Transcript Highlights:

• Section 27 provides that Section 26 will be applied retroactively to the interpretation of all deeds
• will Section 27 provides that Section 26 will be<03:52:57.720> applied<03:52:58.160> retroactively
• <03:52:59.400> to<03:53:00.080> uh be applied retroactively to uh be applied retroactively

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first suspended the rules briefly to make announcements, including welcoming former representative Doug Gage to the gallery. It then returned to House Bill 211 on data brokers and personal information, where the Appropriations Committee explained a $50,000 appropriation to the Secretary of State for a consultant-led study on an accessible deletion mechanism for consumers to delete personal data held by data brokers, with interim and final reports due in 2027 and 2028. The committee reported a 9-0-2 vote in favor, and the House agreed to the Commerce and Economic Development Committee’s amendment and ordered third reading. Floor debate on H. 211 focused heavily on the bill’s deletion and exemption framework. Supporters argued the bill is needed to give Vermonters meaningful control over their data and to prevent data brokers from commingling information for unrelated uses. Opponents warned the bill could conflict with existing federal frameworks such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, and could make credit, banking, insurance, fraud prevention, and identity verification harder. In response, the sponsor said the bill uses use-case-based exemptions rather than broad entity-level exemptions, noted testimony from banks, insurers, a data broker, a former data broker employee, and the Attorney General, and said no constitutional concerns were raised. The House ultimately adopted the amendment and advanced the bill. After H. 211, the House moved to House Bill 577, establishing the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program. Committee reports from Health Care, Ways and Means, and Appropriations were read into the record, and the Colchester member described the bill as a way to lower prescription drug costs by joining the multi-state Array Rx program. The bill would let any Vermont resident obtain a free discount card for FDA-approved prescription drugs, with claimed savings up to 80% on generics and 20% on brand-name drugs. The House then proceeded to second reading on H. 577.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, again saying that the DOE that they gave that to 200 some workers retroactively who hadn't even worked
• 200 that the DOE that they gave that to 200 some<00:15:07.440> workers<00:15:07.920> retroactively
• <00:15:08.760> who<00:15:08.920> hadn't some workers retroactively who hadn't some
• workers retroactively who hadn't even<00:15:09.760> worked<00:15:10.040> with<00:15:10.200

Bills: HB1890, HB1888, HB1676

Keywords: teacher pay, teacher salaries, salary step increase, annual increment, longevity step, public school teachers, public charter school teachers, collective bargaining, Hawaii Department of Education, teacher retention, teacher recruitment, cost of living, educator compensation, public employee bargaining, appropriation, salary schedule, school staffing, teacher shortage, HB1888, Hawaii

Summary: The committees heard three measures, beginning with HB 1890 HD3, which would provide automatic step increases and a COVID-era retention bonus for teachers. Supporters included HSTA, the Democratic Party’s Education Caucus, and a student who said higher pay and predictable salary growth would help retain teachers in Hawaii. The Department of Education supported the intent but asked that the bill be expanded to cover all department employees. The Attorney General’s office said the draft needed clarification to avoid conflict with Chapter 89 and to make clear any funding was subject to legislative appropriation. The Office of the Public Defender and B&F testified in opposition, and committee members questioned whether the step increases were already in the current contract and whether the bill was needed. HSTA said the current contract includes automatic step increases subject to funding, but argued the bill was still needed because funding is not guaranteed and the measure would codify the policy. HSTA also said the COVID bonus would apply only to active teachers who worked during the pandemic and estimated the total cost at roughly $150 million to $200 million over four years. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 1888 HD3, which would require DOE and charter schools to report harassment incidents and strengthen penalties for harassment of educational workers from a petty misdemeanor to a misdemeanor. DOE supported the bill and suggested narrowing language about assisting workers with temporary restraining orders, saying that function would be better handled through the Attorney General’s pilot program. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing the harassment language was overly broad, vague, and potentially unconstitutional, and that existing assault and terroristic threatening statutes already protect educational workers. HSTA, the State Commission on the Status of Women, and several individual testifiers supported the measure, describing increased intimidation and harassment of teachers and other school staff, especially since COVID. The Special Education Advisory Council opposed the bill’s language on “disrupting and interfering” with school functions, saying it could chill parents of students with IEPs from advocating for their children. Testimony was split, with the chair noting 20 in support and 16 in opposition in the portion shown. A final witness, Michelle Pestana, testified in opposition based on her family’s experience with special education services, describing alleged seclusion and restraint of her daughter and expressing concern that DOE testimony in prior hearings had targeted special education parents. Her remarks were cut off as time expired. The transcript ends before any committee action or vote on HB 1888 was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• report of, you know, cost per student including transportation, and would you be able to do that retroactively
• able to transportation and would you be able to do<01:43:01.679> that<01:43:01.920> retroactively
• because<01:43:03.440> at<01:43:03.679> the<01:43:03.760> end do that retroactively
• because at the end do that retroactively because at the end of<01:43:04.000> the<01:43:04.159

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• crime that is serious but the law sees as a lesser offense and basically elevating the penalty retroactively
• elevating lesser offense and basically elevating the<04:15:30.479> penalty<04:15:31.279> retroactively
• <04:15:32.560> through<04:15:32.880> this the penalty retroactively through this the
• penalty retroactively through this bill?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And some of those in fact are retroactive. That's real money in people's pockets.
• those<00:30:56.000> in<00:30:56.159> fact<00:30:56.320> are<00:30:56.640> retroactive
• <00:30:57.760> That's those in fact are retroactive.
• That's those in fact are retroactive.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, July 15, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ERS said it is not clear whether there would be full eligibility or retroactivity, nor what contributions
• would eligibility whether or not there would eligibility whether or not there would be be be retroactivity
• > nor<01:00:35.520> are<01:00:35.760> the<01:00:36.000> contributions retroactivity
• nor are the contributions retroactivity nor are the contributions that<01:00:36.960> would<01

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• state's funding sources, direct deposit payments to employees, business expense reimbursements, retroactive
• Another major responsibility of the section is implementing payroll retroactive uh pay processing, for
• retroactive uh pay processing, for example,<00:26:32.800> the<00:26:33.080> implementation

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I would assume that if this bill passes, it would be retroactive, but I can also see a scenario where
• into and working with the Department of Justice, and especially around the country, is it being retroactive
• into and working with the Department of Justice, and especially around the country, is it being retroactive

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I would assume that if this bill passes that it would be retroactive, but I can also see a scenario
• looked into and working with the Department of Justice, and especially around the country, it being retroactive
• looked into and working with the Department of Justice, and especially around the country, it being retroactive

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is this going to be retroactive so it'll go back and pick up some of those folks that lost that were
• Is this going<00:53:34.160> to<00:53:34.319> be<00:53:34.480> retroactive<00:53:
• So, they would not be retroactive.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• times the Congress won't make a change to the tax code until December, and that change will be retroactive
• Many times Congress won't make a change to the tax code until December, and that change will be retroactive

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Many times Congress won't make a change to the tax code until December, and that change will be retroactive
• Many times Congress won't make a change to the tax code until December, and that change will be retroactive

Summary: The House convened, opened with prayer and the Pledge, approved the journal, and welcomed several guests in the gallery, including a high school student and an advocate connected to the domestic violence bill HB 2995. The chamber then moved through multiple Committee of the Whole calendars, first advancing HB 4155, HB 4156, and HB 4157, then HB 4164, HB 4165, and HB 4166, all with do-pass recommendations and no substantive amendments on those calendars. Later, the House also considered SB 1326, a victims’ rights measure, adopted a floor amendment, and reported it out as amended. The House corrected an earlier clerical error regarding HB 4155-4157 being referred to engrossing rather than third reading. The House then took up a long series of final passage votes on Senate bills. SB 2174, SB 2611, SB 1011, SB 1012, SB 1016, SB 1018, SB 1038, SB 1039, SB 1040, SB 1053, SB 1055, SB 1057, SB 1060, SB 1061, SB 1068, SB 1069, SB 1075, SB 1100, SB 1113 on reconsideration, SB 1160, and SB 1170 all passed. SB 2873, SB 1004, SB 1009, SB 1042, SB 1043, SB 1049, SB 1093, and SB 1143 failed. SB 2995, the emergency family-law/domestic-violence bill known as the Alec and Lydia Act, passed with the required two-thirds vote after extensive debate; supporters said it would better protect children and clarify judicial standards, while opponents argued its definitions were overly broad and could harm families. SB 1018 on foreign laws also drew extended debate over Sharia law, with supporters framing it as a defense of American values and opponents calling it unnecessary and discriminatory. Several votes included explanations focused on policy concerns. SB 1004 on sex-offender registration and monitoring drew debate over whether electronic monitoring is effective. SB 1040 on voter registration transparency prompted arguments over public access to voter rolls versus privacy and security. SB 1118 on municipal zoning and historical homes was debated as a property-rights and local-control issue, with supporters saying it could help preserve affordable housing and opponents warning it would override local decisions. The House also adopted motions to reconsider prior actions on SB 1043 and SB 1100, and it requested the Senate return SB 1552 for reconsideration. The session ended with the House still processing additional Committee of the Whole business, including HB 4158, HB 4159, HB 4160, HB 4161, HB 4162, and HB 4163, with HB 4162 and HB 4163 receiving floor amendments and do-pass recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, not sure if we adopted that, but um, we realize that it removes retroactivity, but it doesn't address
• We probably would not be doing retroactive. That's not how we calculated it.

Bills: HF4077, HF3809, HF3639, HF4478, HF3363, HF3874

Keywords: municipal nondisclosure agreement, NDA, public records, transparency, local government, county, city, town, school district, housing and redevelopment authority, economic development authority, port authority, economic development, land development, public financing, tax increment financing, TIF, abatement, municipal bonds, debt obligations

Summary: The Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the minutes from March 25 and March 26, then took up House File 4077, a bipartisan bill authored by Representatives Greenman and Roach. The bill would prohibit municipalities from entering into non-disclosure agreements with private entities that restrict disclosure about land development, economic development, or publicly funded projects, while preserving existing Chapter 13 data practices rules and trade secret protections. The authors argued the bill is needed to prevent secret agreements and backroom decision-making that undermine public transparency, and they moved that the bill be re-referred to the general register. Several local officials and residents testified in support, including a St. Louis County commissioner, the mayor of Lonsdale, and residents from Farmington and Hermantown. Supporters said NDAs had been used in connection with data center and other development projects to keep elected officials and the public in the dark, eroding trust and limiting community input. They described the bill as a common-sense transparency measure and said existing law already protects legitimate trade secrets. Opposition came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership, which argued that NDAs are often necessary in early-stage economic development discussions to protect sensitive business information and remain competitive with other states. They warned the bill could discourage investment, jobs, and tax growth, and said it would impose a one-size-fits-all state mandate that limits local discretion. Committee members then debated whether the bill was too broad and whether it should be narrowed to data centers; supporters responded that the issue extends beyond data centers to other forms of economic development. A roll call vote was requested on the motion to re-refer the bill to the general register, but the final vote result was not stated in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we want to go back and correct that for these two individuals retroactively, as well as change
• And so we want to go back and correct that for these two individuals retroactively, as well as change

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• CAN YOU CLARIFY WHETHER THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PAST COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS
• THERE IS NO RETROACTIVE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

Bills: HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 796, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 589, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 1360, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 2337, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2391, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 1749, HB 3109, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2001, HB 2798, HB 107, HCR 29, SB 5, SB 262, HB 11, HJR 72, HB 106, HB 18, HB 48, HB 27, HB 37, HB 1481, HB 581, HB 1696, HB 2216, HB 1035, HB 1633, HB 742, HB 754, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 2669, HB 391, HB 517, HB 1024, HB 1607, HB 252, HB 1716, HB 1562, HB 4116, HB 1866, HB 1741, HB 2103, HB 2637, HB 2884, HB 503, HB 1089, HB 2986, HB 972, HB 502, HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 796, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 589, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 1360, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 2337, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2391, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 1749, HB 3109, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2001, HB 2798, HB 107, HCR 29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Summary: The Florida House of Representatives conducted legislative business including prayer, pledge, and voting on multiple bills. Key legislation included HB 1105 expanding Florida Bright Futures Scholarship eligibility, HB 443 on charter school regulations (passed 83-23), and HB 1539 on materials harmful to minors (passed 81-29) after extensive debate about book challenges in schools. Other bills addressed education funding, law enforcement benefits, parole guidelines, and various local issues. The Speaker announced budget negotiations with the Senate have stalled, with disagreements over spending levels and tax cuts. The House will not meet this weekend as originally planned. Session adjourned until tomorrow at 10 AM.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is effective retroactively for projects for which an allocation certificate was issued after June
• It is effective retroactively for projects for which an allocation certificate was issued after June

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 831 will promote fair reimbursement by preventing spread pricing... ...preventing spread pricing, retroactive

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are they going to be retroactively reimbursed for those payments?

Bills: SB3123

Keywords: conditional gifts, private education, scholarships, donor conditions, Hawaii education law, 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee took up three measures in decision-making. SB 2678, which would create a Judiciary working group to improve family court processes and youth access to legal representation in the child welfare system, was recommended for passage with amendments. The amendments would clarify that members with lived experience are those who have navigated the state child welfare system, replace an actively serving guardian ad litem with a former GAL, allow co-chairs to invite additional experts, and provide compensation for lived-experience members. The committee report would also recommend a $20,000 appropriation, and the motion passed without objection. SB 2528, a Campaign Spending Commission proposal to expand the partial public financing program and raise expenditure limits, was also recommended for passage with amendments and adopted without objection. The committee’s changes would increase the public-funds match to 4:1, raise the maximum public funding available to 20% for statewide executive offices and 25% for legislative and certain county offices, blank out the appropriation in the bill, and instead recommend $7.2 million in the committee report. Technical amendments would also rename the program for consistency and set the bill’s effective date to March 22, 2075. In a joint Judiciary/Education hearing, SB 3123 drew extensive testimony in support from the Governor’s office, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Hawaii Association of Independent Schools, Hawaiian Council, Kamehameha Schools, and many private-school and community representatives. Supporters said the bill would clarify that donor-funded scholarships, grants, and tuition-free educational programs are charitable gifts rather than contractual obligations, giving donors and schools greater certainty and preserving educational access. Some members questioned whether the bill could affect Kamehameha Schools’ admissions practices or allow schools to avoid donor conditions; witnesses responded that the measure is intended to clarify donor intent, not change admissions, and that an opt-out clause would preserve the ability to create contractual agreements if the parties choose. The discussion ended with the bill still under consideration, with no final vote reflected in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• From now on, when it is voted on by the people, it is not for retroactive or anything like that, and

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important to note that this is not retroactive.

Bills: S0558, S1294, S1468, S1474, S1682, S1628

Keywords: stormwater systems, environmental standards, municipal infrastructure, engineering certifications, local compliance, Florida Department of Transportation, biosolids, agronomic rate, land application, environmental protection, Florida statutes, nutrient management, recordkeeping, farming, compost products, wastewater treatment, environment, sewage disposal, pollution control, reporting requirements

Summary: The committee took up several environmental bills, beginning with SB 1682 on local administration of vessel restrictions. Senator Trumbull said the bill would give cities and counties tools to address abandoned, derelict, and long-term anchored vessels while following state standards and FWC guidance. Members from affected areas spoke in support, citing recurring derelict vessel problems and the difficulty and cost of removal once vessels sink. The bill was reported favorably. The committee then heard SB 1468 on advanced wastewater treatment, which would require DEP to compile a detailed statewide report on wastewater treatment plants, including construction age, treatment levels, contaminant data, spill history, flood risk, and receiving waterbody impairment information. Florida Rural Water Association testified that any move to require advanced treatment for all plants over one MGD could create major financial burdens without dedicated funding. The bill was reported favorably. The committee also considered CS/SB 1294 on biosolids management, with a strike-all amendment adopted. Senator Bradley said the revised bill would require bulk Class AA biosolids fertilizer and compost products to be land applied only at agronomic rates and, absent a bona fide sale, only at permitted DEP-approved sites, with a transition date moved to July 1, 2028. Supporters said it would protect water quality and legitimate fertilizer and compost markets, while rural utilities asked for funding and flexibility. The committee reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee took up CS/SB 1628 on net zero policies by governmental entities. Senator Avila said the bill would prohibit local governments and other governmental entities from adopting or funding net zero policies, imposing related fees or taxes, or operating cap-and-trade or carbon trading programs. The committee adopted an amendment clarifying the definition of carbon dioxide. The bill drew extensive debate: supporters argued it would protect residents and businesses from higher costs and preserve predictability, while opponents said it would block local climate and clean-energy policies, including electric buses, energy-efficiency measures, and climate resilience planning. After public testimony on both sides, the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved CS/SB 1474 on biosolids management, which Senator Gates said would require biosolids and septage to be treated at the highest practical level when wastewater treatment facilities are reasonably accessible and would bar Class B land application within 50 miles of a permitted wastewater facility. An amendment applying the statutory definition of septage was adopted, and the bill was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard SB 558 on stormwater system standards. Senator Burgess said it would create statewide standards for municipal and county stormwater systems using FDOT guidelines and third-party inspections, with an amendment making technical changes and broadening who may perform inspections. Supporters said uniform standards could improve safety and reduce failures, while contractors, engineers, and industry groups warned it could raise costs, delay projects, and preempt stronger local standards. The bill remained under discussion as the transcript ended.