Transcript Highlights:

• , that cannot be supported by the traditional welfare tax exemption.
• statute provides that if a community land trust is granted this exemption, it must repay the exempted
• Use of this exemption.
• The next bill is AB 1668, Pellerin, property tax welfare exemption.
• Next, we have AB 672, Colosa, real property tax welfare exemption.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard several tax-related bills. SB 1096 would create a senior personal income tax credit for tax years 2026 through 2030, with a $1,500 credit that phases out above specified income levels, excludes dependents for whom foster care payments were made, allows a seven-year carryforward, and includes technical changes. AB 672 would extend a property tax welfare exemption for community land trust projects that create or rehabilitate low-income housing, and AB 1668 would extend by five years the welfare property tax exemption for open-space lands held by land trusts. AB 2022 would expand the property tax exemption for disabled veteran homeowners, increasing relief for low-income veterans and others with service-connected disabilities. AB 2641 was placed on the consent calendar, though the transcript does not describe its substance. Testimony on SB 1096 emphasized support for seniors, especially grandparents and other caregivers on fixed incomes, and noted the bill’s amendments and foster-care-related exclusion. AB 672 drew strong support from community land trust representatives and advocates, who said the exemption helps make permanently affordable housing possible and supports projects in Oakland, San Francisco, and South Lake Tahoe. AB 1668 was supported by land trust and conservation groups, who said the exemption helps preserve open space and habitat, though the California Teachers Association testified in respectful opposition. AB 2022 was backed by veterans’ organizations and county veterans service officers, who argued the bill would help disabled veterans remain in their homes and keep veterans in California. All of the bills discussed were advanced on due pass motions. SB 1096, AB 672, AB 1668, and AB 2022 each received committee votes and were later confirmed out of committee on final roll calls, with the transcript reflecting unanimous or near-unanimous support. The consent calendar, including AB 2641, was also adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• The citizens, when they would go to get their exemption, would not get their homestead exemption.
• Well, this is the exemptions. And so an exemption occurs, Exemptions occur later in the process.
• because the way the exemptions work is you can continue to take an exemption so long as you qualify,
• And you'll note that the $25,000 homestead exemption and the additional homestead exemption of $25,000
• Um, switching gears on ag exemptions, um, and taxable, the ag exemptions associated with taxing.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• exempt from ABOD or is meeting the requirements... ...exemptions in Medi-Cal.
• If an individual is exempt from ABOD or is meeting the requirements, they are exempt from Medi-Cal work
• In terms of the exemptions. I guess it's not necessarily exemption data. It's just data.
• Those exemptions are...” “Those exemptions are automated.
• “No, our exemption file—so our determination of Medi-Cal exemptions won’t be available.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held an informational hearing focused on the impacts of federal HR1 on CalFresh and Medi-Cal, along with related state mitigation efforts. CDSS, DHCS, DDS, county representatives, LAO, and Finance discussed automatic exemptions, data-sharing between departments, county workload, and the timing of implementation. CDSS said about two-thirds of adults ages 18 to 64 are already known to be exempt in CalFresh, and that administrative data matches could newly exempt about 200,000 of the roughly 955,000 adults potentially at risk. DHCS said Medi-Cal work requirements would begin in 2027 and the department is working to automate exemptions, including for IHSS recipients and some caregivers, while DDS said its population is expected to be covered by auto-exemptions. County welfare directors emphasized that individualized worker contact is critical, that counties need more staffing and stable funding, and that without it they expect delays, higher error rates, and reduced exemption screening capacity. Members pressed for written timelines, county-by-county impact data, and clearer guidance; the administration said it would provide follow-up materials and technical assistance. No votes were taken. The committee then heard a separate discussion on a proposed CFAP expansion or “CFAP Plus” concept to provide state-funded benefits to additional populations affected by HR1, including lawfully present non-citizens and ABODs. CDSS said implementation could not occur before October 1, 2027 because of policy and system-design constraints, and that adding unique eligibility rules would increase complexity and cost. Finance cautioned that any expansion would have General Fund impacts likely in the hundreds of millions to multiple billions. Members asked for cost estimates and technical feedback on trailer bill language, and CDSS said it would review the proposal and respond. The hearing also covered CDSS’s CalFresh strategic plan and mandated reporter training updates. CDSS said it is hiring a strategic plan lead to develop a long-term, data-informed CalFresh plan, and that the revised mandated reporter training is on track for launch in fall/winter 2026, ahead of the July 1, 2027 statutory deadline. The training will include updated content on structural racism, ICWA protections, implicit bias, and the distinction between reporting and supporting families. Members praised the work and asked for continued updates. Later panels focused on Promise Neighborhoods, Stop the Hate, and housing programs. Promise Neighborhood advocates and CDSS described the state’s prior $12 million investment, a positive evaluation showing roughly a 4-to-1 return, and a new proposal to support place-based partnerships and community schools through AB 1969. Stop the Hate grantees and CDSS reported that the program has provided direct services, prevention, and statewide coordination to millions of Californians, and urged reauthorization before funding expires; members asked for best-practice language and discussed focusing future funding on solidarity work, harm reduction, legal services, and education. Finally, CDSS presented on the CalWORKs Housing Support Program and Housing and Disability Advocacy Program, saying proposed General Fund investments of $105 million and $55 million would prevent funding cliffs and allow the programs to continue through 2026-27, while the absence of new funding would force reductions in housing assistance, subsidies, and enrollments.

Transcript Highlights:

• of exemptions, and our exception list is 80-plus.
• for sales tax exemption."
• that exemption to us this session.
• Exempt.
• Within that revenue exemption.

Summary: The committee heard an interim study on expanding or simplifying sales tax exemptions for Oklahoma nonprofits. Representatives Stark and Schreiber said the issue has been filed repeatedly over several sessions and framed it as a bipartisan effort to keep more charitable dollars in service of communities rather than paying sales tax. Schreiber also suggested broader tax reform or an omnibus approach rather than continuing to add individual exemptions. Marnie Taylor of the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits gave an overview of the sector, describing nonprofits as a major part of the state economy and safety net, and argued that many organizations are highly regulated, under-resourced, and facing declining donations and funding. She said the current patchwork of exemptions is uneven and that a blanket or broader exemption would help organizations serving public needs. Committee members asked for sources behind some of the poverty, education, and health rankings cited in her presentation. Several nonprofit leaders testified about how sales tax affects their operations. RG Foods described the cost of opening neighborhood grocery markets in food deserts and said sales tax on a Tulsa project would divert about $85,000 from programming. Jubilee Partners, Skyline Urban Outreach, the Pencil Box, the Tulsa Police Foundation, Blue Rose Ranch, and Legacy Parenting Center each explained how exemption status or the lack of it affects food assistance, school supplies, public safety equipment, animal rescue, and diapers and family support. Members asked follow-up questions about food desert definitions, budgets, and how much sales tax savings would change operations. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but the study concluded with closing remarks emphasizing that the exemption would keep more money in direct services and support the nonprofit sector statewide.

Transcript Highlights:

• . exemptions. exemptions.
• exempt.
• that exemption. that exemption.
• exempted or were estimating was exempted exempted or were estimating was exempted in<01:26:33.199
• So, exempt under the current exemption.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• exempt from ABOD or is meeting the requirements, they are exempt from Medi-Cal work requirements, and
• If an individual is exempt from ABOD or is meeting the requirements, they are exempt from Medi-Cal work
• In terms of the exemptions, I guess it's not necessarily exemption data. It's just data.
• Those exemptions are automated.
• No, our exemption file—our determination of Medi-Cal exemptions—won’t be available.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held an informational hearing focused largely on the implementation of federal HR1 changes and their effects on CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and related county workloads. CDSS, DHCS, DDS, CWDA, LAO, and Finance discussed the CalFresh able-bodied adult without dependents time limit, with CDSS saying about two-thirds of affected adults are already known to be exempt in the system and that roughly 200,000 more could be auto-exempt through new data matches with DHCS and DDS. Officials said those exemptions should be in place by mid-August, before the first possible discontinuance in October, and that counties would receive policy guidance, handbook updates, and client-facing materials. DHCS said Medi-Cal work requirements would be implemented later, with rules and testing completed ahead of a January 2027 rollout, and noted automatic exemptions for some IHSS-related cases. CWDA urged more county staffing and funding, citing examples where high-touch outreach improved exemptions, reduced churn, and increased participation, while warning that without additional resources counties expect delays, higher error risk, and reduced engagement. The committee also discussed a possible CFAP Plus expansion to provide state-funded food benefits to people losing CalFresh eligibility under HR1. CDSS said implementation could not occur before the planned October 1, 2027 CFAP expansion timeline and would depend on final policy choices, system design, and the complexity of adding new eligibility groups. Finance cautioned that any benefit expansion would carry significant General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of millions or more. Members asked for written timelines, county-by-county impact data, and feedback on trailer bill language, and CDSS agreed to provide follow-up materials and technical assistance. A separate item reviewed the CalFresh strategic plan and the revision of CDSS’s online mandated reporter training. CDSS said the strategic plan lead position should be posted in May and that the plan would be data-driven and collaborative. For mandated reporter training, CDSS reported that the revised curriculum is being developed with lived experts and stakeholders, will include content on structural racism, ICWA protections, implicit bias, and the distinction between reporting and supporting, and is on track to launch in fall/winter 2026 ahead of the statutory deadline. The committee also heard updates on Promise Neighborhoods, where advocates described strong outcomes and argued for continued and expanded state support, including AB 1969 to deepen partnerships with community schools; members emphasized the need for more stable braided funding and institution-building rather than short-term program funding. The hearing concluded with updates on the Stop the Hate program and housing assistance programs. CDSS said Stop the Hate has provided direct services, prevention and intervention programming, and statewide coordination, reaching millions through outreach and serving more than 11,200 people through transformative grants; advocates urged reauthorization and more targeted funding for solidarity, harm reduction, legal services, and education. Finally, CDSS said proposed one-time investments of $55 million for H-DAP and $105 million for HSP would help avoid funding cliffs and maintain homelessness prevention and housing stabilization services through 2026-27, while the absence of new funding would force reductions in emergency housing assistance, rental subsidies, and enrollments. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Among other provisions, the HERO Act expanded property tax exemptions and motor vehicle excise tax exemptions
• This is significantly trailing the terms of comparing exemptions of neighboring states.
• A 100% disabled veteran in Massachusetts currently qualifies for just $1,000 exemption.
• You are to the same. potentially receiving 60,000 an exemption despite this.
• Currently, this clause provides a 100% real estate exemption.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a hybrid hearing on 32 bills related to veterans and service members, with opening remarks from Chair Madaro and Senator Eldridge emphasizing the committee’s work on tax credits and property tax relief, including follow-up to the HERO Act of 2024. The chairs outlined hearing procedures, noted the August 23 reporting deadline for House-filed matters, and explained that testimony would focus on issues including voluntary contributions, sales tax, property tax, and economic development. No votes were taken during the hearing. Several bills drew testimony in support of expanding or simplifying veterans’ property tax benefits. Rep. Sylvia supported H. 3255 to raise the veterans’ property tax workoff cap from $1,500 to $2,000, matching the senior workoff program. Rep. Soder and Sen. Moore advocated for stronger property tax relief for disabled veterans, including H. 3245 and S. 2046, with Moore proposing a disability-based exemption and state reimbursement to municipalities. Rep. McGregor supported H. 3175, which would eliminate the need for veterans to refile annually for exemptions unless their status changes, arguing it would reduce burdens on veterans and assessors. Testimony also addressed line-of-duty death benefits and local implementation concerns. Mary Ann Cardi supported H. 3188 to clarify that surviving spouses of police and fire personnel who died in the line of duty qualify for a full real estate exemption. Chris Clark, Senator Sear, and Counselor Ludke all backed the veterans’ workoff bill, describing it as an equity fix that would align the veterans’ program with the senior program and help municipalities like Barnstable use the benefit more effectively. After hearing from all scheduled speakers and confirming no additional in-person testimony, the chairs adjourned the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:38.320> for the current sales tax exemption for the current sales tax exemption for
• And with that, I'm happy to stand for questions. tax exemption on the fiber and conduit tax exemption
• sales tax exemption sales tax exemption and<00:36:58.119> I<00:36:58.240> think<00
• to supercharge our current exemption to supercharge our current exemption there<00:48:34.319>
• Will this exempt them too, Chair?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 954 attempts to modify the CEQA exemption in SB 131.
• SB 954 modifies a CEQA exemption for daycare facilities in SB 131, so that the CEQA exemption applies
• This is what exists, and we're now we have broad exemptions to Sequa, and now we have these broad exemptions
• SB 887 bars data centers from CEQA categorical exemptions, exemptions that remain available to...
• Bars data centers from CEQA categorical exemptions, exemptions that remain available to similarly situated

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of proving an exemption applies. ...very narrowly, and the agency has the burden of proving an exemption
• The burning of coal ceased in 2025 and the exemption is now removed. exemption is now removed.
• It also exempts certain items from sales and use tax.
• So how many exempt sales occur? how many Sales.
• So how many exempt sales occur, how many groups claim the exemption, as well as the amount of tax savings

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences met on May 6, 2026, with quorum present and unanimously approved the October 21, 2025 minutes. The Attorney General’s Office then provided its annual refresher on Washington’s Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act, emphasizing broad disclosure requirements, records retention, prompt routing of records requests to staff, and OPMA rules for meetings, conference calls, emails, special meetings, and executive sessions. JLARC staff next reviewed 2026 tax preference legislation, noting 20 bills affecting tax preferences. Examples included repeal of the coal sales tax exemption, changes to data center exemptions, new property tax exemptions for renewable energy facilities and land bank authorities, and a broad tax package in Senate Bill 6346 that created credits and deductions, expanded the working families tax credit, and exempted items such as diapers and hygiene products. Staff also presented the 2026 expedited review report covering 64 tax preferences and explained that it is based on prior JLARC reviews and Department of Revenue studies rather than full new reviews. The commission approved unchanged 2026 public testimony questions and then adopted the draft 2027–2036 tax preference review schedule, along with a new rolling 10-year schedule format that will be updated each May. During discussion, Representative Pollitt questioned how preferences are prioritized for full review versus expedited or no review, especially for large preferences without performance statements, and staff explained that legislative mandates, expiration timing, and staff capacity drive the schedule. The commission agreed staff would meet with members to discuss possible future adjustments. The meeting concluded with public and staff recognition of Commissioner Grant Forsyth, who is leaving the commission after 13 years of service. Speakers praised his leadership, consensus-building, and long tenure as both commissioner and chair. The next commission meeting was announced for August 4, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• We’re allowing people to slip through the cracks by not refiling for the tax exemption.
• Health Bill 3968, an act relative to tax exemption for House Bill 3968, an act relative to tax exemption
• One is House 3102, an act expanding the senior property tax exemption.
• a $500 exemption.
• They have to have certain jurisdiction. a $500 exemption.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a hearing on bills related to senior and disability property tax relief, with a focus on helping older adults and people with disabilities remain in their homes. Testimony supported H. 3968, which would make certain senior and disability property tax exemptions permanent so eligible residents would not have to refile annually, and H. 3198, which would expand the senior circuit breaker tax credit by indexing income and credit limits to cost of living and raising the home valuation cap from $1.1 million to $1.5 million. Representative Scanlan also testified in favor of several additional bills, including a local option motor vehicle excise tax exemption for low-income seniors and veterans, a local property tax cap for low-income seniors, an expanded senior property tax exemption, and a senior property tax deferral program designed to be revenue neutral over time. Witnesses from the City of Boston, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and the Massachusetts Association of Assessing Officers generally supported local-option property tax relief measures and said they would help seniors age in place while giving municipalities flexibility. Committee members raised concerns about possible abuse or fraud if exemptions became permanent, and about how assessors would verify continued eligibility without annual reapplication. Supporters responded that eligibility could still be tied to real estate transactions and other documentation, and that the current annual filing requirement causes many eligible seniors to miss out on benefits. Mass Senior Action Council members testified that many seniors are struggling with rising property taxes, insurance, and other costs, and urged broader reforms such as freezing assessed values, improving outreach, strengthening the work-off program, and allowing more flexible payment or deferral options. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded after testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is very top-heavy to the first homestead exemption and then, secondarily, the second homestead exemption
• Secondarily, the second homestead exemption.
• Is it a new exemption? So we're looking at what's happening with the exemptions.
• So an exemption, remember, we said that you can take exemptions up until you run out of taxable value
• for example so an exemption remember we said that you can take exemption remember we said that you can

Summary: The Senate Committee on Finance and Tax met to hear a presentation from Amy Baker on the state’s ad valorem property tax forecast and how the revenue estimating conference handles property-tax-related impact analyses. Baker explained that the conference process requires unanimous consensus, that the revenue estimating conference produces the state’s official forecast, and that her office recently overhauled the ad valorem model to use a bottom-up, county-by-county approach with separate modeling for county and school rolls, confidential parcels, and detailed categories such as homestead, non-homestead, residential, non-residential, and agricultural property. Baker walked through the current baseline numbers and the main components of taxable value, emphasizing the role of homestead differentials, especially Save Our Homes and portability, and homestead exemptions. She noted that differentials remove a large share of homestead value statewide, with especially large effects in South Florida and along the east coast, while exemptions are concentrated more heavily in northern and fiscally constrained counties. She also explained that many parcels have little or no remaining taxable value, while a smaller number of parcels hold a large share of taxable value, which makes exemption proposals highly uneven in their effects. The committee discussed how impact conferences evaluate proposed constitutional amendments or bills by measuring the change from the baseline forecast, converting taxable-value changes into tax-dollar losses using county millage rates, and then expressing results in cash and recurring terms. Baker stressed that impact analyses do not address broader budgetary effects or local government replacement decisions, and that each proposal is analyzed as a standalone measure rather than in combination with others. Senators asked about seven House property-tax proposals already analyzed, the availability of those reports online, possible interactions if multiple proposals passed, and whether property-tax relief could stimulate the economy enough to offset revenue losses. Baker said the economic effects would be highly proposal- and county-specific and that any budgetary analysis would require separate work beyond the conference process. The committee took no substantive action beyond receiving the presentation and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, SB 954 modifies a CEQA exemption for daycare facilities in SB 131, so that the CEQA exemption
• That doesn't change with the CEQA exemption under SB 131.
• So does that mean they are exempt from CEQA under SB 131?
• In order to get a CEQA exemption, it's physically impossible.
• SB 887 bars data centers from CEQA categorical exemptions, exemptions that remain available to similarly

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with SB 1350 by Senator McNerney presented first. The measure would expand California’s use of renewable hydrogen in the power sector by allowing renewable portfolio standard credit for power plants using green hydrogen, with supporters emphasizing grid reliability, clean-energy goals, in-state investment, and construction jobs. Support came from labor, clean-energy, municipal utility, and local government representatives; NRDC Action Fund withdrew opposition after amendments, while a few groups remained opposed or neutral. The committee later took a roll call and SB 1350 passed out on a due pass recommendation. The committee also heard SB 1180 by Senator Allen, which would set operational rules for the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund created under SB 54, including clearer eligible uses, transparency, technical assistance, and access for tribes and smaller community groups. Environmental justice, ocean, conservation, and local government groups strongly supported the bill, saying it would ensure the fund addresses plastic pollution’s public health and environmental harms. Industry and manufacturing groups opposed unless amended, arguing the bill should stay tightly tied to plastic waste reduction and not broaden into source-reduction policy. After quorum was established, the committee approved SB 1180 on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. SB 1326 by Senator Wahab was then heard to strengthen tribal consultation and tribal cultural resource protections under CEQA by recognizing tribal registers and requiring feasible avoidance or mitigation measures when tribes identify resources. Tribal representatives and supporters said the bill would better protect sacred sites and tribal knowledge, while cities, counties, utilities, builders, and rural county groups opposed unless amended, citing implementation concerns, possible litigation, and uncertainty for infrastructure and housing projects. The committee voted the bill out on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. Finally, SB 954 by Senator Blakespear was presented as a cleanup of last year’s SB 131 advanced-manufacturing CEQA exemption, narrowing eligible projects and adding guardrails such as setbacks, air-quality limits, tribal consultation, labor standards, and habitat protections. Environmental and labor groups supported the bill as a needed correction to an overly broad exemption, while business, manufacturing, housing, and local-government groups opposed, warning it could make the exemption unusable and slow investment. Members debated the balance between environmental protection and manufacturing competitiveness, and the committee voted SB 954 out on a due pass recommendation to the Labor and Employment Committee; the transcript then moved on to SB 1031 on compostable plastics, which was introduced but not acted on in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• of proving an exemption applies. ...very narrowly, and the agency has the burden of proving an exemption
• The burning of coal ceased in 2025 and the exemption is now removed. The exemption is now removed.
• It also exempts certain items from sales and use tax.
• of applicants and the number of exempt units.
• So how many exempt sales occur, how many groups claim the exemption, as well as the amount of tax savings

Summary: The Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences met on May 6, 2026, with quorum present and unanimously approved the October 21, 2025 minutes. The Attorney General’s Office then provided its annual open government refresher, covering key points of the Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act, including broad disclosure requirements, records retention, response timelines for public records requests, and rules for meetings, special meetings, emergency meetings, and executive sessions. JLARC staff gave a 2026 legislative session update on tax preference bills. They highlighted 20 bills affecting tax preferences, including repeal of the coal-related sales and use tax exemption, changes to data center exemptions, new property tax exemptions for renewable energy facilities and land bank authorities, and a broad tax package in engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6346 that created multiple credits, deductions, and exemptions. Staff also presented the 2026 expedited tax preference review report covering 64 preferences, noting it is based on prior JLARC reviews and Department of Revenue studies and is now available in an interactive searchable format. The commission approved the 2026 public testimony questions without changes and then adopted the 2027–2036 tax preference review schedule, along with a new rolling 10-year schedule that will be updated each May. During discussion, commissioners raised concerns about how preferences are prioritized for full review versus expedited review, especially for older or high-revenue preferences without performance statements, and staff explained that legislative mandates, expiration dates, and workload constraints drive the schedule. The meeting also included a public and staff recognition of Commissioner Grant Forsyth’s 13 years of service and leadership, with remarks praising his collaborative approach and long tenure; the next meeting was set for August 4, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the case of exemptions, while there are several exemptions in the SEPA law, the SEPA rule contains
• hundreds of exemptions.
• The minor new construction exemption is one example of exemptions in the SEPA rules.
• exemptions we just discussed, as well as a few other areas of exemptions such as utilities.
• The exemption came into play, and more residential units were then exempt from CEPA.

Summary: The Local Government Committee met in work session and heard a series of presentations on SEPA, permitting reforms, and building code implementation. Department of Ecology staff gave an overview of the State Environmental Policy Act, explaining its role in state and local decision-making, common exemptions, planned actions, and recent housing-related statutory changes such as transit-oriented development exemptions and SEPA appeals protections for certain local ordinances. Committee members asked about repeated SEPA reviews, cultural and historic resource review, and how SEPA relates to NEPA; Ecology responded that repeated reviews usually occur when proposals change and that programmatic EISs can help front-load analysis. Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections described how recent SEPA exemptions reduced residential review volume and supported more housing permits, and said the city is considering raising thresholds further. The State Building Code Council provided an update on code adoption timelines and legislative tasks tied to the 2024 codes, including single-stair housing, multiplex housing, dwelling unit size, and temporary emergency shelter standards. Council staff said the content of the codes is largely set, but administrative timelines have been delayed, prompting a motion to postpone final adoption while pursuing ways to preserve the planned implementation schedule. Members asked about the timing of code changes and the impact on housing costs, and staff said the legislative topics remain on track for inclusion in the 2024 code package. Committee staff then reviewed recent permitting legislation, including SB 5290’s permit decision deadlines and fee-refund provisions, later bills limiting pre-application meetings and clarifying that building permits are excluded from those timelines, and project-specific changes affecting middle housing, ADUs, lot splits, passive house projects, self-certification, transit-oriented development, and parking requirements. Commerce’s Dave Anderson reported on SB 5290 implementation, including guidance on permit fees, studies on staffing and statewide permitting systems, grants to local governments, and the first annual performance report, which showed mixed results and highlighted the importance of digital tools, clear checklists, staff training, and coordination across departments. Local officials from Issaquah and Kitsap County described their own process improvements, including code updates, optional pre-application meetings, new staffing, reporting systems, and a phased “Two by Six” review model in Kitsap, while also noting challenges from staffing shortages, agency coordination, and the burden of implementing multiple new mandates.

Transcript Highlights:

• The homestead exemption or for compression.
• The $250,000 exemption would be the second largest exemption of its kind in the country and would provide
• So, the $250,000 exemption is an increase from the current $2500 exemption for which a, you know, a business
• One would be a percentage exemption across the board.
• But bigger businesses get tax exemptions.

Bills: HB8, HB9, HJR1, HB 22

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• Exemptions are specific reductions in the assessed value based on applying and qualifying for the exemption
• These include things like homestead exemptions, charitable exemptions, municipal exemptions, and exemptions
• Probably the two $25,000 homestead exemptions, but potentially more exemptions if you're a disabled veteran
• exemption for 30 years or more.
• If we're going to exempt them, it's going to really impact... Level of a homestead exemption.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes held its first meeting with opening remarks from the co-chairs and ranking member framing the committee’s task as developing property tax legislation for next session. Staff then gave a high-level overview of Florida property taxes, explaining how ad valorem taxes work, the roles of property appraisers, tax collectors, taxing authorities, value adjustment boards, and the Department of Revenue, and reviewing key concepts such as just value, assessed value, exemptions, taxable value, millage rates, homestead exemptions, Save Our Homes, and portability. The presentation also emphasized that property tax law is largely rooted in the Florida Constitution and that local governments choose millage rates, which affects collections. No public comment was taken. The committee then discussed five Speaker-proposed concepts. Proposal 1 would require cities, counties, and special districts to hold a referendum on eliminating property taxes on homestead properties; members raised concerns about local funding, public safety, special districts, renters, and the need for extensive voter education, with some suggesting countywide elections or town halls instead. Proposal 2 would create a new $500,000 homestead exemption for non-school taxes and a $1 million exemption for seniors 65+ or long-term homesteaders; members split between seeing it as meaningful relief for seniors and warning it could devastate local tax bases, especially in lower-value or rural counties, while also potentially trapping older homeowners in place. Proposal 3 would authorize the Legislature to raise homestead exemptions by general law; some liked the flexibility, but others worried about statewide one-size-fits-all impacts, political difficulty in reversing changes, and the need for local revenue replacement. Proposal 4 would change assessment caps for homestead and non-homestead property; several members said it would not provide enough relief and could shift burdens to rental properties and non-homestead owners. Proposal 5, eliminating foreclosure on homestead property for tax liens, drew the strongest opposition, with members saying it would undermine lien priority, mortgage and title systems, and incentives to pay taxes. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly stressed the need to understand local fiscal impacts, including police, fire, infrastructure, and other services funded by property taxes, and to consider alternative revenue sources or offsets if taxes are reduced. The co-chairs said the committee is still in the information-gathering stage, that all ideas remain on the table, and that members should do “homework” by meeting with local taxing authorities and learning how property taxes are set and spent in their districts. The meeting ended with no votes on the proposals and adjournment after a motion to rise.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh, about the value of each exemption.
• A couple of other notable exemptions are the sale for resale provision, which exempts the sale of a taxable
• Rather than exemptions.
• exemptions for non-homestead property as well, then, then you can use exemptions to get there, but Those
• 20% business personal property exemption.

Transcript Highlights:

• reenacts the exemption, which is why we're here today.
• This bill saves from repeal the public record and meeting exemption for exempt or confidential information
• This exemption has never been used.
• And in fact, this exemption has never been used to date.
• So I think this is a very narrowly tailored public records exemption.

Summary: The Government Operations Subcommittee met to consider five proposed committee bills under the Open Government Sunset Review Act, which requires certain public record and public meeting exemptions to be reenacted before automatic repeal. Each bill was briefly explained by its sponsor or a member presenting on behalf of the sponsor, with no amendments or public testimony offered on any of the measures. The subcommittee favorably reported PCB GOS 26-01, preserving the Florida Gaming Control Commission exemption; PCB GOS 26-03, preserving the public emergency shelter address and phone number exemption; PCB GOS 26-04, preserving exemptions for financial information used in small business loan administration; PCB GOS 26-02, preserving the conviction integrity unit reinvestigation information exemption; and PCB GOS 26-05, preserving a Public Service Commission meeting exemption for portions involving proprietary confidential information. During discussion on the Public Service Commission bill, members asked about transparency and utility rate increases, and the sponsor responded that the exemption is narrow, has never been used, does not affect public discussion of rate increases, and does not limit lawsuits or discovery. All five PCBs were reported favorably by roll call vote. The chair then thanked members for their participation, noted that more bills were being referred to the committee, and adjourned the meeting without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• because of religious vaccine exemptions because of religious vaccine exemptions and<01:29:05.199
• hb18 relating to non-medical exemptions hb18 relating to non-medical exemptions to<01:56:12.079>
• <02:21:16.080> for the right to religious exemptions for the right to religious exemptions
• > That religious exemption, but how often are medical exemptions granted to parents for actual cases?
• are exemptions that medical exemptions are exemptions that medical exemptions are still<04:09

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard several measures, beginning with HB 194, which would designate May 22 as Maritime Day. Testimony from labor, health, and community groups was in support, and the committee later recommended passage of the bill as is, with several members voting yes and some reserving or being excused. HB 458 would designate April 27 as Brother Joseph Dutton Day; the Department of Accounting and General Services, the Joseph Dutton Guild, and a descendant all supported it, and the committee recommended passage with technical amendments. HB 957 would designate the first Friday in May as Lā‘au Day; support came from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, and many individuals, and the committee recommended passage as is. HB 345 would establish the ʻōpae ula as the state shrimp to promote awareness and protection of anchialine ecosystems; DLNR, Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAu, and other supporters testified, and the committee recommended passage with technical amendments. The committee also heard HB 901, which would allow public charter schools to appeal directly to the Board of Education on certain operational, governance, or funding matters. The Attorney General and the Public Charter School Commission offered technical comments and suggested amendments, while the commission described its current monitoring and renewal process and said it works closely with schools over the life of a charter contract. Members raised concerns about whether the bill would shift too much work to the Board of Education, and one member voted no when the committee later moved the bill with the Attorney General’s amendments. HB 1066 would add Head Start-related ex officio members to the Early Learning Board; the Early Learning Board and the Executive Office on Early Learning supported it, explaining the changes were needed to align with the federal Head Start Act, and the committee moved it forward without opposition. HB 1069 would add voting members from the Department of Education and Board of Education to the School Facilities Authority Board. DOE and the School Facilities Authority supported the change as a way to strengthen collaboration, though questions from members focused on the current communication process between the agencies. HB 1343 would require the Board of Education to adopt a policy banning student phone and related device use during school hours; the committee noted written testimony in support and then moved to decision-making. At the end of the meeting, the committee adopted recommendations to pass HB 194, HB 458 with technical amendments, HB 957, HB 345 with technical amendments, HB 901 with amendments, HB 1066, HB 1069, and HB 1343.