Transcript Highlights:

• It was also very costly, not just the permit fee, but the consultant fees.
• They have a greater permit fee; however, if you spread that permit fee over five years, it provides a
• They have a greater permit fee.
• Our first 180-day permit had engineering fees of about $50,000.
• Our first 180-day permit had engineering fees of about $50,000.

Summary: The hearing focused on oversight of AB 658 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s five-year temporary permits for groundwater recharge. Assembly Member Arambula and committee members discussed how the permits are intended to help capture high flows during wet periods, support SGMA implementation, and store water underground for later use. The State Water Board chair said the five-year permits have become an important tool, with seven five-year permits issued this season and over 43,000 acre-feet authorized, but noted that actual recharge depends on hydrology and that the board is open to improvements. Members and witnesses discussed several possible changes to make the program more effective: allowing a two-year delay before the five-year permit clock starts, codifying CEQA exemptions that have been used through executive order, and shifting from a public objection model to a public comment model to reduce delays. There was also discussion of water availability analyses, with some members asking whether the state could develop a broader statewide assessment to reduce consultant costs and make permitting more predictable. The board said such an effort would be large and costly, but could potentially save applicants money and improve consistency. District representatives described their experiences. Stockton East said the five-year permit was more cost-effective than repeated 180-day permits, but that the 90-20 methodology, consultant costs, and a burrowing owl survey condition made use difficult. Omaha-Hartnell Water District said its recharge work depends on simple, low-cost infrastructure and that five-year permits, CEQA reform, and lower upfront fees would help small districts. A consultant working with Scott Valley and Sierra Valley said five-year permits can work well in different basins, but local infrastructure, stakeholder coordination, streambed alteration agreements, and upstream flow constraints can limit recharge. Members also raised concerns about basin connectivity, downstream water rights, and the need to pair recharge with sustainable groundwater pumping and broader water storage planning.

Transcript Highlights:

• is there a reconnect fee and disconnect there is a reconnect fee there's no disconnect fee we will come
• This is water permitting. Water permitting? Air permitting? Representative Romero.
• Then then so be it but again, there are certain things where a permit is due a permit is a water permit
• I mean, we either say, yes, you can have a permit, and no, you can't have a permit, and here's your permit
• And the lawsuits deal with mostly permitting. Did I deny it? permit?

Bills: HB1520, HB1525, HB1530, HB1535, HB2068, HB2091, HB2347, HB2372, HB2805, HB2815, HB2867, HB3154, HB3482, HB3483, HB3663, HB3781, HB3901, HB3915, HB4135, HB4153, HB4158, HB4329, HB4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• First, the bill clarifies that there's a single fee for local food. and local alcohol permits.
• A food manager to pay a local fee or get a local permit when they are already certified by the state.
• The bill also addresses duplicative permits and fees by. sound permits for restaurants that are simply
• . because they're charging a duplicate fee for the same permit.
• a duplicate fee for the same permit.

Bills: SB264, SB542, SB924, SB1008, SB1029, SB1036, SB1057, SB1058, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1376, SB1569, SB1664, SB1697, SJR50

Keywords: SB 264, Texas Workers' Compensation Act, group self-insurance, self-insured groups, workers' compensation, Texas Department of Insurance, commissioner of insurance, certificate of approval, guaranty fund, trust fund, wind down, dissolution, labor code, insurance regulation, employer coverage, risk pool, business and commerce, trade workforce economic development, property owners' association, water conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a $40 fee.
• Is water permitted air permitting. Representative Romero.
• But again, there, there are certain things where a permit is due, a permit is, uh, a water permit or
• I mean, we either say, yes, you can have a permit and no, you can't have a permit, and here's your permit
• District's fees.

Bills: HB 1520, HB 1525, HB 1530, HB 1535, HB 2068, HB 2091, HB 2347, HB 2372, HB 2805, HB 2815, HB 2867, HB 3154, HB 3482, HB 3483, HB 3663, HB 3781, HB 3901, HB 3915, HB 4135, HB 4153, HB 4158, HB 4329, HB 4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you know if Fargo charges state facilities permitting fees?
• Do you know if Fargo charges state facilities permitting fees, or plan inspection fees?
• But the city does charge a permitting fee from my understanding. I can't tell you what that fee is.
• The fee process in the community development and building department, the permit fee, I'm not completely
• I've applied for permit fees personally.

Keywords: 908, all

Bills: HB 3902, HB 4420, HB 3269, HB 469, HB 336, HB 316, HB 5396, HB 993, HB 1342, HB 5216, HB 2046, HB 2188, HB 2450, HB 2813, HB 2857, HB 4075, HB 2911, HB 4682, HB 3117, HB 3253, HB 3442, HB 4820, HB 4336, HB 5356, HB 3669, HB 3428, HB 5465, HB 3662, HB 2590, HB 2288, HB 1886, HB 3458, HB 5603, HB 5620, HB 1489, HB 4101, HB 4990, HB 5685, HB 4950, HB 4980, HB 5684, HB 3507, HB 3566, HB 4487, HB 4462, HB 4876, HB 4915, HB 4663, HB 5570, HB 2929, HB 5261, HB 2920, HB 4642, HB 4746, HB 1609, HB 5403, HB 5453, HB 3844, HB 2336, HB 1572, HB 1226, HB 2806, HB 2617, HB 2827, HB 3948, HB 3945, HB 4266, HB 4542, HB 3319, HB 1772, HB 2496, HB 1970, HB 3434, HB 5545, HB 5577, HCR 59, HCR 135, HB 4, HB 46, HB 3221, HB 1403, HB 3892, HB 4234, HB 722, HB 4105, HB 4413, HB 170, HB 551, HB 3053, HB 3142, HB 3180, HB 3722, HB 1794, HB 1784, HB 1581, HB 2530, HB 4308, HB 1896, HB 2974, HB 3359, HB 4580, HB 2458, HB 2215, HB 3332, HB 2278, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 1368, HB 40, HB 101, HB 112, HB 146, HB 214, HB 413, HB 1523, HB 493, HB 521, HB 594, HB 557, HB 305, HB 549, HB 854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB 842, HB 3174, HB 3196, HB 824, HB 1039, HB 2529, HB 2713, HB 4936, HB 4995, HB 4830, HB 4864, HB 5219, HB 5263, HB 5154, HB 2674, HB 5525, SB 529, SB 541, SB 2004, SB 1012, SB 2269, SB 1886, SB 1236, SB 693, SB 2308, HB 2486, HB 4862, HB 4689, HB 4520, HB 2225, HB 168, HJR 218, HB 4921, HB 5623, HB 2494, HB 2545, HB 2587, HB 2625, HB 5520, HB 5436, HB 4926, HB 1573, HB 5165, HB 4811, HB 5081, HB 4755, HB 3179, HB 4310, HB 4611, HB 2159, HB 4626, HB 3637, HB 3153, HB 3066, HB 2786, HB 2966, HB 638, HB 640, HB 876, HB 497, HB 5539, HB 4809, HB 5308, HB 4687, HB 4070, HB 4421, HB 4412, HB 3284, HB 3369, HB 3420, HB 3449, HB 4098, HB 4281, HB 4120, HB 4504, HB 4370, HB 1106, HB 2370, HB 2404, HB 3863, HB 2407, HB 2253, HB 2273, HB 2040, HB 1586, HB 3788, HB 3993, HB 4690, HB 4309, HB 4696, HB 2308, HB 1142, HB 1533, HB 1621, HB 2242, HB 2012, HB 2193, HB 2442, HB 2464, HB 2348, HB 2313, HB 2289, HB 1942, HB 2011, HB 1629, HB 2993, HB 3592, HB 3824, HB 4076, HB 4535, HB 4623, HB 4773, HB 1091, HB 5115, HB 5515, HB 3372, HB 5659, HB 127, HB 386, HB 115, HB 2868, HB 1249, HB 4766, HB 3720, HB 4656, HB 4879, HB 105, HB 5383, HB 4621, HB 5431, HB 5678, HB 5534, HB 4174, HB 4212, HB 3954, HB 3966, HB 3636, HB 3918, HB 1422, HB 4765, HB 4732, HB 4742, HB 5122, HB 4518, HB 5084, HB 3986, HB 4045, HB 4144, HB 3911, HB 3976, HB 4473, HB 3425, HB 3641, HB 3642, HB 3475, HB 3509, HB 3424, HB 3383, HB 4744, HB 4531, HB 4539, HB 3159, HB 5228, HB 5370, HB 4359, HB 4398, HB 4443, HB 4466, HB 3861, HB 3849, HB 4240, HB 4706, HB 4685, HB 5354, HB 5141, HB 5686, HB 3629, HB 3554, HB 3567, HB 2015, HB 3575, HB 5381, HB 1431, HB 3514, HB 4614, HB 4546, HB 4683, HB 5681, HB 5673, HB 5663, HB 4271, HB 4350, HB 4035, HB 3807, HB 3812, HB 3552, HB 3540, HB 3715, HB 3710, HB 3664, HB 4196, HB 4233, HB 4173, HB 1998, HB 3333, HB 3510, HB 4222, HB 2070, HB 2854, HB 2347, HB 113, HB 983, HB 4847, HB 1449, HB 3833, HB 5151, HB 265, HB 1845, HB 782, HB 108, HB 1960, HB 158, HB 1954, HB 1955, HB 2512, HB 605, HB 2581, HB 2803, HB 627, HB 2667, HB 1738, HB 636, HB 3679, HB 2638, HB 2655, HB 871, HB 2438, HB 1107, HB 1765, HB 1822, HB 2153, HB 4099, HB 3732, HB 3171, HB 3178, HB 3182, HB 3749, HB 2814, HB 3977, HB 4204, HB 4207, HB 4449, HB 1820, HB 1876, HB 1939, HB 1347, HB 2593, HB 2136, HB 2132, HB 2658, HB 2413, HB 2757, HB 2080, HB 3154, HB 3063, HB 3009, HB 3448, HB 3006, HB 2844, HB 3241, HB 3680, HB 3169, HB 2078, HB 2507, HB 4559, HB 3946, HB 3460, HB 3405, HB 475, HB 3463, HB 3441, HB 3520, HB 2060, HB 4731, HB 4991, HB 1991, HB 5596, HB 2014, HB 2142, HB 2673, HB 2731, HB 2417, HB 2399, HB 2301, HB 3335, HB 3234, HB 3320, HB 5573, HB 4848, HB 4748, HB 4769, HB 4795, HB 2086, HB 2234, HB 2203, HB 4916, HB 5624, HB 4505, HB 139, HB 5093, HB 5302, HB 5402, HB 5606, HB 2333, HB 4630, HB 4701, HB 2583, HB 2983, HB 4924, HB 3339, HB 3793, HB 3631, HB 4882, HB 5509, HB 5499, HB 5430, HB 5561, HB 5611, HB 5043, HB 5064, HB 3733, HB 3781, HB 3219, HB 32, HB 4515, HB 5348, HB 3902, HB 4420, HB 3269, HB 469, HB 336, HB 316, HB 5396, HB 993, HB 1342, HB 5216, HB 2046, HB 2188, HB 2450, HB 2813, HB 2857, HB 4075, HB 2911, HB 4682, HB 3117, HB 3253, HB 3442, HB 4820, HB 4336, HB 5356, HB 3669, HB 3428, HB 5465, HB 3662, HB 2590, HB 2288, HB 1886, HB 3458, HB 5603, HB 5620, HB 1489, HB 4101, HB 4990, HB 5685, HB 4950, HB 4980, HB 5684, HB 3507, HB 3566, HB 4487, HB 4462, HB 4876, HB 4915, HB 4663, HB 5570, HB 2929, HB 5261, HB 2920, HB 4642, HB 4746, HB 1609, HB 5403, HB 5453, HB 3844, HB 2336, HB 1572, HB 1226, HB 2806, HB 2617, HB 2827, HB 3948, HB 3945, HB 4266, HB 4542, HB 3319, HB 1772, HB 2496, HB 1970, HB 3434, HB 5545, HB 5577, HCR 76, HCR 127, HCR 9, HCR 40, HCR 118, HR 559, HCR 59, HCR 135

Keywords: Medicaid, reimbursement, nursing facilities, ownership change, healthcare policy, mental health, psychiatric beds, inpatient psychiatric treatment, acute psychiatric care, bed availability, bed capacity, hospital reporting, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state hospitals, private mental health facilities, civil commitment, competency restoration, not guilty by reason of insanity, jail diversion

Summary: The Florida House passed Senate Bill 2510 relating to prekindergarten through grade 12 education funding and policies. Speaker Perez delivered remarks criticizing the Senate for breaking a budget deal and outlined the House's position on reducing state spending and revenue. He emphasized that the state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and proposed various tax cuts including sales tax, business rent tax, and communication services tax eliminations. The House also passed a concurrent resolution extending the 2025 legislative session until June 30, 2025. Perez stressed that property tax relief and state revenue reduction are separate issues, highlighting the House's tourist development tax reform proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• In another development, and we impose fees on them, that what those fees are intended to do actually
• Members, child marriage is too dangerous to be permitted.
• ... ...or to recover a refund for an impact fee.
• I see, so the liability is for the impact fees not being spent.
• An impact fee. So the impact fee has to be used for ...or the actual services, is that right?

Bills: HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HCR59, HCR135, HB4, HB46, HB3221, HB1403, HB3892, HB4234, HB722, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HB40, HB 101, HB 112, HB146, HB214, HB413, HB1523, HB493, HB521, HB594, HB557, HB305, HB549, HB854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB842, HB3174, HB3196, HB824, HB 1039, HB2529, HB2713, HB4936, HB4995, HB4830, HB4864, HB5219, HB5263, HB5154, HB2674, HB5525, SB529, SB541, SB2004, SB1012, SB2269, SB1886, SB1236, SB693, SB2308, HB2486, HB4862, HB4689, HB4520, HB2225, HB168, HJR218, HB4921, HB5623, HB2494, HB2545, HB2587, HB2625, HB5520, HB5436, HB4926, HB1573, HB5165, HB4811, HB5081, HB4755, HB3179, HB4310, HB4611, HB2159, HB4626, HB3637, HB3153, HB3066, HB2786, HB2966, HB638, HB640, HB876, HB497, HB5539, HB4809, HB5308, HB4687, HB4070, HB4421, HB4412, HB3284, HB3369, HB3420, HB3449, HB4098, HB4281, HB4120, HB4504, HB4370, HB 1106, HB2370, HB2404, HB3863, HB2407, HB2253, HB2273, HB2040, HB1586, HB3788, HB3993, HB4690, HB4309, HB4696, HB2308, HB 1142, HB1533, HB1621, HB2242, HB2012, HB2193, HB2442, HB2464, HB2348, HB2313, HB2289, HB1942, HB2011, HB1629, HB2993, HB3592, HB3824, HB4076, HB4535, HB4623, HB4773, HB 1091, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HB 127, HB386, HB 115, HB2868, HB 1249, HB4766, HB3720, HB4656, HB4879, HB 105, HB5383, HB4621, HB5431, HB5678, HB5534, HB4174, HB4212, HB3954, HB3966, HB3636, HB3918, HB1422, HB4765, HB4732, HB4742, HB5122, HB4518, HB5084, HB3986, HB4045, HB4144, HB3911, HB3976, HB4473, HB3425, HB3641, HB3642, HB3475, HB3509, HB3424, HB3383, HB4744, HB4531, HB4539, HB3159, HB5228, HB5370, HB4359, HB4398, HB4443, HB4466, HB3861, HB3849, HB4240, HB4706, HB4685, HB5354, HB5141, HB5686, HB3629, HB3554, HB3567, HB2015, HB3575, HB5381, HB1431, HB3514, HB4614, HB4546, HB4683, HB5681, HB5673, HB5663, HB4271, HB4350, HB4035, HB3807, HB3812, HB3552, HB3540, HB3715, HB3710, HB3664, HB4196, HB4233, HB4173, HB1998, HB3333, HB3510, HB4222, HB2070, HB2854, HB2347, HB 113, HB983, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB5151, HB265, HB1845, HB782, HB 108, HB1960, HB158, HB1954, HB1955, HB2512, HB605, HB2581, HB2803, HB627, HB2667, HB1738, HB636, HB3679, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB2438, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB2153, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3178, HB3182, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2132, HB2658, HB2413, HB2757, HB2080, HB3154, HB3063, HB3009, HB3448, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3946, HB3460, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3520, HB2060, HB4731, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2142, HB2673, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB5573, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2234, HB2203, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB139, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB2333, HB4630, HB4701, HB2583, HB2983, HB4924, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5430, HB5561, HB5611, HB5043, HB5064, HB3733, HB3781, HB3219, HB32, HB4515, HB5348, HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135

Keywords: Medicaid, reimbursement, nursing facilities, ownership change, healthcare policy, mental health, psychiatric beds, inpatient psychiatric treatment, acute psychiatric care, bed availability, bed capacity, hospital reporting, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state hospitals, private mental health facilities, civil commitment, competency restoration, not guilty by reason of insanity, jail diversion

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you know if Fargo charges state facilities permitting fees?
• But the city does charge a permitting fee from my understanding. I can't tell you what that fee is.
• pay those fees for permitting and plan reviews?
• That's frustrating to me, if it is. pay a permitting fee. That's part of this mix.
• I've applied for permit fees personally.

Summary: The committee first received a general fund and revenue update from the Office of Management and Budget. Staff reported that the state started the biennium about $176 million above prior estimates, but year-to-date revenues were now running below legislative forecast, mainly due to lower individual income tax and sales tax collections. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap, the legacy fund continued to grow, and oil revenues were slightly above forecast overall. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing variability, and OMB said agencies would be asked to address potential federal reductions case by case during budget preparation. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analysis materials, followed by a bill draft for a fixed-route city transportation grant program. Testimony from transit officials in Fargo and Minot supported the proposal, saying state aid would help match federal transit funds and support operations, but members raised questions about the funding source, fare structures, and whether the program should be limited to the current four fixed-route cities or allow future eligible cities. Several members asked for more time to study the formula and possible funding options before moving the bill forward. Next, the committee approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to a proposed North Dakota-South Dakota bi-state authority. Staff explained the provision had been unused for about 30 years and that existing law likely already allowed joint powers agreements without the specific language. The committee voted to adopt the repeal bill draft. The Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site then provided an update on uncrewed aircraft system initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and future revenue models. Officials said North Dakota had received FAA approval to operate the radar data pathfinder, had begun replacing non-compliant drones from restricted foreign sources, and was working on phased procurement and cost-recovery plans. Members asked about deadlines, funding, supply-chain issues, and how the system would be used; staff said the federal restrictions were already in effect and that Vantis was being positioned as infrastructure for future beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. Finally, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and on a reentry housing task force. The new facility is planned for the penitentiary grounds, with a reduced estimated cost of about $263 million, 600 beds initially, possible expansion to 732 beds, and completion projected around 2031 if funded in 2027. The reentry housing task force described a data-driven effort to identify housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with the goal of reducing homelessness and recidivism through targeted housing support and possible subsidies. Members asked about staffing, site selection, housing duration, and whether employment and transportation needs would be included in the assessment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The minimum fee for an on-site electrical inspection was updated from $35 to $55 last year, and the fee
• These changes simply update the cross-references to the fee schedules that the investigation fee is based
• The minimum fee for an on-site electrical inspection was updated from $35 to $55 last year, and the fee
• <00:03:46.080> for year's fee schedule updates, the fee for year's fee schedule updates, the
• fee for 16 or for 15 circuits. fee for 16 or for 15 circuits.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The messenger brings measures HB 21, relating to housing finance corporations authorizing a fee.
• The Commission already makes the decision on the permit. The ALJ is the finder of fact.
• That it's germane to what's being asked for that's based on the permit. Okay.
• Proceedings in which a certain amount of legal fees have been incurred by the district.
• and fees.

Bills: SB111, SB128, SB203, SB205, SB261, SB317, SB393, SB397, SB466, SB510, SB582, SB705, SB731, SB748, SB801, SB867, SB876, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1250, SB1285, SB1310, SB1400, SB1444, SB1483, SB1553, SB1556, SB1581, SB1608, SB1698, SB1723, SB1730, SB1835, SB1858, SB1903, SB1946, SB1950, SB1986, SB2017, SB2043, SB2056, SB2058, SB2063, SB2082, SB2105, SB2133, SB2137, SB2177, SB2203, SB2260, SB2311, SB2334, SB2344, SB2403, SB2417, SB2446, SB2519, SB2522, SB2532, SB2600, SB2611, SB2619, SB2637, SB2688, SB2717, SB2764, SB2785, SB2790, SB2794, SB2841, SB2847, SB2857, SB2878, SB2891, SB2943, SB2955, SB2972, SB2995, SB3037, SB3057, SB3059, HJR2, HB26, HB206, HB334, HB451, HB517, HB554, HB1109, HB2081, HB2756, HB3204, HB3809, SJR3, SB5, SB72, SB509, SB616, SB963, SB985, SB1025, SB1080, SB1143, SB1172, SB1245, SB1267, SB1271, SB1273, SB1355, SB1422, SB1759, SB1786, SB2361, SB17, SB314, SB455, SB761, SB1023, SB1968, SB2122, SB2371, SB2420, SB2544, SB1, SB260, SB1506, SB1637, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1359, SB1234, SB2926, SB2972, SB2841, SB1528, SB2891, SB1854, SB317, SB2532, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB1285, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB1723, SB1858, SB1946, SB2009, SB2177, SB2460, SB2785, SB867, SB1608, SB640, SB1698, SB705, SB748, SB2680, SB2994, SB2747, SB1950, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB3059, SB2637, SB2334, SB1861, SB2043, SB1367, SB2857, SB128, SB3058, SB2044, SB2363, SB2311, SB1986, SB2565, SB2943, SB1888, SB2417, SB3048, SB3052, SB3053, SB3036, SB3057, SB3056, SB3043, SB3037, SB3050, SB3063, SB3047, SB3035, SB2446, SB466, SB2611, SB2794, SB2105, SB2017, SB1790, SB1778, SB1730, SB2995, SB2847, SB205, SB2619, SB1903, SB203, SB3061, SB1581, SB2600, SB2799, SB2790, SB2688, SB2515, SB1230, SB876, SB2522, SB2639, SB2137, SB2519, SB2403, SB2459, SB3051, SB2655, SB2251, SB2764, SB2878, SB1884, SB111, SB582, SB2617, SB1835, SB2751, SB2063, SB1400, SB2058, SB2260, SB2928, SB1310, SB2566, SB2344, SB1897, SB1749, SB1361, SB2549, SB2553, HJR2, HJR1, HB1109, HB517, HB1130, HB1689, HB2884, HB1393, HB2559, HB26, HB2756, HB3204, HB3012, HB1327, HB451, HB109, HB206, HB1238, HB2890, HB9, HB2081, HB4215, HB2970, HB37, HB1899, HB3809, HB334, HB554, HB1593, HB2607, HB3526, HB3810, HB5092, HB388, HB2809, HB1151, HB913, SB2919, SB1782, SB1705, SB2696, SB1944, SB2215, SB644, HB3307, HB879, HB116, HB12, HB2703, HB1610, HB1615, HB1620, HB30, HB21, HCR7, HCR75, HCR86, HCR92, HCR93, HCR126

Keywords: special education, school districts, legal fees, reporting requirements, transparency, hospital reporting, child abuse, neglect, administrative penalty, medical ethics, child protection, student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, fetal development, health curriculum, public schools, middle school health education

Transcript Highlights:

• We will have tables with permitting fees.
• These factors will influence the different permitting fees.
• The fees are roughly split between general permits and individual permits.
• All states with NPDES primacy have permit fees.
• Lemon mentioned, of the 47 other states with permit fees, NPDES program permit fees, the vast majority

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you know if Fargo charges state facilities permitting fees?”
• But the city does charge a permitting fee from my understanding. I can’t tell you what that fee is.
• The fee process in the community development and building department, the permit fee, I’m not completely
• That's frustrating to me, if it is. pay a permitting fee. That's part of this mix.
• I've applied for permit fees personally.

Summary: The committee began with roll call, introductions of a new fiscal analyst and a new member, and approval of the March 19 minutes. The first major presentation was from the Office of Management and Budget on the state’s general fund and special fund status through May. OMB reported general fund revenues were running below the legislative forecast by about $76 million, driven largely by weaker individual income tax and sales tax collections, though the projected ending balance remained positive and above the budgeted level. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap and would transfer excess earnings to the general fund, and the legacy fund balance continued to grow. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing revenue variability. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analyses, followed by discussion of a bill draft for the fixed-route city transportation network study. The draft would create a $15 million general fund grant program with a formula-based distribution to eligible fixed-route transit cities, intended to support operating and capital needs and help match federal transit funds. Transit officials from Minot and Fargo testified in support, explaining local fare and match structures and the difficulty of replacing aging buses and securing federal matching dollars. Several members questioned whether the program should be limited to the current four cities or broadened to future eligible urban areas, and whether local funding sources should be explored further. The committee did not finalize the bill draft at that point and planned to continue discussion at a later meeting. The committee also approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to approval of a bi-state authority with South Dakota, after staff explained that no agreements had ever been implemented and the provision appeared outdated. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried. Later, the Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site presented updates on uncrewed aircraft systems initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and efforts to build a revenue model for Vantis. Test site officials said FAA approval had been secured for the radar data program, replacement of noncompliant drones was underway, and future revenue could come from state and external users once pricing and intellectual property arrangements are finalized. Members asked about Chinese-made drones, supply chain issues, automation, and how the system would manage beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation then presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and a reentry housing study. Officials said the proposed facility would relocate the minimum-security prison to the penitentiary campus, reduce costs from an earlier estimate, and provide more beds and programming space, with construction potentially beginning in 2027 and opening around 2031. They also described staffing needs, the planned move of women to the New England facility, and possible expansion of men’s housing there. The parole and probation chief described a reentry housing task force studying housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with a goal of developing data-driven recommendations for subsidies and support services; a representative from Protection and Advocacy closed by expressing general support for fixed-route and paratransit funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• the inspector's fee, but there's no discount from our $350 building permit fee.
• Permit fees will be reduced by 40%.
• permit fees. fees. fees.
• <01:10:27.120> by review permit fees will be reduced by review permit fees will be reduced
• section 110 permit fees shall be reduced section 110 permit fees shall be reduced by<01:10:34.600

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members of the Railroad Commission of Texas requested this bill to modernize its permitting fee structure
• fees and authorize the railroad commission to collect permit application fees ranging from $500 to $3000
• Anyone who hauls waste in this state must have a waste hauler permit, and they The fee for a waste hauler
• So every year they file a $250 fee plus surcharge and we process their permit and they're allowed to
• And so that is a drain on whatever revenue source, so the intent was to have permit fees.

Bills: HB16

Keywords: judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments

Transcript Highlights:

• We understand that nobody likes paying impact fees.
• After 20 years of not raising an impact fee, when that impact fee does finally get adjusted for growth
• You know, this isn't about not paying impact fees.
• Every person I talk to is willing to pay impact fees.
• Senate Bill 1234, building permits and inspections.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and heard a series of bills, mostly local claims and growth-management or permitting measures. SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24 were uncontested claims bills providing relief for injuries or damages involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County; each was described as settled or favorably reported by a special master, and each was reported favorably without debate. SB 288, a negotiated bill on rural electric cooperatives, was presented as a clarification to protect co-op authority over generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections; it drew support from industry stakeholders and was reported favorably. SB 830 created a public-records exemption for certain local administrators and their families’ personal information, citing threats against city managers, and it also passed favorably. The committee also considered several land-use and permitting bills. SB 1138 would create a registry of qualified professionals to conduct pre-application review for plats and development, aiming to reduce delays and backlogs; local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, but the bill passed favorably with one no vote. SB 168 expanded public nuisance law to include gambling houses, increased penalties, and authorized attorney’s fees and foreclosure of unpaid fees; it was reported favorably. SB 686 revised the agricultural enclave statute to create a public-hearing process for certain residential projects in urban service areas, with a sunset date later amended to June 30, 2026; conservation and planning groups raised concerns about local planning authority and public participation, but the bill passed favorably. SB 548, a growth-management and impact-fee cleanup bill, clarified plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for impact fees. Local government and development stakeholders testified that it would improve predictability while preserving flexibility, though some sought further refinement on fee increases and refunds; the bill was amended and then reported favorably. SB 1234 addressed building permits and inspections, including permit validity, small-project exemptions, temporary hurricane protection, standardized permit forms, and expanded use of private providers; county officials objected to reduced oversight, while builders and private-provider advocates supported the measure. After testimony and debate, the bill was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, Senator Jones requested to be recorded on several votes, and the committee adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• those can take up to—there are timelines for air permits, but not for water permits—and so that can take
• Over the last 13 years, we've applied for several permits and permit amendments to build and expand our
• Pursuing these permits.
• And there's a premium processing fee that permits you to staff up. Your thoughts on that.
• If more than 90 days have passed since expiration, renewal is permitted at a higher fee of up to twice

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:

• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Registration fees, permits exempting certain product categories from registration fees, and establish
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Fees will be annual. The CCB may prorate fees over a longer period of time.
• CAFO permit in process. CAFO permit in process.

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:

• I guess I'm gonna ask my own city, so we collect permit fees without a plan?
• Well, you collect permit fees, you don't anticipate that you will have this amount of money.
• And then I'm looking at the six-month waiver of permit inspection fees, which just happens to equal the
• So I'm kind of curious as to how the six-month waiver fee waiver of permit inspection fees, that was
• So I don't understand how we're building $20 million with impact fees and using $8 million of permit

Summary: The committee first took up a long-running audit finding involving the City of Daytona Beach’s unexpended building permit fund balance, which has exceeded the statutory cap for several years and was reported at $10.8 million in the latest audit. Mayor Derek Henry and city staff said the city had analyzed the fund, adopted a corrective action plan, waived more than $5.5 million in permit and inspection fees, used some excess funds for a training facility rehabilitation, and is pursuing a $9.4 million City Hall expansion that they say is allowed under a November 2024 Attorney General opinion permitting construction of a building to house the building code enforcement function. Committee members repeatedly questioned whether the city was simply trying to spend down the money, whether the proposed uses were truly lawful, why the balance kept growing despite fee waivers, and where the interest earnings were going. The mayor and deputy city manager said the city’s growth and staffing needs justified the plan, but several members expressed frustration and skepticism. A public commenter also urged accountability and raised concerns about the city’s spending plans and the size of the remaining balance. The committee then received an Auditor General presentation on the Town of Greenville, which found 31 operational audit findings and described pervasive control failures, possible fraud, waste, and abuse. The findings included election paperwork problems that left a council seat vacant, conflicts of interest, late financial disclosure filings, related-party transactions, inadequate meeting notices and minutes, quorum and voting documentation problems, council members’ involvement in day-to-day operations, missing ethics training, budget adoption and monitoring deficiencies, inaccurate accounting records and bank reconciliations, utility billing and rate issues, grant compliance problems tied to an unfinished grocery store project, weak personnel and contracting controls, improper severance and compensation issues, late vendor payments, weak procurement and P-card controls, vehicle-use and property-control weaknesses, poor public records access, and IT access and fraud-policy gaps. Greenville’s mayor and staff said the audit largely reflected the prior administration and that the current council and staff are taking corrective action. They said the town terminated the former manager, adopted seven new policies since the audit began, and is working with the Auditor General to improve procurement, financial controls, inventory management, grant oversight, and ethics compliance. The town attorney said he had alerted federal authorities earlier about concerns, and committee members noted that FDLE has received a criminal referral and is investigating. Several members praised the new leadership’s cooperation but also suggested the town consider consolidation or dissolution if problems persist.

Transcript Highlights:

• The impact fees, right? Yes, sir. Oh, I'm sorry.
• After 20 years of not raising an impact fee, when that impact fee does finally get adjusted for growth
• , After 20 years of not raising an impact fee, when that impact fee does finally get adjusted for growth
• You know, this isn't about not paying impact fees.
• Thank you. ...fees, it's about not having been charged or having the impact fees raised over a period

Bills: S0014, S0016, S0024, S0168, S0288, S0548, S0686, S0830, S1138, S1234

Keywords: negligence, settlement, police conduct, municipal liability, personal injury, compensation, injuries, Miami-Dade County, rural electric cooperatives, energy production, Florida law, energy tariffs, regulation, impact fees, transportation capacity, local government, interlocal agreements, growth management, community planning, extraordinary circumstances

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and took up a series of local claims, public records, growth management, permitting, and nuisance bills. It first heard and approved SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24, all uncontested claims bills providing relief related to injuries or settlements involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County. The committee also approved SB 288 on rural electric cooperatives, which narrows statutory language to protect co-op decisions on generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections, and SB 830, which creates a public records exemption for certain personal information of county and city managers and their families due to reported threats against local officials. Members then considered SB 1138 on qualified contractors and development review, which would create a registry of licensed professionals to help local governments process pre-application reviews and plats more quickly. Local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, while private-provider supporters backed the bill; Senator Sharief voted no, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 168, expanding public nuisance law to include gambling houses and increasing penalties, and SB 686 on agricultural enclaves, which revises the enclave process, adds a public hearing path, limits it to certain residential projects in urban service areas, and was amended to change a date to June 30, 2026 before being reported favorably. The committee next approved CS for SB 548 on growth management and impact fees, which clarifies plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for improper fee collections. Testimony reflected support for clearer standards but also concerns about fee increases and refund administration. Finally, SB 1234 on building permits and inspections was reported favorably; it would extend permit validity, exempt some low-value work from permitting, create a statewide residential permit form, speed review timelines, and expand private-provider use, drawing opposition from a Miami-Dade building official who argued for continued local oversight and support from private-provider advocates. Senator Jones requested to be recorded as voting affirmatively on several tabs and negatively on tab 9, and the committee adjourned after all bills were disposed of.

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
• Things like just garden-variety building permits or construction permits are not part of the 5290 process
• Not every permit is required, and also some permits represent multiple housing units.
• This also saves cost on permit fees, as they do not have to pay for plan review.

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.