Transcript Highlights:

• So, having a do pass and a second, is there any discussion or debate? See no discussion or debate?
• Will there be any discussion or debate? Seeing no discussion or debate, clerk will open the rolls.
• Will there be discussion or debate? Seeing no discussion or debate, clerk will open the roll.
• When you do pass and a second, will there be discussion or debate?
• There was no discussion or debate, and the clerk opened the rolls.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? I have a House Committee substitute. Be voted due pass. Any discussion?
• So further discussion? Just... So further discussion, Representative Job. Thank you, Mr.
• Okay, further discussion. Seeing none.
• Further discussion? Seeing none. Further discussion? Seeing none.
• They couldn't discuss it. They couldn't vote on it.

Summary: The House Committee on Agriculture met in executive session and took up three bills before moving to a public hearing on House Bill 1885. On House Bill 2297, Representative Hayden’s fencing/enclosure bill, the committee adopted a House Committee substitute after discussion about terminology changes, including whether to use “property boundary line” versus “division line,” and about liability language for injuries during fence construction. The substitute was then reported do pass by a vote of 18 ayes and 3 noes. The committee next approved House Bill 2436, Representative Van Skoik’s animal impoundment bill, by a vote of 14 ayes and 7 noes. It then considered House Bill 2713, where the committee adopted a substitute and an amendment restoring a five-year sunset, after discussion that the bill related to a tax credit and industry concerns about removing the sunset. The final committee vote on the House Committee substitute for HB 2713 was 17 ayes and 4 noes, and it was reported do pass. In public hearing, Representative Van Skoik presented House Bill 1885, which would change the makeup of the Clean Water Commission by allowing at least one member knowledgeable about publicly owned wastewater treatment works, removing a two-year waiting period for certain industry members, and directing the commission to set recusal rules for conflicts of interest. Supporters from the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and municipal utilities said the bill would help ensure knowledgeable, current wastewater professionals can serve and address a shortage of experienced people in the field. Questions focused on whether the commission should set its own conflict rules and whether members could still have income from permit holders; the sponsor and witnesses said recusal rules would address conflicts and that the bill was intended to improve expertise on the commission. No opposition testimony was heard before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? And a second by Dubos. Any discussion?
• Let's make sure there's no other discussion. Make sure there's no other discussion.
• Is there any other discussion on the bill?
• Any other discussion with that?
• Any further discussion? A second by Representative Mars. Any discussion?

Bills: SB278, HB459, HB61

Keywords: University of South Alabama, board of trustees, education governance, state appointments, governance reforms, membership changes, home school, career and technical education, public schools, K-12 education, enrollment policy, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes, you're recognized for discussion on the motion.
• And I think that's what the discussion is about—having it in the hopper and having a discussion.
• This is just about a discussion and starting a discussion on a budget bill that allows more long-term
• This is just about a discussion about it and starting a discussion on a budget bill that allows more
• So in my discussions with constituents in that...

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• goes to in general is a is a discussion goes to in general is a is a discussion<00:04:54.880><c> of<
• further discussions with you on it.
• further discussions with you on it.
• further discussions with you on it.
• </c><00:18:17.520><c> Um,</c> discussion um earlier this year. Um, discussion um earlier this year.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee discussed House Bill 353, a proposal to tighten eminent-domain procedures and property protections while still allowing public projects. Supporters said the bill would not prohibit condemnation, but would require proof that property is in blight, give owners notice and an opportunity to cure, require a reasonable plan and funding for the public use, and ensure the taking is limited to what is necessary. They argued this would protect good-faith property owners, prevent abandoned projects, and make the process more efficient for utilities and infrastructure by encouraging easements where possible instead of full takings. Much of the discussion focused on the proper measure of compensation and the broader constitutional limits on eminent domain. Several members argued that compensation should reflect current market value and that public benefit should not be treated as the standard for value. Others said market value can be unfair in cases involving unique property uses, damage to land, or public-private projects, and suggested owners should share in some upside. Members also raised concerns about Kelo v. City of New London, the risk of abuse by governments or large corporations, and the need to protect farmers and rural landowners from one-sided treatment. A number of legislators supported the concept but asked for more detail on how the bill would work in practice, whether it is based on model legislation from other states, and how it could be tailored to Kentucky. The bill sponsor said it was a modified model policy and was open to amendments to make it more Kentucky-specific. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? Representative Stemen? Any discussion?
• Any discussion? Correct. Correct. Okay.
• Any discussion on that motion?
• Any other discussion?
• Any discussion? Okay, we have a second from Representative Munson. Any discussion?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee began with roll call and a brief update on remaining work, then took up Senate Bill 2213, the “science of math” bill. Members clarified that the appropriation for the program was not included in the DPI budget and would remain attached to the policy bill for now. The committee adopted the amendment and then gave the bill a do pass recommendation, 21-2. The committee next considered Senate Bills 2036 and 2037, both juvenile justice/Human Services bills involving mental health and criminal responsibility evaluations for minors. Testimony explained that the bills create new processes and require DHS to contract with specialized providers, with appropriations of $500,000 in 2036 and $300,000 in 2037. Members debated whether the funding should come from existing DHS resources or remain as separate appropriations, and whether the programs were one-time or ongoing. The committee adopted amendments on both bills and then recommended both do pass, with 2036 passing 14-6 and 2037 passing 17-4. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2021, the Information Technology Department budget. Representative Bosch outlined major themes in the budget, including migration from PeopleSoft and the mainframe, onboarding/off-boarding automation, double-counting of IT spending, and the transition of education technology from PowerSchool to Infinite Campus. Members also discussed a study amendment related to a statewide enterprise resource planning system, and added language on grant management and compliance management. The committee adopted the amendments and gave the budget a do pass recommendation, 20-0-3. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2011, the Highway Patrol budget. Representative Pyle explained the House changes, including shifting some one-time costs to the motor carrier electronic permit fund, funding for body armor, breath tests, road course resurfacing, fleet costs, handgun replacement, and carryover authority for federal technology funds. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the budget 21-0-2. The committee then began Senate Bill 2399, a Human Services bill on Medicaid reimbursement for psychiatric residential treatment facilities, but deferred action after testimony from a facility representative and committee discussion about therapeutic leave days, reimbursement rates, and whether a cap on reimbursable days should be set in statute or rule. The chair said the committee would seek more information from DHS and take the bill up the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion? Representative On, yes. Thank you, Chair.
• Discussion, Representative Orcutt.
• Discussion. I will discuss my bill. So I just want to say a couple of things about this bill.
• We'll have some great discussions around this area.
• Discussion, Representative Ramel.

Bills: HB1717, HB2133, HB2135, HB2140, HB2442, HB2559

Keywords: affordable housing, sales tax, housing programs, tax incentives, economic development, property tax, senior citizens, tax exemption, local government funding, permanent legislation, adaptive housing, disabled veterans, tax preferences, housing affordability, retail sales tax, governmental transfer, agriculture, land use, local government, tax authority

Transcript Highlights:

• You don't need any more discussion. You can discuss it at 1:00.
• Further discussion?
• Further discussion?
• Further discussion?
• Further discussion?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee met to review Division One of a very large budget package, with the chair explaining that the budget was being analyzed in three divisions over multiple days. Members first discussed procedure, including when amendments and line-item votes would be taken, and agreed to proceed with the division’s presentation before questions. Representative Maguire then outlined the division’s approach as a series of tradeoffs to close a large budget gap, emphasizing cuts, some revenue changes, and a focus on overall spending levels as well as individual reductions. The presentation covered a wide range of agencies and policy areas. Major proposed changes included cuts or eliminations to several boards and commissions viewed as costly or duplicative, such as the Housing Appeals Board, Board of Tax and Land Appeals, Human Rights Commission, Commission on Aging, Office of the Child Advocate, and the Personnel Appeals Board, with some functions consolidated into other boards. The division also proposed back-of-the-budget cuts to the Information Technology Department, Judicial Branch, Justice Department, Retirement System, Corrections, and Environmental Services, along with fee increases in several areas. Other notable items included ending marketing for Paid Family Leave, reducing job advertising and tourism promotion, defunding the Arts Council, moving liquor enforcement functions out of the Liquor Commission, and shifting some funds such as the College Savings Commission money to Division Two. Several members questioned specific cuts, especially the elimination of the Council on Aging, the reduction in regional planning commission grants, and the large cut to tourism advertising. Maguire defended the choices as necessary budget tradeoffs, arguing that some programs duplicated work done elsewhere, that regional planning grants were not among the most essential items, and that tourism promotion was a form of spending he viewed skeptically. He also explained that the public defender’s budget was partially restored after a credible claim of a governor’s budget error, and that the committee would continue refining corrections-related cuts because the House was only halfway through the budget process and further changes could still occur in the Senate and conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> further discussion on amendment L-18? further discussion on amendment L-18?
• Any further discussion?
• </c> discussion on Amendment L1? discussion on Amendment L1? Senator<01:50:21.360><c> Ball.
• Any further discussion? Senator time. Any further discussion?
• Any discussion?

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Ten is another one that we, the House and Senate are still discussing with us.
• The House and Senate are still discussing it.
• Another one we've tabled and moved to further discussion.
• This is the rules that we are discussing right now.
• This is the rules that we are discussing right now.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The conference committee on legislative rules, led by House Chair Michael Moran and Senate Chair Senator Creem, reviewed the many differences between House and Senate versions of the rules and reported that the branches had agreed on 24 of 52 disputed items. Members said they were moving closer to a final compromise, with several provisions already settled and others still being negotiated offline. The discussion emphasized transparency, committee administration, and ways to move bills through the process earlier in the session. Items agreed to included committee name changes such as adding fisheries to Agriculture and changing elder affairs to aging and independent, adopting House language on joint rules, making committee reports and bill/resolution materials available electronically and online, allowing public access to summaries, and several technical or administrative updates. The committee also agreed on rules for executive sessions, temporary employees, committee travel, favorable/unfavorable reporting, joint petitions, home rule expiration, and special commission meetings. Some provisions were tabled for further discussion, including Mason’s Rules, notice and posting timelines, hearing scheduling, in-person hearings, bill reporting deadlines, and several other administrative topics. A few issues remained unresolved, especially who should draft bill summaries, how to handle notice periods for hearings and postings, and how to structure committee votes and reporting deadlines. The committee also discussed Rule 35, agreeing in principle to a public hearing and broader public comment on rules review, which members said would improve transparency. At the end of the meeting, members praised the work of the committee and staff, said there was “light at the end of the tunnel,” and adjourned after a motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seconded by Senator Adams at RS 33536 be introduced discussion.
• Discussion on the motion. Senator Shippy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Can you—any other discussion or questions? I don't have any.
• Committee, other discussion or questions?
• Other discussion? Senator Shippy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• Is there any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, the clerk will take the roll.
• Further discussion?
• Discussion on the bill. I recognize Representative Novotny.
• Further discussion on the bill, Representative Johnson.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion, Mr. Ghan. Yes, Mr.
• Discussion, Mr. Ghan. Yes, Mr.
• these discussions.
• Okay, see no further discussion. Let's pull the committee. Okay, see no further discussion.
• All right, committee discussion.

Summary: The task force reviewed survey results from state agencies on potential statutory revisions, with Levi reporting 70 proposals from 20 agencies and noting that about 33 might become agency pre-file bills. Members discussed the need to share the survey more broadly within higher education and to better coordinate issues involving IT and other cross-agency functions. The task force then heard from the Office of Management and Budget on three topics: concessions, architect/engineering pre-qualification, and legal notices. OMB said the concessions law is outdated and inconsistent with current practice, and suggested a collaborative rewrite to allow best-value evaluation, raise the threshold, and standardize solicitation templates. On architect/engineering pre-qualification, OMB proposed expanding authority beyond current state-agency limits and creating uniform templates. On legal notices, OMB proposed modernizing publication requirements, exploring online and abbreviated notices, and working with newspapers and other stakeholders on technology and accessibility improvements. Members asked about where concession revenues go, whether political subdivisions must follow the same rules, and how to move from discussion to action. The task force agreed to have OMB work with Legislative Council and affected stakeholders to develop bill drafts, and the motion passed unanimously. The University of North Dakota then presented a series of proposed revisions focused on public buildings and procurement. UND asked to rework the definition of construction so routine maintenance and one-for-one replacements over $250,000 would not automatically trigger public-improvement requirements, suggested raising the threshold to $500,000, and asked for more flexibility based on project complexity and risk. UND also proposed changes to public bid advertisements to reflect electronic bidding, revisions to construction manager-at-risk selection criteria, changes to architect/engineer procurement rules, an increase in the direct-hire design threshold, and a higher legislative-consent threshold for privately funded projects. The task force supported having UND work with counsel and OMB to develop bill drafts, and that motion also passed. The Department of Public Instruction concluded with proposed cleanup to credentialing and education statutes. DPI recommended reviewing its credential categories for relevance, possibly transferring credentialing authority to the Education Standards and Practices Board, removing outdated school safety patrol language, clarifying waiver provisions, and updating dyslexia screening reporting requirements so the statute reflects current practice. Members focused mainly on whether the dyslexia reporting requirement should remain, and DPI said the screening itself would continue even if reporting language were revised. No votes were taken on DPI’s suggestions, and the task force recessed after the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion to the bill. Discussion to the bill.
• Discussion to the bill.
• </c> Discussion to the bill. Discussion to the bill.
• </c> Further discussion to the bill. Further discussion to the bill.
• </c> Further discussion to the motion? Further discussion to the motion?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So, Commissioner Yaroski, we've chosen to discuss a frame-built 2000 We've chosen to discuss a frame-built
• We'd love to have that discussion at some point.
• And, you know, that's a very detailed discussion.
• You know, we've had this great discussion here today. Mr.
• It's their secret sauce, much like Chip discussed earlier.

Summary: The subcommittee held its first meeting on homeowners property insurance, with members from both parties introducing themselves and repeatedly noting that insurance affordability, roof condition, claims handling, and storm recovery are top concerns for their districts. Chair Yeager said the meeting was intended as an educational discussion rather than a legislative debate, and introduced a panel that included Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworski, consumer Chad Carr, agent Mary Catherine Lawler, insurer executive Melissa Burt DeVries, and policyholder attorney Chip Merlin. The panel and members discussed major cost drivers in Florida homeowners insurance, including inflation, home age, roof age, mitigation features, claims history, litigation costs, reinsurance, and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. Commissioner Yaworski said underwriting has become more sophisticated and that litigation costs, reinsurance, and replacement-cost inflation all affect premiums; he also said litigation is down about 30% and average requested rate increases have fallen from about 22.1% in 2022 to 0.8% today. DeVries said age of home, replacement cost, roof age, and coverage choices can materially change premiums, and explained that reinsurance is a major expense passed through to consumers. Merlin emphasized transparency concerns, argued that insurers are increasingly individualizing risk, and said consumers often struggle with coverage limits, deductibles, and claim denials. Members asked about flood coverage, hurricane deductibles, managed repair programs, mitigation credits, new insurer capitalization, and whether savings from reforms are reaching consumers. Yaworski explained that flood is generally excluded from homeowners policies and covered separately, that hurricane deductibles are mandatory in Florida and usually around 5%, and that the office tracks savings from reforms through rate filings and insurer discussions. He said the state is updating mitigation discounts and monitoring new entrants closely for solvency and market conduct. Several members and panelists said recent reforms have helped reduce some abuses and litigation, but many consumers are still seeing higher premiums because replacement costs and reinsurance remain elevated. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:34:25.520><c> Seeing</c> discussion on Amendment L004? Seeing discussion on Amendment L004?
• </c><00:37:36.760><c> on</c> Is there any further discussion on Is there any further discussion on Amendment
• Is there any further discussion on Is there any further discussion on I'm<01:12:53.320><c> sorry,</c>
• </c> least one stakeholder meeting to discuss least one stakeholder meeting to discuss the<01:30:16.240
• </c><01:30:52.800><c> on</c> there any further discussion on there any further discussion on amendment

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For the committee report, is there a discussion? Representative Pierce.
• You've heard the committee discussion.
• Speaker, Representative Snow, back to the CCRC, the information or the discussion, the continuing discussion
• Further discussion. Chair sees none.
• For discussion? Representative Pierce? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Keywords: 964, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion on the title.
• Discussion on the title.
• Speaker, I am open for discussion. Take questions. Discussion on the bill.
• Discussion on the title?
• Further discussion. Further discussion. Yes, this bill has been vetted several times.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion on the title.
• Discussion on the title.
• For the discussion, the gentleman from Green. answer any questions. Discussion, the bill handler.
• Further discussion. No further discussion. The lady from Jefferson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
• Further discussion.

Summary: The House met on the final day of session with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the previous day’s journal by a 126-0 vote. Much of the early floor time was devoted to points of personal privilege, with members and the Speaker offering lengthy tributes to departing colleagues, House staff, law enforcement, veterans, and family members. Several members reflected on their service, discussed the challenges of the session, and thanked staff in the chamber and across the Capitol for their work. The chamber then took up Senate messages and committee reports, followed by several bills and resolutions. House Bill 2636, dealing with mortgage modification and related consumer protections, was adopted as amended and finally passed by votes of 142-1 on adoption and 144-1 on final passage. House Bill 2397, concerning water district dissolution procedures and related safeguards, was adopted and finally passed by votes of 129-16 and 127-17. House Bill 2576, a naming and designation bill adding observances and memorial highways/bridges, was adopted and finally passed by votes of 136-4 and 134-6. The House also debated Senate Joint Resolution 95, which proposed creating a constitutional Show Me Prosperity Fund as a sovereign wealth fund intended to eventually replace state taxes through long-term investment returns. Supporters argued it was a forward-looking fiscal strategy based on compound interest and could reduce reliance on taxes over generations. Opponents warned that the state was facing near-term budget shortfalls and that locking money away could make it inaccessible during emergencies or when needed for current services. The transcript ends during continued debate on the resolution, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• </c> Is there any further discussion? Is there any further discussion?
• Any<00:04:58.800><c> further</c><00:04:59.120><c> discussion?</c> Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, the clerk will take the roll.

Keywords: 1183, house