Transcript Highlights:

• And the overwhelming majority said that they would engage.
• And the overwhelming majority said that they would engage.
• What's our local source of funding?
• from state sources.
• from state sources.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Committee on Transportation met to hear presentations from the Florida Department of Transportation on rural arterial roadways and transportation resiliency, followed by a panel discussion on metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). FDOT’s Will Watts described the state’s growing population and travel demand, emphasizing that rural arterials are critical for connectivity, freight movement, evacuation routes, and congestion relief. He outlined FDOT’s project selection factors, noted thousands of identified rural arterial needs with billions in unfunded demand, and explained that the department uses community input and long-range planning to prioritize safety, capacity, and economic development. Watts then discussed resiliency planning for hurricanes and flooding, focusing on structural design, storm readiness, and drainage. He highlighted efforts such as elevated bridges, wave attenuators, coastal armoring, drainage upgrades, and materials testing at FDOT’s research facilities to extend service life and reduce storm damage. Committee members asked about local project selection, materials research, LiDAR use, and legislative support; Watts said local coordination drives project priorities and asked lawmakers to protect the Transportation Trust Fund. The MPO panel, led by FDOT’s Kim Holland, explained that MPOs are federally required in urban areas over 50,000 population and that Florida has 27, the most in the nation. Holland said MPOs identify and prioritize transportation needs through long-range plans and public engagement, and she noted that several regions are exploring consolidation after the 2020 Census, especially in Tampa Bay and Southwest Florida. Representatives from MetroPlan Orlando, Forward Pinellas, Pasco MPO, and Hillsborough discussed their structures and the potential benefits and challenges of merging, including representation, governance, funding, and maintaining local voice. Members generally supported regional collaboration, urged patience as studies continue, and emphasized the need for transparent public engagement, while the committee adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's not really a viable revenue source for this $150 million at this time.
• I think you had some good questions earlier about what's the source of funding.
• In the appendix, you can see the sources in use by each of the divisions.
• Those were the major ones within that criteria.
• And then lastly, we wanted to discuss the alternative funding sources available.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> what we're dealing with is a major what we're dealing with is a major infrastructure<00:02:24.239
• </c> life expectancy and will need major life expectancy and will need major renovation<00:52:02.640>
• </c> last constructed in 1973 and is a major last constructed in 1973 and is a major thoroughare<01:06
• </c><01:21:36.480><c> We</c> uh sourced locally I should say. We uh sourced locally I should say.
• Um it's a major gateway trail.

Bills: HF2178 , HF942 , HF2470 , HF1043 , HF1287 , HF1229 , HF1230 , HF424 , HF571 , HF404 , HF910 , HF1055 , HF318 , HF319 , HF401 , HF609 , HF306 , HF1599 , HF1881

Committee: House Capital Investment

Keywords: HF2178, Cohasset, capital investment, bonding bill, state bonds, public infrastructure, water tower, water infrastructure, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, street reconstruction, municipal infrastructure, Public Facilities Authority, bond proceeds fund, Minnesota bonding, local government aid, utility infrastructure, public works, infrastructure, stormwater

Transcript Highlights:

• With total revenue in 2025-26 expected to be about $5 billion, with the main sources of that revenue
• And that is the mobile source program. That's basically the description of it. Yes.
• We're trying to do ongoing expenses with one-time revenue sources, or revenue sources that are not ongoing
• We need to come up with ongoing revenue sources that match ongoing expenditure needs.
• The majority of that, yes. So, of this year? June of 2026. The last information we have now. 2026.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on transportation agency budget proposals and did not take any votes. The first major discussion focused on the Motor Vehicle Account shortfall and a proposed one-time $166 million transfer from the Air Pollution Control Fund and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to offset California Air Resources Board mobile source costs. Department of Finance and the LAO described the account’s long-running structural deficit, driven largely by employee compensation growth and REAL ID-related workload, while members criticized the use of Proposition 4, GGRF, and other one-time or redirected funds as backfills and urged a longer-term solution that addresses both revenues and expenditures. The committee then heard Caltrans’ request for $25 million in General Fund support to create a Clean California Community Cleanup and Employment Pathway Grant Program. Caltrans said the program would build on the prior Clean California effort by funding local litter and graffiti cleanup, community engagement, and workforce pathways for vulnerable populations. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing that local litter abatement is not a core state responsibility and that one-time funding is unlikely to solve persistent local cleanup needs. Several members echoed those concerns, while public commenters split between support for the cleanup/employment model and calls to instead restore funding to the Active Transportation Program and transit operations. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency requested that California administratively recognize Tahoe’s federally designated population figure for state formula-based transportation funding, which would raise the population count used in formulas from 40,000 to 145,000. The agency said the change would not request new money but would better align state formulas with federal law and support a shared regional funding framework; members appeared generally supportive, though they noted the need to phase in the change to reduce impacts on other regions. The final presentation was on High-Speed Rail. The LAO reviewed the authority’s project update report, noting that it did not fully meet statutory requirements and that key details are still pending in a supplemental report expected later in the summer. The LAO said the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment still shows an estimated roughly $7 billion funding gap, with no specific plan to close it, and highlighted risks from federal review, inflation, and uncertain GGRF revenues. High-Speed Rail Authority staff said they are conducting a bottom-up review of scope, schedule, ridership, and costs, expect to provide updated information by late summer, and are exploring public-private partnerships and other financing strategies. Members stressed that no further funding commitments should be made until the updated analysis is available.

Transcript Highlights:

• County typically has three main revenue sources.
• But these past two fiscal years, we've been experiencing fiscal instability from all three sources.
• It's a unique situation we found ourselves on a county that historically had never had. source.
• Thank you, Majority Leader Aguirre. Thank you. Thank you. Majority Leader Aguirre-Cariate.
• We know it's a delicate balance to braid and blend these funding sources, and everything counts.

Transcript Highlights:

• What has happened since that time, we've had budget cuts to that funding source.
• </c><00:09:37.279><c> being</c> needing that funding source being needing that funding source being stabilized
• </c> and inspector general, commandar major and inspector general, commandar major Otis<00:34:55.119>
• Sir Major Chris Jackson, our addition.
• Some of our major to increase this year.

Summary: The committee heard an Office of Education Technology presentation on the Kentucky Education Technology System (KTS) and a request to increase its annual budget from $15.4 million to $30 million, including an additional $14.6 million. The witness described KTS as a statewide service model that provides districts with student information and financial systems, internet bandwidth, regional support, cybersecurity, online registration, learning management and email services, and collaborative instructional technology support. He argued the state’s centralized purchasing saves districts 40% to 60% compared with buying services individually, and said federal internet discounts and district matching funds create a strong return on investment. He also said KTS has faced long-term funding cuts, has not received a cost-of-living increase since 1992, and is now at a “breaking point” where some services may have to be shifted to districts at higher cost. The request was broken into six main items: restoring funding for the computer science and information technology academy; strengthening cybersecurity defenses in response to sharply rising attacks on K-12 systems; funding online registration through Infinite Campus; stabilizing ongoing support costs for Infinite Campus; providing cost-of-living increases for KTS services; and increasing the KTS financial assistance sent to districts, which requires local matching funds. Members asked about the current appropriation, and the witness said it is $15.4 million. One member praised the office’s work and support for districts, while another noted the district had been an early adopter of one-to-one technology. The committee then received an overview of the KRS 156 salary schedule and step-and-rank system for state-operated career and technical education staff at area technology centers. Officials explained that salaries are set under statute and regulation based on years of service and educational rank, with annual calculations tied to statewide teacher salary averages and retroactive adjustments to July 1. They said the current ABR request is $325,000 over the biennium to cover step and rank increases. The presentation noted that KRS 156 salaries are generally comparable to local districts but are less competitive with business and industry, making recruitment and retention difficult, especially for instructors coming from the trades. Members agreed that trade instructors are underpaid relative to the market and said the issue deserves further review, with department officials indicating they are considering possible statutory revisions and a delayed implementation in a future biennium.

Transcript Highlights:

• We cannot allow some of these major news sources to decide when they will give us the opportunity to
• :13:52.080><c> news</c><04:13:52.399><c> sources</c><04:13:53.040><c> to</c> some of these major news
• sources to some of these major news sources to decide<04:13:53.920><c> when</c><04:13:54.239><c> they
• You're the news source.
• You're the news source.

Bills: HB4758

Keywords: home electrification, taxpayer subsidies, energy efficiency, rebate programs, public law repeal

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> us whole and finding Revenue sources us whole and finding Revenue sources that<01:04:51.079><c>
• concerns because we are but I have major concerns because we are still<01:09:58.159><c> going</c><01
• of funding and of course it had a source of funding and of course it then<01:19:05.560><c> it</c><01
• that were not uh dedicated to sources that were not uh dedicated to the<01:19:10.760><c> highway</c>
• highways that run through my three major highways that run through my district<01:21:30.600><c> that

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• A majority of those, nearly 30% of those folks, are vulnerable users.
• So it's diversifying water sources, modernizing infrastructure.
• And so major progress being made in this effort.
• This is an area of really major progress in the last several years.
• And then that's the funding source.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it was certainly a lesson in how to cobble together money from different sources.
• If you've been following the news, you know that in August 2022 there was a major harmful algal bloom
• And then we need to make sure that we have a reliable source of clean energy for that.
• And then finally, pollutant source control.
• So we like to believe that we have reliable sources of imported water that come in from the Sierras.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology and Medical Technology held an informational hearing on the role of biotechnology industries in wastewater treatment, hosted at Bakar Labs on the UC Berkeley campus. Opening remarks emphasized California’s water scarcity, the rising cost of wastewater infrastructure, and the need to reuse and clean contaminated water. Committee members framed the hearing as a look at both current treatment challenges and emerging technologies that could improve water quality, affordability, and resilience over time. The first panel focused on statewide wastewater challenges. BACWA Executive Director Laurie Fono described wastewater plants as part of a broader circular economy, noting their roles in recycled water, environmental enhancement, biosolids management, carbon sequestration, and renewable energy generation. She highlighted major challenges including aging 1970s-era infrastructure, nutrient reduction mandates, sea level rise, evolving regulations, and PFAS source control. She said Bay Area agencies face about $11 billion in nutrient reduction costs, with rate increases, state revolving funds, WIFIA loans, and bonds as the main financing tools. Members asked about regional differences, energy revenue opportunities, smaller decentralized plants, and agricultural collaboration. The second panel featured researchers and lab experts discussing biotechnology solutions. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s Dr. Romine Chakarvati described using microbial communities and machine learning to help break down PFAS and treat produced water. CEL Analytical’s Dr. Yigi Dearborn explained pathogen testing for direct potable reuse, wastewater monitoring, and the need for larger sample volumes and more funding to validate methods for viruses and protozoa. Stanford’s Dr. Chunhung-Shin presented an anaerobic membrane system that turns domestic wastewater into clean water and energy with less biosolids and lower operating costs. Committee members asked about AI, assay development, scaling technologies, and funding priorities. Public comment from the California Association of Sanitation Agencies stressed the need to balance scalability, reliability, and affordability, and the hearing adjourned without any formal vote or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• The majority having voted in favor, Senate Bill 1430 passes the House. Correct your title?
• Majority having voted in favor, Senate Bill 1359 is amended.
• And I need a majority leader. Come on, Blondie.
• The majority having voted in favor of Senate Bill 1410, Senate Bill 1410 has passed the House.
• So those are the two fund sources that we actually used to bring this back up.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are the source of unhealthy air.
• Now over a quarter of our transportation fuels come from alternative fuel sources.
• We've removed that source.
• So there are provisions within our program that address kind of the source.
• So what you see here is a summary of the major takeaways in the report.

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and policy considerations surrounding refinery closures. Chair Blakespear framed the hearing as part of California’s broader transition away from fossil fuels, emphasizing the need for proactive planning so communities, workers, and local governments are not caught off guard. Vice Chair Gunda argued that the state has long signaled a future away from oil, while also warning that closures can create supply instability, higher prices, and infrastructure stress if not managed carefully. Senators also raised concerns about consumer costs, supply reliability, the role of imports, and whether California’s climate policies are contributing to refinery disinvestment. The first panel included the California Energy Commission, CARB, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Gunda described California as being in a “mid-transition,” with gasoline demand gradually declining, zero-emission vehicle adoption rising, and refinery capacity shrinking through both conversions to renewable fuels and outright closures. He said the state needs a coordinated strategy that balances near-term supply stability with long-term decarbonization, and noted that refinery closures can shift liabilities onto pipelines, terminals, and potentially the state. CARB’s Matthew Boutill said the agency’s focus is reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, and that state policies are already driving billions in annual investment in alternative fuels, EV infrastructure, and refinery conversions. Water Board representative Annalisa Kihara explained the cleanup authorities used at refinery sites, including investigation, remediation, and enforcement tools, and said decommissioning often reveals previously inaccessible contamination and may require new monitoring wells and additional site assessment. Committee members pressed the panel on whether the state has enough information to plan for land reuse and cleanup costs, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more legislative direction is needed. Gunda said there are still gaps in information and transparency, especially around liability and long-term community planning. Kihara said the Water Boards can require more data, cleanup, and timelines, but that refinery remediation is highly site-specific and can take tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Senators Menjivar, Stern, and Hurtado questioned demand trends, the pace of refinery closures versus demand decline, the role of imports and the Jones Act, and whether California should consider options such as state ownership or broader ecosystem planning. The panel generally agreed that closures are likely to continue and that the state should plan proactively rather than reactively. A second panel presented recent research on refinery closures. Emily Grubert said closure costs and remediation obligations are often underestimated and that California should better define end-of-life obligations and financial assurance requirements. Tham Herschbach outlined five drivers of refinery closures: declining California crude production, falling in-state gasoline demand, the shift toward renewable diesel and other alternative fuels, global refinery consolidation, and the growing availability of imported gasoline. Anne Alexander focused on community impacts, using the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure as a case study, and said refinery sites are often heavily contaminated, cleanup can take a decade or more, and communities are often left without clear information because refineries have little end-of-life planning or financial assurance requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their sole source of money is property taxes, and it will be very difficult to replace that source.
• Their sole source of money is property taxes, and it will be very difficult to replace that source.
• If you reduce a major funding source, what are the real implications? I'm going to say that again.
• When you reduce a major funding source, what are the real implications for the people of the state?
• Congress and the first woman to run for a major political party.

Summary: The House met in special session, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and adopted the special order report setting the day’s calendar. The chamber then took up CS/House Joint Resolution 1F, the Governor’s property tax proposal, which would raise the homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and restrict county and municipal ad valorem revenue to public safety and certain other uses. Sponsor Rep. Overdorf said the measure would return money to homeowners and give local governments flexibility, while opponents repeatedly argued the ballot language was misleading and that the proposal could create large local revenue shortfalls, shift costs to other taxpayers, and threaten local services and debt obligations. Members debated a series of amendments aimed at protecting specific programs from the bill’s effects. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to exempt Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was defeated 25-74 after supporters said those entities fund child care, mental health, aftercare, and family support, while opponents said local governments could still choose to fund them. Rep. Cross’s amendment to include water management districts in allowable uses of ad valorem taxes was also defeated, despite testimony that the districts are essential for flood control, water supply, Everglades restoration, and drought response. Rep. Eskamani’s amendment to require the Legislature to backfill public safety funding failed 25-71 after debate over whether the proposal could reduce police and fire budgets and response times. The House then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other aging services, and opponents saying the state already funds senior programs. Finally, Rep. Gant’s amendment to protect veteran services was introduced and debated, with members emphasizing housing, mental health, transition assistance, and homelessness concerns for veterans; the transcript cuts off before the vote on that amendment. Throughout the debate, sponsors and supporters of the main resolution maintained that local governments would retain spending discretion and could use other revenue sources, while critics argued the measure lacked clear backfill provisions and could force cuts or tax shifts at the local level.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then a little terminology about our fund sources. Thank you.
• and 3% or less of spending from all fund sources.
• Is that source, funding source, through academic division of academic facilities and transportation?
• Is that source, funding source, through academic division of academic facilities and transportation?
• which fund sources and revenues are making up expenditures.

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Corporate structure probably not good for our major infrastructure.
• Correct. >> For the majority of the issues. Yes.
• What I work on as a majority is the technical risk of these components, Again, what I work on as a majority
• And Texas, the big electric grid as the primary source.
• So open source information.

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce convened to discuss critical infrastructure and supply chain integrity, particularly focusing on Texas's power grid and associated vulnerabilities. The meeting highlighted Texas's recent ranking as 10th in electricity affordability, emphasizing the state's commitment to maintaining a reliable and resilient electric grid. New committee members introduced themselves, and the agenda included testimony from ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission regarding the implementation of the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act, which aims to mitigate risks posed by foreign entities to the power grid. Chad Sealy from ERCOT presented updates on the attestation process for market participants, revealing that over 1,500 entities had submitted attestations regarding their corporate structures and affiliations with designated foreign countries. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the current vetting process, particularly regarding indirect relationships with foreign adversaries. Testimonies from the PUC and the Attorney General's office underscored the challenges of enforcing compliance and the need for improved legislative measures to enhance oversight and security. The committee also heard from experts, including Dr. Emma Stewart from Idaho National Laboratory, who discussed the evolving threats to the grid from foreign adversaries and the importance of securing communication systems. Recommendations included prioritizing inspections of critical components and enhancing collaboration with national laboratories to address vulnerabilities. The discussion concluded with an acknowledgment of the balance needed between ensuring grid security and maintaining affordability for consumers.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of them is water source.
• Funding for the program comes from several different sources.
• BNSF Railway, major interstate commerce, is inundated.
• Most of the raises are six to nine inches, nothing major.
• Third Street in Mandan is a major south part of the town corridor.

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, the RDA is a tax on a carbon-free, 24/7 reliable source of electricity.
• </c><00:24:22.600><c> of</c> carbon free 247 reliable source of carbon free 247 reliable source of electricity
• And it’s our number two source right now, 25%.
• And if there is, in fact, a totally carbon-free source of electricity...”
• </c><00:52:00.119><c> be</c> these these uh electricity sources be these these uh electricity sources

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Source that we want to share together.
• The Mesonets feed the data; they're the input source.
• Ones that have great revenue sources and so forth invest.
• It's looking at a variety of different sources and potential projects for developing. ...sources of supply
• Not having a revenue source to do it?

Committee: House Disaster Preparedness & Flooding, Select

Transcript Highlights:

• Source of funds. One 2,300,2,300,000. Source of funds. One 2,300,2,300,000. Source of funds.
• Source of funds 1,518,639. Source of funds 1,518,639.
• Source of funds. industries program. Source of funds. industries program. Source of funds.
• Source of funds. One, state program. Source of funds. One, state program. Source of funds.
• Source of quarter of the fiscal year. Source of quarter of the fiscal year. Source of funds.

Bills: SJR 59 , SCR 30 , SCR 46 , SB 31 , SB 127 , SB 324 , SB 401 , SB 407 , SB 467 , SB 482 , SB 506 , SB 529 , SB 584 , SB 619 , SB 636 , SB 646 , SB 647 , SB 659 , SB 715 , SB 732 , SB 735 , SB 771 , SB 784 , SB 800 , SB 801 , SB 816 , SB 1013 , SB 1026 , SB 1049 , SB 1055 , SB 1065 , SB 1137 , SB 1169 , SB 1181 , SB 1383 , SB 1395 , SB 1410 , SB 1433 , SB 1524 , SB 1531 , SB 1568 , SB 1640 , SB 1666 , SB 1681 , SB 1718 , SB 1754 , SB 1757 , SB 1972 , SB 1980 , SB 2004 , SB 2007 , SB 2041 , SB 2046 , SB 2050 , SB 2075 , SB 2076 , SB 2154 , SB 2173 , SB 2206 , SB 2225 , SB 2253 , SB 2268 , SB 2306 , SB 2308 , SB 2314 , SB 2322 , SB 2330 , SB 2351 , SB 2366 , SB 2371 , SB 2392 , SB 2398 , SB 2476 , SB 2533 , SB 2540 , SB 2544 , SB 2589 , SB 2610 , SB 2623 , SB 2660 , SB 2662 , SB 2693 , SB 2707 , SB 2717 , SB 2722 , SB 2742 , SB 2753 , SB 2779 , SB 2807 , SB 2843 , SB 2844 , SB 2858 , SB 2877 , SB 2880 , SB 2885 , SB 2920 , SB 2938 , SB 2986 , HJR 4 , HCR 35 , SJR 3 , SJR 18 , SB 5 , SB 260 , SB 1786 , SB 914 , SB 963 , SB 1197 , SB 1415 , SB 1437 , SJR 36 , SJR 50 , SJR 63 , SJR 84 , SJR 59 , SCR 12 , SCR 39 , SCR 46 , SCR 48 , SCR 19 , SCR 30 , SCR 3 , SB 2023 , SB 1433 , SB 2322 , SB 2877 , SB 407 , SB 1718 , SB 1395 , SB 62 , SB 666 , SB 847 , SB 284 , SB 854 , SB 1073 , SB 810 , SB 1505 , SB 583 , SB 1502 , SB 507 , SB 1026 , SB 1434 , SB 1376 , SB 1585 , SB 1772 , SB 2016 , SB 1163 , SB 619 , SB 1122 , SB 732 , SB 731 , SB 397 , SB 508 , SB 1436 , SB 287 , SB 261 , SB 1882 , SB 393 , SB 1791 , SB 529 , SB 209 , SB 2429 , SB 1999 , SB 511 , SB 2309 , SB 510 , SB 2253 , SB 584 , SB 1085 , SB 2314 , SB 2046 , SB 1975 , SB 2717 , SB 1262 , SB 1524 , SB 1137 , SB 636 , SB 2056 , SB 884 , SB 517 , SB 1200 , SB 1410 , SB 1845 , SB 1863 , SB 2681 , SB 2200 , SB 2199 , SB 1757 , SB 2050 , SB 2458 , SB 2201 , SB 1055 , SB 2660 , SB 2662 , SB 1065 , SB 801 , SB 2533 , SB 3014 , SB 3013 , SB 758 , SB 647 , SB 1721 , SB 2268 , SB 2366 , SB 1013 , SB 2797 , SB 2371 , SB 2383 , SB 646 , SB 1169 , SB 1754 , SB 2779 , SB 2004 , SB 2119 , SB 2448 , SB 1777 , SB 1283 , SB 2392 , SB 2076 , SB 2786 , SB 2876 , SB 2284 , SB 2225 , SB 1540 , SB 2920 , SB 2929 , SB 1972 , SB 2540 , SB 2742 , SB 2595 , SB 2217 , SB 715 , SB 2330 , SB 1383 , SB 500 , SB 1640 , SB 2001 , SB 2080 , SB 2722 , SB 506 , SB 2514 , SB 2623 , SB 2753 , SB 2398 , SB 1241 , SB 2927 , SB 2173 , SB 2538 , SB 898 , SB 467 , SB 1449 , SB 2529 , SB 1531 , SB 2846 , SB 2476 , SB 986 , SB 1181 , SB 2075 , SB 2154 , SB 2864 , SB 31 , SB 2880 , SB 1359 , SB 2386 , SB 771 , SB 2844 , SB 2550 , SB 1351 , SB 1423 , SB 1931 , SB 2245 , SB 2589 , SB 2707 , SB 2807 , SB 2351 , SB 410 , SB 659 , SB 816 , SB 2776 , SB 2693 , SB 2580 , SB 1980 , SB 1886 , SB 1234 , SB 739 , SB 482 , SB 456 , SB 127 , SB 1666 , SB 2843 , SB 2801 , SB 800 , SB 2055 , SB 784 , SB 2986 , SB 735 , SB 1012 , SB 324 , SB 2926 , SB 2938 , SB 2007 , SB 2138 , SB 1242 , SB 2615 , SB 1049 , SB 2310 , SB 1224 , SB 2972 , SB 1568 , SB 2841 , SB 2885 , SB 3016 , SB 2858 , SB 2610 , SB 2139 , SB 1856 , SB 2035 , SB 2308 , SB 2306 , SB 2041 , SB 1528 , SB 1681 , SB 1141 , SB 2401 , SB 2530 , SB 2375 , SB 547 , SB 1266 , SB 1373 , SB 1467 , SB 2069 , SB 2269 , SB 2480 , SB 2544 , SB 672 , SB 904 , SB 2695 , SB 2891 , SB 2422 , SB 2543 , SB 1854 , SB 317 , SB 2539 , SB 2532 , SB 2925 , SB 1250 , SB 2082 , SB 2203 , SB 457 , SB 2357 , HJR 4 , HB 135 , HB 1109 , HCR 35 , HCR 64 , SB 2721 , SB 243 , SB 1285 , SB 2568 , SB 1959 , SB 1442 , SB 1454 , SB 2520 , SB 2541 , SB 1708 , SB 1237 , SB 1844 , SB 1586 , SB 1 , SB 260 , SB 31 , SB 467 , SB 482 , SB 647 , SB 732 , SB 816 , SB 1055 , SB 1137 , SB 1169 , SB 2004 , SB 2253 , SB 2268 , SB 2314 , SB 2351 , SB 2371 , SB 2623 , SB 2722 , SB 2779 , SB 2920 , HJR 4 , SB 407 , SB 1395 , SB 1433 , SB 1718 , SB 2322 , SB 2877 , SB 619 , SB 646 , SB 1026 , SB 2742 , SB 2880 , SR 443 , SR 449 , SR 456 , SR 460 , SR 465 , SCR 46 , SB 260 , SB 3062 , HJR 8 , HJR 31 , HJR 72 , HJR 99 , HJR 133 , HB 29 , HB 33 , HB 50 , HB 107 , HB 116 , HB 125 , HB 140 , HB 141 , HB 155 , HB 171 , HB 227 , HB 255 , HB 363 , HB 368 , HB 491 , HB 609 , HB 630 , HB 745 , HB 767 , HB 913 , HB 917 , HB 1135 , HB 1188 , HB 1238 , HB 1242 , HB 1261 , HB 1318 , HB 1404 , HB 1495 , HB 1507 , HB 1606 , HB 1708 , HB 1748 , HB 1851 , HB 1922 , HB 2002 , HB 2003 , HB 2198 , HB 2355 , HB 2358 , HB 2415 , HB 2457 , HB 2495 , HB 2546 , HB 2637 , HB 2763 , HB 2765 , HB 2798 , HB 2818 , HB 3228 , HB 3307 , HB 4116 , HCR 29 , SB 1410 , SB 3062 , HJR 8 , HJR 31 , HJR 72 , HJR 99 , HJR 133 , HB 29 , HB 33 , HB 50 , HB 107 , HB 116 , HB 125 , HB 140 , HB 141 , HB 155 , HB 171 , HB 227 , HB 255 , HB 363 , HB 368 , HB 491 , HB 609 , HB 630 , HB 745 , HB 767 , HB 913 , HB 917 , HB 1135 , HB 1188 , HB 1238 , HB 1242 , HB 1261 , HB 1318 , HB 1404 , HB 1495 , HB 1507 , HB 1606 , HB 1708 , HB 1748 , HB 1851 , HB 1922 , HB 2002 , HB 2003 , HB 2198 , HB 2355 , HB 2358 , HB 2415 , HB 2457 , HB 2495 , HB 2546 , HB 2637 , HB 2763 , HB 2765 , HB 2798 , HB 2818 , HB 3228 , HB 3307 , HB 4116 , HCR 29 , SB 1410

Transcript Highlights:

• Source of funds. One 2,300,2,300,000. Source of funds. One 2,300,2,300,000. Source of funds.
• Source of funds 1,518,639. Source of funds 1,518,639.
• Source of funds. industries program. Source of funds. industries program. Source of funds.
• Source of funds. One, state program. Source of funds. One, state program. Source of funds.
• Source of quarter of the fiscal year. Source of quarter of the fiscal year. Source of funds.

Bills: SJR 59 , SCR 30 , SCR 46 , SB 31 , SB 127 , SB 324 , SB 401 , SB 407 , SB 467 , SB 482 , SB 506 , SB 529 , SB 584 , SB 619 , SB 636 , SB 646 , SB 647 , SB 659 , SB 715 , SB 732 , SB 735 , SB 771 , SB 784 , SB 800 , SB 801 , SB 816 , SB 1013 , SB 1026 , SB 1049 , SB 1055 , SB 1065 , SB 1137 , SB 1169 , SB 1181 , SB 1383 , SB 1395 , SB 1410 , SB 1433 , SB 1524 , SB 1531 , SB 1568 , SB 1640 , SB 1666 , SB 1681 , SB 1718 , SB 1754 , SB 1757 , SB 1972 , SB 1980 , SB 2004 , SB 2007 , SB 2041 , SB 2046 , SB 2050 , SB 2075 , SB 2076 , SB 2154 , SB 2173 , SB 2206 , SB 2225 , SB 2253 , SB 2268 , SB 2306 , SB 2308 , SB 2314 , SB 2322 , SB 2330 , SB 2351 , SB 2366 , SB 2371 , SB 2392 , SB 2398 , SB 2476 , SB 2533 , SB 2540 , SB 2544 , SB 2589 , SB 2610 , SB 2623 , SB 2660 , SB 2662 , SB 2693 , SB 2707 , SB 2717 , SB 2722 , SB 2742 , SB 2753 , SB 2779 , SB 2807 , SB 2843 , SB 2844 , SB 2858 , SB 2877 , SB 2880 , SB 2885 , SB 2920 , SB 2938 , SB 2986 , HJR 4 , HCR 35 , SJR 3 , SJR 18 , SB 5 , SB 260 , SB 1786 , SB 914 , SB 963 , SB 1197 , SB 1415 , SB 1437 , SJR 36 , SJR 50 , SJR 63 , SJR 84 , SJR 59 , SCR 12 , SCR 39 , SCR 46 , SCR 48 , SCR 19 , SCR 30 , SCR 3 , SB 2023 , SB 1433 , SB 2322 , SB 2877 , SB 407 , SB 1718 , SB 1395 , SB 62 , SB 666 , SB 847 , SB 284 , SB 854 , SB 1073 , SB 810 , SB 1505 , SB 583 , SB 1502 , SB 507 , SB 1026 , SB 1434 , SB 1376 , SB 1585 , SB 1772 , SB 2016 , SB 1163 , SB 619 , SB 1122 , SB 732 , SB 731 , SB 397 , SB 508 , SB 1436 , SB 287 , SB 261 , SB 1882 , SB 393 , SB 1791 , SB 529 , SB 209 , SB 2429 , SB 1999 , SB 511 , SB 2309 , SB 510 , SB 2253 , SB 584 , SB 1085 , SB 2314 , SB 2046 , SB 1975 , SB 2717 , SB 1262 , SB 1524 , SB 1137 , SB 636 , SB 2056 , SB 884 , SB 517 , SB 1200 , SB 1410 , SB 1845 , SB 1863 , SB 2681 , SB 2200 , SB 2199 , SB 1757 , SB 2050 , SB 2458 , SB 2201 , SB 1055 , SB 2660 , SB 2662 , SB 1065 , SB 801 , SB 2533 , SB 3014 , SB 3013 , SB 758 , SB 647 , SB 1721 , SB 2268 , SB 2366 , SB 1013 , SB 2797 , SB 2371 , SB 2383 , SB 646 , SB 1169 , SB 1754 , SB 2779 , SB 2004 , SB 2119 , SB 2448 , SB 1777 , SB 1283 , SB 2392 , SB 2076 , SB 2786 , SB 2876 , SB 2284 , SB 2225 , SB 1540 , SB 2920 , SB 2929 , SB 1972 , SB 2540 , SB 2742 , SB 2595 , SB 2217 , SB 715 , SB 2330 , SB 1383 , SB 500 , SB 1640 , SB 2001 , SB 2080 , SB 2722 , SB 506 , SB 2514 , SB 2623 , SB 2753 , SB 2398 , SB 1241 , SB 2927 , SB 2173 , SB 2538 , SB 898 , SB 467 , SB 1449 , SB 2529 , SB 1531 , SB 2846 , SB 2476 , SB 986 , SB 1181 , SB 2075 , SB 2154 , SB 2864 , SB 31 , SB 2880 , SB 1359 , SB 2386 , SB 771 , SB 2844 , SB 2550 , SB 1351 , SB 1423 , SB 1931 , SB 2245 , SB 2589 , SB 2707 , SB 2807 , SB 2351 , SB 410 , SB 659 , SB 816 , SB 2776 , SB 2693 , SB 2580 , SB 1980 , SB 1886 , SB 1234 , SB 739 , SB 482 , SB 456 , SB 127 , SB 1666 , SB 2843 , SB 2801 , SB 800 , SB 2055 , SB 784 , SB 2986 , SB 735 , SB 1012 , SB 324 , SB 2926 , SB 2938 , SB 2007 , SB 2138 , SB 1242 , SB 2615 , SB 1049 , SB 2310 , SB 1224 , SB 2972 , SB 1568 , SB 2841 , SB 2885 , SB 3016 , SB 2858 , SB 2610 , SB 2139 , SB 1856 , SB 2035 , SB 2308 , SB 2306 , SB 2041 , SB 1528 , SB 1681 , SB 1141 , SB 2401 , SB 2530 , SB 2375 , SB 547 , SB 1266 , SB 1373 , SB 1467 , SB 2069 , SB 2269 , SB 2480 , SB 2544 , SB 672 , SB 904 , SB 2695 , SB 2891 , SB 2422 , SB 2543 , SB 1854 , SB 317 , SB 2539 , SB 2532 , SB 2925 , SB 1250 , SB 2082 , SB 2203 , SB 457 , SB 2357 , HJR 4 , HB 135 , HB 1109 , HCR 35 , HCR 64 , SB 2721 , SB 243 , SB 1285 , SB 2568 , SB 1959 , SB 1442 , SB 1454 , SB 2520 , SB 2541 , SB 1708 , SB 1237 , SB 1844 , SB 1586 , SB 1 , SB 260 , SB 31 , SB 467 , SB 482 , SB 647 , SB 732 , SB 816 , SB 1055 , SB 1137 , SB 1169 , SB 2004 , SB 2253 , SB 2268 , SB 2314 , SB 2351 , SB 2371 , SB 2623 , SB 2722 , SB 2779 , SB 2920 , HJR 4 , SB 407 , SB 1395 , SB 1433 , SB 1718 , SB 2322 , SB 2877 , SB 619 , SB 646 , SB 1026 , SB 2742 , SB 2880 , SR 443 , SR 449 , SR 456 , SR 460 , SR 465 , SCR 46 , SB 260 , SB 3062 , HJR 8 , HJR 31 , HJR 72 , HJR 99 , HJR 133 , HB 29 , HB 33 , HB 50 , HB 107 , HB 116 , HB 125 , HB 140 , HB 141 , HB 155 , HB 171 , HB 227 , HB 255 , HB 363 , HB 368 , HB 491 , HB 609 , HB 630 , HB 745 , HB 767 , HB 913 , HB 917 , HB 1135 , HB 1188 , HB 1238 , HB 1242 , HB 1261 , HB 1318 , HB 1404 , HB 1495 , HB 1507 , HB 1606 , HB 1708 , HB 1748 , HB 1851 , HB 1922 , HB 2002 , HB 2003 , HB 2198 , HB 2355 , HB 2358 , HB 2415 , HB 2457 , HB 2495 , HB 2546 , HB 2637 , HB 2763 , HB 2765 , HB 2798 , HB 2818 , HB 3228 , HB 3307 , HB 4116 , HCR 29 , SB 1410 , SB 3062 , HJR 8 , HJR 31 , HJR 72 , HJR 99 , HJR 133 , HB 29 , HB 33 , HB 50 , HB 107 , HB 116 , HB 125 , HB 140 , HB 141 , HB 155 , HB 171 , HB 227 , HB 255 , HB 363 , HB 368 , HB 491 , HB 609 , HB 630 , HB 745 , HB 767 , HB 913 , HB 917 , HB 1135 , HB 1188 , HB 1238 , HB 1242 , HB 1261 , HB 1318 , HB 1404 , HB 1495 , HB 1507 , HB 1606 , HB 1708 , HB 1748 , HB 1851 , HB 1922 , HB 2002 , HB 2003 , HB 2198 , HB 2355 , HB 2358 , HB 2415 , HB 2457 , HB 2495 , HB 2546 , HB 2637 , HB 2763 , HB 2765 , HB 2798 , HB 2818 , HB 3228 , HB 3307 , HB 4116 , HCR 29 , SB 1410