Bills: SB683, SB1579, SB1389, SB1387, SB1390, SB1391, SB2063, SB1829, SB2060, SB1842, SB1398, SB1212, SB2158, SB102, SB1772, SB1958, SB2010, SB1595, SB1687, SB1684, SB2049, SB1966, SB1989, SB1191, SB1258, SB1920, SB1936, SB2143, SB2122, SB330, SB2071, SB2169, SB2069, SB2095, SB2157, SB1806, SB1430, SB206, SB1547, SB1849, SB1428, SB1653, SB1984, SB1644, SB1561, SB1813, SB1570, SB1796

Keywords: education, tax credit, student support, private school, Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit, financial assistance, homeschooling, qualified expenses, property tax, valuation increase, taxpayer rights, homestead, protest process, school choice, tuition assistance, income limits, parental choice, accreditation, sales tax, motor vehicles

Transcript Highlights:

• The administration's climate bond expenditure plan allocates project funding for the Department of Community
• single allocation across the entire proposition for bond.
• Is there—do you see anything in the Prop 4 bond that could be allocated as a really critical resource
• The first is to directly appropriate climate bond funding for the purposes specified in the bond, in
• bond counsel.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the administration’s spending plan for Proposition 4’s climate smart agriculture and biodiversity chapters, along with related trailer bill language. CDFA outlined proposed funding for existing programs such as SWEEP, Healthy Soils, Urban Agriculture, and invasive species work, plus new or phased-in programs including year-round and mobile farmers’ markets, tribal food sovereignty, and regional farm equipment sharing. The Department of Conservation described funding for the California Farmland Conservancy Program and Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program, while the Department of Finance and LAO discussed pending allocations and generally found the overall approach reasonable, though LAO suggested the Legislature may want more statutory guidance and reporting, especially for new programs. Members focused on implementation details, equity, and accountability. Questions covered how programs would serve vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, whether new solicitations would be reopened for previously oversubscribed grants, how outcomes are tracked, and how to structure guidance for new programs such as farm equipment sharing. The chair emphasized that the Legislature wants clearer direction on program design and noted that AB 2313 should guide implementation of the regional farm equipment sharing allocation. The committee also discussed the administration’s request to directly appropriate bond funds to departments and to exempt bond program guidelines from the Administrative Procedures Act; LAO supported the APA exemption with possible legislative guardrails for public notice and comment. The committee then heard on the farm-to-school proposal, with CDFA requesting $24.9 million General Fund for incubator grants, technical assistance, and network support. CDFA said the program has reached nearly half of California schoolchildren and has shown strong demand and positive evaluation results. LAO supported the core program but recommended rejecting the $3 million technical assistance component as too broad and suggested the Legislature consider using Proposition 98 for some of the funding. Members debated that point, with some expressing concern about using General Fund dollars for a new discretionary request during a tight budget year. The biodiversity and nature-based solutions chapter included funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, state conservancies, and tribal nature-based solutions. WCB described major recent investments and proposed projects tied to 30 by 30, habitat restoration, tribal partnerships, and public access. Members raised concerns about long-term stewardship, the size of the WCB allocation, and whether the Legislature should receive more detail on how funds will be distributed. The committee also heard requests for Bolsa Chica wetlands maintenance and Rincon Island decommissioning funding from the State Lands Commission, with members questioning long-term liability, remediation costs, and the role of private oil operators. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with public comment from stakeholders largely supporting the APA exemption, farm-to-school funding, biodiversity investments, and related conservation programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:27.919> to<00:20:28.080> transportation allocated to transportation allocated to
• <00:22:56.200> in drive bonding in drive bonding in general<00:22:58.039> um<00:22:
• <00:23:06.720> are<00:23:07.159> for of bonds so trunk Highway bonds are for of bonds
• that found in the bonding that found in the bonding bill<00:23:31.240> um<00:23:31.799>
• of bonds uh ultimately both uh Geo bonds of bonds uh ultimately both uh Geo bonds and<00:23:49.520

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Working Group met on January 15, 2025, with Chair John Kosnik opening by saying the committee expected to pass a transportation bill this year and emphasizing efficient use of transportation revenues, maintenance of roads and transit, and safety. Members and staff introduced themselves, and several representatives noted their interest in roads, bridges, and regional transportation needs. Kosnik also said he had spoken with Representative Kel about leadership arrangements and stressed that bipartisan support would be needed for a transportation bill. House Fiscal Staff’s Andrew Lee and House Research’s Matt Burus then gave an overview of transportation finance, focusing mainly on highways and transit. Burus explained Minnesota’s highway funding structure, including the constitutional Highway User Tax Distribution Fund and the related Trunk Highway Fund, County State-Aid Highway Fund, and Municipal State-Aid Street Fund. He reviewed the main revenue sources: the motor fuels tax, motor vehicle registration tax, motor vehicle sales tax, portions of the general sales tax tied to auto parts, vehicle rentals and leases, and the retail delivery fee. He noted several changes from 2023 legislation, including indexing of the gas tax, creation of the Transportation Advancement Account, and the retail delivery fee, which began in July 2024 and therefore would affect fiscal year 2025 rather than the fiscal 2024 data shown. The presentation also covered how highway dollars flow through constitutional formulas, including the 95/5 split from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, with the 5 percent set-aside used for town roads, town bridges, and flexible highway purposes such as turnbacks. Burus distinguished trunk highway bonds from general obligation bonds and explained that both are debt-financing tools for transportation projects, but with different repayment sources and uses. No votes or formal actions were taken at this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposition 4 allocates $15 million.
• The administration's Climate Bond Expenditure Plan allocates project funding for the Department of Community
• Resiliency sub-allocation. Yeah, sure.
• We have allocated nearly $900 million.
• The first is to directly appropriate climate bond funding for the purposes specified in the bond, in

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• bond, able to be changed midstream?
• bond, able to be changed midstream?
• So the way I understand it, right, if you bond, you know what you're bonding for, right?
• Because if the bond that they're issuing is tax-exempt, meaning there's no, they're Bond that they're
• We would have to open up Chapter 349, I believe, to allow for the bonds to be allocated to the infrastructure

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I wanted to start by just noting that in terms of the overall bond, the $10 billion bond, the Water Chapter
• We've allocated about $500 million from the earlier Prop. 1 water bond, Prop. 68 parks bond, and the
• We've allocated about $500 million from the earlier Prop 1 water bond, Prop 68 Parks bond, and the recent
• The issue as to whether we allocate all this bond funding, same issue about out-year allocations, et
• bond funding, same issue about out-year allocations, et cetera, is one, we just want to raise.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I wanted to start by just noting that in terms of the overall bond, the $10 billion bond, the water chapter
• And it was a fairly complex written bond.
• Bond money, etc., so can you help us with that?
• We've allocated about $500 million from the earlier Prop 1 water bond, Prop 68 parks bond, and the recent
• The issue of whether we allocate all this bond funding is the same issue regarding out-year allocations

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we're going to have a greater bond resilience. What are bonds? Bonds are debt.
• Bonds, investments, and bonds eligible for...
• bonds.
• shall prioritize tax credit allocations first to insurance companies that have purchased bonds issued
• Bond authority... Bond authority probably not going to work.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, under B, we are updating our information about selling bonds.
• by the bond issuing officers.
• bill approvals without prior approval from the bond bill committee.
• bill approvals without prior approval from the bond bill committee.
• Section 88 for tax stitches says of the funding allocated, 1.4...

Summary: The committee met for a fiscal year 2027 capital budget writing session with all 12 members present. It first reviewed and approved the DNREC Resource Conservation and Development drainage project list, which would add projects across New Castle, Kent, and Sussex counties and bring the total eligible projects to 1,561. Members offered personal remarks thanking retiring conservation district staff, especially Kevin Donnelly, for years of work on drainage and water issues. The committee then reviewed DelDOT Rule 12 changes, including annual date updates and a reduction in the inflation markup applied to older estimates, and approved the rule as amended. The committee next adopted DelDOT Appendix A and the FY27 paving and rehabilitation list, including the subdivision street management fund and various road resurfacing projects. DelDOT explained that paving projects are for state-of-good-repair work and that major changes from corridor studies would be handled separately. The committee also approved DelDOT epilogue changes, including updates to authorization amounts, a $25 million increase for toll infrastructure work, changes to subdivision street paving language, and an increase in the subdivision street paving management fund to $30 million. Several sections were placed on hold for later updates. The committee then moved through boilerplate epilogue sections in the bond bill, approving a wide range of provisions affecting conservation districts, housing, economic development, corrections, DNREC, public safety, transportation, agriculture, fire prevention, education, and other agencies. Many sections were adopted in groups, while some were held for later revisions or deleted as no longer needed. The session included updates to school capital rules, transportation restrictions and reporting requirements, DNREC conservation and land-use provisions, and funding and administrative authorities across multiple agencies. The committee broke for lunch after approving the education-related sections through 147, with additional sections still pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, 3435 is just basically a single subject rule for municipal bonds.
• So this came about due to a municipality that had had a particular project fail on a standalone bond
• issue, and it was Discussed by the governing body to log row it with a public safety bond package to
• on some information provided by another representative in the building, With Oklahoma City's last bond

Bills: HB1245, HB2588, HB3024, HB3172, HB3279, HB3919, HB3306, HB3383, HB3431, HB3435, HB4352, HB3883, HB3942, HB4193, HB4203, HB4303, HB4311, HB4484

Keywords: retirement, pension, public employees, Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, benefits, survivorship, contribution rates, disability retirement, owners associations, membership requirements, property ownership, board governance, residency requirements, salary increase, state employees, public finance, bonus limits, job performance, Fair Banking Act, financial institutions

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a handful of allocations that we have in a pending allocations plot.
• within this bond.
• So we have a statewide bond unit that has ways that they score for each of the allocations, how much
• in the bond.
• That outlines for this bond, here's the allocations by program and sort of invites this continuing conversation

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• bonding authorization.
• required to authorize GO bonds.
• required to authorize GO bonds.
• required to authorize GO bonds.
• required to authorize GO bonds.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate File 4400 speaks for itself: aggregate bond limitation reduction applicable to the allocation
• This means that fewer tax-exempt bonds can be allocated to more projects, which in turn can increase
• those allocating agency who allocates those allocating agency who allocates those low-income<00:
• So, because of that, 474A established the maximum amount of bonds that could be allocated at that 50%
• <00:25:29.040> at<00:25:29.240> that bonds that could be allocated at that bonds that

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2137 by Menendez relates to the allocation of low-income housing tax credits to Local Government
• the creation and recreation of funds and accounts, the dedication and rededication of revenue and allocation

Bills: SCR8, SCR24, SCR25, SB1, SB65, SB315, SB371, SB372, SB379, SB400, SB402, SB406, SB427, SB487, SB502, SB509, SB535, SB610, SB707, SB740, SB761, SB840, SB875, SB893, SB918, SB925, SB965, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1073, SB1106, SB1121, SB1194, SB1253, SB1300, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1447, SB1532, SB1555, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR25, SCR22, SCR12, SCR24, SCR8, SB565, SB372, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB610, SB918, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB535, SB761, SB1, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Transcript Highlights:

• That will be separate with the climate bond.
• Has that money all been allocated?
• And has done for previous bonds.
• But know that this bond, we aim to be accountable. We want it to be the most accessible bond ever.
• In terms of the climate bond, the, it's pre-allocated almost $9 billion of the $10 billion.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Your bonding proposal, like, there would still be a shortfall there?
• Hastings whole either your bonding Hastings whole either your bonding proposal<00:07:49.560>
• So if we can't get bonding, can we get cash?
• here's my cash proposal if bonding here's my cash proposal if bonding doesn't<00:10:17.160> go
• <00:11:45.000> requests<00:11:45.399> and page of bonding requests and page of bonding

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• revenue bond.
• bonds.
• bonds.
• , GO bonds, general obligation bonds issuing large general obligation bonds.
• bond issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• The county does get an allocation. for Metro. And how is that money allocated?
• and not issue new bonds for capital improvements or refunding bonds for savings.
• Your bond? Were you talking about going through your bond money?
• of that bond.
• Two violations of bond covenants which affect all of the bonds if any Texas city has a bond out there

Bills: HB2065, HB2462, HB2621, HB3187, HB3539, HB3563, HB3726, HB4164, HB4207, HB4368, HB4706, HB4916, HB4950, HB4967, HB5177, HB4429, HB5597

Keywords: commercial vehicles, parking regulations, residential areas, local governance, land use, traffic safety, high occupancy vehicle lane, pregnant operators, transportation, parental rights, motor vehicle regulations, live video feed, state agency, transparency, public safety, regional transportation, mobility program, sales tax, public infrastructure, local government

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Bills: HB2148, HB2306, HB1776, HB2007, HB1939, HB2490, HB1733, HB2049, HB1710, HB1918, HB1926, HB2325, HB2426, HB1553, HB2544, HB2599, HB2616

Keywords: estate tax, generation-skipping transfer tax, unrealized gains, surcharge, property transfer, tax exemption, small business, relative, income tax, tax brackets, household care credit, employment-related expenses, earned income tax credit, food tax credit, fraud disallowance, tenant rights, housing stability, landlord-tenant code, eviction prevention, multilingual resources