Transcript Highlights:

• If you wish to give testimony, please fill out a card.
• Thank you so much for your testimony for being here today.
• But thank you for your testimony. Thank you. The board is clear.
• And honestly, I found your testimony very clear.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Bills: HB91, HB123, HB167, HB255, HB264, HB321, HB884, HB955, HB967, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB985, HB994, HB1005, HB1104, HB1107, HB1109, SCR3

Keywords: criminal procedure, disclosure, criminal records, witness protection, trial rights, electronic monitoring, GPS ankle monitor, ankle bracelet, pretrial release, post-conviction supervision, bail monitoring, house arrest, corrections, criminal justice, law enforcement, prosecuting authority, court reporting, provider registration, LCLE, Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice

Summary: The committee first handled housekeeping by voluntarily deferring HB 123, HB 255, and HB 994 without objection. It then took up SCR 3 by Sen. Myers, which sought to delay implementation of a State Police rule change affecting criminal history background checks for certain health care workers and authorized agents until October 1, 2026, to avoid hiring delays. An amendment was adopted to remove language authorizing parish and local law enforcement to perform checks during the interim. After testimony from health care stakeholders who supported the delay, SCR 3 as amended was reported favorably. The committee next considered HB 978 by Rep. Lecombe, which as amended changed the bill from a town-of-Addis-specific exception to a broader adjustment in the population threshold for municipalities required to remit special costs to the district indigent defender fund, raising the threshold from under 5,000 to under 9,000 population. Supporters said the change would relieve small mayor’s courts and similar local courts of a $45-per-violation burden that was not well suited to those systems. The bill drew support from local officials and was reported favorably as amended. HB 967 by Rep. Moore, which would have expanded parole eligibility for certain long-serving offenders convicted before July 2, 1973 by removing language limiting eligibility to those who had pleaded guilty, generated extensive debate. Supporters argued the bill would only allow elderly prisoners to be considered by the parole board and would not guarantee release, while opponents, including district attorneys and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, argued the 2022 law already covered those who pled guilty and that the bill would extend relief to people convicted at trial of serious violent crimes. After discussion, the motion to report HB 967 favorably failed on an 8-3 vote. The committee then heard HB 1107 by Rep. Melancon, a post-conviction procedure bill for capital cases involving claims of intellectual disability. The bill, as amended, raised the burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence, required expert reports and IQ information, applied Daubert-style reliability screening, and clarified that it only applies in death penalty cases. Supporters from the Attorney General’s office and district attorneys said the bill would create a clearer procedure and speed resolution of Atkins claims; opponents from disability-rights, criminal defense, and medical groups argued it would replace clinical standards with a rigid statutory definition, rely too heavily on a 75 IQ cutoff, and risk excluding people with genuine intellectual disabilities. Testimony continued through the end of the transcript, with no final committee vote shown on HB 1107.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you both for your testimony. Members, any questions?
• Thank you both for your testimony. Members, any questions?
• <00:12:26.320> Thank name and and begin your testimony.
• Thank name and and begin your testimony. Thank you. you. you.
• ,<00:29:29.760> and name when you begin your testimony, and name when you begin your testimony

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we will not be taking testimony. For those of you that sent in emails, we've received them.
• For those of not be taking testimony.
• So after we discuss in work testimony.
• I'm especially concerned about the testimony we heard from dees.
• <01:39:54.639> that um we heard plenty of testimony that um we heard plenty of testimony that

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:

• Chair and members, we will move to testimony.
• Chair and members, we will move<00:16:31.680> to<00:16:32.000> testimony.
• And I believe the move to testimony.
• Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
• And then come up and state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:25:44.520> was Minnesota for this testimony was Minnesota for this testimony was challenging
• Thank you for your testimony.
• <00:45:14.200> Um Thank you for your testimony. Um Thank you for your testimony.
• earlier in our testimony. earlier in our testimony.
• from<01:02:31.080> the I've heard the testimony from the I've heard the testimony from

Bills: HF3119

Keywords: teacher compensation, educational staff, unlicensed staff, minimum wage, inflation adjustment, education finance, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So that was the testimony from Detective Stuber. >> Mr.
• Lock informing also the testimony of Mr.
• So that was the testimony does that.
• Anyone else in the room like testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB0075, HB0128

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosk, financial institutions, regulation, Wyoming Money Transmitters Act, penalties, severance tax, oil production, tax exemption, energy sector, economic impact, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to keep moving testimony.
• You said it little bit in the testimony.
• for your testimony. We appreciate it. for your testimony. We appreciate it.
• appreciate your testimony. Thank you. appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
• may proceed with your testimony. may proceed with your testimony.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:15 Kentucky Department of Education 00:01:20 Kentucky Communications Network Authority 00:36:45 Accelecom 01:01:22 Auditor of Public Accounts 01:29:50, 958, all

Summary: The Information Technology Oversight Committee met to hear a presentation from Kentucky Department of Education officials David Couch and Mike Lingham on the history and current status of Kentucky’s K-12 internet network, including its relationship to KentuckyWired. They described the original KETS design from 1995, when KDE established district internet hubs and left local districts to connect to them, and said that model helped Kentucky become a national leader in school connectivity and cloud-based services. They also emphasized the importance of E-rate eligibility, saying it has saved the state substantial money and remains central to KDE’s network contracting. Couch and Lingham said the current “next generation Kentucky K-12 internet” contract with Education Networks of America is more reliable, offers more functionality, and costs less than the prior system, including lower bandwidth and firewall costs. They explained that the transition was complicated by build-out and provisioning issues, especially the need for more “type two” connections through local providers, which pushed some implementation past the June 30, 2024 E-rate deadline. As a result, 39 sites remain on type two connections, and KDE absorbed the loss of federal discount dollars for the portion of the transition that extended into July. The witnesses also discussed home internet access for students. They said KDE has tracked home access for about 20 years and estimates about 4.5% of students still lack adequate internet at home, with roughly 3% able to reach access nearby and 1.5% having no access. They said the biggest barrier is usually cost rather than lack of available lines, and noted that temporary hotspot support during COVID helped students continue schoolwork. Senator Williams asked about the costs of the transition, the current type two sites, and the potential cost of any future transition, but the transcript cuts off before a full answer was given.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, please state your name and you may begin your testimony.
• Please state your name, and you may begin with your testimony.
• Please state your name, and you may begin with your testimony. Mr.
• <01:14:18.840> um any thank you sir for your testimony um any thank you sir for your testimony
• Please state your name and you may begin with your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am sending around a copy of my written testimony. I don't intend to read it to you.
• it's very important and online testimony it's very important and online testimony is<04:09:06.680
• <04:13:38.279> of the conversation on the um testimony of the conversation on the um testimony
• But what I want to say is regarding online testimony, how you have to put in information.
• But what I want to say is regarding online testimony, how you have to put in information.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 749, which would require high schools to provide at least one hour of instruction on the nature and history of communism. The prime sponsor said the bill was prompted by concerns that students lack basic historical knowledge about communism and its effects, and argued that a short, flexible requirement could be embedded in an existing course without creating a new full class. He described communism as a totalitarian ideology and cited historical examples including the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Cold War, and current events involving Russia, Ukraine, and Taiwan as reasons students should understand the topic. Members asked whether the subject is already covered in current social studies standards, whether one hour is enough, and whether the bill would apply to public, private, parochial, and charter schools. The sponsor said he did not believe communism is specifically required in current standards, that he would prefer a full course but was proposing a minimal requirement, and that he intended the bill to apply broadly to schools under the Department of Education’s umbrella, though he acknowledged the wording may need clarification for charter schools. He also said the proposal was both reactive and proactive, based on anecdotal concerns and his teaching experience. A second supporter testified that he was born in the Soviet Union and favored the bill, but suggested the instruction should emphasize critical thinking and explain both why communism can appeal to some people and why it can have harmful consequences. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Go ahead, state your name and go ahead with your testimony. Thank you.
• Go ahead, state your name and proceed with your testimony.
• Please approach, state your name for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
• recover I'm sorry the previous testimony recover I'm sorry the previous testimony made<01:10:49.280
• Okay, I'm seeing none, so public testimony is now closed.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That's my testimony. Now I have two things that we need to do a little house cleaning on.
• now I have two that's my testimony now I have two things<00:12:25.800> that<00:12:25.920>
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 733-FN, a bill on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors financing lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, and contributes to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs, and what he called a “tort tax.” He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with specific references to foreign-entity restrictions, consumer-protection guardrails, and reporting requirements. He also noted a few technical fixes to the draft, including adding the word “knowingly” and restoring a section that had been omitted. Committee members questioned how the bill’s foreign-entity language would work, including whether a governor or the Department of Safety would designate countries of concern, and whether the bill would bar foreign parties from using litigation funding. Cole and others clarified that the bill was intended as a reporting measure, not a ban on litigation funding itself, and that the goal was to disclose who is funding lawsuits and to what extent. Representative Sal asked whether the bill would prevent a litigant from getting outside financing; Cole answered no, emphasizing disclosure rather than prohibition. Brandon Grat of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau testified that the bill’s enforcement provisions were too limited. He said the draft appears to give the Attorney General only a civil-penalty remedy, likely too small to deter violations, and not the broader Consumer Protection Act tools such as injunctions, restitution, or investigation authority. He also raised concerns about whether the Attorney General or Insurance Department would have proper jurisdiction, given that the product may be financial or insurance-related. Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the department sees possible benefits from transparency because disclosure of litigation funding could help insurers assess risk, improve underwriting, and potentially ease hard-market pressures, especially for nonprofits and child care providers. He also said the bill’s language likely needs further work to clarify agency authority and suggested involving the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and banking regulators. Opposition testimony came from the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association. Marissa Chase and Samantha Hering argued the bill is one-sided because it requires disclosure only on the plaintiff side and not from defendants or insurers. They said New Hampshire already has court rules and discovery procedures that cover relevant disclosures, making the bill unnecessary, and questioned whether the existence of a funding contract is even relevant in litigation. The hearing ended with the committee continuing to discuss possible revisions and enforcement options, but no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please introduce yourself to the committee and proceed with your testimony. Mr.
• Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony. Good afternoon, Mr.
• Would you please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony?
• sign thank you Miss Lynch your testimony sign thank you Miss Lynch your testimony up<01:03:00.559
• earlier that I appreciate the testimony earlier that I appreciate the testimony from<01:19:39.840

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE DO HAVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WILLIAM VAN NORDSTROM. YOU ARE AN OPPONENT.
• SEEING THERE IS NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WE ARE MOVING INTO DEBATE. ANY MEMBERS WISH TO DEBATE? NO?
• PUBLIC TESTIMONY? WE HAVE JOY RYAN WITH FLORIDA INSURANCE COUNCIL IS AN OPPONENT.
• THAT CONCLUDES OUR TESTIMONY. IS THERE DEBATE ON THE BILL, MEMBERS? NO DEBATE.
• WE HAVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. ALBORE RANGER WITH FLORIDA ASSISTED LIVING ASSOCIATION.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a, uh, testimony from answers.
• to the committee for taking my testimony to the committee for taking my testimony this<00:22:10.320
• :31:52.479> their<03:31:52.880> air testimony of years past their air testimony of years
• became an exhibit in my testimony became an exhibit in my testimony um<05:21:37.760> last
• <05:24:55.120> in that we filed as testimony in that we filed as testimony in Eversource's

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:16.759> um from um their uh frequent testimony um from um their uh frequent testimony
• your testimony your testimony my<00:49:57.079> initial<00:49:57.520> question<00:49
• <01:27:49.199> on you've heard in other uh testimony on you've heard in other uh testimony
• card that's the only other uh testimony card that's the only other uh testimony that<01:41:08.280
• thank you so much for your testimony thank you so much for your testimony thank<04:15:16.040>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and noted weather-related absences and a large number of new bills. The chair said a subcommittee would be formed to review three cell phone bills, and a full committee work session on bullying would be scheduled for the week after next. The committee then began a hearing on House Bill 121, which would create local special education advisory councils in school districts. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the sponsor, said the councils would be parent-driven, with parents of children with disabilities advising districts on education, safety, program development, evaluation, planning, policies, and communication with administrators. He said the bill would require at least quarterly meetings with district administration, an annual parent workshop, and a year-end report to the school board. He also cited federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on parent advisory councils and said the goal was to improve collaboration between parents and schools. Members raised questions about the use of “shall,” how councils would be formed in districts without PTAs/PTOs, whether the councils could function in very small districts, privacy concerns about parents disclosing their children’s disabilities, whether the councils should include guardians or educational professionals, and whether the councils would have any direct tie to the state advisory council. The sponsor said the requirement was intended to make the councils mandatory, that local districts could organize them organically if needed, that participation would be voluntary, that parents would not be required to disclose private information, and that the councils would remain advisory rather than determinative. He also said costs should be minimal. Testimony then began from Nicole Sheath, a pediatric occupational therapist and parent of four children with disabilities, who described her experience balancing advocacy, school collaboration, and the demands of her children’s therapies and education.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• You want to give some testimony? Yeah, we support the effort here.
• And there was testimony about that, but I don't remember the exact numbers.
• We do, I think, have some public testimony. We do, I think, have some public testimony.

Bills: HB9, HB177, HB181, HB202, HB225, HB398, HB459, HB540, HB906, HB1052, HB1057, HB1245

Keywords: HB 9, HB9, Act 527, Shreveport, Stuffed Shrimp Capital, state symbol, Louisiana symbols, municipal designation, honorary title, cultural designation, tourism, local pride, seafood, shrimp, stuffed shrimp, cuisine, city branding, Louisiana Revised Statutes 49:170.26, court reporter, official court reporter

Transcript Highlights:

• understand that you’re an employment lawyer, the Disability Law Center has stated and has provided testimony
• understand that you’re an employment lawyer, the Disability Law Center has stated and has provided testimony
• understand that you’re an employment lawyer, the Disability Law Center has stated and has provided testimony
• 00:08:30.520> and<00:08:30.640> has<00:08:30.800> provided<00:08:31.200> testimony
• <00:08:32.039> that stated and has provided testimony that stated and has provided testimony

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House debated Representative Hicks’ motion to place Senate File 3210 first on the calendar for the next day. Hicks said the bill, which concerns disability accommodations, had been on the general register since March 9 and had passed the Senate 46-18. Supporters argued it would strengthen the process for requesting accommodations and should be heard on the floor without further delay. Representative Niska opposed the motion, arguing the bill was poorly drafted, had not received enough committee work, and could create ambiguity in the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He focused on the bill’s use of “may” in describing failure to engage in the accommodation process and questioned how the proposal would affect existing law in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education. Hicks responded that the bill addresses the process for reasonable accommodations, not the underlying accommodation standards, and said disability advocates and the Department of Human Rights supported the language. Several members spoke in favor of calendaring the bill, emphasizing that it was bipartisan, had already moved through committee, and was important to people with disabilities. Some supporters described the accommodation process as difficult and said the bill would help ensure good-faith engagement between employers and individuals seeking accommodations. The exchange ended with the motion still under debate, with members indicating the bill would likely be taken up on the floor the following day.

Transcript Highlights:

• , me-too testimony: name, affiliation, and position.
• Now moving on to opposition testimony.
• We'll move on to testimony.
• We'll begin with testimony. Good afternoon.
• So is it your testimony that we're still not in compliance?

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 86, which would extend and expand the CAEATFA sales and use tax exclusion program through 2031, raise the annual cap from $100 million to $200 million, and add fusion energy. Supporters, including the State Treasurer and industry and labor representatives, cited billions in clean-tech investment, job creation, and environmental benefits; county groups opposed the bill over local revenue losses. The committee approved SB 86 on a 12-0 roll, holding the roll open for additional members. The committee then heard SB 545, which would require Go-Biz to study economic development opportunities along the California high-speed rail corridor, including land value, development incentives, and public-private partnerships. Labor, Fresno’s mayor’s office, and other stakeholders supported the bill as a way to spur corridor development and future funding opportunities, while one business group moved from opposition to neutral after amendments. The bill passed on a 9-1 vote, with the roll held open. Members next considered SB 63, a Bay Area transit funding measure authorizing a regional revenue measure to support transit operations amid looming fiscal shortfalls. The author and witnesses described severe service cuts that could follow without new funding, while committee members raised concerns about the bill’s structure, county participation, polling, and whether other revenue options should be considered. The bill advanced on a 9-3 vote, with the roll held open, and the committee also approved SB 263, directing a state study of tariff impacts on California’s economy and supply chains, on an 11-0 vote. Finally, the committee heard SB 661, which would redirect aviation-related tax revenues back to airports for aviation purposes and bring the state into compliance with federal requirements; testimony focused on airport modernization, rural access, and allocation formulas, but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, please limit your testimony to three minutes and avoid repeating any testimony that has already
• Appreciate you traveling here and your testimony here today, sir. Thank you all very much.
• We have the Plano mayor here, my friend Mayor John Munns, to provide witness testimony and take questions
• Okay, but your testimony isn't related to other people; I just want to make sure in that capacity just
• Thank you for your testimony, sir.

Summary: The committee heard a long series of bills, most of them expanding or adjusting hotel occupancy tax or qualified hotel project authority for specific local governments. Measures discussed included HB 2404 for Childress County; HB 3066 for Allen’s Kalahari resort project; HB 4682 for Plano; HB 4683 for Anna; HB 3076 creating a project finance zone in Frisco; HB 3567 for Wichita County; HB 3715 for McAllen; HB 1039 for Alpine; HB 3182 for Burleson; HB 4926 for Grimes County; HB 4222 for Victoria County; HB 3377 for Katy; HB 4659 for Addison; HB 3241 for Georgetown; HB 4098 for Taylor; HB 3178 for Kerr County; HB 3179 for Mason County; HB 2289 for New Braunfels; HB 4412 for Kermit; HB 5165 for Monahans; HB 3500 for Bastrop; and HB 3169 for Carrollton. In each case, authors and local officials described tourism, convention, hotel, airport, or mixed-use development needs and argued the bills would help attract visitors, investment, and jobs. One non-hotel-tax bill, HB 4226, would exempt Texas food banks from sales tax on vehicle purchases and rentals, with testimony emphasizing the scale of food bank operations and the savings’ impact on meal delivery and disaster response. Testimony was generally supportive from city officials, economic development representatives, and industry groups such as the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association. Several witnesses described major private projects, including Kalahari in Allen, a proposed hotel and conference center in Addison, a mixed-use project in Georgetown, and a large development tied to Samsung growth in Taylor. For HB 4226, food bank representatives said the bill would help them purchase refrigerated trucks and other delivery vehicles, while an opponent questioned the fiscal note and the scope of the exemption. HB 4926 drew opposition from Camp Allen, whose representative argued a new county hotel tax would raise costs for guests and could hurt the retreat center’s operations. HB 3178 also drew an objection from a Kerr County resident who argued the tax would grow county government and pointed to event center losses, though the author said the revenue would support tourism-related county uses. The committee took no final votes on the bills in this transcript. After each bill was laid out and testimony concluded, the chair repeatedly asked whether there was objection to leaving the bill pending; in each instance, no objection was heard, and the bills were left pending. Several committee substitutes were offered and then withdrawn or noted as conforming drafts, but no bill was reported out or otherwise acted on beyond being left pending.