Transcript Highlights:

• And as much as the wildlife, but the opportunity as well.
• Is there other ways as well? Well, certainly there. $0.8.0.8. Sales tax.
• Is there other ways as well?
• Well, yeah.
• They can match it with county and city money as well.

Committee: House Conservation and Natural Resources

Summary: The Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources heard House Bill 2202, sponsored by Rep. Don Mayhew, which would allow active-duty military personnel, 100% disabled veterans, and youth during youth hunt seasons to receive certain hunting permits at no cost. Mayhew argued the bill would help recruit younger hunters, support military members and disabled veterans, and would not threaten conservation funding because the conservation fund has maintained substantial balances. Committee members questioned the bill’s fiscal impact, possible constitutional issues, effects on Pittman-Robertson federal reimbursements, and whether the bill duplicated existing Missouri Department of Conservation exemptions. Some members supported the concept of honoring veterans but suggested other funding mechanisms or clarifying language, and MDC said it would revise the fiscal note after misreading some figures. Testimony on HB 2202 was mostly opposed or informational. An Army veteran testified against the bill, saying current MDC rules already provide significant exemptions for veterans, active-duty personnel, and seniors, and warning the bill could reduce revenue and federal matching funds. MDC Deputy Director Aaron Jeffreys said the department already offers numerous veteran and military exemptions and supports veteran hunts through partnerships with NGOs, but also explained the agency’s fund balance is being used for major capital projects and is expected to decline. Several members and the sponsor debated whether conservation revenues are being held in reserve unnecessarily or are needed for ongoing projects and future obligations. The committee then heard House Bill 1734, sponsored by Rep. Colin Wellenkamp, which would create a Soil Erosion Control Fund Act to help homeowners associations finance erosion mitigation projects through assessments, state fund allocations, and matching local or grant dollars. Wellenkamp and supporters said erosion and flooding are causing major property damage, especially in water-rich and river-adjacent areas, and that the bill would give communities a practical tool to address problems that are too expensive for cities or counties to solve alone. Members from affected districts described severe flooding and erosion impacts, and the sponsor said the bill includes safeguards such as HOA nonprofit status, homeowner approval, and repayment terms to protect taxpayers. HB 1734 drew broad support from witnesses including the Community Associations Institute, a stream restoration business, the Missouri Municipal League, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy of Missouri, and a St. Charles County lobbyist. Supporters said the proposal would help stabilize land, protect homes and property values, improve habitat and water quality, and reduce long-term public costs. No witnesses testified in opposition, and the hearing on HB 1734 concluded with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I'm very excited.
• Well, I'm very excited.
• Well, how do you do that?
• And if you all well know, they are big beasts.
• Well, what is the reason for that?

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to hear two presentations focused on the state university system: an update from the Board of Governors on performance-based funding and a state university efficiency study from Ben Watkins of the Division of Bond Finance. Chair Harrell emphasized accountability, maintaining Florida’s top-ranked higher education system, and getting the best return on state investment. A quorum was present, with several senators excused and one arriving later in the meeting. Sarah Donaghi outlined changes to the performance-based funding model. She said the current model will be used for 2026-27 funding, with only minor benchmark changes for metrics tied to programs of strategic emphasis, reflecting a statutory review that reduced the list of designated programs from about 800 to about 200. She also described a new “PBF 2.0” framework approved by the Board of Governors for implementation in 2027-28 funding, which will combine excellence and improvement measures, update benchmarks to the SUS 2030 strategic plan, reduce “layups” where many schools score perfect tens, expand the affordability metric to include students without loans, remove SUS transfer students from certain graduation metrics, and create a new transfer-student outcome metric. The board will run the new model alongside the current one before using it for funding, and no funding changes will occur this year. Watkins presented findings from an eight-month efficiency study ordered by executive order. Using audited financial data, student outcome data, and personnel data, he concluded that Florida’s universities provide strong value because of low tuition, rising degree production, and improved job placement and earnings outcomes. He said tuition remains the lowest in the country and that state support has increased, while per-student spending has also risen, driven largely by payroll costs. He argued that universities should operate more like business enterprises, with more granular budgeting, clearer financial reporting, and efficiency metrics such as operating expense per student and cost per degree, and he recommended that such measures be incorporated into performance funding and board oversight. Committee members asked about national comparisons, data transparency, payroll growth, admissions selectivity, and whether legislation should require more detailed institutional reporting. The meeting ended with no public comment and adjournment after Senator Bracey Davis moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Dan: Well, thank you.
• I'm not articulating it particularly well.
• Well, there you go picking on me again.
• Well, thanks.
• And sometimes it goes well. Sometimes it doesn't go well.

Summary: The Joint Select Committee on Civic Health met to discuss next steps for its work on civic health, including related efforts by the Project for Civic Health and a proposed Evans School research survey of legislators. The chair reviewed the committee’s mandate and described ongoing partner initiatives, including shared principles of engaging with respect, seeking common ground, and disagreeing constructively. Members generally supported the Evans School proposal, though one member asked how the project would measure success, and the chair said the goal was to gather broad input from legislators on strengths, weaknesses, and future directions. A major portion of the meeting focused on a draft committee statement condemning political violence. Members agreed to remove the word “crazed” from the description of a recent assassination, with concerns raised that the term implied irrationality and could stigmatize disability. Members also suggested broadening the language to include non-abusive and productive dialogue, and replacing or supplementing “pray” with more inclusive wording; the final phrasing settled on “hope and pray.” The committee also briefly debated whether to describe the United States as a democracy or a representative republic, ultimately agreeing on “representative democratic republic” and approving the statement for posting and distribution, with several members still needing to provide digital signatures. The rest of the meeting was an open discussion about how to improve civility and relationship-building in the Legislature. Members emphasized the value of in-person meetings, shared meals, mentoring newer legislators, and more intentional cross-party conversations. Several said there are fewer informal opportunities now than in the past, especially after the pandemic, and suggested ideas such as retreats, regular gatherings, and bringing in outside experts like the National Institute for Civil Discourse. The chair said he would relay the committee’s support for the Evans School survey and adjourned the meeting after noting the discussion had produced several constructive ideas for future work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current TCEQ rules, no waste injection wells can be authorized if the well is located... ...transects
• For the farmers that do it, most of them do it well.
• Line immediately adjacent to it as well.
• I do have the mayor pro tem as well as when...
• He's here, as well as one of the...

Bills: SB243 , SB1586 , SB1891 , SB1959 , SB2159 , SB2568

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• This campaign offers healthcare professionals the tools, resources, and expertise to support their well-being
• </c> expertise to support their well-being expertise to support their well-being when<00:01:41.840><c
• We should not have to sacrifice our own well-being to prove our dedication to this profession.
• We should not have to sacrifice our own well-being to prove our dedication to this profession.
• I'm also an American Dental Association Wellness Ambassador, a program they began in 2022.

Transcript Highlights:

• If they want to, they can certainly hire their own as well.
• Well, if she's married, that's a whole other issue.
• Well, I... ...rubber stamping this expungement. Well, I have judicial discretion.
• You said, you know, well, people were upset and my... ...said, you know, well, people were upset, and
• And you say, well, that passed, and then, well, where are the rest of the people?

Bills: SB156 , SB134 , SB108 , SB47 , SB88 , SB89 , SB106 , SB18 , SB9 , HB38 , HB54

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: habitual felony offender, resentencing, Alabama Department of Corrections, victim notification, criminal justice reform, life sentences, parole eligibility, pardon, parole, law enforcement, GPS monitoring, data sharing, mail theft, stolen mail, criminal penalties, personally identifying information, felony, misdemeanor, SB47, Alabama

Transcript Highlights:

• The point of order is well taken. So the... The point of order is well taken.
• Well, the last one was February to April, so it was a short window as well.
• Well, thank you, Mr.
• Well, it means, Mr.
• Well, it means, Mr.

Summary: The House debated a series of amendments to a major income tax bill, with repeated arguments over tax fairness, affordability, administrative feasibility, and the role of the Department of Revenue. Early motions to reconsider a failed child care amendment were rejected, and Amendment 2561, which would have restricted data sharing with the IRS, was also defeated after debate over privacy, federal relationships, and whether the proposal was administrable. Amendment 2579, which would have required annual reporting on the tax’s effects on filers, businesses, and charitable donations, likewise failed, with supporters emphasizing transparency and opponents arguing DOR was not the right agency and the report was too speculative. Amendment 2598, proposing to use half of new revenue for a broad sales tax cut, was rejected despite arguments that it would reduce regressivity and provide immediate relief; Amendment 2556, expanding sales tax exemptions for diapers and other child-care essentials to include adult diapers and earlier implementation, also failed after debate over scope and timing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are the Washington delegates here as well? Mr.
• I'd like to get a sense of the timing as well.
• Well, thank you. Can I follow up, Senator? Well, yes, but again, I wanted to move along here.
• I understand very well. Thank you.
• Well, I'm going to close the meeting at this point.

Committee: Joint Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we should open up as well. I think we should open up as well for them.
• Well, and I respect that.
• Well, and again, I think...
• Well, yeah. I mean, I guess I'd like to.
• A funding gap there as well.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan, with testimony from the authority, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General. Chair Cortese framed the hearing around the project’s recent changes: a new CEO, revised delivery strategy, loss of federal funds, renewed interest in private financing and value capture, and proposed adjustments to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment. He also raised concerns about statutory compliance, transparency, and whether the draft plan fully reflects required elements and true costs and timelines. Authority CEO Ian Chaudhry said the project has made substantial construction progress in the Central Valley and is moving toward track installation, with the state’s $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funding providing a stable base. He argued the plan uses design optimization, direct procurement of materials, and revised sequencing to reduce costs and support an early operating segment by about 2032-33. He also promoted broader commercialization of the corridor through real estate, energy, broadband, logistics, and public-private partnerships, saying private sector interest is now real. Several senators pressed him on station locations, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, permitting delays, transparency, and whether the project can realistically reach Los Angeles and San Francisco on the current timeline and budget. The LAO and Inspector General were more skeptical. LAO analyst Helen Kirstine said the draft plan assumes major scope changes, including a shorter segment, a Merced station outside downtown, more single-tracking, and several statutory changes that have not yet been enacted. She warned that the plan may not comply with recent legislative requirements, that funding may still be insufficient even for the reduced segment, and that borrowing against future cap-and-invest revenues is risky because those revenues are uncertain and volatile. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan fails to comply with newer statutory requirements, especially regarding the Merced-to-Bakersfield scope, the funding plan, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the presentation obscures cost increases and schedule delays and limits the Legislature’s ability to compare current estimates with prior reports. Committee members generally supported continued oversight and some form of project delivery reform, but several expressed concern that the plan relies on legislative changes that have not been approved and on private financing that may not materialize. Chaudhry said the authority would address the Inspector General’s findings in the final business plan and continue to pursue federal grants, private capital, and corridor commercialization. No vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we should open up as well.
• Well, and again, I think...
• A funding gap there as well.
• Well, where we are right now in terms of the commitment of funding, Well, where we are right now in terms
• Well, thank you.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, this is a disaster.
• Well, this is a disaster.
• Well, yeah. I mean, I'd like to.
• A funding gap there as well.
• Well, thank you.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan, with testimony from the authority, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General. Chair Cortese framed the hearing around the project’s recent changes: a new CEO, revised delivery strategy, proposed station and scope changes in the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, the loss of major federal funds, and the authority’s push for private investment and ancillary revenue. He also raised concerns about financing risks, the proposed changes to the initial operating segment, and the Inspector General’s finding that the draft plan may be missing required statutory elements. Authority CEO Ian Chaudhry said the project is now in a more disciplined phase, citing major construction progress in the Central Valley, near-completion of right-of-way and utility work, and plans to begin track and systems procurement. He said the authority expects the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment to be completed around 2032-33, with broader Phase 1 service later, and argued that design optimization, direct procurement, and public-private partnerships could reduce costs and attract private capital. He also described plans for ancillary revenue from real estate, broadband, energy, and logistics, and said the authority is discussing station locations and value-capture tools with local governments rather than locking them in yet. Several senators questioned the legality and practicality of tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and whether the project’s revised scope still meets high-speed rail standards and public expectations. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the draft plan assumes major statutory changes, including changes to station locations and scope, and warned that the plan’s cost and schedule estimates depend on assumptions that may not materialize. LAO said the plan lacks transparency because it does not clearly disclose the assumed station changes, and it questioned whether even the shorter segment can be delivered within existing funding once borrowing costs and other risks are included. The office also noted uncertainty around future greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues and said ancillary revenues are not yet credit-worthy for financing. The Inspector General’s office said the draft business plan does not appear to meet several statutory requirements, including requirements added in AB 377, and reiterated that the final plan must address those omissions. Chaudhry said the authority would respond to the OIG’s findings in the final business plan and committed to resolving the compliance issues before final adoption.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> go to those coal plants as well. go to those coal plants as well.
• </c> mineral and and energy source as well. mineral and and energy source as well.
• Well, you did something.
• Well, you did going to do something?
• </c> complex, uh joint powers board as well complex, uh joint powers board as well as<00:40:18.160><c

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• I did have a question on—well, I have two questions.
• I said, "Well, it's not exactly my fault."
• Well, and if you.
• Doctor, you know this very well, I'm sure.
• Those are well-intended. I think you all mean well, but I think you're chasing your tail.

Committee: House Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, let's do it over again.
• And I have a broader question as well, too.
• Well, thank you. Senator? Great. Well, thank you, Chair and members.
• Well, thank you. Thank you. Senator? Great. Well, thank you, chair and members.
• , coming from local government as well.

Summary: The committee heard multiple bills, with extensive discussion focused on short-term rental regulation, street vending, park/public safety financing, transit-oriented housing fees, and demographic data collection. SB 346 would require short-term rental platforms to provide local governments with listing addresses and related information to help collect transient occupancy taxes and enforce local ordinances; supporters argued cities and counties need the data to identify unlicensed operators and recover taxes, while opposition from platforms raised privacy and due process concerns and said administrative subpoenas already exist. The bill was amended and passed 7-0 to the Judiciary Committee. SB 635, the Street Vendor Business Protection Act, sought to protect street vendors’ personal information from being shared in ways that could expose them to federal immigration enforcement; supporters described raids and fear in vendor communities, and the bill passed 6-1 to Public Safety. SB 499 would clarify that certain park and recreation facilities designated in local safety or hazard mitigation plans can qualify for fee deferral exemptions when they serve emergency or public safety functions; supporters said parks can serve as fire buffers, evacuation sites, and recovery hubs, while some housing advocates sought a clearer nexus to development impacts. The bill passed as amended 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 358, which would modernize traffic impact fee rules to better reflect lower automobile trip generation for walkable, transit-oriented housing, drew support from housing and transportation advocates and passed 8-0 to Appropriations. SB 515, aimed at improving demographic data collection and reporting by local governments and state entities, passed to Appropriations on a 4-0 vote. The committee also took up SB 276, presented by Assembly Member Stefani on behalf of Senator Wiener, which would allow San Francisco to create a permit-and-enforcement system for the sale of commonly stolen goods on sidewalks. Supporters said the measure is needed to address fencing operations and protect legitimate vendors, while emphasizing it is narrowly targeted and not aimed at food vendors or permitted sellers. The transcript ends during testimony on SB 276, with supporters from the Mission street vendor community and San Francisco Public Works describing enforcement problems and the need for clearer rules and city resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think his class included Troy Gately as well.
• Well, thank you, Senator, for the question.
• But you brought this up last session as well.
• Well, yes, sir, and that's, well, I mentioned 2008, because if you have a driver's license in Texas,
• Well, at those naturalization ceremonies...

Bills: SJR12 , SJR37 , SB7 , SB8 , SB16 , SB27 , SB108 , SB125 , SB207 , SB251 , SB318 , SB371 , SB379 , SB396 , SB406 , SB472 , SB503 , SB533 , SB578 , SB599 , SB608 , SB617 , SB621 , SB689 , SB707 , SB763 , SB836 , SB854 , SB856 , SB857 , SB875 , SB878 , SB906 , SB922 , SB942 , SB965 , SB985 , SB988 , SB1021 , SB1059 , SB1084 , SB1098 , SB1185 , SB1188 , SB1202 , SB1207 , SB1307 , SB1321 , SB1330 , SB1366 , SB1388 , SB1396 , SB1453 , SB1484 , SB1497 , SB1498 , SB1535 , SB1563 , SB1596 , SB1610 , SB1619 , SB1737 , SB1738 , SB1741 , SB1816 , SB1822 , SB1841 , SB1939 , SB2188 , SJR36 , SJR12 , SJR37 , SJR81 , SJR50 , SCR22 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SB875 , SB318 , SB707 , SB765 , SB62 , SB666 , SB888 , SB687 , SB847 , SB1248 , SB504 , SB857 , SB305 , SB296 , SB284 , SB1497 , SB1498 , SB241 , SB304 , SB621 , SB1023 , SB371 , SB204 , SB609 , SB670 , SB850 , SB854 , SB413 , SB1346 , SB1033 , SB1220 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1539 , SB447 , SB406 , SB985 , SB965 , SB1119 , SB1505 , SB1215 , SB1302 , SB856 , SB583 , SB673 , SB681 , SB1172 , SB608 , SB955 , SB957 , SB1021 , SB1120 , SB251 , SB541 , SB1737 , SB266 , SB1415 , SB125 , SB599 , SB1330 , SB53 , SB1352 , SB785 , SB472 , SB1450 , SB1502 , SB1566 , SB414 , SB1062 , SB578 , SB711 , SB746 , SB942 , SB1404 , SB1448 , SB1738 , SB108 , SB8 , SB507 , SB533 , SB689 , SB1026 , SB1349 , SB1355 , SB1433 , SB1434 , SB1596 , SB1403 , SB763 , SB667 , SB1059 , SB617 , SB1567 , SB503 , SB16 , SB310 , SB311 , SB396 , SB505 , SB1209 , SB1210 , SB1470 , SB264 , SB1029 , SB1185 , SB1358 , SB1364 , SB1569 , SB1376 , SB1228 , SB519 , SB878 , SB1350 , SB462 , SB1535 , SB827 , SB1585 , SB207 , SB1207 , SB1619 , SB1396 , SB920 , SB1484 , SB1273 , SB1741 , SB7 , SB927 , SB1227 , SB1229 , SB1353 , SB1366 , SB1464 , SB1709 , SB1729 , SB1733 , SB1744 , SB1772 , SB1816 , SB1841 , SB2188 , SB1147 , SB879 , SB1008 , SB1536 , SB2016 , SB1453 , SB1173 , SB1163 , SB996 , SB27 , SB568 , SB1370 , SB1321 , SB1101 , SB906 , SB860 , SB1563 , SB993 , SB693 , SB1610 , SB1537 , SB836 , SB1332 , SB1307 , SB963 , SB493 , SB922 , SB984 , SB1084 , SB619 , SB1098 , SB1122 , SB455 , SB522 , SB1057 , SB1239 , SB1254 , SB1255 , SB1259 , SB1341 , SB1664 , SB1877 , SB464 , SB1277 , SB32 , SB732 , SB660 , SB731 , SB921 , SB268 , SB1822 , SB1188 , SB1939 , SB1589 , SB397 , SB1388 , SB2230 , SB1058 , SB1036 , SB1267 , SB2112 , SB1930 , SB532 , SB1035 , SB2155 , SB508 , SB29 , SB292 , SB291 , SB901 , SB1333 , SB1436 , SB1494 , SB964 , SB779 , SB1378 , SB2312 , SB1719 , SB1386 , SB287 , SB2143 , SB1245 , SB261 , SB1247 , SB1948 , SB2406 , SB2407 , SB1882 , SB1197 , SB1814 , SB618 , SB38

Transcript Highlights:

• As well as the budgetary aspects of the operation.
• Well, I heard one slight against Austin.
• Well, I was trying to kick it around. I understand.
• Cole as well as, um, Rep.
• Well, congratulations on getting that done.

Committee: House Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I don't follow up.
• Well, it happens sometimes.
• Well, it happens sometimes.
• Well, it happens sometimes.
• Well, I appreciate that.

Committee: House Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> you guys asking for that as well? you guys asking for that as well?
• the um well lessens them?
• Well, why don't I just ask this?
• Well, why don't I just ask this? &gt;&gt; Okay. Well, why don't I just ask this?
• Um, well, yes.

Bills: SB2613 , SB2147

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The committee heard SB 2613, a cleanup bill relating to public school land transfers under Act 307 (2022), which revises tax map key references and the conveyance process for properties transferred to the Department of Education. The Hawaii State Public Library System supported the measure, saying it would complete the long-unfinished separation of the library system from DOE property control and make future building projects more efficient and cost-effective. DOE also supported the bill and requested an amendment to remove TMK 43-62 parcel 10, the Wilcox Elementary School parcel, so that it could instead be transferred to the county for use with the adjacent park and tennis courts. Members focused heavily on why land transfers and construction approvals have been slow, especially the need for right-of-entry documents and an MOA for a library construction project. Library and DOE witnesses said the delays stemmed from site-control issues and confusion over property status, and that the bill would clarify which parcels are transferred by operation of law and remove the need for additional transactional documents in many cases. Several members questioned whether the bill actually changes authority or simply clarifies existing practice, and DOE said it wanted legislative clarity so the transfers are unmistakably effective on a date certain. The committee also discussed a separate section of the bill dealing with public use of school facilities after hours, including parking fees on property under DOE jurisdiction. DOE explained that any parking charges would apply only to property it controls, not county roads, and that fees are set through existing facility-use procedures. Members raised concerns about the pace of land transfers generally and urged DOE to move more expeditiously on pending parcels. The hearing then moved on to SB 2147, which would designate the first Friday in February as Love My Library Day; the library system testified in support as the committee began that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> community as well as the whole state. community as well as the whole state.
• Well, thank you, Mr. President.
• </c> Well, fun kills at 65 miles an hour, Mr. Well, fun kills at 65 miles an hour, Mr.
• Well, thank you, Mr.
• Well, thank you, Mr. Senator Pratt. Well, thank you, Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, both houses set them.
• Well, see, I'm just...
• Well, cuz you're well respected in this chamber. >> Good start there.
• Oh, well. You are welcome.
• &gt;&gt; Well, &gt;&gt; Well, &gt;&gt; Well, yes,<02:01:33.800><c> ma'am.