Transcript Highlights:

• uh Department of planning and permitting uh Department of planning and permitting has<00:03:20.319
• That's still—we typically still rely on the county permitting.
• That's still—we typically still rely on the county permitting.
• Senate Bill 161, relating to county permitting and inspection.
• Senate Bill 161, relating to county permitting and inspection.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing began with SB 133 on energy, which drew opposition testimony from James Abraham, who said the bill was unnecessary because the Public Utilities Commission had already opened a proceeding to investigate wheeling, including intergovernmental wheeling, and should be allowed to finish its collaborative process. The committees then moved to SB 161 on county permitting and inspection, where several agencies submitted written comments or opposition, while the Grassroots Institute and HCDA-related testimony supported the measure. Members raised concerns about accountability and whether state agencies would report back on projects approved under any permitting exemption, and witnesses suggested annual reporting or amendment language to address that issue. The hearing then turned to SB 232 and SB 588, both related to renewable energy permitting. Testimony on SB 232 was largely supportive, but Rocky Mold of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association said SB 232 was an older version of a bill and that SB 588 was the preferred, updated measure. Members discussed whether the bill should be limited to residential or behind-the-meter customer-sited systems rather than utility-scale projects, and Mold clarified that the proposal was intended for customer-sited systems, not utility-scale facilities. For SB 588, the Department of Land and Natural Resources warned that state or county laws inconsistent with the National Flood Insurance Program could jeopardize flood insurance eligibility and related federal assistance, while Mold argued the bill’s FEMA floodway exemption was needed to avoid blocking solar installations on existing structures. The chair expressed concern about risking federal funding and questioned whether the exemption could be narrowed without defeating the bill’s purpose. SB 412, also on renewable energy, received supportive testimony from the State Energy Office and others. Members questioned whether a single coordinating entity should compile agency assessments, and Mark Glick said the Energy Office could take on that role if given the duty and sufficient staff. The committee then discussed SB 635 on energy efficiency, which would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting. Mark Glick testified that much of the work was already underway through benchmarking and related contracts, and a DAGS representative said the state was already assessing 590 buildings over 10,000 square feet, with results expected around 2027. Members suggested amending the bill to require annual status reports so the committees could track progress and avoid duplication. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• $40,000 in fees and um uh permitting $40,000 in fees and um uh permitting requests<01:40:00.320>
• order to obtain a permit. order to obtain a permit.
• to obtain a mining permit.
• terrain permit already gives a permit terrain permit already gives a permit for<01:47:30.080>
• consolidate mining related permitting consolidate mining related permitting under<01:57:02.159><

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those have already been permitted and should be permitted to go on.
• Those have already been permitted and should be permitted to go on.
• Those have already been permitted and should be permitted to go on.
• 41:46.240> a<00:41:46.400> permit<00:41:46.640> to permit to construct and a permit
• state and local permits for approvals. state and local permits for approvals.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on a non-germane amendment to SB 302, a Senate bill originally requiring background checks for solid waste and hazardous waste facility owners. Representative Patenza explained that the amendment was intended to preserve and separate out language developed for the governor’s budget proposal and HB 2 concerning a solid waste facility site evaluation committee, a moratorium, and related public-benefit/site-benefit provisions, so the policy would still have a vehicle if the budget language did not advance. He said the proposal reflects extensive work by the House, the governor’s office, and DES, and he was open to further changes to align with any budget conference committee outcome. Dr. Adam Finkele testified in support of the amendment and the underlying site evaluation concept, arguing that landfill siting decisions should be based on cost-benefit analysis that includes public harms, local impacts, and regional impacts rather than only private benefits. He praised the committee process and prior legislation requiring agencies to respond substantively to public comments, and said the new language improves on the governor’s version by moving the committee’s review earlier in the process and requiring more complete application information, including alternatives and impacts on nearby wells and aquifers. He also supported a three-year moratorium on new landfill applications, saying it would give the state time to address leachate, PFAS, waste reduction, and weak siting rules. Members asked about possible conference committee changes, the value of having a separate review body, and whether the new rules would invite litigation. Dr. Finkele said he would likely sue over the rules because he считает them too weak, but also said the legislature could fix the problems through other bills such as HB 77. He acknowledged that the site evaluation committee is not a perfect solution, but said it is a useful intermediate step between the agency and the courts and likely would meet only rarely if capacity need remains the main trigger for future landfill decisions. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• of the permit for and the condition of the permit for construction<00:06:21.199> to<00:06:21.360
• I guess for a permit for the construction Construction. >> Did you...
• If I pull permit and I'm the yes.
• <00:15:45.839> And<00:15:46.079> then as a condition of permitting.
• And then as a condition of permitting.

Bills: HB610, HB620, HB582, HB610, HB620, HB582

Keywords: state bank, public bank, government funds, financial services, constitutional amendment, tax abatements, international headquarters, publicly traded companies, economic incentives, Alabama tax reform, social-emotional learning, education policy, parental consent, K-12 education, teacher training, student surveys, disciplinary action, automatic renewal, consumer protection, cancellation policy

Transcript Highlights:

• And we were able to get our driver's license, you know, permits at 15 and everything.
• We're the only state in the South that does not allow 15-year-olds to get their permits.
• And we were able to get our driver's license, you know, permits at 15 and everything.
• And we were able to get our driver's license, you know, permits at 15 and everything.
• It will put an extra strain on our regional offices to get these permits out.

Keywords: Special Guests 00:13 Roll Call 00:39 HB 15 Discussion 01:35 HB 15 Vote 14:03 HB 157 Discussion 17:28 HB 157 Vote 18:42 HB 444 Discussion 19:35 HB 444 Vote 23:12 HB 188 Discussion 25:20 HB 188 Vote 29:37, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the prior meeting minutes, and then took up several bills out of order. House Bill 15, sponsored by Leader Rudy, would lower the learner’s permit age to 15 while keeping the graduated driver’s license system in place until age 17. Supporters, including a 14-year-old witness, argued it would give teens more supervised driving experience, align Kentucky with surrounding states, and help families and the workforce. Members raised questions about safety, parental supervision, and regional driver’s license office backlogs, but the bill was reported favorably with a committee substitute attached after a roll call vote. The committee then heard House Bill 444, which would conform Kentucky CDL rules to federal reporting requirements by preventing masking of violations and would lower the age for certain hazmat CDL endorsements from 21 to 18 for in-state use only, excluding school bus endorsements. The sponsor and supporters said the change would help address truck-driver shortages and support delivery of propane, agricultural products, and other hazardous materials. A question was raised about possible insurance cost increases, but the sponsor said companies would decide whether to hire younger drivers and that the bill was intended to keep trucks moving. The bill was reported favorably with expressions of opinion that it should pass. House Bill 157, a Department of Agriculture initiative creating a tag bill for commercial vehicles, was briefly presented and reported favorably with a committee substitute. House Bill 188, dealing with driveaway plates for businesses that transport vehicles for others, was also heard. The sponsor said the bill would clarify how many plates a business needs, reduce insurance exposure, and help keep a Warren County driveaway business in Kentucky rather than moving to neighboring states. After questions about how the plates work and a committee substitute changing the issuing authority language, the bill was reported favorably with expressions of opinion that it should pass. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• activity is complete and final permits activity is complete and final permits and<00:03:31.599><
• approval from the MPCA for air permits, water permits, etc.
• <00:34:23.200> under review and expedited permitting under review and expedited permitting
• <00:36:55.000> is regulation and permitting is regulation and permitting is inappropriate<
• <00:37:07.880> demand regulations for permitting demand regulations for permitting demand

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So there'll be a summary of reasons of why each permit is late.
• <00:03:42.879> was when when a when a permit was when when a when a permit was late,<00:03
• What was single permit individually.
• <00:04:47.680> is reasons of why why each u um permit is reasons of why why each u um permit
• year's permitting activity. year's permitting activity.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up Senate Bill 74, which requires agencies to report annually on permits that are significantly delayed. An amendment was offered and adopted to replace the bill’s original permit-by-permit reporting with a summary report by category, including counts of permits taking more than 60, 120, or 180 days and general reasons for delay. The amendment also delayed the first report until April 30, 2027, so agencies would report only on future permitting activity rather than reconstructing past files. Members discussed whether delays caused by incomplete applications or requests for additional information should be included in the reporting categories. The sponsor and others said the bill is intended to measure delays after an application is administratively complete, but that reasons such as waiting on applicant-provided engineering data could still be captured under the summary reasons. Several members praised the amendment as a substantial improvement and said it would produce more useful information with less burden on agencies, while one member said they would support the amendment but not the bill because agencies already face budget constraints. The committee first approved the amendment unanimously by show of hands, then voted 7-1 to report Senate Bill 74 ought to pass as amended, with one member opposed and one absent. Afterward, the committee briefly discussed a separate Senate message on House Bill 67, noting that the Senate version had no additional general-fund cost and that any remaining issues would be handled with the election law committee before concurrence.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their permitting process takes several days and is like, $100 or so, if I remember correctly.
• City permitting across the state is inconsistent and fragmented.
• That requires a permit cost upwards of $1,000 for just one residential installation.
• So you have a delay in getting the permitting, or you have a cost in getting the permitting; you're also
• having delays in getting the permitting.

Bills: SB213, SB378, SB610, SB681, SB918, SB1172, SB1252, SB1343, SCR8

Keywords: SB 213, Texas insurance, Insurance Code, Chapter 551, Chapter 541, bundling, tying arrangement, cross-selling, homeowners insurance, residential property insurance, auto insurance, personal automobile insurance, consumer protection, unfair trade practice, deceptive insurance practice, property and casualty insurer, Lloyd's plan, county mutual, reciprocal exchange, farm mutual

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce met with a quorum and took up several pending bills, first reporting SB 1006 favorably after adopting a committee substitute that adds quarterly ZIP-code-level reporting to TDI on insurer declinations, cancellations, and nonrenewals. The committee also adopted substitutes and favorably reported SB 388, which adds nuclear to a credit program and excludes batteries from the dispatchable definition; SB 917; SB 504, which narrows reporting requirements for certain local entities, raises a salary threshold, and authorizes AG injunctive relief; SB 925, which clarifies that federal match dollars are included in a PLA-related prohibition; and SB 815, which removes downcoding references and focuses on AI use in prior authorization. SB 815 advanced on an 8-2 vote, while SB 388 advanced 6-3 and the others were reported 9-0 or 6-0 as noted. The committee then heard testimony on SB 378, which would prohibit aestheticians and cosmetologists from administering injections or using prescriptive medical devices unless legally authorized and would clarify TDLR disciplinary authority. The author and a retired neurosurgeon testified that unsafe, unauthorized injections pose real patient risks, and a TDLR witness said the bill addresses a long-standing regulatory gap. SB 378 was left pending after testimony. The committee also heard SB 1252, aimed at reducing municipal permitting barriers for residential backup power systems; the author and industry witnesses said city permitting is costly and inconsistent, while municipal utility representatives and advocates said the substitute preserved safety and utility oversight. That bill was also left pending. Additional bills heard but left pending included SB 1172, which would let LPs and LLCs sell their own property without a real estate license; SB 681, which would extend engineer license renewal periods and apply similar flexibility to engineering firms; SB 918, a TDLR cleanup bill for orthotics and prosthetics exemptions; SB 1343, which would require data brokers to post a clear link explaining Texans’ privacy rights and how to exercise them; SB 213, which would prohibit forced bundling of residential property and auto insurance while preserving voluntary discounts; SB 610, which would codify TDLR’s anti-trafficking unit; and SCR 8, expressing opposition to a central bank digital currency over privacy, security, and financial-stability concerns. Public testimony on SB 1343 and SB 213 was generally supportive, with consumer and advocacy groups emphasizing privacy, competition, and survivor safety, and the committee closed the day with those measures and others left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• All those existing local, state, and federal permits remain.
• This bill does not change any permitting requirements.
• <00:14:58.519> review permitting review permitting review uh<00:14:59.959> this<00:15:00.120
• hour cap it is tied to the permitting hour cap it is tied to the permitting process<01:31:35.280
• <01:49:31.119> process until um certainly that permit process until um certainly that permit

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, one of those—if you have a permit to carry, can you still bring a gun to the Capitol, right?
• >> So, the question was about permits to carry.
• That process again, you'll alert security or staff that you have a permit.
• Go through that permit process again with a Minnesota ID or the state ID and move— the south side and
• possession of a concealed carry permit possession of a concealed carry permit and<00:15:48.240><

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson and State Patrol Colonel Christina Bogey announced that weapon screening will begin Tuesday at the Minnesota State Capitol at the start of the 2026 legislative session. They said the change is based on an independent security assessment and the Axtell report’s top recommendation, and framed it as an added layer of protection rather than a weapons ban or a change in state law. Both emphasized that the Capitol will remain open, accessible, and welcoming while reducing preventable risks, citing heightened threats to public officials and the recent murders and shootings involving Minnesota lawmakers and their families. Bogey outlined the screening plan: visitors will use four public access points, with the south ground-level entrance as the primary entry, while other exterior doors will not be open for public entry. She said the process should take only seconds for most people, with bags going through separate scanners and additional screening only if needed. The Capitol will close to the general public at 4:30 p.m. on weekdays, though accommodations will be made when hearings or floor sessions run later. She also said the entrances and screening areas are ADA accessible and that staff will be available to help guide visitors. In questions, officials said prohibited items are defined by statute and administrative rules and referred reporters to the State Patrol website for the full list. They confirmed that lawful permit-to-carry holders may still bring firearms, but must declare the permit, show government ID, and go through screening; elected officials are exempt, while staff are not. They also said the State Patrol will fund the rollout from its own budget, with costs to be evaluated over time, and that tunnel key-card access will be restricted to everyone. The briefing ended with a plan to demonstrate the screening equipment upstairs.

Transcript Highlights:

• These may be permitted like any other security alarm system.
• It's this permitting control that is different.
• So we are saying the state should set the permitting standard.
• Across many industries—in permitting, county permitting, city permitting, tribal permitting, federal
• permitting—they are all different.

Transcript Highlights:

• But again, they're constrained by this federal 404 permit.
• But again, they're constrained by this federal 404 permit.
• Streamlining—these projects should take a month to get a permit.
• We didn't include things like permitting costs or cost of land.
• Again, I'll go back to streamline permitting.

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy focused on infrastructure, pollution, climate resilience, public health, access, and economic impacts of sea level rise in California, with an emphasis on San Diego and the Bay Area. Chair Tasha Boerner Horvath opened by describing the committee’s purpose, the state’s sea level rise action planning, and the need for better monitoring and early warning systems. She also referenced her prior bills AB 66 and AB 72, which supported Scripps research on coastal bluff collapse warning capabilities. Assembly Members David Alvarez and Jessica Caloza later joined and emphasized that sea level rise affects not only coastal communities but inland areas as well, and that the issue should inform future legislative and budget decisions. In the first panel, Dr. Mark Merrifield of Scripps Institution of Oceanography described observed sea level rise of roughly 0.8 to 0.9 feet since the early 1900s, with acceleration expected by mid-century and potentially much greater rise by 2100 depending on emissions. He highlighted flooding, groundwater rise, beach and cliff erosion, salinization, and risks to transportation, sewage, ports, and national security. Dave Gibson of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board discussed how sea level rise affects wastewater systems, stormwater, contaminated sites, wetlands, and coastal groundwater basins, and said the board is requiring climate adaptation planning, updating stormwater permits, and seeking more flexible state permitting and mitigation tools. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for better mapping, more monitoring, and more state funding, especially if federal support from NOAA and other agencies declines. The second panel addressed public health, equitable access, and local economies. Ramon Chiras of Un Mar de Colores described how sea level rise, pollution, and access barriers threaten the Tijuana River Valley and Imperial Beach, especially for underserved communities and youth programs that rely on safe, welcoming access to the ocean. He stressed the cultural and spiritual importance of coastal access and the need for water safety and environmental education. Jessica Fane of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission explained that the Bay Area faces major economic exposure from sea level rise, citing a regional estimate of $96 billion in adaptation costs versus $230 billion in potential losses from inaction, and said BCDC is working with local governments under SB 272 on shoreline adaptation planning, funding, and regulatory innovation. Members discussed the tension between environmental permitting and the need to move projects faster, including the possibility of planned retreat in some areas and the use of simultaneous permitting and longer-term state authority to streamline adaptation work. In the final panel, Philip Gibbons of the Port of San Diego described the port’s climate adaptation efforts and its vulnerability assessments under AB 691. He said the port manages state tidelands, supports maritime commerce and recreation, and is already seeing flooding at king tides and during El Niño events, including storm-drain backflow and damage to bikeways and parks. He explained that future sea level rise could inundate major port areas and disrupt operations, underscoring the need for continued planning, mitigation, and infrastructure investment. The hearing did not take formal votes, but it concluded with a clear call for more science, funding, coordination, and regulatory streamlining to prepare California’s coast and nearby communities for worsening sea level rise impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• because it's their permit number.
• Some of them need permits.
• , selling goods on the list with a permit, or selling prepared food with or without a permit.
• Let me be clear: permitted vendors are not the problem.
• Let me be clear: permitted vendors are not the problem.

Summary: The committee heard multiple bills, with extensive discussion focused on short-term rental regulation, street vending, park/public safety financing, transit-oriented housing fees, and demographic data collection. SB 346 would require short-term rental platforms to provide local governments with listing addresses and related information to help collect transient occupancy taxes and enforce local ordinances; supporters argued cities and counties need the data to identify unlicensed operators and recover taxes, while opposition from platforms raised privacy and due process concerns and said administrative subpoenas already exist. The bill was amended and passed 7-0 to the Judiciary Committee. SB 635, the Street Vendor Business Protection Act, sought to protect street vendors’ personal information from being shared in ways that could expose them to federal immigration enforcement; supporters described raids and fear in vendor communities, and the bill passed 6-1 to Public Safety. SB 499 would clarify that certain park and recreation facilities designated in local safety or hazard mitigation plans can qualify for fee deferral exemptions when they serve emergency or public safety functions; supporters said parks can serve as fire buffers, evacuation sites, and recovery hubs, while some housing advocates sought a clearer nexus to development impacts. The bill passed as amended 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 358, which would modernize traffic impact fee rules to better reflect lower automobile trip generation for walkable, transit-oriented housing, drew support from housing and transportation advocates and passed 8-0 to Appropriations. SB 515, aimed at improving demographic data collection and reporting by local governments and state entities, passed to Appropriations on a 4-0 vote. The committee also took up SB 276, presented by Assembly Member Stefani on behalf of Senator Wiener, which would allow San Francisco to create a permit-and-enforcement system for the sale of commonly stolen goods on sidewalks. Supporters said the measure is needed to address fencing operations and protect legitimate vendors, while emphasizing it is narrowly targeted and not aimed at food vendors or permitted sellers. The transcript ends during testimony on SB 276, with supporters from the Mission street vendor community and San Francisco Public Works describing enforcement problems and the need for clearer rules and city resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• permit.
• The proposed West Dairy permit is an individual permit and would be the most stringent permit in the
• . permit. permit.
• West Dairy permit is an individual<00:15:57.959> permit<00:15:58.680> and<00:15:58.800
• <00:18:21.360> Uh permits this size. Uh permits this size.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:27:39.600> Au one um which says permitting Au one um which says permitting Au 3407<00:
• <00:30:02.159> functions they're all these permitting functions they're all these permitting
• the fees for that the the um permit the fees for that the the um permit fees<00:36:09.880> this
• It's exempt from permitting, so there's no fees because they don't even come in for a permit, whether
• on to speed up permitting.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up a House Bill 2 amendment to remove a bail-related section that had already passed in another bill and was now considered duplicative. Members discussed the earlier change to how bail commissioners are reimbursed, concerns that the Judiciary was losing money collecting the fees, and whether the magistrate-related language would still be needed. They noted the bill had already crossed over to the Senate, that the section was obsolete, and that any remaining issue about magistrates’ five-year terms might need to be raised with the Criminal Justice Committee. Amendment 997H, deleting section one, was moved, seconded, and adopted unanimously. The committee then reviewed a package of HB 1 position transfers involving the Department of Environmental Services, Fish and Game, and the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. Staff explained that several positions were being shuffled to correct position numbers and align permitting functions, including one Fish and Game position moving back to Fish and Game, one DEES position remaining funded after ARPA money ends, and adjustments to hours for permitting and environmental services positions. Members discussed whether the Fish and Game position had been intended to be temporary, but ultimately agreed to accept the first four Environmental Services items and the last two Natural and Cultural Resources items as a package; that motion passed unanimously. They then also accepted sections 2 through 8 of HB 1 with the related amendments and footnote language. The committee next turned to dredge-and-fill fee changes in section 11, where one member objected to a 50% fee increase for seasonal docks, arguing it could discourage permitted work and might apply to repairs that only require notification. Staff said the increase was intended to help cover the cost of additional positions in future biennia, but members decided to hold that section for more information, including how many seasonal dock repair fees are actually collected. Finally, the committee began discussing HB 215 and a proposed tipping-fee/surcharge structure to make a solid waste accounting unit self-funded, with members saying the fee could offset about $2.9 million in general fund costs and support the grant program, but no final action was taken on that item in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• DLI is already required to investigate when work is performed without a permit.
• DLI is already required to investigate when work is performed without a permit.
• DLI is already required to investigate when work is performed without a permit.
• DLI is already required to investigate when work is performed without a permit.
• So permit is exactly 14 circuits by $3.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If there is any appropriate use of those permitting surpluses, it is this.
• barriers to essential eliminating permit barriers to essential home<00:04:21.600> modifications.
• He said they also need to reform permitting costs and asked whether local governments had weighed in
• The response was that permitting fees generally cover the work to do the permit, but as the testifier
• The response continued that permitting fees generally cover the work to do the permit, but often end

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• principal's discretion to permit principal's discretion to permit firearms<00:15:47.600> on
• So moving to permit-to-carry holders, current law does not allow permit-to-carry holders to carry in
• school based on their permit alone. school based on their permit alone.
• bill [snorts] were enacted, those permit bill [snorts] were enacted, those permit to<00:31:31.760
• > holders<00:31:41.760> when currently permit to carry holders when currently permit to

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We understand the author intends to remove the proposed moratorium on major air permits.
• It would have categorically prevented the Air District from issuing permits to Title V facilities.
• The willingness to prohibit their permitting altogether demonstrates that this bill may be more than
• While removing the permitting moratorium is necessary, it does not cure the bill's broader defects.
• They'd still be allowed to build, just through a more rigorous review and permitting process.

Summary: The committee considered several coastal, climate, and air quality measures. Senator Laird presented SCR 136 marking the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act and Coastal Conservancy Act, and SJR 12 opposing the federal offshore oil and gas leasing program; both drew broad support from environmental groups, local governments, and other advocates, with no opposition heard. Senator Padilla presented SB 10, requiring state climate plans to include gender impact assessments, with supporters arguing climate harms fall disproportionately on women and LGBTQ+ people; the bill also drew no opposition in the hearing. Senator Padilla also presented SB 675 to restructure the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District board and expand public transparency, while supporters cited severe air quality problems and opponents raised concerns about unfunded mandates, consultation, and impacts on local permitting and economic development. Senator Allen presented SB 1229 to limit disaster-rebuild coastal permit exemptions when replacement structures would newly impede coastal access or sensitive protections, with supporters saying it would prevent investor abuse of post-disaster rebuilding rules. After testimony, the committee took up the measures and recorded votes. SCR 136, SJR 12, SB 10, SB 675, and SB 1229 all advanced on party-line or near-party-line votes, with some members voting no on the more regulatory measures. The consent calendar was also approved, including ACR 157, SB 899, SB 949, SB 963, SB 1008, SB 1207, SB 1428, and SJR 5. All of the listed measures were sent onward, generally to Appropriations, and the committee concluded its hearing after the roll calls.

Transcript Highlights:

• MUNICIPALITIES, JUST FINDING THAT PERSON WE KNOW THIS PERMIT IS SITTING WITH. >> Chair LaMarca: REP.
• ALTERABLE PERMITS ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
• JUST AS AN EXAMPLE TODAY MUNICIPALITIES ATTEMPTED TO CHARGE US $60,000 IN PERMITS.
• JUST THOSE TYPE OF CHALLENGES WHERE MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON LAWSUITS OR ON PERMIT FEES OR PAYING FOR
• IT'S NOT A PERSON IN A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMITTING OFFICE THAT SAYS I'M PURPOSELY TRYING TO SLOW THIS