Transcript Highlights:

• Certainly, there's additional growth above our 10% cap that's not funded.
• Certainly, there's additional growth above our 10% cap that's not funded.
• So that's like the max cap on K-14 education. That's my understanding.
• And I believe there's roughly six districts that have FTES above the 10% growth cap.
• And I believe there's roughly six districts that have FDES above the 10% growth cap.

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reality is is that a cap out there.
• Um, in the same vein as my colleague from Washington, you talked about the caps on superintendents.
• What are those caps? The caps? It's not an amount. It's based on the education.
• Um, in the same vein as my colleague from Washington, you talked about the caps on superintendents.
• What are those caps? The caps? It's not an amount. It's based on the education.

Keywords: MS House Floor - 6 March, 2026; 9:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, found a quorum, dispensed with reading the journal, and moved through routine calendar business. Members tabled motions on several Senate bills, including Senate Bill 3230 and Senate Bill 2699, and there was discussion about a member’s right to hold a bill even after immediate release had been granted the prior day. The chamber also handled a hold request on Senate Bill 2838 and later tabled a motion related to it. The main floor action centered on Senate Bill 2103, which was called up and amended with a strike-all amendment. The bill was described as a broad education and retirement package focused on teacher pay, assistant teacher pay, PERS changes, school attendance officers, and support for struggling school districts. The sponsor said it would provide a $5,000 across-the-board teacher pay raise, a $3,000 increase for special education teachers, a $3,000 increase for assistant teachers, and an approximately $5,000 increase for school attendance officers. It also would reduce retirement service requirements for some state employees and first responders, allow retired teachers to return to work while drawing retirement, and create a district-of-innovation provision for D and F districts to help address teacher shortages and other needs. Several members questioned the scope of the bill, asking whether it included school choice, vouchers, portability, or other contentious provisions; the sponsor said it did not. Questions also focused on the superintendent salary cap language, the effect on PERS contributions for returning retirees, and whether the bill still contained the counselor ethics language that had been discussed earlier; the sponsor said that language had been struck out. After debate, the House adopted the strike-all amendment and then passed Senate Bill 2103 by a vote of 122-0. After passage, members made announcements and vote-change requests on prior calendar items, including Senate Bill 2432 and Senate Bill 3111. The Speaker also announced a press conference after adjournment to discuss the teacher pay raise. The House then adjourned until 4:00 p.m. on Monday.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're not changing how the fees are calculated; we're changing the fee cap.
• It's not actually changing overall how the fees are calculated, and the cap also makes sense.
• And the cap also makes sense.
• Why is the cap being raised to 50,000?
• So I can see where you'd want to change the dollar amounts, the cap having been to take...

Bills: SB1165, SB1206, SB1212, SB1291, SB1347, SB1516, SB1554, SB1649, SB1689, SB1812

Keywords: breast cancer, screening services, health insurance, cost sharing, preventive care, storm damage, catastrophic storm, hail damage, wind damage, roof repair, roof replacement, post-storm repairs, insurance claim, property and casualty insurance, adjuster, public adjuster, contractor licensing, homeowner protections, deductible waiver, insurance fraud prevention

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee approved committee amendments and then heard a series of bills covering consumer lending, health insurance, chiropractic practice, breast cancer screening, insurance claim practices, digital assets, vaccination-based reimbursement, agricultural property inspections, and aviation tax exemptions. Testimony generally split between sponsors and industry or advocacy supporters emphasizing modernization, consumer access, or fairness, and opponents raising concerns about higher costs, tax breaks for wealthy interests, or unclear policy changes. Several bills drew detailed debate over whether they would help consumers or shift costs, and multiple witnesses described personal or industry experiences in support of the health-related measures. SB 1689, which would raise consumer loan thresholds and change interest-rate tiers, was amended but failed on a tied vote after Senator Epstein opposed it as shifting costs to smaller borrowers. SB 1347, requiring coverage for fertility preservation for cancer patients, was amended and passed 4-2 after testimony from the sponsor, a nonprofit representative, and two cancer survivors. SB 1165, eliminating cost-sharing for diagnostic and supplemental breast exams, was amended and passed 5-1. SB 1206, updating rules for public adjusters and contractors after loss events, was amended and passed 5-1. SB 1649, creating a digital assets strategic reserve fund, passed 4-2 despite criticism that it was unnecessary and pro-crypto. SB 1212, barring different reimbursement rates based on vaccination status, passed 4-2. SB 1291, limiting county assessors’ ability to reclassify or inspect agricultural property for four years after a successful appeal, was amended to allow inspections if taxable improvements are made and passed 5-1 over assessor opposition. SB 1516, expanding aviation-related tax exemptions to more aircraft maintenance and repair property, passed 4-1 after supporters framed it as economic development and opponents called it a tax break for private jets. SB 1554, updating chiropractic language from “x-ray” to “diagnostic imaging,” initially failed, was reconsidered after additional questioning, and then passed 3-2 after members said the change mainly codified current practice and reduced liability concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• victims, but those payments are capped victims, but those payments are capped so<00:17:52.920>
• Uh we have capped the program the hotels at 700 rooms between April and November, and we have capped
• Uh we have capped the program the hotels at 700 rooms between April and November, and we have capped
• Uh we have capped the program the hotels at 700 rooms between April and November, and we have capped
• That would be our CAP agencies, our CAP programs, community action programs across the state.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• During the regular session, when we lowered the rate and capped it at 3.5%, we had a long runway where
• During the regular session, when we lowered the rate and capped it at 3.5%, we had a long runway where
• That $331 million does not come under this cap. That's money that's outside the cap.
• That $331 million does not come under this cap. That's money that's outside the cap.
• How does the 2.5 cap in your bill compare to trying to control property taxes based on inflation and

Summary: The Senate convened with an invocation and then handled several procedural matters, including a failed motion to excuse Senator Johnson’s absence after a roll-call vote. The chamber also postponed the reading and referral of bills until later in the calendar and adopted motions allowing the Education K-16 Committee to meet while the Senate was in session. The Senate then recessed until 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, August 6. The main floor action centered on Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 9, which lowers the voter-approval tax rate for certain cities and counties from 3.5% to 2.5% for maintenance and operations. Senator Bettencourt argued the bill would slow local property tax growth and align city and county limits more closely with school district limits, while Senators Hinojosa and Menendez raised concerns about reduced local revenue, public safety funding, and the short time for cities to assess the impact. The Senate suspended the regular order, passed the bill to engrossment, suspended the constitutional three-day rule, and finally passed SB 9, with a clarification later entered that the final passage vote was 18-3. The Senate also took up Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 7, the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, which sets state policy for the use of certain spaces and facilities according to biological sex and creates enforcement mechanisms for state agencies and political subdivisions. Supporters said the bill was needed to protect women and children in restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and schools, while opponents questioned the scope, enforcement, civil penalties, and possible conflicts with federal law and local control. After extensive questioning, the chamber adopted a clarifying amendment, suspended the three-day rule, and finally passed SB 7 by a vote of 19-2. Finally, the Senate passed Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 15, which addresses deed fraud and real property theft by tightening recording requirements for certain property documents and creating new criminal offenses for real property theft and fraud. Senator Hinojosa explained that the bill combined civil and criminal provisions, added photo ID requirements for in-person filings, and included restitution and enhanced penalties for certain victims and properties; a floor amendment made cleanup changes, removed a training mandate, and clarified that electronic and mail filings were not affected. The Senate adopted the amendment, suspended the three-day rule, and passed SB 15 unanimously, 21-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• The fees were also capped at $100,000 for most housing projects; however, This model was replaced with
• relief and reduce costs for these important and essential housing projects, SB 328 would establish a cap
• It would lead to cleaning up more pollution by capping the generation and handling fee charged by DTSC
• The issue is not simply the fee, but the unanticipated increase in fees without a fee cap.
• The issue is not simply the fee, but the unanticipated increase of fees without a fee cap.

Summary: The Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee heard three bills after beginning without a quorum and later establishing one. SB 328 would cap DTSC hazardous waste generation and handling fees for infill housing and master development projects and set response timelines for cleanup reviews. Supporters said the current fee structure has made some housing and remediation projects infeasible, while opponents warned that capping fees for one sector could shift costs to other hazardous waste generators. The committee discussed the need for broader DTSC fee reform, and SB 328 was approved on a 7-0 vote and sent to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. SB 754 would require manufacturers of disposable menstrual products to test for and disclose concentrations of certain contaminants, with DTSC able to verify results and publish them. Supporters framed the bill as a transparency and public health measure, citing recent studies finding toxic metals in tampons and emphasizing consumer right-to-know. Opponents, including manufacturers and hygiene product groups, argued the bill adds duplicative testing, vague requirements, and public disclosure that could be misinterpreted, and urged amendments. The committee members generally supported the goal of transparency, and the bill passed 5-2 with not voting members, moving to Appropriations. SB 466 would provide temporary legal protections for public water systems that are complying with approved chromium-6 compliance plans while they work toward the new drinking water standard. Supporters from Los Banos, Coachella Valley Water District, and other water agencies said the measure would help avoid costly litigation during a lengthy and expensive compliance period, especially for systems dealing with naturally occurring chromium-6. Committee members raised concerns about limiting recourse for harmed individuals and discussed possible alternative language, but the author said the bill would not affect state enforcement authority. SB 466 passed 7-0 and was sent to the Committee on Judiciary. The committee also adopted a consent calendar of additional measures by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the reason for that is that the current federal eligibility for this does not set that income cap
• If we're creating this bill and this legislation, why can't we create a cap?
• Then couldn't we have a cap and then add that wonderful word into age when you're looking at our senior
• And so it's probably premature to put in a cap.
• I would just like to see that capped, and maybe we could have a conversation as it moves on.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill also ties future adjustments to the California Consumer Price Index to ensure the cap stays
• The current $250,000 cap has remained With economic conditions.
• The current $250,000 cap has remained unchanged since 2009 despite significant economic changes.
• When accounting for inflation, the $250,000 cap from 2009 would equate to approximately $370,000 in today's
• small businesses are being excluded from contracts that they would have been eligible for when the cap

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact met on July 11, 2025, and heard six measures focused on small business contracting, ports and trade, local economic development, clean energy transition, tariff impacts, and infrastructure finance. SB 70 would raise the Small Business Procurement and Contract Act contract cap from $250,000 to $350,000 and index it to inflation; supporters said it would reflect current economic conditions, while opponents argued it could reduce transparency, favor larger firms, and strain small businesses’ ability to carry inventory and wait for payment. The bill was approved 7-0 to Appropriations. AJR 14 urged federal agencies to consider the effects of tariff policy on California ports, with testimony emphasizing impacts on cargo volumes, jobs, supply chains, and infrastructure needs; it passed 7-0. SB 781 would require cities and counties to adopt small business utilization plans and strengthen the California Small Business Technical Assistance Program; chambers of commerce and committee members supported it as a way to expand procurement opportunities and technical assistance, and it passed 7-0 to Local Government. SB 227 would extend and expand the Green Empowerment Zone in Contra Costa County, add environmental justice representatives, and extend authorization to 2040; it passed 7-0 to the floor. SB 263 would direct the California Transportation Agency to study the statewide impacts of tariffs, with supporters from the ports, retail, and trucking sectors arguing that better data is needed to guide budgeting and policy responses; it passed 7-0 to Appropriations. SB 769 would create the Golden State Infrastructure Fund to finance major infrastructure projects through a revolving public-private investment model; supporters said it would help address long-term infrastructure needs and prepare for major events, and the bill passed 6-0 to Appropriations after opposition was withdrawn. All measures were reported out of committee, and the meeting adjourned at 10:39 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• The language that's in the bill now caps it at 10 years. We're going to move that to 15 years.
• Bledsoe, you know, I think Representative Bledsoe, you know, I think this is a good start at trying to cap
• We've been told there's a similar bill being drafted to go ahead and cap law enforcement at that 15-year
• I will support an age cap. If you're over 75, support an age cap.
• But this arbitrary 10 or 15 years cap frankly is not when we would expect some of these diseases to occur

Bills: HB227, HB255, HB465, HB472, HB482, HB483, HB526, HB529, HB484

Keywords: firefighter benefits, occupational disease, line of duty, disability pension, death benefits, retirement benefits, hypertension, heart disease, respiratory disease, cancer presumption, HIV, hepatitis, municipal firefighters, state firefighters, fire districts, workers' compensation, public safety employees, post-retirement benefits, benefit eligibility cutoff, occupational illness

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not<01:30:08.639> capped.
• And we just wanted to bring not capped.
• > you want to exceed the cap without you want to exceed the cap without you knowing<01:30:17.120
• So that is we not subject to the cap.
• last minute that talked about um capping last minute that talked about um capping payments<01:30

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Those making $60,000 or less would have their assessments capped at 4% of their income.
• And $150,000 would have property taxes capped at 6% of their income.
• This bill lowers the assessment cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%.
• This bill lowers the assessment cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%.
• This bill lowers the assessment cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand homestead property tax relief, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses. Senator Avila presented the measure as a major property tax reform intended to provide relief to homeowners and restrain local government spending, while opponents argued it would shift costs to fees, services, and state appropriations and could harm local budgets, public safety, schools, and other services. Several senators also raised concerns about the ballot language and the lack of a completed fiscal analysis. The chamber considered and rejected multiple amendments. Senator Sharif’s income-based “circuit breaker” amendment failed, as did Senator Smith’s sunset clause amendment and Senator Berman’s amendment to rewrite the ballot statement for greater accuracy. During questioning, Avila said the revised language was meant to preserve flexibility for local governments and that future legislatures could set implementing procedures and, if necessary, prohibit certain local expenditures by general law. He also confirmed that the proposal would not affect refinancing or portability, and said the measure would not prevent local governments from continuing to fund many services such as libraries, parks, animal control, code enforcement, mosquito control, public housing, county health departments, and elections. Debate on final passage was extensive. Supporters described the proposal as overdue relief for homeowners and a way to force local governments to prioritize spending, while critics called it a risky tax shift that could reduce local revenue by billions and force cuts or higher fees. Some senators emphasized concerns about public safety funding, mental health and social services, and the accuracy of the ballot summary; others argued the measure would give voters a chance to decide on property tax reform. After debate, the resolution was rolled over for third reading and the Senate continued discussion, but the transcript provided does not include a final vote on the joint resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, the next bullet point you'll see: participation caps increased.
• Also, the next bullet point you'll see: participation caps increased.
• Also, the next bullet point you'll see: participation caps increased.
• Also, the next bullet point you'll see: participation caps increased.
• Also, the next bullet point you'll see: participation caps increased.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:09 Attendance Roll Call: 00:01:42 Approval of Minutes: 00:03:23 Overview of Actuarial Audit Process: 00:03:47 Overview of Reemployment After Retirement Provisions: 00:25:26 Teachers’ Retirement System: 00:25:26 Kentucky Public Pensions Authority: 00:50:32 Adjournment: 01:02:55, 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with quorum, approval of the prior minutes, and an announcement that the June meeting had been canceled and replaced by this combined May/June meeting; the next official PPOB meeting was announced for July 21 at 2:30. Staff then gave an overview of the Public Pension Oversight Board’s required actuarial audit process, explaining that House Bill 238 requires a review every five years of the retirement systems’ actuarial assumptions and methods, funded by the systems themselves. The presentation distinguished this audit from a financial or forensic audit, described the three possible audit levels (full replication, limited/spot review, or basic review), and noted that the last audit in 2021 was a level one performed by Milleman Consulting at a cost of about $190,000. Members discussed timing for the next audit cycle, with a request to LRC likely needed in July or August to target the June 30, 2026 valuation, and several members expressed interest in another level one review. Questions also addressed whether prior audits found major issues; staff said the 2021 review was generally clean but recommended more consistency in reporting and assumptions across systems. The committee then welcomed new staff and interns, including Odet Guanzi of KPPPA and Team Kentucky intern Amamira Bowman. Bo Barnes of the Teachers Retirement System presented an overview of the statutory framework for reemployment after retirement under KRS 161.605. He explained that the law is intended to let retirees return to help with staffing needs, do so in an actuarially sound way through required contributions, and keep TRS compliant with federal tax rules for a qualified plan under section 401(a). Barnes described the required breaks in service and earnings limits for retirees returning part-time or full-time, including the three-month or 12-month break depending on the employer, the 6,900-day limit, and the daily wage threshold based on years of service. He also noted a lightly used critical shortage program that allows school districts to hire retirees without a wage cap, while still observing the break-in-service rules. Members asked questions about who decides the scope and level of the actuarial audit, how the audit would treat leave balances and other benefit-related items, and whether the prior level one audit identified substantial problems. Staff said the committee would request the audit, but LRC would handle contracting, and that the audit scope could include items like sick leave and annual leave costs if requested. On the reemployment topic, Barnes emphasized that the rules are designed to avoid pre-arranged retire-and-return arrangements that could jeopardize TRS’s tax-qualified status. No formal votes were taken beyond approving the minutes, and the meeting concluded with the presentations and discussion of these pension oversight issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Is that the cap? So everybody can get as much as 8 to 12 cap?
• So, everybody can get as >> is the cap.
• But percentage much as 8 to 12 cap.
• 30:32.399> not<00:30:32.640> including $25,000 cap, and that's not including $25,000 cap
• Again, it wouldn't be that high, but again, there are caps here.

Bills: HB1602, HB2246, HB1707, HB2216, HB2594, HB2595, HB2155, HB2113, HB2207, HB1832, HB2015, HB2152, HB2548

Keywords: agriculture, grant specialist, financial support, farmers, Hawaii, federal grants, grant administration, revolving fund, department of agriculture and biosecurity, grant compliance, transportation, reimbursement, food security, local production, sustainability, agricultural loans, financing, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, Hawaii agriculture, loan portfolio

Transcript Highlights:

• THIS JOINT RESOLUTION WILL AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND RAISE THE CAP ON THE BUDGET STABILIZATION
• ELECTION THE LEGISLATURE WILL BE REQUIRED TO TRANSFER $750 MILLION EACH YEAR UNTIL THE FUND HITS THE CAP
• SO ALL THE CURRENT BILL SAYS WE HAVE A FOUR TO 5 PERCENT OF GENERAL REVENUE WITH A CAP OF 10 PERCENT.
• SIDE NOTE, I THINK YOUR PAYMENT TO THE BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND THIS YEAR WILL PUT US AT A 10 PERCENT CAP
• WE CANNOT PUT INTO BSF BECAUSE WERE ALREADY AT A 10 PERCENT CAP SO IT'S HELD UNTIL THE DECISION IS MADE

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Bills: SJR37, SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB108, SB125, SB251, SB318, SB378, SB379, SB396, SB472, SB487, SB503, SB533, SB565, SB583, SB608, SB650, SB686, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB763, SB854, SB875, SB916, SB924, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB987, SB988, SB1006, SB1019, SB1021, SB1024, SB1026, SB1038, SB1146, SB1185, SB1194, SB1202, SB1252, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1497, SB1498, SB1499, SB1527, SB1547, SB1596, SB1697, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SJR37, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB925, SB1362, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB379, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB1352, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB961, SB1038, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, 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

Keywords: voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, constitutional amendment, voting rights, central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:46.000> that<00:07:46.400> cap length of those agreements. that cap length of
• The eight years is just a cap.
• do that by creating this 8-year cap. do that by creating this 8-year cap. that<00:35:41.359>
• Um and it cap makes perfect sense.
• And that's all I have a a cap at least.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then I got capped at $10,000, right? Now it's up to $20,000, married.
• cap as well as the non-homestead cap.
• It is something that we already have in place for that 3% cap.
• Going from a 10% cap to a 5% cap is a significant amount that those businesses and those non-homestead
• Instead of eliminating property taxes, why not cap property insurance?

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• from other gaming sources, so potentially a $100,000 cap?
• from other gaming sources, so potentially a $100,000 cap?
• We are not opposed to the cap per se; we're opposed to taking funds out of the sector.
• If that was capped at $50,000, we would not be able to serve the people that we serve.
• If there was a cap at $50,000...

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 530, a bill to increase funding for New Hampshire’s Affordable Housing Fund. Representative Jessica Lontine, the sponsor, described the state’s housing crisis, citing high rents, low vacancy, and the lack of affordable units. She said the bill would double the annual transfer-tax deposit into the fund from $5 million to $10 million, and she later presented an amendment to hold the Education Trust Fund harmless by directing the housing-fund deposit from remaining revenue after that trust fund is funded. She also explained a prospective appropriation idea tied to a possible future sale of the Laconia State School property, with the goal of supporting community housing for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Much of the testimony focused on the shortage of accessible and supportive housing for people with disabilities and aging family caregivers. Lontine, Ben Saul of Visions for Creative Housing Solutions, Lori McIntosh of Our Place NH, and Maddie Mandelbaum all described the difficulty families face in planning for adult children with disabilities as parents age or die. They emphasized that many people need not only affordable housing but accessible, supportive settings, and they argued that state investment would help nonprofit providers build such housing and prevent homelessness or inappropriate institutional placement. Several witnesses also noted that existing projects rely on capital funding and that operating revenues are limited because residents often depend on SSI and Medicaid. Committee members asked questions about the fiscal impact of the bill and amendment, including whether the proposal would shift money from the general fund or education trust fund and whether the Finance Committee should have final say over spending priorities. Lontine said she understood those concerns but argued that housing should be prioritized. Housing Action New Hampshire’s Tom Duroza also testified in support of the bill, saying the state’s housing shortage is driving record prices and vacancy rates below 1%, and that the Affordable Housing Fund has leveraged more than $500 million in private investment and helped build thousands of rental homes. He said his organization supported the underlying bill but had not yet reviewed the amendment. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're going to have another bill a little bit later talking about voting to override caps in ...
• So, we're going to have another bill a little bit later talking about voting to override caps in ...
• So, we're going to have another bill a little bit later talking about voting to override caps in ...
• <00:32:58.240> So<00:32:58.480> that override a a tax cap solution.
• So that override a a tax cap solution.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, as we go through this, I'll cap.
• No one else has that 1% cap.
• <00:54:20.079> is other place that has the 1% cap is other place that has the 1% cap is Washington
• They're all uh, our fellow states cap.
• So, we're just going have no cap at all.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all