059 would transfer oversight of the Alamo from the General Land Office to a new Alamo Commission beginning in 2027; Senator Campbell said it would provide long-term stewardship and transparency, while Senator Birdwell questioned the need for a change and the commission’s structure, and GLO witnesses said they were not aware of any problem prompting the shift. HB 1130, a House companion to a previously passed Senate bill, would provide liability protections for cavern entities that post warning signs, and it was also left pending. A major portion of the meeting focused on SB 2713, which would bar professional or trade associations from denying membership or access based on protected characteristics or lawful speech and assembly. Senator Middleton and invited witnesses described disciplinary actions by realtor associations against members for social media posts, sermons, or political speech, arguing that the National Association of Realtors’ ethics rules were being used to punish private expression and threaten livelihoods through loss of MLS access. Committee members and witnesses discussed whether the bill should be narrowed to avoid affecting religious organizations, how association discipline works, and whether the measure should address existing penalties or only future conduct. The bill was left pending after extensive invited testimony and committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hotel occupancy taxes allow these communities to levy a 7% tax on hotel rooms and short-term rental sales
• Every city in Texas has authority to levy a hotel tax by ordinance, but counties need legislation in
• Every city in Texas has authority to levy tax bills before this committee, including this one here today
• Every city in Texas has authority to levy a hotel tax by ordinance, but counties need legislation in

Bills: SB913, SB1086, SB1087, SB1143, SB1534, SB1553, SB1718, SB1754, SB2004, SB2322, SB2448

Keywords: hotel occupancy tax, municipal revenue, tax code, local government funding, Texas legislation, county taxation, economic development, hotel industry, local government, counties, taxation, tourism, workforce development, youth programs, employment, education, technical training, health physics, higher education, nuclear energy

Summary: The Senate Economic Development Committee met to hear a series of bills and informational primers, with several resource witnesses from the Governor’s Office, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The chair opened by noting the death of Senator King’s son and asking members to keep the family in their prayers. Most bills were laid out and left pending subject to the call of the chair after brief author presentations and public testimony. The committee heard several local hotel occupancy tax bills: SB 1553 for Kerr County, SB 1086 for Childress County, SB 1087 for Mason County, and SB 913 for Alpine. Supporters, including the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association and local officials, said the measures would allow counties or the city to use hotel tax revenue for tourism-related projects and local development. The committee also heard SB 1534, which would direct a study on health physics education and workforce needs in Texas; resource witnesses from TWC and THECB testified on the bill. All of these measures were left pending. A major portion of the hearing focused on SB 1754, which would prohibit local tax abatements for renewable energy facilities selling power at wholesale, with an exception for certain battery storage tied to dispatchable generation. The bill drew strong support from witnesses who argued counties should not subsidize wind and solar projects that can harm neighboring landowners and that renewables already receive substantial federal support. Opponents from the solar and storage industry argued the bill would remove a voluntary local economic development tool, raise power prices, and discourage investment. Senators also debated landowner impacts, grid reliability, and whether the bill was the right policy tool; the bill was left pending. The committee also heard SB 2322, a committee substitute related to the Jobs, Energy, Technology, and Innovation Act, which would exempt electric generation facilities from the program’s compelling-factor test so they can qualify for school tax limitation agreements. Supporters said the change would correct an unintended barrier for dispatchable generation, while Senator Johnson argued it would weaken the program’s purpose by subsidizing projects that would locate in Texas anyway. SB 1718 would add the NRA annual meeting to the major events reimbursement program; the NRA supported it, while gun violence prevention advocates opposed using state incentives for the organization. SB 2004 would add the Arlington Grand Prix to the major events program, and SB 2448 would create a rural workforce development grant program; both drew supportive testimony and were left pending. The committee also heard SB 1143, a substitute bill aimed at improving transparency and coordination in programs serving opportunity youth ages 14 to 24, with witnesses supporting better reporting and workforce alignment. At the end of the meeting, Senator Johnson moved that the committee stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome, Levi. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.
• Levi, sorry to interrupt you. Where is that found? That is in the written testimony.
• Thank you, Levi. Any questions for Mr. Andrest? Senator Enget has a question.
• I actually have a question, Levi.
• Thanks, Levi. Thank you.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Energy Development and Transmission Committee met in interim session and approved the November 6 minutes. Chair Novak outlined the committee’s study agenda, including large energy users such as data centers, geothermal, landowner relations, wind and solar, and other energy topics across the state. The meeting was framed as informational only, with no bills or formal legislative action taken beyond the minutes approval. Testimony focused first on landowner relations. Oliver County Commissioner Dave Berger described the county’s energy history and local support for coal and related development. North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue emphasized proactive, face-to-face communication with landowners, respect for property rights, and the need for developers to be transparent about tradeoffs; he also discussed insurance and liability concerns tied to easements. Committee members asked about eminent domain, local versus state authority, and how communities can better understand the revenue and infrastructure implications of energy development. Department of Agriculture Deputy Commissioner Tom Bodine then described the department’s ombudsman programs for pipeline restoration and reclamation, wind restoration, and royalty oversight. He said the programs provide confidential, third-party assistance on reclamation and royalty disputes, but do not provide legal advice. Senators raised concerns about post-production deductions in royalty leases and whether the ombudsman can explain them; Bodine said the program can clarify statements and deductions but cannot resolve legal disputes. He also said the department has not received requests related to fiber lines. Representatives from Grid United and One Oak described their project development and landowner engagement practices. Grid United’s Brent Johnson discussed the North Plains Connector transmission project, its route selection process, voluntary acquisition approach, and efforts to avoid eminent domain by working closely with regulators, counties, townships, and landowners. One Oak’s Danette Welsh and Tom Giltner described the company’s midstream operations, extensive North Dakota footprint, and emphasis on direct landowner communication, consistent local regulation, careful construction practices, and post-construction reclamation. Members asked about setbacks, zoning consistency, invasive species prevention, outside advocacy groups, and eminent domain use; One Oak said it has not used eminent domain on its North Dakota projects, largely because most gathering lines are negotiated easements.

Transcript Highlights:

• rental communities are owned by the CDA and funded with a mix of funding sources, including local levy
• rental communities are owned by the CDA and funded with a mix of funding sources, including local levy
• rental communities are owned by the CDA and funded with a mix of funding sources, including local levy
• rental communities are owned by the CDA and funded with a mix of funding sources, including local levy
• rental communities are owned by the CDA and funded with a mix of funding sources, including local levy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• As all of you know, the state does not levy local property taxes.
• They decide on that levy based on their budget.
• As all of you know, the state does not levy local property taxes.
• They decide on that levy based on their budget.
• They decide on that levy based on their budget.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• which means that they really are utilizing all of the capacity that exists in their property tax levies
• their property tax levies. their property tax levies.
• So, we're using all our levy opportunities.
• We're using utility revenues, tax levy, special assessments, and then our fourth funding source will
• We're using utility revenues, tax levy, special assessments, and then our fourth funding source will

Keywords: 1183, house