Video & Transcript Research : 'revenue commitment'

Page 24 of 500
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Senate Session (Part II) May 6th, 2025

Texas Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • where we have an increment rate that can be used for basically tax rate increases above the no new revenue
  • A concern arose that some of the language of the bill might have affected a Texan who was earning revenue
  • Final passage, committed substitute senate bill 2753, Mr. President. Mr.
Bills: SB66, SB317, SB393, SB397, SB456, SB614, SB628, SB629, SB636, SB715, SB731, SB801, SB872, SB905, SB986, SB1012, SB1013, SB1015, SB1032, SB1113, SB1181, SB1212, SB1241, SB1250, SB1278, SB1285, SB1376, SB1444, SB1449, SB1524, SB1525, SB1528, SB1556, SB1588, SB1660, SB1704, SB1708, SB1802, SB1833, SB1844, SB1854, SB1863, SB1957, SB1959, SB1965, SB1999, SB2035, SB2056, SB2082, SB2119, SB2138, SB2165, SB2199, SB2201, SB2203, SB2245, SB2284, SB2419, SB2422, SB2452, SB2487, SB2523, SB2529, SB2533, SB2541, SB2586, SB2595, SB2605, SB2615, SB2675, SB2690, SB2717, SB2753, SB2778, SB2835, SB2841, SB2891, SB2929, SB2933, SB3016, SB3039, SB3044, HB912, HB2525, SJR3, SB5, SB29, SB326, SB494, SB530, SB769, SB783, SB963, SB1238, SB1271, SB1786, SB1967, SB2312, SB72, SB616, SB1143, SB1172, SB1267, SB1273, SB1506, SB1759, SB2361, SB1, SB260, SB1637, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR48, SCR19, SB2023, SB1524, SB2422, SB2119, SB2753, SB1863, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1376, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1845, SB2681, SB2199, SB2458, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB1013, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB2284, SB2929, SB2595, SB715, SB1640, SB1241, SB2538, SB1449, SB2529, SB986, SB1181, SB1359, SB2245, SB410, SB1234, SB456, SB1012, SB2926, SB2138, SB2615, SB2972, SB2841, SB3016, SB1856, SB2035, SB1528, SB1373, SB672, SB2891, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB1285, SB1959, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, SB3039, SB2819, SB66, SB629, SB1015, SB2342, SB2903, SB2933, SB1965, SB2477, SB3029, SB2605, SB2419, SB1957, SB375, SB250, SB777, SB628, SB2523, SB2367, SB2703, SB2608, SB2778, SB3044, SB2965, SB2521, SB865, SB1032, SB2165, SB2501, SB2675, SB2452, SB2835, SB872, SB1212, SB1278, SB1588, SB1602, SB1704, SB1723, SB1833, SB1858, SB1946, SB2009, SB2177, SB2460, SB2785, SB2373, SB1660, SB614, SB867, SB1608, SB1525, SB905, SB640, SB2487, SB1698, SB383, SB705, SB748, SB1113, SB1117, SB1802, SB2340, SB2586, SB2680, SB2690, SB2994, SB2747, SB1950, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB3059, SB2782, SB2781, SB2637, SB2633, SB2337, SB2334, SB1861, SB2043, SB1367, SB946, SB945, SB2857, SB128, SB571, SB1263, SB3058, SB612, SB2221, SB2587, SB2044, SB2363, SB2713, HB1109, HB1392, HB22, HB2525, HB3093, HB517, HB912, HB1130, HB142, HB1689, HB2018, SB2311, SB1986, SB2565, SB2943, SB1888, SB2417, SB3048, SB3052, SB3053, SB3036, SB3057, SB3056, SB3043, SB3037, SB3050, SB3063, SB3047, SB3035, HJR98, HJR99, HB136, HB2884, HB1393, HB2730, HB1399, HB1244, HB467, HB331, HB2559
HI
Transcript Highlights:
  • So, projects that commit to longer periods get more points than projects that commit to a shorter period
  • <00:09:59.880> So, vary on length of of commitment. So, vary on length of of commitment.
  • > to<00:10:01.360> longer projects that that commit to longer projects that that commit
  • Okay, and that in order to create more revenue? Workforce rental projects.
  • that are needed, getting commitments that are needed, getting commitments from<00:24:42.480>
Summary: The House Housing Committee opened its Friday morning hearing by noting potentially catastrophic flooding on the island and acknowledging that some members were absent helping their communities, so quorum for voting was uncertain. The committee then heard testimony on several housing-related measures, with most bills drawing support from housing agencies and community organizations and little or no opposition in the room. On SB 2069 SD2, SB 2177 SD2, and SB 2342 SD2, witnesses largely supported the measures. HHFDC supported SB 2069 and SB 2177, and HPHA supported SB 2342. For SB 2342, HHFDC raised concerns that the bill would alter the Qualified Allocation Plan outside the normal open, public process required by federal law and could exclude stakeholders; Kathy Charities echoed those concerns and also objected to changing point allocations in ways that could raise rents and weaken long-term affordability. Members questioned HHFDC about how the QAP is normally updated, the meaning of the point system, and whether a legislative working group could mandate changes; HHFDC said recommendations would still need public hearing and board approval. The committee also heard SB 2060 SD2, which would create a mixed-income subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund. HHFDC said the subaccount would likely use tier-two funds, estimated at about $100 million total, to support mixed-income projects above 60% AMI, citing Front Street Apartments as a possible example. Members asked about project selection and funding needs. On SB 2544 SD2, OHA opposed the bill’s Chapter 6E-related exemptions and mandatory review timelines, arguing that burial review protections should not be weakened and that the SPEED Task Force process was a better venue for streamlining. The sponsor later clarified that the bill was not meant to eliminate the 60-day review process but to make the deadline clearer. For SB 3011 SD1, which concerns public housing and pet ownership, HPHA and several humane organizations supported the measure, saying it would help low-income residents and seniors keep pets and benefit from animal companionship. HPHA explained its existing pet policy, including deposits, monthly fees, and restrictions, and said the requested funding would support ADA-accessible pet areas and related administration. Finally, on SB 2061 SD2, HCDA supported the bill while OHA opposed it unless protections for Hawaiian Crown and Government lands were strengthened. Committee members questioned the project’s 60/40 split between income-restricted and market-rate units, the 10-year owner-occupancy restriction, and the procurement exemption; the sponsor said the exemption was tied to a real estate transaction and that the project would still use 103D-like solicitation procedures. No votes were taken during the hearing, and several items were left for later action because quorum was uncertain.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
  • number of projects did commit to that. number of projects did commit to that.
  • <01:46:14.639> to know they may not be committing to know they may not be committing to perpetual
  • <01:46:19.440> to private projects that did commit to private projects that did commit to
  • that did commit to perpetual affordability?
  • $5 billion HUD multif family revenue $5 billion HUD multif family revenue bond<02:38:10.560>
Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Local Government (Part II) May 26th, 2025

Local Government

Summary: The Senate Local Government Committee briefly convened and then immediately moved to recess. Senator Paxton made a motion to recess subject to the call of the chair, which was accepted. No bills, testimony, or substantive policy issues were discussed during the meeting. With no other business before the committee, it stood in recess subject to the call of the chair.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Local Government (Part I) May 26th, 2025

Local Government

Transcript Highlights:
  • In this case, there's a revenue stream, but it's not property taxes.
  • They securitize the revenue from the meters, from the water systems they put in.
  • And so the TCEQ process is geared more for taxing revenue bonds like property taxes.
  • The revenue securitization piece of that is where SUDs will get a different look.
  • Instead, it would have the ability to issue bonds secured by district revenue.
Summary: The committee heard and discussed several local-government-related bills, mostly with committee substitutes. House Bill 2731 would let certain border counties regulate roadside vendors selling live animals in unincorporated areas and along public rights-of-way; the substitute narrowed the bill to live animal sales only and excluded livestock and other roadside commerce. House Bill 3483 would streamline TCEQ review of special utility district revenue bonds by removing tax-bond requirements that do not apply to SUDs. House Bill 4308 would create a county industrial development district framework, limited in the substitute to certain counties including Fort Bend County, to help finance industrial sites and related infrastructure. House Bill 5663 would create a Wood County Hospital District memory-care-focused district with no taxing power, intended to help pursue grants and other funding for a new facility. House Bill 4582 addressed attainable housing in Dallas and Tarrant counties, allowing local reimbursement tools for developers under a uniform, optional framework. House Bill 5509 would let municipalities suspend or revoke a hotel’s certificate of occupancy if law enforcement and a criminal court both find probable cause of human trafficking, with the substitute adding due-process protections. House Bill 1532 created a Lake Houston dredging and maintenance district funded by revenue from dredged material sales and revenue bonds, with no taxing authority or eminent domain. House Bill 23, heard as pending business, would revise the process for local governments to rescind development documents and adjust third-party reviewer liability and eligibility rules. House Bill 4580, concerning property tax exemptions for charitable organizations such as the Houston Rodeo, was amended to remove language about exempting revenue from property use and instead focus on land used for agricultural, youth, and educational support. Public testimony was generally supportive on the bills heard, with witnesses including county officials, utility and water association representatives, hotel industry representatives, and housing developers. Several speakers emphasized the need for faster financing or permitting tools, flood mitigation, housing affordability, anti-trafficking enforcement, or local economic development. Some members raised concerns about scope, precedent, consultation with affected senators, and due process, particularly on House Bill 4582 and House Bill 5509, but the committee largely accepted the committee substitutes as improvements. No public testimony was offered on several bills, and most measures were left pending before later being voted out. The committee took recorded votes on multiple pending bills and reported them favorably, often with committee substitutes adopted in lieu of the filed versions. House Bills 1532, 2731, 3483, 5509, 5663, and 4580 were reported out, with 1532 and 5663 passing unanimously and 3483, 2731, and 5509 also receiving favorable votes despite one present-not-voting on 3483. House Bill 23 and House Bill 4582 were left pending subject to call of the chair. The committee then recessed until adjournment or later.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Transportation Apr 29th, 2025

Transportation

Transcript Highlights:
  • Another $2 goes to emergency, uh, medical services, and $1 goes to general revenue.
  • Because 469 House Bill 469 as drafted risks extending authority to agencies that may prioritize revenue
  • OK, so, well, I, I also, um, took notes of the comments of revenue versus safety.
  • And defining that agency as a revenue generating agency, I don't know if I necessarily get that either
  • We're a nonprofit of over 300 members who are committed to the advocacy of creation and preservation
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs Apr 7th, 2025

Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • Their revenue bonds, and if the revenues decrease, then they've got a problem.
  • The developer client needs a commitment for water where they can deliver lots to home builders.
  • A guarantee on return on investment with revenue from new customers.
  • go up, but your revenue is fixed.
  • bonds that require revenue to pay them.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs Apr 7th, 2025

Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • And if the revenues decrease, then they've got a problem. So that's where.
  • The developer client needs a commitment for water so they can deliver lots to home builders.
  • The developer client needs a commitment for water so they can deliver lots to home builders.
  • What is your projection of your future revenue, and how are you going to pay this back?
  • Costs go up, but your revenue is fixed. It's also... Costs go up, but your revenue is fixed.
Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs heard several water-related bills, with testimony focused on drinking water quality, groundwater contamination notice, flood infrastructure funding, water rights conservation, and utility service areas. SB 1662 would limit TCEQ’s advance notice to public water systems to no more than 24 hours before testing after a consumer complaint, to reduce the chance of temporary treatment affecting results. SB 1663 would allow TCEQ to notify private well owners, groundwater conservation districts, and nearby residents by direct means about known groundwater contamination, rather than relying mainly on first-class mail and annual reporting. SB 2124 would move the deadline for publishing the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee’s annual report from April 1 to June 1. Witnesses on the first two bills described long-running water quality problems and delayed notice in their communities and supported the measures. No opposition was recorded, and each bill was left pending for a later vote. The committee also heard SB 1967, which would expand eligibility for Flood Infrastructure Fund financing to multipurpose projects that both reduce flooding and create water supply. Senator Hinojosa and Hidalgo County representatives described the Delta Reclamation Project as a shovel-ready example that would capture flood and drainage water, treat it, and produce new potable supply while also providing detention and flood mitigation. A Sierra Club witness also supported the bill, saying such projects could help manage floodwaters and reduce polluted discharges to bays and estuaries. The bill was left pending. A lengthy and divided discussion followed on SB 1413, which would expand the streamlined expedited release process for landowners seeking removal from a water or sewer CCN in additional counties. Senator Nichols said the bill was a property-rights measure aimed at legacy monopolies and bad actors who use CCNs to hold landowners hostage, while supporters described cases where developers could not get timely service, including fire flow, or were asked to fund infrastructure without reasonable recoupment. Opponents from rural water corporations and utility associations argued the bill would undermine investment in water infrastructure, strand debt, and weaken the return on planned expansion. PUC and TCEQ resource witnesses explained that compensation is handled case by case through appraisal and can include stranded costs, planning, design, construction, and some legal fees, but members noted the statute is unclear and discussed possible committee substitute language. Public testimony was closed with the bill left pending. Later, SB 1624 would allow the Texas Water Trust within the Texas Water Bank to hold donated water rights for conservation purposes and protect them from use-it-or-lose-it cancellation, and SB 863 would address Edwards Aquifer utilities that straddle the aquifer boundary by allowing them to continue using Edwards water within their certificated areas under specified conditions. Both bills were laid out, received no public opposition in the hearing, and were left pending.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Intergovernmental Affairs Mar 18th, 2025

Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • We are an organization committed to meaningful affordability.
  • The lost revenue from this one complex to our city is approximately 2.9% of our total property tax revenue
  • As you know, municipalities rely on this revenue.
  • That's about $700,000 in tax revenue for the City of Irving and about $3 million in tax revenue to all
  • Over 30% of your property tax revenue goes to service that debt.
OK
Transcript Highlights:
  • How much of a decrease in revenue are we looking at? Thank you for the question.
  • We do it with some dedicated revenue that we force them to spend in certain ways.
  • This would just be a new code that tells us exactly how they spend all state appropriated revenue within
  • We're going to be able to feed kids and generate some revenue for our mom and pop's grocery stores.
  • I'll give you my commitment that it will not look like it is in its current form if if House.