Transcript Highlights:

• I consulted with our legal counsel, and I am absolutely confident that SB4 complies with all applicable
• SB4 complies with all applicable law, and I will say that we have an excellent law firm.
• No, the section that referred to a fee...
• They just maybe have a gate, and you pay your fee online and show up to get the gate code, whatever.
• So, that is a statewide application.

Bills: SB8, SB4, SB43, SB1, SB2, SB13, SB6, SB10, SB16, SB14, SB3, SB8, SB4, SB43, SB1, SB2, SB13, SB6, SB10, SB16, SB14, SB3

Keywords: education, accountability, public school assessment, state law, transparency, intervention, performance ratings, Texas congressional redistricting, U.S. House districts, congressional map, redistricting, gerrymandering, 2020 Census, census tracts, block groups, voting districts, election law, Texas House of Representatives districts, federal congressional districts, 2026 elections

Transcript Highlights:

• The findings emphasize the state interest in promoting accountability and adherence to the applicable
• What evidence do we have that caps Leads to a greater adherence to the applicable standard of care?
• I don't know the practical application. That's what I'm asking. Senator Collins.
• They said we can have fees related to some of these single-use plastics. these single-use plastics that
• As well as information on increasing attorneys' fees to $250,000.

Bills: HCR35, SJR59, SJR84, SCR30, SB127, SB317, SB324, SB457, SB506, SB511, SB529, SB547, SB584, SB619, SB636, SB646, SB659, SB715, SB732, SB735, SB771, SB784, SB800, SB801, SB904, SB1026, SB1049, SB1065, SB1181, SB1224, SB1250, SB1383, SB1467, SB1524, SB1528, SB1531, SB1568, SB1585, SB1640, SB1681, SB1754, SB1757, SB1777, SB1972, SB1980, SB2007, SB2041, SB2046, SB2050, SB2055, SB2069, SB2080, SB2119, SB2138, SB2139, SB2154, SB2201, SB2225, SB2268, SB2306, SB2308, SB2310, SB2330, SB2366, SB2375, SB2392, SB2401, SB2422, SB2480, SB2514, SB2530, SB2533, SB2543, SB2544, SB2589, SB2610, SB2615, SB2623, SB2660, SB2662, SB2693, SB2695, SB2707, SB2722, SB2742, SB2753, SB2807, SB2843, SB2844, SB2858, SB2880, SB2885, SB2891, SB2925, SB2938, SB2986, SJR3, SJR18, SB5, SB914, SB963, SB1197, SB1415, SB1437, SB1786, SB326, SB767, SB769, SB783, SB1035, SB1271, SB1619, SB1637, SB1806, SB1, SB260, HB135, HB 1109, HCR35, HCR64, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR84, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR48, SCR19, SCR30, SCR3, SB2023, SB619, SB2742, SB646, SB1026, SB2880, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB1502, SB507, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB529, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB584, SB1085, SB2046, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB1524, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1845, SB1863, SB2681, SB2200, SB2199, SB1757, SB2050, SB2458, SB2201, SB2660, SB2662, SB1065, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB1721, SB2366, SB1013, SB2797, SB2383, SB1754, SB2119, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2929, SB1972, SB2540, SB2595, SB2217, SB715, SB2330, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB2001, SB2080, SB506, SB2514, SB2753, SB2398, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB410, SB659, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB456, SB127, SB1666, SB2843, SB2801, SB800, SB2055, SB784, SB2986, SB735, SB1012, SB324, SB2926, SB2938, SB2007, SB2138, SB1242, SB2615, SB1049, SB2310, SB1224, SB2972, SB1568, SB2841, SB2885, SB3016, SB2858, SB2610, SB2139, SB1856, SB2035, SB2308, SB2306, SB2041, SB1528, SB1681, SB1141, SB2401, SB2530, SB2375, SB547, SB1266, SB1373, SB1467, SB2069, SB2269, SB2480, SB2544, SB672, SB904, SB2695, SB2891, SB2422, SB2543, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB2925, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB457, SB2357, SB2721, SB243, SB1285, SB2568, SB1959, SB1442, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, HB1392, HB22, SB1551, SB3039, SB2819, SB66, SB629, SB1015, SB2342, SB2903, SB2933, SB1965, SB2477, SB3029, SB2605, SB2419, SB1957, SB375, SB250, SB777, SB628, SB2523, SB2367, SB2703, SB2608, SB2778, SB3044, SB2965, SB2521, SB865, SB127, SB506, SB529, SB584, SB659, SB735, SB771, SB784, SB800, SB1049, SB1383, SB1531, SB1568, SB1681, SB1972, SB1980, SB2007, SB2041, SB2046, SB2050, SB2080, SB2225, SB2306, SB2308, SB2366, SB2392, SB2544, SB2610, SB2660, SB2662, SB2807, SB2843, SB2844, SB2885, SB2938, SB2986, SB324, SB1065, SB1754, SB2330, SB2693, SB2858, SR448, SR463, HCR35, SB324, SB619, SB646, SB1026, SB1065, SB1754, SB2330, SB2693, SB2742, SB2858, SB2880, SB3063, HJR5, HJR98, HB 109, HB 114, HB388, HB421, HB431, HB879, HB 1244, HB1399, HB1445, HB1672, HB1695, HB1734, HB1875, HB1893, HB1950, HB2152, HB2217, HB2558, HB2559, HB2775, HB2789, HB2809, HB2856, HB3012, HB3126, HB3135, HB3163, HB3229, HB3306, HB3513, HB3770, HB4134, HCR56, HCR102, SB3063, HJR5, HJR98, HB 109, HB 114, HB388, HB421, HB431, HB879, HB 1244, HB1399, HB1445, HB1672, HB1695, HB1734, HB1875, HB1893, HB1950, HB2152, HB2217, HB2558, HB2559, HB2775, HB2789, HB2809, HB2856, HB3012, HB3126, HB3135, HB3163, HB3229, HB3306, HB3513, HB3770, HB4134, HCR56, HCR102

Keywords: spaceports, tax-exempt bonds, aerospace investment, Texas space economy, Federal legislation, education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, tax exemption, property tax, homestead, fire damage, constitutional amendment, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill. 1611 by Colcourts relating to fees assessed by the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District
• Senate Bill 1615 by Relating to the application of funds under construction contracts to business and

Bills: SJR60, SJR62, SJR65, SJR66, SJR67, SJR68, SCR27, SCR28, SCR29, SB1576, SB1577, SB1578, SB1579, SB1580, SB1581, SB1582, SB1583, SB1584, SB1585, SB1586, SB1587, SB1588, SB1589, SB1590, SB1591, SB1592, SB1593, SB1594, SB1595, SB1596, SB1597, SB1598, SB1599, SB1600, SB1601, SB1602, SB1603, SB1604, SB1605, SB1606, SB1607, SB1608, SB1609, SB1610, SB1611, SB1612, SB1613, SB1614, SB1615, SB1616, SB1618, SB1619, SB1620, SB1622, SB1623, SB1624, SB1625, SJR60, SJR62, SJR65, SJR66, SJR67, SJR68, SCR27, SCR28, SCR29, SB1576, SB1577, SB1578, SB1579, SB1580, SB1581, SB1582, SB1583, SB1584, SB1585, SB1586, SB1587, SB1588, SB1589, SB1590, SB1591, SB1592, SB1593, SB1594, SB1595, SB1596, SB1597, SB1598, SB1599, SB1600, SB1601, SB1602, SB1603, SB1604, SB1605, SB1606, SB1607, SB1608, SB1609, SB1610, SB1611, SB1612, SB1613, SB1614, SB1615, SB1616, SB1618, SB1619, SB1620, SB1622, SB1623, SB1624, SB1625

Keywords: SJR 60, Texas constitutional amendment, property tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, rainwater harvesting, graywater system, water conservation, water reuse, residential tax incentive, local government finance, county commissioners court, appraisal value, environmental incentive, November 2025 ballot, Article VIII, tax relief, healthcare workforce, education funding, higher education, economic growth

Transcript Highlights:

• to increase the application fee from $200 to $300. 2011 KAR 2:160 amends the application review fee
• 00:07:12.479> from to increase the application fee from to increase the application fee from $200
• The application fee to retake the $300.
• to increase the application fee from $100 to $150.
• from<00:09:33.279> $100 increase the application fee from $100 increase the application fee

Keywords: 0:00– Meeting start/roll call 0:39 – Approval of minutes 1:11 – Council on Postsecondary Education 3:06 - State Board of Elections 5:33 - Office of the Attorney General; Office of Regulatory Relief 7:02 - Board of Examiners of Psychology 16:38 - Energy and Environment Cabinet; Department for Environmental Protection 17:37 - Education and Labor Cabinet - Department of Education 19:14 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee met for its January meeting, approved the minutes from the prior meeting, and welcomed the new regulations compiler. The first item was a repealer from the Council on Postsecondary Education, 13 KAR 2:111, which was explained as necessary because Senate Bill 77 from the 2025 session removed the regulatory authority for advanced practice doctoral degree programs at comprehensive universities. No questions were raised, and the repealer moved forward without objection. The subcommittee then reviewed a large package of State Board of Elections regulations with staff-suggested amendments. The package would update definitions and election procedures, require e-poll books to be ready before polls open, change the standard and timeline for removing an election officer, add oversight by a State Board appointee on election days, recognize the Kentucky party, require voter registration records to be added to electronic voter records, require ballots to fit all races and questions on a single sheet, adjust precinct consolidation petition deadlines, and update incorporated forms and identification references. The package was approved without objection. The Office of the Attorney General’s Office of Regulatory Relief also presented multiple regulations with staff amendments, covering funeral planning declarations, cemetery companies, pre-need cemetery merchandise and funeral/burial contract sellers, and crematory contract sellers. These changes were described as adding specificity, streamlining forms and reporting, and bringing the regulations into compliance with KRS Chapter 13A; they were approved without objection. The Board of Examiners of Psychology presented several regulations, including compact rules, grace-period extensions, and significant fee increases for applications, renewals, reinstatements, exam retakes, and reciprocity. Board representatives said the increases were needed because many fees had not been raised since 2002, the board was operating at a deficit, and legal and administrative costs had risen sharply after the termination of state legal services. Members expressed concern about the size of the increases, but the chair said he would not hold the matter up and would raise the issue with the committee of jurisdiction. The subcommittee also approved staff amendments for the Energy and Environment Cabinet’s air quality regulations and the Education and Labor Cabinet’s education regulations, which updated nontraditional instruction procedures, waiver requests, instruction topics, superintendent assessment requirements, and academic standards. The meeting ended with the next meeting scheduled for February 9 at 1 p.m., and the agenda was adjourned without further objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• of pesticide applicators, and because of changes to the fees assessed for hemp producers and processor
• of pesticide applicators, and because of changes to the fees assessed for hemp producers and processor
• ,<00:36:40.160> we fees for craft processor applicants, we fees for craft processor applicants
• <00:37:06.080> license<00:37:06.520> fee uh the pesticide applicator license fee uh
• the pesticide applicator license fee changes<00:37:07.160> would<00:37:07.600> affect<

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate Bill 323, suspending the rules to consider it immediately. The bill was described as a broad agricultural measure with committee amendments and fiscal implications, and it was reported favorably by the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee, Ways and Means, and Appropriations. Members outlined sections dealing with milk market corrections, farm-to-school language, repeal of the obsolete pest control compact, pesticide applicator licensing changes, seed law updates, the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program, hemp regulation, and CAFO-related provisions. The Agriculture committee reported the bill out 7-0-1, and the effective date was described as July 1, 2026, except for the hemp provisions, which would take effect upon passage. Much of the discussion focused on the hemp sections. Supporters said the bill updates Vermont law to reflect federal changes and shifts hemp oversight from the Agency of Agriculture to the Cannabis Control Board. The hemp provisions would create registration and licensing requirements for hemp producers, processors, and certain hemp products; set fees; authorize testing, inspections, stop-sale orders, and administrative penalties; and allow rulemaking on product standards, labeling, insurance, additives, and age restrictions. Speakers said the changes were intended to help Vermont’s hemp industry maintain access to banking, insurance, and interstate commerce while improving consumer safety and regulatory clarity. Other agricultural provisions were also explained in detail. The bill would clarify milk producer hearing rights, update farm-to-school grant/contract language, remove outdated pest-control compact language, and adjust pesticide applicator exam and fee rules, including removing the limit on retakes and eliminating certain government applicator fees. It would also modernize seed labeling and definitions, transfer the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program into a new statutory structure under VEDA, and make conforming cross-reference changes in tax and cannabis fund statutes. The final sections would add a CAFO permit working group and require consultant training for state agencies on CAFO inspections, with those provisions contingent on future funding. Ways and Means noted the bill’s fee changes could affect state revenues, including an estimated hemp-related impact of roughly $10,000 to $90,000, though the exact effect was uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, there's got to be a better way to deal with these application fees. Thank you very much.
• You know, there's got to be a better way to deal with these application fees. Thank you very much.
• You know, there's got to be a better way to deal with these application fees. Thank you very much.
• You know, there's got to be a better way to deal with these application fees. Thank you very much.
• <00:48:51.240> fee never ever ex um took an application fee never ever ex um took an application

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on February 5, 2025, and heard testimony on several bills. HB 918, relating to labeling, drew support from the Department of Health, INDA (the nonwoven fabrics industry), and Hawaii Realtors. INDA said the bill aligns with do-not-flush labeling laws in other states but raised a concern about the six-month compliance deadline tied to FIFRA approval. In response to committee questions, witnesses explained that the bill is aimed mainly at disinfecting wipes, that most products are already labeled nationally, and that the proposed timing issue could be addressed by using Oregon’s approach. No vote was taken on the measure during the portion shown. The committee also heard HB 1482, relating to controlled substances. HPD supported the bill, and Aloha Green Holdings and the Department of Health both said they supported the intent but recommended technical amendments. Their testimony focused on clarifying the treatment of Delta-8 THC, distinguishing synthetic or artificially derived cannabinoids from naturally occurring forms, and avoiding confusion in the hemp law. Members asked whether Delta-8 would show up on drug tests; witnesses said it would test positive for THC and would not be distinguished from Delta-9. The bill was then set aside as the committee moved on. HB 981, relating to attorney’s fees, drew opposition from a law firm representing homeowners and associations, which argued the bill would limit access to legal services, favor developers and contractors, and make settlement harder. The witness suggested instead using existing consumer-protection fee-shifting concepts, and committee members explored whether a capped fee award or a broader attorney-fee rule would be more appropriate. The committee then took up HB 807 and HB 336, both relating to condominiums. HB 807 received support from the Green Infrastructure Authority and the Hawaii Bankers Association, while one testifier urged deferral over unresolved questions about commercial PACE financing; the bank association asked for more time to work with HGIA, and the chair indicated decision-making could be deferred to allow that discussion. On HB 336, the Community Associations Institute opposed the bill as removing checks and balances, while the Hawaii Workers Center and others supported it as a step toward clearer enforcement of health and safety issues in condominiums and rental housing.

Transcript Highlights:

• application fees, all of those match very closely with workload analyses we did in late 2020.
• There is an additional workload analysis that outlines for all the application fees.
• It's been almost 20 years since application fees were increased, and nearly a decade since annual fees
• But there's a minimum fee, so every... ...applications, right?
• So we did align all of the application fees with the workload analysis.

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• as the fees go um they would these fee as the fees go um they would these fee increases<00:36:07.800
• When applicants come in for a review, they would pay a filing fee under this proposal.
• The applicant would have to pay into this proposal. Is there a similar fee now or not?
• We do have Solid Waste application fees at the department, but this would be a separate review.
• <02:01:05.239> but application fees at the department but application fees at the department

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the Department of Environmental Services on proposed changes in House Bill 2 and related technical changes in House Bill 1 tied to the governor’s permitting realignment initiative. The proposal would move environmental review staff from Fish and Game and DNCR to DES to create a more centralized “one-stop shop” for applicants needing DES permits, especially for wildlife and natural heritage reviews. DES said the goal is to speed permitting, support a 60-day review clock, and improve coordination among agencies while keeping the substantive review work in place. Members asked about staffing impacts, the scope of the transferred duties, and whether the change would create redundancy or weaken the other agencies. DES said most of the affected staff work primarily on these reviews, though Fish and Game staff also handle other state and federal reviews, which is why the proposal was adjusted to keep one of the four Fish and Game positions there and move three to DES, along with two positions from DNCR. DES also described a new supervisory position in HB 2 to manage the transferred staff within its land resources bureau. Officials said the reviews would still be done by specialists, but under DES supervision, and that the agencies would continue to coordinate recommendations on species impacts and mitigation. The committee also discussed fee increases intended to offset costs, including a 50% increase in wetlands fees and a 100% increase in alteration-of-terrain fees, with the department saying the changes would cover the new positions. Members raised concerns about impacts on private homeowners, possible incentives to work without permits, and whether fines should be used more as a revenue source or for mitigation. DES said wetlands permits are roughly split between homeowner-related and commercial projects, that permit-by-notification already creates a two-tier structure for smaller projects, and that enforcement relies partly on public complaints and online permitting systems. The department also said most fines currently go to the general fund and vary widely year to year, with about $75,000 budgeted, and that the proposal would also create permit-by-notification authority for alteration-of-terrain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet, mirroring language in Senate Bill 110. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the road fee and the transit fee, for must waive the sewer impact fees and the road fee and the
• Some cities might want to do fee deferral. Some cities might want to do fee waivers.
• Right now, we charge fees independently, so SIDLAC has their fees and TCAC has their fees, and we made
• changes to that fee structure.
• Both programs are funded through application fees and then reservation fees.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals focused on housing, homelessness, and related administrative changes, and took no votes, holding items open for later action. Item 1 would realign staff positions and resources as part of the Governor’s housing and homelessness reorganization, including shifting two Cal ICH positions to HCD, moving one Cal ICH position for communications/external affairs, and authorizing a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. Administration witnesses said the changes were technical and net zero-cost, while the LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would weaken Cal ICH’s homelessness work and whether adding communications capacity was appropriate without new housing funding. Item 2 proposed creating a $100 million Disaster Rebuilding Fund at CalHFA, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to support disaster-impacted homeowners through tools such as loan loss guarantees and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help homeowners bridge the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives in the proposal, the broad discretion left to CalHFA in program design, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on eligibility, equity safeguards, lender oversight, and how many homeowners would actually benefit, with some warning the proposal was too open-ended and could miss the most vulnerable households. Item 3 addressed trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including a proposed $500 million General Fund allocation tied to new accountability measures, pro-housing designation requirements for 14 large cities and 11 counties, local match requirements, streamlined system performance metrics, and recapture/reallocation of unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would avoid a new application process by treating Round 7 as additional disbursements of Round 6 and would provide technical assistance to jurisdictions. The LAO and several senators questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation and local match requirements, the vagueness of some standards, and whether the proposal would delay rather than speed up funding. Members also debated whether the trailer bill preserved or weakened existing homelessness accountability metrics and whether the approach was too complicated given local budget pressures and ongoing homelessness needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• in what the applicant submitted to us?
• in what the applicant submitted to us?
• So quality of application, completeness of application, is absolutely a factor in how long applications
• More manpower means fewer applications per body, and so they're able to get to each application faster
• More manpower means fewer applications per body, and so they're able to get to each application faster

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 1904, which would classify intentionally released helium balloons as litter and create criminal penalties for balloon releases. The author and supportive witnesses argued that balloon releases harm wildlife, livestock, waterways, and infrastructure, and that the bill would close a loophole in current litter law. Several members questioned whether criminal penalties were appropriate, and the author said he was willing to work toward civil penalties and fines instead. No vote was taken, and HB 1904 was left pending. The committee then took up several pending bills and reported them favorably to the full House, including HB 3249, HB 3866, HB 4112, HB 1768, HB 1499, HB 573, and HB 464. These measures dealt with topics such as TCEQ contested-case procedures, outdoor storage containers, high-level radioactive waste, concrete plant permitting and grants, unannounced concrete batch plant inspections, and a scrap tire grant program. Most were adopted with substitutes and passed on recorded votes, generally with unanimous or near-unanimous support. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 3997, which would create expedited permitting timelines for LNG facilities and related wastewater permits. Industry witnesses said the bill would provide certainty for multibillion-dollar projects without eliminating public participation, while environmental groups opposed parts of the bill that they said could limit contested-case participation and be unrealistic for SOAH timelines. TCEQ staff described the current wastewater permitting process and said some of the bill’s timing provisions could be workable, especially with an expedited fee. The bill was left pending after the author said he would continue working on committee substitute language. The committee also heard HB 1237 on extending the renewal window for expired TCEQ occupational water licenses, and HB 4519, a TERP consolidation bill that would combine several clean transportation grant programs into fewer programs. HB 1237 was left pending without testimony, while HB 4519 drew broad support from environmental and industry witnesses who favored simplifying the program, though some asked for stronger emphasis on particulate matter and hydrogen funding. The committee withdrew the substitute on HB 4519 and left it pending. Finally, HB 5033, which would eliminate the motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program if federal authority changes, drew opposition from environmental and inspection-industry witnesses who warned it would weaken air-quality protections and could remove an important enforcement tool. The author said the bill was intended as a trigger mechanism and would be refined, and HB 5033 was left pending. The committee also heard HB 1227 on municipal solid-waste franchise fees and private-provider access; the author said he would bring a substitute after hearing concerns from cities, and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Groundwater withdrawal fee structure.
• 2026 withdrawal fee collection.
• I do applications. Somebody having an immigration issue will come and give me an application.
• It shouldn't be the entire aquifer is short of water if the application is making application.
• We keep working on those applications and communication with those applicants. ...to them.

Bills: HB2026, HB2027, HB2028, HB2031, HB2078, HB2094, HB2095, HB2101, HB2102, HB2103, HB2260, HB2278, HB2827, HB2932, HB2933, HB2934, HB2986, HCM2009, HCR2038

Keywords: assured water supply, groundwater, commingling, commingled water, water supply, Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR, active management area, AMA, subdivision plat, development approval, water rights, municipal provider, private water company, certificate of assured water supply, written commitment of water service, groundwater savings credits, gray water reuse, replenishment district, Central Arizona Project

Summary: The committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Water heard and advanced several bills and memorials focused on water policy, mining, environmental regulation, and professional licensing. HB 2260, a veterinary board measure, HB 2986, an ADEQ cleanup/omnibus bill, and HB 2827, which extends Pinal AMA groundwater fee authority and related fund deadlines, all received due pass recommendations on unanimous 10-0 votes. HB 2078, clarifying that public notice for new aggregate mine reclamation plans applies only to new plans and can be satisfied by certain local notices, also passed 9-1 after testimony from the sponsor and mining industry representatives. HCM 2009, urging Congress to amend the Antiquities Act, address split estate mineral rights, and streamline mining permits, passed 5-4 along party lines and drew support from mining interests and opposition from members concerned about federal land protection and monuments. HCR 2038, supporting a seven-state Colorado River agreement, passed 9-1 with testimony emphasizing the importance of a negotiated river settlement to Arizona’s economy, food supply, and national security. The committee then took up a series of water-management bills that generated more extensive debate. HB 2026, which narrows how ADWR evaluates water availability by focusing on proposed dedicated supplies even if commingled in delivery systems, passed 6-4 despite concerns that it echoed previously vetoed language and could weaken water security. HB 2027, as amended, would limit application of Pinal AMA-style rules in the Phoenix AMA and alter physical-availability review for applicants enrolled in the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District; it passed 6-4 after strong opposition from CAP, municipal water users, and ADWR, who warned it could undermine assured water supply designations and CAGRD obligations, while home builders argued it was a fairness issue for development. HB 2028, removing ADWR’s exemption from appealable administrative-completeness determinations, passed 6-4 over agency concerns that it would turn deficiency letters into formal appeals and add workload, while supporters said it would give applicants the same legal rights as other regulated parties. The committee also approved HB 2031, an emergency measure setting a deadline for filing grandfathered groundwater rights in the Wilcox AMA, on a 5-4 vote, and HB 2094, which would require ADWR to re-review certain assured water supply determinations and retroactively validate some applications using specified models, also on a 5-4 vote; both were described as similar to previously vetoed measures. The transcript ends as the committee begins HB 2095, which would expand the factors ADWR considers in determining groundwater depth and physical availability for assured water supply applications, with an amendment being explained but no final action captured in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Establishes the application criteria, fee structure, and economic analysis to evaluate applications for
• It states the $1,000 annual licensing fee, lists mandatory requirements for a license application for
• It also includes the registration fee and license fee combined total and clarifies that all applications
• The regulation states the $1,000 annual licensing fee, lists mandatory requirements for a license application
• It includes the registration fee and license fee combined total and clarifies that all applications shall

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee met in August with a quorum present and approved the prior meeting minutes without objection. The committee then reviewed several regulations, generally adopting staff-suggested amendments without objection, and heard brief explanations from agency representatives on each item. The Board of Pharmacy regulations would clarify what registered and certified pharmacy technicians may do under supervision and what certified technicians may not do, while updating registration applications. The Board of Cosmetology package included changes to executive director authority, licensure and reciprocity rules, school requirements, training hours, instructor ratios, sanitation and disease-related rules, complaint procedures, and permit terms; members asked about straight razor language and the increase in student-to-instructor ratios, and the board explained that cosmetologists are not permitted to use straight razors and that the higher ratio was intended to give schools flexibility, especially for part-time students and schools with wait lists. The Occupational Therapy emergency compact regulation added four compact rules adopted in April 2025, and Senator West raised a technical question about certification requirements under House Bill 6; the agency said it had been instructed to file the regulation as submitted. The Department for Fish and Wildlife Resources presented a package covering wildlife management area rules, a northern pintail bag limit increase, reportable disease reporting, and a repeal tied to boat registration fees. After a brief explanation of the new wildlife disease reporting rule, the agency requested and received a deferral of 301 KAR 2:031 to avoid a gap while replacement language is finalized. The Economic Development Finance Authority explained an emergency regulation for the Kentucky Entertainment Incentive Program, saying it was needed because the program had become oversubscribed and because administration was shifting to a new film office and council; members also asked about certification issues under House Bill 6, and the agency said it had filed the regulation as directed. The Department of Workplace Standards emergency PPE regulation was also discussed, with members asking about HB 6 certification language, and the agency gave the same response. The Department of Insurance regulation would create a $10,000 registration fee and a $1,000 annual licensing fee for pharmacy benefit manager licenses, with an agency amendment exempting PBMs that solely serve workers’ compensation plans. Members asked how many PBMs would be affected and why workers’ compensation PBMs were carved out; the agency said there were 70 registered PBMs total, four solely workers’ comp, and that workers’ comp rates are set by statute and could not absorb the fee. Finally, the Public Service Commission’s pole attachment regulation was summarized as a broadband-expansion measure that speeds application review, increases the number of poles allowed in a single application, and shortens dispute timelines; the commission explained it grew out of earlier legislative direction and subsequent emergency amendments, and the committee adopted the staff amendment.

Bills: SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB10, SB14, SB19, SB263, SB412, SB441, SB523, SB569, SB687, SB688, SB707, SB766, SB914, SB971, SB1006, SB1066, SJR36, SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SCR25, SB565, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB971, SB1066, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB441, SB569, SB914, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB263, SB523, SB569, SB688, SB766, SB914, SB971, SB1066, SR215, SR245, SR247, SR258, SCR9, SJR56, SJR63, SJR64, SJR69, SJR70, SJR71, SCR30, SCR31, SCR32, SCR33, SB1701, SB1702, SB1703, SB1704, SB1705, SB1706, SB1707, SB1708, SB1709, SB1710, SB1711, SB1712, SB1713, SB1714, SB1715, SB1716, SB1717, SB1718, SB1719, SB1720, SB1721, SB1722, SB1723, SB1724, SB1725, SB1726, SB1727, SB1728, SB1729, SB1730, SB1731, SB1732, SB1733, SB1734, SB1735, SB1736, SB1737, SB1738, SB1739, SB1740, SB1741, SB1742, SB1743, SB1744, SB1745, SB1746, SB1747, SB1748, SB1749, SB1750, SB1751, SB1752, SB1753, SB1754, SB1755, SB1756, SB1757, SB1758, SB1759, SB1760, SB1761, SB1762, SB1763, SB1764, SB1765, SB1766, SB1767, SB1768, SB1769, SB1770, SB1771, SB1772, SB1773, SB1774, SB1775, SB1776, SB1777, SB1778, SB1779, SB1781, SB1782, SB1783, SB1784, SB1785, SB1786, SB1787, SB1788, SB1789, SB1790, SB1791, SB1792, SB1793, SB1794, SB1795, SB1796, SB1797, SB1798, SB1799, SB1800, SB1801, SB1802, SB1803, SB1804, SB1805, SB1806, SB1807, SB1808, SB1809, SB1810, SB1811, SB1812, SB1813, SB1814, SB1815, SB1816, SB1817, SB1818, SB1819, SB1820, SB1821, SB1822, SB1823, SB1824, SB1825, SB1826, SB1827, SB1828, SB1829, SB1830, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846, SB1847, SB1848, SB1849, SB1850, SB2188, SB2230, SB2312, SB2345, SJR56, SJR63, SJR64, SJR69, SJR70, SJR71, SCR30, SCR31, SCR32, SCR33, SB1701, SB1702, SB1703, SB1704, SB1705, SB1706, SB1707, SB1708, SB1709, SB1710, SB1711, SB1712, SB1713, SB1714, SB1715, SB1716, SB1717, SB1718, SB1719, SB1720, SB1721, SB1722, SB1723, SB1724, SB1725, SB1726, SB1727, SB1728, SB1729, SB1730, SB1731, SB1732, SB1733, SB1734, SB1735, SB1736, SB1737, SB1738, SB1739, SB1740, SB1741, SB1742, SB1743, SB1744, SB1745, SB1746, SB1747, SB1748, SB1749, SB1750, SB1751, SB1752, SB1753, SB1754, SB1755, SB1756, SB1757, SB1758, SB1759, SB1760, SB1761, SB1762, SB1763, SB1764, SB1765, SB1766, SB1767, SB1768, SB1769, SB1770, SB1771, SB1772, SB1773, SB1774, SB1775, SB1776, SB1777, SB1778, SB1779, SB1781, SB1782, SB1783, SB1784, SB1785, SB1786, SB1787, SB1788, SB1789, SB1790, SB1791, SB1792, SB1793, SB1794, SB1795, SB1796, SB1797, SB1798, SB1799, SB1800, SB1801, SB1802, SB1803, SB1804, SB1805, SB1806, SB1807, SB1808, SB1809, SB1810, SB1811, SB1812, SB1813, SB1814, SB1815, SB1816, SB1817, SB1818, SB1819, SB1820, SB1821, SB1822, SB1823, SB1824, SB1825, SB1826, SB1827, SB1828, SB1829, SB1830, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846, SB1847, SB1848, SB1849, SB1850, SB2188, SB2230, SB2312, SB2345

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court, judicial independence, Keep Nine, checks and balances, water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 5169 by Shaheen, relating to the limitations applicable to certain agreements provided by the rebate
• HB 5171 by Hayes, relating to providing a one-time settlement payment applicable to certain benefits
• in public schools and the waiver of employment in certain education, examination, and certificate fees
• HB 5063 by Garcia relates to tuition and fee structures.
• HB5499 by LaHood relates to towing fee studies in the amount of non-consent towing fees in certain political

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The applicant and their neighbors.
• So, uh, high level, uh, an application is submitted.
• , um, and what the applicants submitted to us.
• So quality of application, completeness application is absolutely a factor in how long applications take
• First, it caps the municipal franchise fee.

Transcript Highlights:

• applicants.
• on all of our applications now.
• for the applications we reviewed.
• fees.
• privilege fees.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the Arizona Auditor General’s sunset review of the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found some strengths, including timely licensing and complaint resolution in the sample reviewed and rules that matched statutory curriculum requirements, but it also identified a major finding that the board had imposed inconsistent discipline for similar violations and lacked documentation for deviations from its disciplinary guidelines. Other issues included missing reciprocity education requirements, weak application quality control, incomplete school and establishment oversight, and compliance concerns involving open meeting law, public records, and conflicts of interest. The report made 25 recommendations total, including two tied to the disciplinary finding and three suggested statutory changes on esthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and eyelash technician training. The board’s executive director said the board agreed with the findings, had already implemented several recommendations, updated disciplinary policies and conflict-of-interest procedures, and was working on legislation and rule changes. After questions about enforcement consistency, licensing verification, cash handling, complaint volume, and conflict disclosures, the committee voted 7-0 to recommend the board be continued for six years, until July 1, 2032. The committee then took up the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Arizona Racing Commission, and the Arizona Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission together. The Auditor General reported that the department correctly distributed more than $158 million in tribal contributions in fiscal year 2024 and issued event wagering licenses to reviewed applicants, but found several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audit reports for event wagering and fantasy sports operators, did not fully comply with conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements, and lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes. The review also found delays in distributing Compact Trust Fund payments to some tribes, gaps in IT security and horse-racing license checks, and incomplete fee-setting and public-records practices. The report made 36 recommendations to the department, six to the Racing Commission, and 13 to the Boxing and MMA Commission, and all three entities said they agreed and would implement them. In response, the Department of Gaming director said the agency was already making changes, including a historical look-back on operator audits, updated guidance to operators, a new constituent services unit and complaint-tracking process, and improved conflict-of-interest training and forms. She also explained the Compact Trust Fund dispute, saying the department administers the fund but the beneficiary tribes must agree on the revenue baseline formula, which has been complicated by COVID-era closures; no Category Three distributions had yet been made. Committee members asked about possible revenue losses, penalties, and the status of 2024-2025 audits, as well as prediction markets and whether they are legal under Arizona’s event wagering framework. The director said the department had issued cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed prediction-market operators, would review licensed operators for suitability if needed, and would continue to enforce Arizona law. The transcript ends while questioning on prediction markets is still underway, before any vote on the gaming-related reviews is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd like to strike the words "flat fee" or "all four quarterly payments as applicable" and replace that
• We'd like to strike the words "flat fee" or "all four quarterly payments as applicable" and replace that
• We'd like to strike the words "flat fee" or "all four quarterly payments as applicable" and replace that
• a fee for our review of any of these applications.
• to pay those fees, so it's not a burden on the locality because the applicant can pay the fee.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or a connection fee.
• So you have to start the conversation about impact fees and what's a fair fee with the question of what
• impact fees for things like infill projects.
• We've started with kind of the pre-application phase of the process and moving into both application
• We wanted to qualify the application documents to increase the quality of the application submitted.

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard presentations on a range of housing finance, permitting, and affordability tools. Chattanooga described its affordable housing PILOT program, which uses a per-unit property tax abatement tied to the rent loss from providing affordable units, with a 15-year term and annual compliance monitoring. Committee members asked about the program’s structure, whether it had been used elsewhere, and who was participating; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would bring 278 units with 42 affordable units and that the model was attracting private market-rate developers. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary zoning approach, emphasizing that longer tax exemption periods and station-area zoning changes had helped spur development, with most current pipeline projects concentrated near light rail stations. The committee also heard from the Municipal Research Services Center and the Department of Commerce on tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and permit timelines. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, while proportional impact fee guidance is intended to help jurisdictions charge fees more closely aligned with actual project impacts. On permit timelines, Commerce presented its first annual report under recent law changes, using 2024 as a baseline year and noting that reported timelines were generally longer than statutory goals; members asked about outliers, paper versus electronic processing, and whether back-and-forth between applicants and staff was driving delays. Commerce said it would follow up with more data, including on CHIP funding and permit reform practices. Several local governments then shared permitting process improvements. Auburn reported relatively short review cycles and described its move to fully electronic permitting, internal performance standards, and a stock plan program that speeds review for repeated home designs. Bellevue described an AI permitting pilot with a local startup to help with pre-application questions, document triage, and plan review, aiming to reduce incomplete applications and revision cycles. Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would help homeowners split lots, finance, build, and manage ADUs, with the homeowner eventually buying out the partner and retaining ownership; committee members asked about rent setting, management fees, and default risk, and staff said they would follow up. The committee also heard brief overviews of community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives as permanent affordability models, with presenters urging continued state and local funding support and policy recognition for these approaches.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd have the fee in place.
• Legally, the board approves the fee. Is the fee a legal fee at that moment?” “Yes, it is.”
• So you have a legal fee.
• It is a fee.” “It is legally a fee at that point in time.
• It is not a fee unto itself.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of the applicant.
• applicants to submit a signed code of conduct to complete the license application process.
• The Boxing and MMA Commission modified its online application to require applicants to submit a signed
• code of conduct to complete the license application process and developed a log to track when applicants
• applicants to submit a signed code of conduct to complete the license application. to require applicants

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House Commerce Committee of Reference heard sunset reviews and a performance audit presentation for the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Racing Commission, the Boxing and MMA Commission, and later the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The Auditor General reported that the Department of Gaming and the commissions generally met some statutory duties, but identified several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audits for event wagering and fantasy sports operators; the department and commissions had gaps in conflict-of-interest disclosures; the department and Boxing and MMA Commission lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes; the department was late distributing some compact trust fund payments; and there were additional issues involving IT security, horse-racing license checks, fee reviews, public records practices, and licensing compliance. The Auditor General said the department agreed to implement all 36 recommendations, the Racing Commission agreed to six recommendations, and the Boxing and MMA Commission agreed to 13 recommendations. The department director said many fixes were already underway, including updated guidance, complaint tracking improvements, and a historical look-back on operator reporting, and she also discussed efforts to combat illegal gambling and educate minors and families about gambling risks. Committee members questioned the department about third-party audits, penalties for underpayments, public records handling, conflict-of-interest screening, and the department’s position on prediction markets and suitability standards for licensees. The director said the department would review past reports, could assess fines if violations were found, and would generally wait for final adjudication or final action in other jurisdictions before taking Arizona licensing action. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the Department of Gaming be continued for two years until July 1, 2028, the Racing Commission for six years until July 1, 2032, and the Boxing and MMA Commission for six years until July 1, 2032. The Department of Gaming motion passed 7-4, the Racing Commission motion passed 10-1, and the Boxing and MMA Commission motion passed unanimously. The committee then heard the Auditor General’s report on the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found the board timely processed many licenses and complaints and had adopted curriculum rules, but it inconsistently applied its disciplinary guidelines, sometimes issuing different sanctions for similar violations without documenting the reasons for deviation. The report also found problems with reciprocity education requirements, application review controls, inspections, and compliance with open meeting, public records, and conflict-of-interest requirements, and it suggested possible statutory changes on aesthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and training standards for I-LEST technicians. The board agreed with the findings and said it had already updated disciplinary parameters and documentation policies, with more recommendations in progress; committee members asked about discretion in discipline, audit funding, and service efficiency, and the board highlighted its licensing volume, call response, inspections, and complaint handling performance.