Transcript Highlights:

• It requires local taxes adopted by referendum to have an expiration date.
• It does not require a referendum every eight years.

Summary: The Finance and Tax Committee considered several tax-related measures. SB 674, allowing county property appraisers to budget for and pay hiring or retention bonuses with Department of Revenue approval, was supported by property appraisers and reported favorably. C.S. for SJR 318, as amended, would create a tangible personal property exemption for agricultural land used in agricultural production or agritourism; the amendment clarified the property’s location and allowed the Legislature to define conditions, and the resolution was reported favorably with support from Farm Bureau and the Florida Chamber. The committee also advanced C.S. for SB 1664, as amended, which requires locally approved discretionary taxes to be reauthorized by voters when they expire and sets rules for taxes tied to revenue bonds. Local government and tourism-related groups raised concerns about impacts on tourist development taxes, beach funding, transportation surtaxes, and long-term planning, while supporters argued voters should periodically reaffirm taxes; the bill was reported favorably. C.S. for SJR 1510 and its implementing bill, SB 1512, were both amended to sharply narrow a proposed long-term lease property tax exemption to one qualifying property and to single-family homes, mobile homes, and condominiums; counties and cities opposed the measures as tax shifts, but both were reported favorably. The committee then took up SPB 7034, the Senate tax package, which includes permanent sales tax exemptions for certain clothing and bullion, multiple tax holidays, a temporary motor vehicle fee reduction, a property tax study, corporate and insurance tax credit changes, a communications services tax freeze, and other tax provisions, with staff estimating $2.1 billion in total revenue reduction. Testimony included support for studying property taxes and strong opposition to the firearm and ammunition tax holiday from students and advocacy groups, who argued it was unsafe and inappropriate; others urged adding combined reporting or removing tourist development tax changes. After debate, the committee reported the package favorably and also approved a motion to submit it as a committee bill. The meeting ended after Senator Bernard recorded an affirmative vote on tab 5 and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, essentially, all things being equal, we will be able to develop twice as many 4% tax credit apartment
• A citizen group got together and petitioned for its adoption and asked that it be a referendum for a
• How either, number one, you're not going to have any housing because the column on the left would equal
• The column on the right would equal housing at a price that's a price above where you would probably
• To make it a functional, feasible parcel that equals housing for the citizens that we serve.

Transcript Highlights:

• But a lot of this is targeted stuff, targeted going in, mainly it's. in local races and in referendums
• This bill is based on equal treatment, a bill to help guarantee that Across our state government agencies
• You are helping them get closer to an equal chance at success.

Bills: HB256, HB1308, HB1554, HB1743, HB2308, HB2351, HB2858, HB3676, HB3784, HB4312, HB4552, HB4823, HB4852, HB5007, HB5010, HB5520, HB5524, HCR19, HB256, HCR19

Keywords: E-verify, employment verification, illegal employment, state contracts, government entities, license suspension, immigration compliance, state grant funding, E-Verify, compliance, penalties, immigration, government contracts, employee status, state contractors, E-verify program, legally present, employment practices, legal services, public money

Transcript Highlights:

• members, I believe that the companies who rent out scrubs to our doctors and nurses should receive equal
• It's on equal rights. Rights clause under Article 1, Section 3A. I'll read it to you.
• So, the Equal Rights Amendment in our Texas Constitution was drafted and adopted on November 7th, 1972
• How does your SCR, for that matter, Senator Middleton's bill, jive with the Equal Protection Clause?
• Or rather, the Bill of Rights, the equality under the law statute under our Texas Constitution?

Bills: SJR85, SCR29, SCR38, SCR42, SB23, SB39, SB209, SB227, SB240, SB330, SB527, SB584, SB618, SB619, SB636, SB663, SB715, SB732, SB758, SB801, SB825, SB826, SB843, SB844, SB847, SB870, SB884, SB912, SB957, SB1013, SB1020, SB1065, SB1143, SB1152, SB1164, SB1183, SB1257, SB1299, SB1325, SB1349, SB1413, SB1455, SB1539, SB1558, SB1574, SB1583, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1667, SB1717, SB1718, SB1727, SB1734, SB1756, SB1757, SB1784, SB1789, SB1832, SB1868, SB1870, SB1883, SB1896, SB1920, SB1924, SB1963, SB2010, SB2018, SB2024, SB2037, SB2052, SB2073, SB2111, SB2161, SB2196, SB2207, SB2253, SB2268, SB2322, SB2323, SB2332, SB2349, SB2371, SB2533, SB2570, SB2601, SB2626, SB2692, SB2705, SB2717, SB2774, SB2788, SB2877, SB2920, SB2, SB260, SB1786, SB1, HJR4, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR85, SJR84, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR42, SCR29, SCR4, SCR18, SCR43, SCR46, SB2023, SB825, SB2010, SB1870, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB1791, SB826, SB1257, SB870, SB529, SB209, SB1883, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1860, SB2037, SB1924, SB2253, SB2018, SB2206, SB1963, SB1643, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB1085, SB2431, SB1490, SB1868, SB2314, SB434, SB2046, SB1667, SB1727, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB1784, SB1524, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB1940, SB2052, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB884, SB463, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2141, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601, SB2322, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB407, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB3031, SB2877, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1395, SB1972, SB2540, SB1183, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB2117, SB715, SB2330, SB1964, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB39, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2658, SB1574, SB2900, SB23, SB2753, SB2398, SB401, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB2031, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, HB135, HB1109, SCR48, SB31, SB2880, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB2351, SB410, SB659, SB816, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB482, SB456, SB127, SB1666

Keywords: Texas constitutional amendment, property tax relief, school district taxes, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, elderly homeowners, senior citizens, disabled homeowners, age 65 or older, school finance, tax exemption increase, local school taxes, property tax exemption, homestead tax relief, voter approval, school district revenue, tax rollback, disabled persons exemption, El Paso

Transcript Highlights:

• had the expansion of historic horse racing into fairly large properties without having an opt-in referendum
• taken a quick look online, and unless the amendment changes the language, it only authorizes a referendum
• language it says it only authorizes the language it says it only authorizes a<01:46:21.719> referendum
• <01:46:22.400> regarding<01:46:23.239> historic<01:46:23.679> horse a referendum
• regarding historic horse a referendum regarding historic horse racing<01:46:25.639> I racing

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on HB 660, which would require historic horse racing facilities to pay 10% of HHR winnings to host communities as mitigation. Representative Om said the amendment was intended to leave charities and the state whole while funding local costs tied to large gaming facilities. Supporters argued the measure would address future municipal expenses, while opponents said host towns have not reported current problems and that the bill would single out one industry. Members questioned the 10% rate, whether the proposal was retroactive, and whether it would apply to existing facilities; the sponsor said it would apply to facilities already in place or later added. The hearing was then closed without any vote recorded in the transcript. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 658-FN, which raises reimbursement caps and adjusts fees for the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund and the Oil Pollution Control Fund. Representative Malloy introduced the bill, and Representative Aly explained the funds as a state-backed insurance mechanism for oil spill cleanup and prevention, including replacement of leaking home heating oil tanks for low-income homeowners. Bob Scully of the Energy Marketers Association supported the bill, saying the fee structure helps fund remediation and tank replacement, though costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. Department of Environmental Services officials Robert Bishop and Jennifer Marts described the bill as extending the fee collection for 10 years, changing reporting dates, increasing the cap for low-income tank replacement, and rebalancing fees based on an actuarial review. DES testified that the actuarial study found the fund needed to remain solvent and that home heating oil releases are the largest category of new releases, with the fuel oil fee otherwise needing to rise by more than 200% to cover projected costs. The board instead proposed a smaller increase and adjusted other fees accordingly, while maintaining a reserve to cover the first days of a major coastal spill before federal funds become available. Members asked about the basis for the fee changes, the role of the actuarial review, and the statutory language governing who pays the fees. The transcript ends during this hearing, with no final committee action or vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• To talk about the bill, even if there was an initiative or referendum filed.
• the primary date, just don't talk about a bill that is subject to a ballot measure initiative or referendum

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The meeting focused on ethics guidance for legislators’ official newsletters and social media posts about a major tax bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members and staff debated whether existing board guidance, which allowed comments on legislation previously before the legislature, should also apply to social media and to the current biennium rather than only the immediately preceding session. Several members argued that legislators should be able to state how they voted on the bill and discuss it as part of their legislative record, while others stressed that using state resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure is prohibited and that posts could become an indirect appeal to voters. The discussion also covered whether there should be a bright-line cutoff tied to the primary election date, after which official communications should stop discussing the bill if it is now a ballot measure. Staff and members raised concerns about tone, tenor, and proximity to the election, and whether official social media, caucus communications, and newsletters should be treated differently. One motion to extend the prior rule to the full biennium and apply it to social media failed. A second motion then passed establishing the primary date as a date certain for monitoring these discussions, with the understanding that official communications should be more limited after that point. Members noted that personal social media and campaign resources remain separate from official legislative resources. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered, before a brief break and executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• To talk about the bill, even if there was an initiative or referendum filed.
• the primary date, just don't talk about a bill that is subject to a ballot measure initiative or referendum

Summary: The meeting focused on whether legislators and legislative staff may use official resources, including newsletters and social media, to comment on a bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members discussed older ethics guidance allowing comments on legislation previously before the legislature, but questioned whether that rule still applies to modern social media posts and to ballot measures, especially when the language is strong or could be seen as an indirect appeal to voters. Several members argued that once a bill becomes a ballot measure, using state resources to advocate for or against it is prohibited, while others emphasized the importance of allowing officials to explain their votes and speak to their legislative record. The group debated possible guardrails, including whether comments should be limited to the bill itself, whether tone and timing should matter, and whether the rule should apply only to members not subject to election-year restrictions. One motion proposed extending the prior ethics guidance from the immediately preceding legislative session to the full biennium and applying it to social media, but that motion failed. Members then shifted toward a brighter-line approach tied to the primary election date, with discussion that after the primary officials should not use state resources to talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to ballot challenge. A second motion to use the primary date as the cutoff for monitoring these discussions was made, seconded, and passed. The chair then noted that officials are still free to speak on personal or campaign accounts, and to respond to questions, but the board’s guidance would help distinguish permissible official communications from campaign-like advocacy. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• This concept may be better fitted for something like a referendum to let those voters have more of a
• , when the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority in Pensacola, Florida, decided to do a non-binding referendum

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government heard a presentation on its 2025-2026 budget recommendations and adopted the proposal as a recommendation to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The chair highlighted major funding items including more than $1.2 billion for water quality and Everglades work, citrus recovery, food bank and pantry grants, wastewater and drinking water loans, beach restoration, flood and sea level rise projects, rural land protection, disaster loans, state facilities repairs, SLERS, accounting system replacement, and continued funding for My Safe Florida Home. Staff were authorized to make technical adjustments, and members were told final proviso project lists would be printed later in the week. The committee then considered several bills and reported them favorably, including SB 796 on DEP general permits for distributed wastewater treatment systems to help local governments address failing septic-related water quality problems; SB 1162 expanding boating improvement and water access facilities programs; SB 466 implementing the Florida Museum of Black History task force’s selection of West Augustine as the museum site; SB 178 creating a FAMU agronomic study on viable crops for land taken out of production; CS/SB 678 allowing pawnbroker transaction forms to be printed or digital; and CS/SB 736 updating the Brownfields program, with a technical amendment adopted. Testimony on these bills was generally supportive, with speakers from affected industries, local governments, and advocacy groups. The committee also took up CS/CS/SB 700, the comprehensive Florida Farm Bill, which included technical agency changes and major policy provisions such as restrictions on additives to public water supplies, labeling requirements for meat, milk, poultry, and eggs, drone-related protections for farmland, disaster recovery loan updates, an honest services registry for charities, FFA scholarship and school infrastructure provisions, and a mechanism for state purchase of former solar-converted agricultural land. The water-additive provisions drew extensive debate and testimony from supporters and opponents, including dental professionals, public health advocates, and groups arguing for medical freedom and local control. Despite the controversy and a no vote from Senator Arrington, the bill was reported favorably. Finally, SB 1226 creating a regulatory framework for pet insurance was also reported favorably, and the committee adjourned after members recorded additional votes on several bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• triggered when a local government, so either a county or a school district, is seeking a sales tax referendum
• triggered when a local government, so either a county or a school district, is seeking a sales tax referendum

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee met to receive annual overviews of its oversight responsibilities and the work of the Auditor General and OPAGA. Committee staff reviewed the committee’s authority over state and local governments, enforcement of audit-report filing requirements, repeated audit findings, Transparency Florida reporting, and lobbying compensation audits. Auditor General Cheryl Norman described her office’s independence, audit standards, quality control, and major audit areas, including the state’s annual financial and single audits, school district and university audits, operational and performance audits, and attestation work. She also noted staffing shortages, recruitment efforts, and a request for carry-forward funds to study salaries. Members asked about whether audits can quantify recoverable dollars, how school district spending comparisons are handled, and how to raise concerns about DCF-related audits or a local city audit that has been pending for years. Norman said her office can quantify findings when possible, sometimes compares costs across districts in operational audits, and that members can bring specific concerns to the appropriate deputy auditor general or the committee. She also explained that citizen or local-government audit requests may require payment of audit costs. OPAGA Coordinator Kara Collins-Gomez outlined OPAGA’s role as a legislative research unit that conducts studies directed by law, the presiding officers, or the committee, and described its policy areas, methodologies, contract monitoring, and recurring statutory reports. Deputy Auditor General Matthew Tracy explained how to read operational audit reports, including findings, criteria, condition, cause, effect, recommendations, and management responses. Deputy Auditor General Greg Senators explained financial audit reports, including audit opinions, required supplementary information, internal control and compliance findings, federal program compliance, and management letters. The meeting concluded with thanks to the presenters and a motion to adjourn, which passed without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• EFAC so that the amounts of the EFAC so that the projected aggregate total of tax credits claimed is equal
• believe this is the amendment that I believe this is the amendment that turns this back into a referendum

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Special districts are allowed to increase the exemption as well, but through a referendum approved by
• It doesn't mean they're not going to be equally inefficient or corrupt.
• the local entity would have to approve such an increase by a supermajority, unanimous vote, or referendum

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Special districts are allowed to increase the exemption as well, but through a referendum approved by
• It doesn't mean they're not going to be equally inefficient or corrupt.
• the local entity would have to approve such an increase by a supermajority, unanimous vote, or referendum

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment on property tax reform. The measure would increase the homestead exemption in stages, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses such as public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee benefits, and certain administrative costs. Supporters, led by Senator Avila, argued the proposal would provide meaningful property tax relief and push local governments to rein in spending, while opponents warned it would shift costs to fees, reduce local flexibility, and threaten funding for core services. Several amendments were offered and rejected. Senator Sharief proposed an income-based circuit breaker for property tax relief; Senator Smith offered a sunset clause; and Senator Berman proposed revising the ballot statement to better match the amended proposal and remove outdated references. Each amendment failed on recorded votes. During questioning and debate, senators pressed Avila on the ballot language, the effect on local services, whether the legislature could later restrict local spending by statute, and whether renters would benefit. Avila said the ballot language was not his and repeatedly stated he was presenting the governor’s proposal, while also saying local governments would need to prioritize budgets and that future legislatures could address implementation details. After the amendment votes, the joint resolution was read a third time and moved into final debate. Supporters said the proposal would give homeowners relief and force fiscal discipline at the local level. Opponents, including Senators Nathan, Bracey Davis, Smith, Polsky, and Errington, argued the measure was rushed, lacked a completed fiscal analysis or replacement revenue, and could harm police, fire, libraries, parks, housing, and other local services. They also criticized the ballot summary as misleading, especially regarding the staged homestead exemption increase. The transcript ends during debate, before any final vote on the joint resolution itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill's new CI classification for large consumptive use facilities is equally unnecessary.
• This bill would help clarify and strengthen the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 to ensure that referendums
• recent court case, NFR Project Owner LLC versus City of Oceanside, where the court did find that a referendum

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee hearing covered a large slate of local government and housing-related bills, with several authors presenting measures aimed at streamlining development, updating local government procedures, and addressing infrastructure and resource issues. Early bills included AB 2639 on Merced County flood control coordination, AB 1786 allowing certain local agencies to use best-value contracting, AB 2058 reducing duplicative permitting and inspection costs for factory-built housing, AB 2576 clarifying historic resource protections in housing law, AB 2568 increasing the number of compensated days for water district board members, AB 2224 updating county recorder fees and electronic recording requirements, AB 2469 requiring data-center water supply assessments and cost responsibility, and AB 2397 limiting local vetoes over housing infrastructure financing districts. Most of these measures drew support from local governments, housing advocates, or special districts, while some also drew opposition from business, county, or labor groups depending on the bill. The most extensive debate centered on AB 1751, which would create ministerial approval for qualifying townhome projects and establish a $28 hourly minimum wage floor for construction workers on covered projects, while expressly preserving prevailing wage law. Supporters, including the author, the California Conference of Carpenters, and housing advocates, argued the bill would expand homeownership opportunities, raise wages for largely non-union workers, and improve accountability through direct developer liability and enforcement provisions. Opponents, including several building trades organizations and some local government groups, argued the bill would undercut prevailing wage standards, reduce benefits, and could create broader wage pressure in the construction market. Committee members raised questions about land-use barriers, the wage floor, and the bill’s interaction with prevailing wage and federal law, and the author emphasized that the measure was intended as a wage floor rather than a replacement for prevailing wage. AB 2469 on data centers also drew a sharp split. Supporters said the bill would give local governments better information before approving water-intensive projects, protect overdrafted groundwater basins, and ensure data centers pay for needed infrastructure rather than shifting costs to ratepayers. Opponents from the Chamber of Commerce, the Data Center Coalition, and others argued the bill imposed unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional burdens, singled out one industry, and could create security and competitiveness concerns. Across the hearing, several authors asked for aye votes, and committee members repeatedly noted that the committee was still operating without a quorum, so no final votes were taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, this would be trying to equalize that and bring this more into alignment.
• And so, I think in order to stay consistent, we should adopt this and make this apply equally across
• adopt this and make this apply equally adopt this and make this apply equally across<00:12:03.160
• We are simply asking for fairness and equal treatment.
• referendum was unsuccessful. referendum was unsuccessful.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At the same time, I wonder about a referendum proposal. That way you could take it to the citizens.
• At the same time, I wonder about a referendum proposal. That way you could take it to the citizens.

Summary: The Missouri House Legislative Rules Committee held a rare public hearing on House Bill 2243, sponsored by Rep. Bryant-Wolfen, which would repeal a local sales tax exemption for certain industries that was enacted in a prior omnibus bill tied to the Wayfair-related tax changes. The sponsor argued the exemption shifted revenue away from counties and onto local residents, and said the bill would restore local tax collections that had been lost without a guaranteed replacement. Several members questioned whether the proposal amounted to a tax increase on manufacturers and whether it could deter investment or job growth; the sponsor responded that the tax burden had already been shifted to Missourians and that other pro-business reforms could address competitiveness. Supporters from Iron County, St. Genevieve County, and Adair County testified that the exemption had reduced local revenue for roads, law enforcement, ambulance, and 911 services. They described budget shortfalls, service cuts, and the impact on counties that had already approved local sales or use taxes by voter approval. One Iron County commissioner said the loss of revenue had forced higher property tax levies and reduced ambulance coverage, while St. Genevieve officials cited large drops in monthly sales tax receipts and rising costs. Adair County officials said the exemption affected revenue from large solar and wind projects and argued that the taxes were intended to support local infrastructure and schools. Opponents, including Associated Industries in Missouri, argued the exemption was originally adopted to keep Missouri’s tax system uniform and compliant with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wayfair framework for out-of-state sellers. They warned that removing the exemption could create a $35 million annual burden on manufacturers and potentially jeopardize broader local use-tax collections if the state’s system were challenged again. Committee members also discussed the possibility of requiring local voter approval or a replacement revenue source before changing the exemption. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the chair said he planned to execute the bill later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1429 amends section 19-101, 19-102, and 19-102.01, A.R.S., relating to initiative and referendum
• Senate Bill 1429 amends section 19-101, 19-102, and 19-102.01, A.R.S., relating to initiative and referendum

Summary: The House met, opened with prayer and the Pledge, approved the prior journal, and first took up a motion to request Senate consent for an extended adjournment. Representative Volk opposed the motion, arguing members should keep working on unfinished business, while Speaker Montenegro said the House had completed its current budget work and was waiting on the governor to return to negotiations. The motion passed 31-20, and the House also agreed to a related Senate adjournment request and to return HB 2415 to the Senate for reconsideration. The chamber then went into Committee of the Whole and considered several Senate bills. SB 1199, concerning the Salt River wild horse herd, was amended to pause removals for a genetic diversity study and received a do-pass recommendation. SB 1399 on Medicaid spending transparency, SB 1496, SB 1497, SB 1582, SB 1713, and SB 1798 were also amended and advanced. SB 1713 drew the most debate, with supporters saying it would expand pharmacist access to basic care and improve rural and veteran access, while opponents warned it expanded scope of practice beyond pharmacists’ training. The House later adopted the Committee of the Whole report, ordered several bills engrossed, and sent SB 1399 to third reading. In a second Committee of the Whole, SB 1214 and SB 1670 were further amended and advanced. The House then moved to third reading and voted on multiple bills. SB 1006, SB 1037, SB 1171, SB 1242, SB 1270, SB 1419, SB 1429, SB 1445, SB 1452, SB 1478, and SB 1566 passed, while SB 1099 and SB 1635 failed on the initial vote. Members then used reconsideration motions to place SB 1006 and SB 1635 back on the third-reading calendar. The session ended with personal privilege remarks recognizing correctional officers, Cinco de Mayo guests, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples Awareness Day, and other tributes, followed by adjournment until June 1, 2026.

Bills: HF2136, HF4195, HF4548, HF4432, HF4174, HF3024, HF4389, HF3773

Keywords: youth intervention, grants, community support, early intervention services, nonprofit, Minnesota human services, forecast adjustment, budget forecast, appropriations, Medical Assistance, MinnesotaCare, Health Care Access Fund, general fund, behavioral health, housing support, General Assistance, Minnesota Supplemental Aid, MFIP, DWP, child care assistance

Transcript Highlights:

• And it would ensure all Hawaiʻi producers regardless of location benefit from equal protection against
• And it would ensure all Hawaiʻi producers regardless of location benefit from equal protection against
• And it would ensure all Hawaiʻi producers regardless of location benefit from equal protection against

Bills: SB2885, SB2174, SB2925, SB2798, SB2320, SB2800, SB1230, SB2706, SB3233, SB2405, SB2350, SB2169, SB3320

Keywords: coconut rhinoceros beetle, invasive species, biosecurity, green waste, environmental management, agriculture, quarantine, pest control, transport regulations, Hawaii Revised Statutes, coconut trees, tax credit, natural management, Hawaii, environment, agricultural enforcement, agricultural theft, farm theft, crop theft, commodity theft

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 2885 SD1, which would create mandatory handling and storage rules for commercial and residential coconut rhinoceros beetle host material beginning in 2027, with penalties and an effective date. Support came from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, DLNR, Maui County Department of Agriculture, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Hawaii Farmers Union, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Testifiers generally said the bill would help reduce CRB spread, though some urged additional science-backed methods, better coordination, and technical or cost-share support for smaller operations. Hawaiian Earth Recycling recommended amendments to align the bill with existing Department of Health/EPA composting rules, add other materials that can harbor CRB, allow future approved treatment methods, and replace the bill’s 60-day turning requirement with existing pathogen-reduction standards. One individual supported the goal but argued the state’s CRB strategy has lacked community and cultural consultation and should include a cultural advisement role. Department witnesses said enforcement would rely on inspection and an educate-before-regulate approach, and they noted the challenge of creating enough drop-off sites, especially in rural areas. The committee then took up SB 2174 SD2, which would authorize the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to declare an emergency quarantine, halt operations in affected areas for 96 hours with possible extension, quarantine suspected pest areas, issue notices and compensation to affected farmers, and adopt interim transportation rules for materials that may harbor high-impact invasive species. The department and DLNR supported the measure, emphasizing the need for fast action in the first hours of an invasion. Hawaii Farmers Union supported the compensation provisions but asked for stronger communication with producers and a post-action report to the Board of Agriculture after about 90 days to evaluate effectiveness and economic impacts. In response to questions, department staff said the bill would be a short-term, department-only quarantine authority distinct from the governor-declared biosecurity emergency authority enacted previously, and that it could serve as an intermediate step. They also said outreach would need to be done through farm organizations such as Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, and Cattlemen’s groups. The final measure discussed was SB 2925 SD1, relating to coconut trees. The bill would recognize coconut trees as a source of food and water and a cultural treasure, require rules for coconut tree seed banks, require signage identifying landscape palms where applicable, set labeling standards for non-consumable landscape palms, and create an income tax credit for consumable coconut trees maintained through natural management practices. The transcript ended before testimony or action on this bill was completed, and no vote was taken on any of the measures discussed in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2006 allows the Oklahoma Higher Tuition Aid Acts to include nonprofit accredited institutions
• We're trying to increase their ability for financial aid, but we've got to tighten it up so that it doesn't

Bills: SB514, SB346, SB1593, SB1782, SB1366, SB1497, SB366, SB1895, SB2048, SB2005, SB2006, SB710, SB1480

Keywords: SB514, school choice, charter school, virtual charter school, OSSAA, extracurricular activities, interscholastic activities, athletics, homeschool, other means of education, alternative education, student eligibility, student transfer, district policy, public school district, adjacent district, blended learning, virtual learning, school sports, academic eligibility

Bills: SB1280, SB1392, SB1393, SB1395, SB1400, SB1405, SB1832, SB1839, SB1989, SB2001, SB2143

Keywords: excise tax, oil tax, natural gas tax, state revenue, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, income tax, tax credit, aerospace sector, employment, economic development, adaptive reuse, affordable housing, urban renewal, economic impact, program, housing, revitalization, urban development, income tax credit, manufacturing