Transcript Highlights:

• Has put out that expands the protections if assessments were to go up over 15%.
• But that's due to the assessment cycle. I've seen that happen.
• And the way it runs is because of the assessment cycle.
• You basically start an assessment cycle in September.
• But it has to do with the assessment cycle. That was my question.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, there is, as you all have noticed, a weapon screening entering the building and at the Capitol.
• It means the amount of care is intended to align with their assessed level of need.
• just expands the use directly to allow those continuum of care grant holders who have already been screened

Committee: Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have no screening room at Mānoa, and that's long been a problem for us.
• we can't even have the Hawaiʻi International Film Festival on our campus because we don't have a screening
• I didn't do the architectural assessment myself, and I wasn't involved in the specifics.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> would pay for the state assessment would pay for the state assessment Statewide<01:47:09.639><c>
• </c> we proposed um making the assessment we proposed um making the assessment available<01:47:59.480
• We have a state requirement for assessment and a federal requirement for assessment.
• We have a state requirement for assessment and a federal requirement for assessment.
• We have a state requirement for assessment and a federal requirement for assessment.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Division 2 Finance Committee work session focused primarily on House Bill 115 and a proposed amendment, 114H, which would carry over language from HB 2 into HB 115 and place limits on Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs). Representative Murray described the amendment as a way to keep the 350% federal poverty eligibility cap, require students to have attended a charter public school in grades K-12 for the preceding year before entering the voucher system, and add guardrails against universal eligibility. She argued the state was facing a severe budget crisis, that expanding EFAs would divert money from other programs, and that public testimony and local votes showed widespread opposition to expansion. She also cited a letter from former Finance chair Neil Kirk opposing expansion. Other members responded that the committee should not revisit policy already decided by the House, though some said the amendment was fair to discuss because of its fiscal implications and supported it on that basis. The discussion then broadened into a debate over the fiscal impact of universal vouchers and the reliability of enrollment and cost estimates. Representative Luno argued that prior EFA projections had relied on assumptions that could badly underestimate state exposure, pointing to Arizona as a cautionary example and saying New Hampshire should not expand the program without better analysis. Representative Papovich similarly warned that universal eligibility could create a large, unexpected cost, estimating a potential exposure of about $285 million based on school-age children not currently in public, charter, or EFA programs. In contrast, Representative Weyler said EFAs can save money because public school spending is already high and parents using EFAs still pay taxes and take on more responsibility for their children’s education. After discussion, Representative Murray moved to accept the amendment, and Representative Bean seconded it. There was some procedural clarification about voting on the original bill and the amendment. The transcript ends before a final recorded vote on the amendment or on HB 115 itself, though the committee had also been told it would likely reconsider several retained bills later in the week, including HB 129, HB 133, HB 671, and HB 781.

Transcript Highlights:

• Special assessments used to be not very common, and now we're setting up special assessments on a monthly
• The amendments place a 5% cap on that reserve special assessment, same as the special assessment currently
• That 15% then is spread out through regular assessments over a period in between those special assessments
• It was a $32,000 assessment on Alameda County homeowners, a $35,000 assessment.
• in regular assessments, a bill by Senator Menjivar, for example, and emergency assessments, which I

Summary: The committee heard several housing-related bills. AB 2002 would clarify and extend the REAP 1.0 regional housing planning grant program, with the author and regional planning groups arguing it provides needed technical assistance for housing elements and RHNA compliance; the California Building Industry Association opposed unless amended over concerns about local constraints. The committee discussed accepted amendments on regulations, suballocation to subregions, and spending deadlines, and then passed the bill on a do pass as amended motion to Senate Appropriations. AB 1684 would prohibit HOAs from restricting homeowners’ ability to install or replace cooling systems, with supporters citing heat safety and opponents focusing on building integrity, electrical capacity, permits, and common-area placement; the committee adopted amendments on licensed electrical contractors, disclosure, and permit requirements, and passed the bill to Senate Judiciary. AB 1710 would extend SB 330-style vesting protections to state and regional agencies so housing projects are not subject to later regulatory changes, with supporters emphasizing predictability and opponents warning it could conflict with later state, regional, and federal requirements, especially for water and environmental rules; the bill was passed as amended to Senate Local Government. The committee also heard AB 2263, which would authorize the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to provide employee housing on its land with a preference for VTA workers while keeping units open to the public and compliant with fair housing law. VTA said the bill would help employees facing long commutes and high housing costs, and the committee discussed financing through transit-oriented development partnerships and existing land holdings; the bill was passed as amended to Senate Appropriations. AB 2270 would require the state tax credit committee to account for rural realities when scoring farmworker housing projects for low-income housing tax credits; supporters said current amenity-based scoring disadvantages rural farmworker developments, and the bill was passed as amended to Senate Appropriations. Later, AB 2118 would refine AB 2011 by limiting local objective standards that can block mixed-use and affordable housing projects, with supporters saying cities still use loopholes to delay projects; the committee discussed possible state mandate reimbursement issues and passed the bill to Local Government. Finally, AB 2050 would require HOA reserve funding based on reserve studies, add notice and safeguards for reserve transfers, and phase in funding over six years; supporters argued it would prevent large special assessments and protect homeowners, while opponents said enforcement remains weak and the bill could still burden owners. The committee did not take a final recorded vote on AB 2050 in the portion provided, but members discussed the need for stronger enforcement and the balance between reserve funding and affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• be assessed as personal.
• Would take it out of the assessments so that it would never be assessed as personal property.
• If it's taken out of the assessment, they can only assess on The levy from the prior years, if it's taken
• out of the assessment, they can only assess on what the assessor has turned in.
• So I don't want to change the assessment process.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Summary: The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform met to hear public testimony on House Bill 3342 and House Bill 3354. HB 3342, sponsored by Rep. Matteson, would prevent tax levies adopted before January 1, 1975 from being applied to personal property tax, with the sponsor arguing that personal property taxation on motor vehicles and similar property was not part of earlier voter-approved levies. Members questioned how the bill would work in practice, whether it should instead remove vehicles from assessment entirely, and what property classes would be affected. The sponsor said he was focused on class four personal property, especially motor vehicles, but was open to refining the language. No one testified in support, opposition, or for information, and no vote was taken. The committee then heard HB 3354, sponsored by Chair Taylor, which would reduce the Blind Pension Fund levy from 3 cents to 0.0275. Taylor said the fund’s participant numbers are declining while reserves have grown, that the department agreed the lower rate would still be sufficient, and that he wanted to keep the fund lean while preserving a cushion. Members asked about how the levy is calculated, whether it fluctuates with assessments, and whether excess funds could be transferred to public education as contemplated by the constitution. There was also discussion about the bill’s decimal wording and a possible drafting amendment to clarify the rate. No witnesses testified in favor, opposition, or informationally, and the hearing on HB 3354 was concluded without a committee vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• assessment for that or other decisions.
• I want to discuss such an assessment made by the IC.
• Were you aware of the declassified assessments, the one I referenced? Yes, I was.
• One, that assessment was made with high confidence and low information.
• evidence and assessments already conducted by the IC? Yes, I did. Okay, thank you.

Committee: Senate Intelligence (Select) Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The assessment started at around $6 an acre.
• Right now, that assessment sits at $14.
• CSA4 is a per acre assessment that the County Service Area 4.
• The assessment started at around $6 an acre.
• I'll start with the need versus the assessment.

Summary: The committee held an outcomes review hearing on AB 457 and related farmworker and rural housing policy, with members and witnesses discussing whether recent streamlining laws are actually increasing production. Chair Haney, Assembly Members Soria and Pellerin, and others described the purpose of AB 457 and its predecessor bills AB 1783 and AB 3035: to make farmworker housing easier to build through ministerial approval and other reforms. Witnesses emphasized that farmworkers face severe overcrowding, high rents, long commutes, and limited access to housing in both rural and coastal agricultural regions. The first panel focused on practical barriers and local models. Napa County described its county-owned farmworker centers, which provide nightly lodging, meals, and services, funded by lodger fees, a grower assessment, and state support. Testimony stressed that these centers function as navigation hubs rather than permanent housing, and that stable, inflation-adjusted operating funding, language access, transportation, and local set-asides are critical. United Farm Workers urged that local farmworkers be prioritized over H-2A workers and warned against displacing long-term resident workers. Several witnesses said the biggest barriers remain infrastructure, land costs, local opposition, and insufficient subsidy rather than approval streamlining alone. The second and third panels addressed AB 457’s implementation and broader state funding issues. Santa Clara County said the bill could help on a county-owned Gilroy site, but financing remains the main obstacle. Self-Help Enterprises said AB 457’s expanded geography and project-size rules may help future sites, but rural projects still struggle with water, sewer, and environmental review costs, and with the state’s Super NOFA process, which tends to favor deeper-income projects that do not match farmworker household incomes. HCD reported that CERNA and other programs have increased farmworker housing production in recent years, but witnesses argued that rural regions still receive too little funding, that infrastructure dollars are too fragmented, and that more rural-specific set-asides, local funding incentives, and predictable allocations are needed. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, it increases access to workforce development assessments.
• I'm trying to highlight the importance of the WorkKeys assessment, but the same in other career assessments
• I'm trying to highlight the importance of the WorkKeys assessment, but the same in other career assessments
• I'm trying to highlight the importance of the WorkKeys assessment, but the same in other career assessments
• These assessments, the WorkKeys and similar types of workforce assessments, measure applied skills like

Committee: House Elementary and Secondary Education

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If the regular assessments, they've been assessed for the beginning of the year or fiscal year, and somehow
• Another example is, say, during that same year, after they've already assessed the regular assessment
• So there are two opportunities for HOAs to assess fees or assess assessments without a vote.
• The only vote they need is when they want to assess regular monthly HOA fees, and if they want to assess
• a special assessment.

Committee: Senate Housing

Summary: The committee first heard SB 1091, which would create the Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program within HCD to help nonprofit developers, community organizations, and local governments acquire unsubsidized rental housing and preserve it as affordable housing or homeownership opportunities. The author and supporters from Enterprise Community Partners, the Unity Council, and several housing and tenant groups argued that acquisition-preservation is a proven, cost-effective way to prevent displacement and homelessness. There was no opposition testimony. Members discussed funding, with the author and chair noting the bill is intended to be supported through the housing bond or other appropriations. The committee voted the bill do pass to Judiciary, with broad support and no recorded opposition. The committee then took up SB 904, which would codify and expand the wildfire rebuilding coordination and permitting streamlining used after the Los Angeles-area fires, including HCD-led review of permitting and code barriers and reporting on recovery lessons. The author said the bill is meant to speed rebuilding after future wildfire disasters and avoid repeated delays seen in places like the Camp Fire. Members raised concerns about the cost and repetition of requiring multiple agencies to produce reports after each disaster, and about e-permitting mandates for smaller jurisdictions. The author responded that the bill is meant to capture lessons from different fire contexts and that some concerns could be addressed with amendments. The bill was moved do pass to Emergency Management and was reported out with sufficient votes, though kept on call. Finally, the committee heard SB 1007, which would change HOA assessment rules by tying annual increases to inflation rather than allowing up to 20% increases, and would require clearer annual budget disclosures and evidence for fines. The author and supporters said the bill would improve transparency and protect homeowners from steep fee hikes, while opponents from community manager and HOA industry groups warned it could underfund reserves, force larger special assessments, and add duplicative paperwork. Several senators expressed support for the bill’s goals but raised concerns about the inflation cap, the need for flexibility for insurance and maintenance costs, and the visual-aid disclosure requirement. The author said amendments are forthcoming and that the bill will look different in the next committee; no final vote is reflected in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> doesn't change you still got to assess doesn't change you still got to assess every<00:51:41.000
• </c> stated that April 1 is our assessment stated that April 1 is our assessment date<00:51:56.680><c
• Well, we had an assessment in Nashua, and there were two assessments within two years, and we had only
• and there were two assessments NASA and there were two assessments within<00:57:10.280><c> two</c><00
• </c> surprises of uh their tax assessments surprises of uh their tax assessments and<01:01:38.039><c>

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But does that mean— Reflective of less than the assessed value.
• But, you know, at 65, we're freezing assessment.
• But, you know, at 65, we're freezing assessments anyway.
• supposed to be assessed at 350, but it's only 309.
• I went to a library... ...assessment in your parish.

Bills: HB287 , HB340 , HB412 , HB440 , HB514 , HB515 , HB521 , HB543 , HB553 , HB570 , HB961

Committee: House Ways & Means

Keywords: HB 287, Louisiana Tax Commission, ad valorem, property tax, property assessment, assessment fees, fee extension, sunset extension, public service property, utility property, insurance company property, financial institution property, tax administration, R.S. 47:1838, Act 296, reappraisal, ad valorem tax, valuation, Louisiana tax law, homestead exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• evaluation to previous assessed valuation plus 15%.
• evaluation to previous assessed valuation plus 15%.
• tax assessment is for the county so they can set their levies.
• It's an assessment every other year.
• We're currently assessed at residential.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AND ALSO REQUIRED SCHOOLS, EVERY SCHOOL, TO PERFORM A SECURITY RISK ASSESSMENT ANNUALLY AND AND ALSO
• TEAM BE INVOLVED IN THE THREAT ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND FINAL DECISION MAKING.
• THAT IS WHY OUR THREAT ASSESSMENT MODEL FOCUSES ON STUDENTS OF CONCERN AND CONCERNING BEHAVIORS.
• WOULD BE UNDER, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CARE OF A THREAT ASSESSMENT PROCESS.
• THAT THE PERSON WHO DEALS WITH THE THREAT ASSESSMENT PROCESS?

Transcript Highlights:

• I do want to mention regarding assessments that health plans are currently being assessed.
• I do want to mention regarding assessments that health plans are currently being assessed.
• I do want to mention regarding assessments that health plans are currently being assessed.
• I do want to mention regarding assessments that health plans are currently being assessed.
• I do want to mention regarding assessments that health plans are currently being assessed.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires that the licensed professional engineers that would be required to stamp the assessments
• These assessments are a plan that's due to Ecology that, or essentially a plan or an assessment of potential
• Yes, so yes, this would require Ecology to assess penalties.
• assess the penalty.
• The fiscal needs... ...would cost to carry out these types of periodic assessments.

Bills: SB6291

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Keywords: SB6291, on-site wastewater treatment, onsite wastewater treatment, septic system, sewage treatment, wastewater inspection, environmental health, local board of health, public health, professional engineer, land surveyor, certificate of competency, inspection standards, design review, supervised practice, certification, licensing, RCW 18.88A, Washington State, 904

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires that the licensed professional engineers that would be required to stamp the assessments
• It just is required to be an unaffiliated engineer that is going to stamp these assessments that EITs
• These assessments are a plan that's due to Ecology that, or essentially a plan or an assessment of potential
• This would require Ecology to assess penalties.
• The fiscal needs..." "...would cost to carry out these types of periodic assessments.

Summary: The Environment and Energy committee met to executive three bills. SB 6291 would extend from two to four years the period a non-certified person may review designs and inspect on-site wastewater treatment systems under supervision of a certified individual; the committee adopted a striking amendment making a technical correction to the definition of an on-site wastewater treatment system and then passed the bill 18-0 with three excused. ESB 6246 concerns no-cost allowance allocations for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed facilities under the Climate Commitment Act; the striking amendment added an Ecology-contracted independent third-party report due in 2028 on emissions and job leakage, revised reporting and disclosure provisions, required unaffiliated licensed professional engineers for certain assessments, and clarified penalty language. Members discussed leakage, third-party review, and costs to industry, and the bill passed 11-7 with three excused after the amendment was adopted. The committee also took up ESSB 5975, which sets lead standards for certain cookware and adjusts the Safer Products for Washington process. Members described the bill as the result of multiple years of negotiation balancing public health concerns about lead exposure with industry concerns, and noted the striking amendment set specific 2030 and 2034 standards for pots and pans. After brief supportive discussion, the committee adopted the striker and passed the bill 18-0 with three excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:17:08.160><c> which</c> the smarter balanced assessment which the smarter balanced assessment
• </c><00:25:42.720><c> experts</c> Education where uh assessment experts Education where uh assessment
• </c> of developing a new state assessment. of developing a new state assessment.
• c><00:26:31.760><c> be</c> cost on the assessment side would be cost on the assessment side would be
• </c> report for assessment every year. report for assessment every year.

Committee: House Education Policy and Administration

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on House Bill 1571, which would direct the Department of Education to review and revise statewide academic standards and curriculum and make an appropriation. Representative Kristen Noble, the sponsor, said the bill is intended to update outdated standards, especially in math, and to have the department create a list of high-quality curriculum and materials aligned to the revised standards. She noted she would likely amend the bill to change a requirement that districts “shall” select from the list to “may,” and said a misplaced crossed-out section would need to be restored and moved by amendment. She also said assessments would need to be updated to match any new standards. Testimony from Marie Banfield strongly supported the bill and the move away from a mandate, arguing that current standards are outdated and that Common Core and related standards have not improved student outcomes. She criticized the math standards for emphasizing multiple strategies and written explanations over computation, and said stronger standards would better support students, including those with learning or communication challenges. She also argued that New Hampshire should follow examples such as Massachusetts, which she said used rigorous standards successfully. Nate Green of the Department of Education did not take a position on the bill but explained that the bill would affect statewide academic standards, state assessments, and potentially federal compliance. He distinguished academic standards from minimum standards in statute, said any standards revision would require work with content experts, State Board approval, and then a corresponding assessment update that could take about two years. He estimated assessment development costs could range from about $200,000 to $500,000 for minor revisions and $1 million to $2 million for a wholesale new set of standards. He also said the bill would apply to public and charter public schools, not private or homeschool students, and that the department does not currently provide a statewide list of curriculum materials because curriculum decisions have historically been local.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, the March 1st is assessments.
• If other bills pass that change that assessment level, that assessed amount is not really the purpose
• change that assessment level, that that<01:20:25.199><c> assessed</c><01:20:25.600><c> amount</c><01
• </c> exemptions are of the assessed value. exemptions are of the assessed value.
• </c> um rather than the 285,000 of assessed um rather than the 285,000 of assessed value. value. value

Bills: HB0045

Committee: House Revenue

Keywords: property tax, exemption, homeowners, long-term, aged, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• be assessed as personal property.
• If it's taken out of the assessment, they can only assess on the levy from the prior years, if it's taken
• out of the assessment, they can only assess on what the assessor has turned in.
• So I don't want to change the assessment process.
• All real estate in the state of Missouri gets assessed.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Keywords: 959, house, all