Bills: HB1974, HB1853, HB1973, HB1574, HB2619, HB1966, HB1643, HB1671, HB2558, HB1854, HB2173, HB1575, HB2229, HB1535, HB1978, HB2508, HB1549, HB2187, HB1550, HB1977, HB2314, HB1871, HB2319, HB1591, HB1858, HB1898, HB2372, HB1765, HB2012, HB1706, HB1962, HB1963, HB1975, HB2009, HB2083, HB2224, HB1877, HB1959, HB1626, HB1665, HB2488, HB2456, HB2548, HB2207, HB1832, HB2079, HB1985, HB1618, HB2486, HB2242, HB2045, HB1703, HB2236, HB2480, HB1976, HB2287, HB2288, HB1777, HB276, HB1660, HB1676, HB1605, HB1751, HB1967, HB2383, HB2340, HB1946, HB2268, HB1950, HB2156, HB2118, HB1859, HB1863, HB1996, HB2114, HB2423, HB2429, HB2475, HB2534, HB2545, HB1813, HB1941, HB2474, HB2583, HB1576, HB1886, HB1939, HB2540, HB2590, HB2000, HB2163, HB2386, HB1691, HB1680, HB2516, HB1993, HB2442, HB1510, HB1958, HB1692

Keywords: HB1974, hearing loss, audiology, audiologist, hearing screening, hearing aids, cochlear implants, tele-audiology, communication access, assistive technology, speech-language pathology, deafness, hard of hearing, public health, kupuna, keiki, dementia, cognitive decline, fall prevention, State Health Planning and Development Agency

Bills: HB1974, HB1853, HB1973, HB1574, HB2619, HB1966, HB1643, HB1671, HB2558, HB1854, HB2173, HB1575, HB2229, HB1535, HB1978, HB2508, HB1549, HB2187, HB1550, HB1977, HB2314, HB1871, HB2319, HB1591, HB1858, HB1898, HB2372, HB1765, HB2012, HB1706, HB1962, HB1963, HB1975, HB2009, HB2083, HB2224, HB1877, HB1959, HB1626, HB1665, HB2488, HB2456, HB2548, HB2207, HB1832, HB2079, HB1985, HB1618, HB2486, HB2242, HB2045, HB1703, HB2236, HB2480, HB1976, HB2287, HB2288, HB1777, HB276, HB1660, HB1676, HB1605, HB1751, HB1967, HB2383, HB2340, HB1946, HB2268, HB1950, HB2156, HB2118, HB1859, HB1863, HB1996, HB2114, HB2423, HB2429, HB2475, HB2534, HB2545, HB1813, HB1941, HB2474, HB2583, HB1576, HB1886, HB1939, HB2540, HB2590, HB2000, HB2163, HB2386, HB1691, HB1680, HB2516, HB1993, HB2442, HB1510, HB1958, HB1692

Keywords: HB1974, hearing loss, audiology, audiologist, hearing screening, hearing aids, cochlear implants, tele-audiology, communication access, assistive technology, speech-language pathology, deafness, hard of hearing, public health, kupuna, keiki, dementia, cognitive decline, fall prevention, State Health Planning and Development Agency

Transcript Highlights:

• more and more about from Texans across this state, one that touches on privacy, safety, and public trust

Bills: SJR85, SCR29, SCR38, SCR42, SB23, SB39, SB209, SB227, SB240, SB330, SB527, SB584, SB618, SB619, SB636, SB663, SB715, SB732, SB758, SB801, SB825, SB826, SB843, SB844, SB847, SB870, SB884, SB912, SB957, SB1013, SB1020, SB1065, SB1143, SB1152, SB1164, SB1183, SB1257, SB1299, SB1325, SB1349, SB1413, SB1455, SB1539, SB1558, SB1574, SB1583, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1667, SB1717, SB1718, SB1727, SB1734, SB1756, SB1757, SB1784, SB1789, SB1832, SB1868, SB1870, SB1883, SB1896, SB1920, SB1924, SB1963, SB2010, SB2018, SB2024, SB2037, SB2052, SB2073, SB2111, SB2161, SB2196, SB2207, SB2253, SB2268, SB2322, SB2323, SB2332, SB2349, SB2371, SB2533, SB2570, SB2601, SB2626, SB2692, SB2705, SB2717, SB2774, SB2788, SB2877, SB2920, SB2, SB260, SB1786, SB1, HJR4, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR85, SJR84, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR42, SCR29, SCR4, SCR18, SCR43, SCR46, SB2023, SB825, SB2010, SB1870, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB1791, SB826, SB1257, SB870, SB529, SB209, SB1883, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1860, SB2037, SB1924, SB2253, SB2018, SB2206, SB1963, SB1643, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB1085, SB2431, SB1490, SB1868, SB2314, SB434, SB2046, SB1667, SB1727, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB1784, SB1524, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB1940, SB2052, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB884, SB463, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2141, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601, SB2322, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB407, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB3031, SB2877, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1395, SB1972, SB2540, SB1183, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB2117, SB715, SB2330, SB1964, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB39, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2658, SB1574, SB2900, SB23, SB2753, SB2398, SB401, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB2031, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, HB135, HB1109, SCR48, SB31, SB2880, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB2351, SB410, SB659, SB816, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB482, SB456, SB127, SB1666

Keywords: Texas constitutional amendment, property tax relief, school district taxes, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, elderly homeowners, senior citizens, disabled homeowners, age 65 or older, school finance, tax exemption increase, local school taxes, property tax exemption, homestead tax relief, voter approval, school district revenue, tax rollback, disabled persons exemption, El Paso

Summary: The Senate opened with a quorum, an invocation by Rabbi Kelly Levy, a gubernatorial message naming appointees to the Red River and Nueces River Authority boards, and several ceremonial recognitions, including Texas Woman’s University athletes, the Doctor of the Day, Balch Springs Day, St. Mary’s University, Austin Oaks Church’s centennial, and a memorial resolution for Marie Flickinger, which was adopted after remarks from members and a moment of silence. The chamber then moved to the calendar and took up a series of bills and resolutions. Several measures dealing with water and taxes were passed: Committee Substitute for SB 1413 on procedures for amending or revoking certificates of public convenience and necessity for certain water utilities; SB 1583 on groundwater conservation district management plans, amended by Blanco; SB 23 and SJR 85 to increase the school district homestead exemption for elderly and disabled homeowners, both passing with one nay; SB 2774 to classify industrial uniform and linen rental businesses as retail trade for franchise tax purposes; and SCR 29 designating El Paso as the official boot capital of Texas for 10 years. Members also adopted SCR 49 recognizing Austin Oaks Church’s 100th anniversary and SR 424 recognizing Balch Springs Day. The Senate also advanced a package of insurance and regulatory bills. Committee Substitute for SB 1643 would require prior approval from the Texas Department of Insurance for certain property and casualty rate changes over 10%, and Committee Substitute for SB 1642 would restructure TDI from a single commissioner to a three-commissioner model; both passed after debate about rising insurance costs, inflation, labor, reinsurance, and litigation. Committee Substitute for SB 1883, on land use assumptions, capital improvement plans, and impact fees, passed after discussion of transparency and local development costs. SB 826, enhancing penalties for DWI in an active school zone, passed with strong support. Two other controversial measures were also advanced: Committee Substitute for SB 1257, requiring health plan coverage for complications, reversals, and related care tied to gender transition procedures, passed to engrossment but was held there after a 20-11 vote; and Committee Substitute for SB 2024, banning disguised vape pens and, by amendment, hemp vape pens and other intoxicating-substance vape pens, passed. The final item shown was Committee Substitute for SB 240, the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, which was laid out by Senator Middleton and described as restricting access to sex-specific private spaces in public facilities based on biological sex, with civil penalties for violations; the transcript cuts off during the presentation of that bill.

Bills: SJR85, SCR29, SCR38, SCR42, SB23, SB39, SB209, SB227, SB240, SB330, SB527, SB584, SB618, SB619, SB636, SB663, SB715, SB732, SB758, SB801, SB825, SB826, SB843, SB844, SB847, SB870, SB884, SB912, SB957, SB1013, SB1020, SB1065, SB1143, SB1152, SB1164, SB1183, SB1257, SB1299, SB1325, SB1349, SB1413, SB1455, SB1539, SB1558, SB1574, SB1583, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1667, SB1717, SB1718, SB1727, SB1734, SB1756, SB1757, SB1784, SB1789, SB1832, SB1868, SB1870, SB1883, SB1896, SB1920, SB1924, SB1963, SB2010, SB2018, SB2024, SB2037, SB2052, SB2073, SB2111, SB2161, SB2196, SB2207, SB2253, SB2268, SB2322, SB2323, SB2332, SB2349, SB2371, SB2533, SB2570, SB2601, SB2626, SB2692, SB2705, SB2717, SB2774, SB2788, SB2877, SB2920, SB2, SB260, SB1786, SB1, HJR4, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR85, SJR84, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR42, SCR29, SCR4, SCR18, SCR43, SCR46, SB2023, SB825, SB2010, SB1870, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB1791, SB826, SB1257, SB870, SB529, SB209, SB1883, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1860, SB2037, SB1924, SB2253, SB2018, SB2206, SB1963, SB1643, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB1085, SB2431, SB1490, SB1868, SB2314, SB434, SB2046, SB1667, SB1727, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB1784, SB1524, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB1940, SB2052, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB884, SB463, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2141, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601, SB2322, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB407, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB3031, SB2877, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1395, SB1972, SB2540, SB1183, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB2117, SB715, SB2330, SB1964, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB39, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2658, SB1574, SB2900, SB23, SB2753, SB2398, SB401, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB2031, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, HB135, HB1109, SCR48, SB31, SB2880, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB2351, SB410, SB659, SB816, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB482, SB456, SB127, SB1666

Keywords: Texas constitutional amendment, property tax relief, school district taxes, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, elderly homeowners, senior citizens, disabled homeowners, age 65 or older, school finance, tax exemption increase, local school taxes, property tax exemption, homestead tax relief, voter approval, school district revenue, tax rollback, disabled persons exemption, El Paso

Transcript Highlights:

• One that touches on privacy, one that touches on safety and public trust, whether that's in.

Bills: SJR85, SCR29, SCR38, SCR42, SB23, SB39, SB209, SB227, SB240, SB330, SB527, SB584, SB618, SB619, SB636, SB663, SB715, SB732, SB758, SB801, SB825, SB826, SB843, SB844, SB847, SB870, SB884, SB912, SB957, SB1013, SB1020, SB1065, SB1143, SB1152, SB1164, SB1183, SB1257, SB1299, SB1325, SB1349, SB1413, SB1455, SB1539, SB1558, SB1574, SB1583, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1667, SB1717, SB1718, SB1727, SB1734, SB1756, SB1757, SB1784, SB1789, SB1832, SB1868, SB1870, SB1883, SB1896, SB1920, SB1924, SB1963, SB2010, SB2018, SB2024, SB2037, SB2052, SB2073, SB2111, SB2161, SB2196, SB2207, SB2253, SB2268, SB2322, SB2323, SB2332, SB2349, SB2371, SB2533, SB2570, SB2601, SB2626, SB2692, SB2705, SB2717, SB2774, SB2788, SB2877, SB2920, SB2, SB260, SB1786, SB1, HJR4, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR85, SJR84, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR42, SCR29, SCR4, SCR18, SCR43, SCR46, SB2023, SB825, SB2010, SB1870, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB1791, SB826, SB1257, SB870, SB529, SB209, SB1883, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1860, SB2037, SB1924, SB2253, SB2018, SB2206, SB1963, SB1643, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB1085, SB2431, SB1490, SB1868, SB2314, SB434, SB2046, SB1667, SB1727, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB1784, SB1524, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB1940, SB2052, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB884, SB463, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2141, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601, SB2322, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB407, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB3031, SB2877, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1395, SB1972, SB2540, SB1183, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB2117, SB715, SB2330, SB1964, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB39, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2658, SB1574, SB2900, SB23, SB2753, SB2398, SB401, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB2031, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, HB135, HB1109, SCR48, SB31, SB2880, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB2351, SB410, SB659, SB816, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB482, SB456, SB127, SB1666

Keywords: Texas constitutional amendment, property tax relief, school district taxes, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, elderly homeowners, senior citizens, disabled homeowners, age 65 or older, school finance, tax exemption increase, local school taxes, property tax exemption, homestead tax relief, voter approval, school district revenue, tax rollback, disabled persons exemption, El Paso

Transcript Highlights:

• A bill to be entitled an act relating to the trust funds and transfer approved by the Supreme Court.
• A financial institution must pay on funds and interest in trust accounts to the highest interest rate
• BE ENTITLED AN ACT RELATING TO THE BILL TRUST FUND IN TRUST FOR PURPOSES BY THE SUPREME COURT.
• So some agricultural producers will put their properties in a trust for something.
• That humility is not a weakness, but a foundation of trust, and that true leadership means showing up

Bills: SJR85, SCR29, SCR38, SCR42, SB23, SB39, SB209, SB227, SB240, SB330, SB527, SB584, SB618, SB619, SB636, SB663, SB715, SB732, SB758, SB801, SB825, SB826, SB843, SB844, SB847, SB870, SB884, SB912, SB957, SB1013, SB1020, SB1065, SB1143, SB1152, SB1164, SB1183, SB1257, SB1299, SB1325, SB1349, SB1413, SB1455, SB1539, SB1558, SB1574, SB1583, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1667, SB1717, SB1718, SB1727, SB1734, SB1756, SB1757, SB1784, SB1789, SB1832, SB1868, SB1870, SB1883, SB1896, SB1920, SB1924, SB1963, SB2010, SB2018, SB2024, SB2037, SB2052, SB2073, SB2111, SB2161, SB2196, SB2207, SB2253, SB2268, SB2322, SB2323, SB2332, SB2349, SB2371, SB2533, SB2570, SB2601, SB2626, SB2692, SB2705, SB2717, SB2774, SB2788, SB2877, SB2920, SB2, SB260, SB1786, SB1, HJR4, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR85, SJR84, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR42, SCR29, SCR4, SCR18, SCR43, SCR46, SB2023, SB825, SB2010, SB1870, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB1791, SB826, SB1257, SB870, SB529, SB209, SB1883, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1860, SB2037, SB1924, SB2253, SB2018, SB2206, SB1963, SB1643, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB1085, SB2431, SB1490, SB1868, SB2314, SB434, SB2046, SB1667, SB1727, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB1784, SB1524, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB1940, SB2052, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB884, SB463, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2141, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601, SB2322, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB407, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB3031, SB2877, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1395, SB1972, SB2540, SB1183, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB2117, SB715, SB2330, SB1964, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB39, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2658, SB1574, SB2900, SB23, SB2753, SB2398, SB401, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB2031, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, HB135, HB 1109, SCR48, SB31, SB2880, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB2351, SB410, SB659, SB816, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB482, SB456, SB127, SB1666, SJR85, SB23, SB826, SB844, SB957, SB1413, SB1539, SB1583, SB1642, SB1643, SB1789, SB1883, SB1963, SB2024, SB2626, SB2774, SB825, SB1870, SB2010, SB240, SB618, SB870, SB1257, SB1727, SR424, SR428, SCR29, SCR42, SCR49, SB3056, SB3057, HB2, HB20, HB 120, HB142, HB210, HB215, HB451, HB 1022, HB 1151, HB1458, HB1700, HB2000, HB3093, SB3056, SB3057, HB2, HB20, HB 120, HB142, HB210, HB215, HB451, HB 1022, HB 1151, HB1458, HB1700, HB2000, HB3093

Keywords: Texas constitutional amendment, property tax relief, school district taxes, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, elderly homeowners, senior citizens, disabled homeowners, age 65 or older, school finance, tax exemption increase, local school taxes, property tax exemption, homestead tax relief, voter approval, school district revenue, tax rollback, disabled persons exemption, El Paso

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:00:55.120> fund how the permanent school trust fund how the permanent school trust fund
• that have gone into the school trust that have gone into the school trust lands<00:09:22.480>
• And for just being this school trust And for just being this school trust land<00:14:29.360>
• Minnesota school trust lands, which, um, Minnesota school trust lands, which, um, are<00:20:03.120>
• fund baby because of this is a trust fund baby because of this trust<00:20:19.679> fund.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 3900 proposed a Minnesota constitutional amendment to increase the share of permanent school trust fund earnings distributed to school districts, with the stated goal of providing more per-pupil funding without raising income or property taxes. Representative Igo, the bill’s author, described the history of the school trust lands and said the change would raise the payout from about 2.5% to 4.5%, producing additional unrestricted money for schools at no cost to taxpayers. He also read the proposed ballot question into the record, which would ask voters whether to amend the constitution to increase funding from the permanent school fund effective July 1, 2027. The House adopted amendment A7, offered by Representative Long, which he said was a technical change to align the bill with Senate language and provide administrative funding for the State Board of Investment. Representative Igo agreed it was a good technical fix. After the amendment was adopted, the bill was given third reading and debated on the floor. Several members spoke in support, including Representatives O’Driscoll, Scraba, Mueller, Bennett, Jordan, and Bakeberg. Supporters emphasized that the proposal would send more money to schools on a per-pupil basis, provide flexible local funding, and help districts facing budget pressures, staffing cuts, and other mandates. Some speakers also highlighted the historical purpose of school trust lands, the role of the State Board of Investment, and the need for better stewardship and government-to-government relationships with tribal nations where trust lands are located. The transcript ends during floor debate and does not include a final vote on passage.

Transcript Highlights:

• The trust is the hope.
• You need the trust.
• need the trust the trust is the need the trust the trust is the foundation<00:41:45.960> from
• The key to the trust is that it's going to be a statewide trust.
• To have these individual trusts, they're good, but the master trust or the large trust or the state trust

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing on a series of housing bills. HB 1432 and HB 1428 drew support from HHFDC, and HB 1428 also received testimony from Hawaiian Community Assets, which said housing counseling funding is needed to meet demand for financial education tied to affordable housing, and that such counseling can help reduce evictions, prevent foreclosure, and stabilize households. HB 833 on community land trusts received broad support from HHFDC, county housing officials, community land trust representatives, and a local developer; testimony emphasized keeping housing affordable in perpetuity, but also asked for clearer access to financing, longer repayment terms, and inclusion of additional land trusts in the bill. Peter Savio argued that community land trusts are the best way to control demand and keep housing tied to local incomes. The committee also heard HB 19 on the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund, which HHFDC said should be made permanent because the pilot has been successful, with 81 units in the program and $7.4 million of the $10 million allocation already committed. HHFDC said the fund helps stalled for-sale projects by providing state equity that revolved back when homes are sold. HB 529 and HB 432 were also heard; HB 432 would create a subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund for projects above 60% AMI, and HHFDC said this would help finance housing for households at 65% and 80% AMI. The bill drew support from several housing, business, and industry groups. Several other housing measures were discussed with mixed testimony. HB 419 had HHFDC support, Limby Hawaiʻi opposition, and support from the Grassroot Institute and others; members asked about whether councils approve these projects in one or multiple readings. HB 527 and HB 416 also drew a mix of support and opposition, with questions focused on county approval timelines and whether state-financed projects would still go through normal local review. HB 417 on the rental housing revolving fund prompted questions about how it differs from the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund and whether it should be more flexible for mixed rental and for-sale projects. HB 418’s proposed working group was noted as potentially unnecessary because HHFDC said a public working group was already being formed. HB 1411 on housing preference raised questions about what happens if a recipient changes jobs, and HB 374 drew an Attorney General’s Office recommendation to remove a duration requirement to avoid possible constitutional travel issues. HB 373 and HB 1492 were also heard, with strong testimony from Peter Savio in favor of a broader trust-based model for affordable housing. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, uh camping is expressly not permissible on state trust lands except on state trust lands that
• to the state land trust beneficiaries. to the state land trust beneficiaries.
• State trust lands.
• control over state trust parcels. control over state trust parcels.
• trust parcels are not.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Here's the school trust lands.
• And so, I trust is established for.
• Chair." the school trust lines are sacred and the school trust lines are sacred and nobody<00:20:41.760
• And so, I uh of school trust lands.
• Northwest Ordinance, that school trust Northwest Ordinance, that school trust funds,<00:26:52.960

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The conference committee on House File 3900 met with a quorum, introduced members and staff, and received a nonpartisan walkthrough of the bill. Staff explained that the proposal would change the permanent school fund’s distribution formula from interest and dividends to a statutory payout based on 4.5% of the fund’s average value over the previous three fiscal years, with the Commissioner of Management and Budget responsible for determining and transferring the distributable amount. The Senate version differed by adding language requiring a two-thirds vote of each legislative house to change the distribution policy or apportionment. Members then debated whether a future legislature could increase the payout and whether the constitutional language would sufficiently protect the fund’s purchasing power. Senator Farnsworth argued that a supermajority requirement would help prevent politicization and lock in the fund’s purpose, while Representative Long, Senator Kunesh, Representative Youakim, and Representative O’Driscoll opposed the supermajority as unnecessary and potentially politicizing, emphasizing existing constitutional protections, fiduciary duties, and the legislature’s track record of stewarding school trust lands for students. Staff indicated the language requiring preservation of purchasing power would be a strong safeguard, though the exact legal remedy was unclear. Senator Kunesh moved to adopt the House File 3900 second engrossment as the conference committee report. The committee took a roll call vote and approved the motion 7-1, with Senator Farnsworth voting no. After the vote, Senator Swedzinski offered brief remarks about the historical importance of school trust funds and public education.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community land trusts are a viable solution to building affordable housing in which land is held in trust
• > the<00:01:56.960> upfront Community land trusts reduce the upfront Community land trusts
• Community land trusts more affordable.
• land trust homes. land trust homes.
• > owners<00:04:32.479> can Community land trust home owners can Community land trust home

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• He said selling School Trust Lands is the last opportunity to make money off of school trust lands to
• this issue the office of school trust this issue the office of school trust land<00:10:33.079>
• for the trust.
• You've asked Aaron Vandal, the school trust land administrator, to administer the trust on behalf of
• the way that most of the school trust the way that most of the school trust land<00:15:53.639>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up HF 1425, which would prohibit the sale of state-owned school trust lands in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to the federal government and instead require a land trade. Representative Skraba argued the federal wilderness law requires an exchange, not a sale, and said the state should trade Boundary Waters school trust lands for federal lands elsewhere, citing potential benefits for logging, mining, and school trust revenue. He said the current proposed sale price was too low and moved to lay the bill over for possible inclusion in a future bill. Later, he withdrew a DE1 amendment and instead moved to re-refer the bill to the Education Finance Committee, but that motion failed. Testimony was largely opposed to the bill. Aaron Vandal of the Office of School Trust Lands said the exchange option was no longer viable, that the lands have produced no revenue for education for decades, and that selling them is the trust’s last opportunity to generate returns for schoolchildren. Bob Meyer of the DNR supported Vandal’s position and said the agency could not negotiate mineral rights in the way suggested. Aon Clems of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Amanda Hefner of Save the Boundary Waters both opposed HF 1425, though they emphasized different reasons: Clems argued a sale best fulfills the state’s fiduciary duty to maximize long-term returns for education, while Hefner said a sale would harm public education funding, align with the trust’s original purpose, and help consolidate federal ownership in the wilderness. Members then questioned the valuation and the practical differences between a sale and an exchange. Representative Jacob challenged the low per-acre price and asked about the federal government’s set-aside amount, while Representative Fischer asked how the appraisal was determined. DNR lands and minerals director Joe Henderson explained the valuation came from an independent appraiser, was based on the wilderness restrictions and lack of development potential, and was from a 2020 appraisal that is now being updated. Representative Schultz supported the sale approach and said the state should not transfer the land at such a low price. The committee did not advance the bill to the Education Finance Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• interest of trust beneficiaries.
• trust land.
• As part of its responsibility to administer state trust land in the trust best interest...
• That is used; it can only be used for trust operations, things related to the trust.
• That is used; it can only be used for trust operations, things related to the trust.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Joint Natural Resources and House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committees of Reference heard the Arizona Auditor General’s sunset review of the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. The audit found the board generally met some licensing requirements, but it did not timely investigate and resolve 49 of 159 complaints in fiscal year 2024, and it did not fully comply with conflict-of-interest disclosure and filing requirements. The Auditor General also identified weaknesses in continuing-education verification and other sunset-factor areas, and the board agreed to implement all 21 recommendations. Board staff said complaint volume has risen sharply since the pandemic, that the board’s process is slower because every case goes through an investigative committee and then the full board, and that it has already corrected some conflict-of-interest issues and is adding tools to improve continuing-education audits. The committee then heard testimony from the board’s executive director and from the Arizona Veterinary Medical Association. The executive director emphasized the board’s public-protection mission, described the shortage of veterinarians and veterinary technicians, and said the board is working to improve efficiency through a new e-licensing system and staff training. Members asked about the shortage of large-animal veterinarians, complaint backlogs, and whether the board could do more to recruit rural practitioners; the board said it lacks direct recruiting authority but supports multiple licensure pathways and loan-assistance efforts. The veterinary association supported the board’s oversight and said it is also working on rural and large-animal workforce issues through partnerships and advocacy. The committee then voted to recommend continuing the board for eight years, until July 1, 2034. The committee next took up the Arizona State Land Department, beginning with the Auditor General’s presentation on the department’s sunset review and prior special audit. The audit found the department had not updated its required five-year disposition plan since 2011, had sold more than 48,000 acres without an active plan, had allowed agricultural rental rates to go unchanged since 2006 despite market increases, and had not consistently inspected mineral-related leases or properly managed reclamation bonds. The Auditor General said these issues created risks of lost revenue, reduced transparency, and public-safety hazards, and recommended 18 corrective actions in the main review plus 34 additional recommendations on other issues; the department agreed to most recommendations but declined to adopt a written policy for commissioner-initiated land sales. Commissioner Robin Sahid said the department is working through audit recommendations, has created a rules team, improved its customer portal, and is pursuing new policies on water use, transportation-basin leases, and disposition planning. Members questioned the department about agricultural leases, groundwater valuation, the Fondomonte leases and reimbursement for improvements, the canceled Coyotes land auction, backlog and processing times, and the use of consultants and administrative funds. The commissioner said the department had over 2,000 applications in queue when she arrived, that it has made progress reducing the backlog, and that it is conducting stakeholder outreach on water-efficiency standards and lease addenda. No final vote on the land department continuation was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• is in the education trust fund.
• education trust fund the education trust education trust fund the education trust fund<00:48:20.480
• education trust education trust fund<00:49:45.440> so<00:49:45.720> I<00:49:45.799
• <00:49:51.359> fund messing with the education trust fund messing with the education trust
• trust funds into the general fund.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Representative Sweeney present and defend the budget amendment legalizing video lottery terminals (VLTs) and setting a 30% tax rate, with 65% of the tax going to the state and 35% to charities. He argued the lower rate was needed to encourage operators of historic horse racing (HHR) machines to convert to VLTs, saying the higher 45% rate would discourage adoption. He walked through revenue projections for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, estimating significant increases in state and charity revenue as machines transition over time, and said the amendment was designed to expand charitable gaming revenue overall. Several members questioned the assumptions behind his projections and the basis for his analysis, including why his independent research differed from the governor’s and Lottery Commission’s estimates. Sweeney said his figures were based on research into other states and conversations over many years, and he maintained that a 45% tax would likely result in no VLT adoption. Members also debated whether the transition costs for operators would be quickly recouped and whether the state’s share should be larger. One member emphasized that the committee was effectively choosing between a lower operator share and a higher state share, while Sweeney argued the 30% structure would produce revenue for everyone. The committee then moved to other revenue items on the tracking sheet. It voted 7-0 to accept the Lottery Commission’s revised base revenue estimates. Members also discussed an amendment to repeal the local option requirement for Kino games, which would expand Kino availability and was estimated to generate additional lottery profit in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. That amendment drew opposition from members who said local control was an important part of the original Kino policy and that removing it would override municipal decisions. The committee also noted that the VLT/HHR revenue item had already been adopted and was being revisited only to confirm the associated revenue estimates.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to hear from the Water Trust Board.
• On the left-hand side, you'll see the members of the Water Trust Board.
• The second source of funding is from the Water Trust Fund.
• We'll also check to see that they've spent prior Water Trust Board awards.
• But all that comes to the Water Trust Board for review.

Transcript Highlights:

• pediatric cancer trust fund and provides pediatric cancer trust fund and provides an<00:02:25.840
• And the trust fund and family services.
• The trust through services or research.
• this space as services and the trust this space as services and the trust fund<00:03:38.080>
• <00:03:48.720> fund cabinet to administer the trust fund cabinet to administer the trust fund

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:01 SB 69 Discussion 00:00:30 SB 69 Vote 00:05:52, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up only one item: Senate Bill 69, sponsored by Senator Julie Adams. The bill would create an autism spectrum disorder trust fund in the state treasury, allow taxpayers to contribute a portion of their individual income tax refunds to the fund, and authorize additional grants, contributions, and appropriations. Senator Adams said the fund is intended to support autism spectrum disorder research and services in Kentucky, administered by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services with grants awarded through the advisory council on autism spectrum disorders based on a statewide needs assessment. She also noted the bill includes an emergency clause. During questions, Senator Boswell confirmed the tax refund contribution option would be available on both paper and electronic returns. Senator Funky From asked how families would access services, and Senator Adams explained that providers would apply for grants to the trust fund, which would then review and award funding if the proposal was deemed a good use of the money. No outside testimony was presented; a signed-up witness from the Russell County Fiscal Court did not speak. The committee then moved the bill, with Senator Boswell making the motion and Senator Neil seconding it. The roll call resulted in 12 yes votes and no nays, and Senate Bill 69 passed the committee with a favorable expression. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• people in Kentucky who want those trusts people in Kentucky who want those trusts and<00:13:40.240
• You can set up a trust.
• If I set up a trust for other people, I could set up a trust for President Stivers and Walter, and I
• > other trust.
• If I set up a trust for other trust.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee met with a quorum and took up Senate Bill 50, sponsored by Chair Storm and President Stivers, a broad probate and trust measure. Stivers and attorney Barry explained that the bill updates Kentucky probate and intestacy procedures to better fit electronic filing and modern family structures, adjusts inheritance tax classifications to reflect longer lifespans and more complex family relationships, and adopts newer trust tools used in other states, including electronic wills and directed trusts. They also described a domestic asset protection trust provision, saying it is intended to level the playing field with other states and is not meant to help people evade existing creditors; they noted one non-uniform section may have fiscal impact and could warrant referral to Appropriations and Revenue. Members asked about the asset protection trust language, especially whether it could shield assets after a lawsuit is pending or threatened. Barry said the bill would not allow transfers to defeat existing or threatened claims and that the protection only applies where there are no such claims at the time of transfer. Senators also discussed whether the trust could be used for spendthrift-style family planning, with Barry noting trusts can already be drafted for that purpose and that the bill is not aimed at that issue. Senator Thomas requested more detail on the inheritance tax changes, and Stivers explained that the bill would move more beneficiaries into the no-tax category because estates now often pass to older children, grandchildren, and step-relatives, creating unexpected tax liability. He and others said the changes were meant to reflect modern family patterns and longer life expectancy, and Thomas said he was not opposed to the tax changes but wanted the public to understand them. Tim Shank of the Kentucky Bankers Association testified that the bankers were not opposing the bill overall but had concerns about the domestic asset protection trust section, particularly its treatment of existing mortgages and creditor claims. He said the bill’s notice and claim-extinguishment provisions could create unintended consequences for mortgage holders, and he urged changes to protect existing debt. In response, Senator Thomas questioned whether a lender that takes no action for the bill’s six-month-to-two-year claim period should lose its claim, but Shank replied that federal mortgage rules and payment status could complicate that assumption. The discussion ended with acknowledgment that the mortgage issue was likely unintended and would need further review.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:42.759> right to the daughters of um the trust right to the daughters of um the trust
• For those of you that are not familiar, they include the Lunalilo Trust, the Queen Liliʻuokalani Trust
• Lilo trust the queen lilio colani trust Lilo trust the queen lilio colani trust the<00:28:41.159
• been done by them as well and the trust been done by them as well and the trust then<00:37:03.480
• <00:37:20.839> and of the trusts and the elite trusts and of the trusts and the elite trusts

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing focused on Senate Bill 4, which would transfer stewardship of Mauna ʻAla from the Department of Land and Natural Resources to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Committee chairs opened the meeting with housekeeping and noted the hearing was live-streamed, with a two-minute limit for testimony. Director Don Chang of the Board of Land and Natural Resources said DLNR had been working with OHA and had agreed to transfer certain lands subject to due diligence, including Kahana Valley and a parcel in Waimānalo, but urged the committee to finalize those mutually agreed parcels before taking on something new. He also described the current arrangement at Mauna ʻAla as a collaborative one involving the state and the royal trusts, with the state handling routine maintenance and the trusts contributing to larger repairs and improvements on a project-by-project basis rather than through direct annual appropriations. Testimony was mixed. Supporters argued that OHA is better positioned to steward the site because of its cultural mission, Native Hawaiian governance, and ability to protect sacred places with greater cultural competency and accountability. Several speakers emphasized that Mauna ʻAla is not a state park and should be cared for by those with direct cultural ties and experience, and some cited OHA’s recent financial reforms and partnerships as reasons for confidence. Others, including representatives of the Daughters and Sons of the Hawaiian Warriors Makakoa, opposed the bill, citing concerns about OHA’s past financial management, transparency, and the need for more public information and testimony before any transfer. One testifier also argued the land transfer itself was unlawful and rooted in the history of the overthrow and annexation. Members and testifiers also discussed the historical role of the royal trusts and family caretakers at Mauna ʻAla, with one descendant describing a long family stewardship and supporting OHA only if amended language preserved checks and balances and protected iwi and burial grounds. Another speaker said the family recognized James Mayo as kahu of Mauna ʻAla and supported the bill because prior DLNR efforts had not sufficiently protected traditional and customary rights. The hearing ended after public testimony and committee questions, with no vote or final action taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• the House proposal going into 2027. fund and education trust funds, the fund and education trust funds
• uh for a general and education trust uh for a general and education trust fund.<00:20:36.960>
• So uh 49.9 education trust fund.
• fund versus the um education trust fund. fund versus the um education trust fund.
• relative to the education trust fund. relative to the education trust fund.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Assistant staff presented an overview of the Senate changes to the House-passed budget, focusing on revenue estimates, appropriations, and ending balances across the general fund and education trust fund. The presentation emphasized that the Senate’s budget reflected higher revenue assumptions than the House, driven in part by updated April revenue figures, changes to business, tobacco, and real estate transfer tax splits, and different assumptions about video lottery terminal revenue. The Senate also adjusted lapse estimates upward, especially for HHS, after receiving updated information that lapses could be much larger than originally assumed. The presenter walked through the major differences in the surplus statements for fiscal years 2025 through 2027. Compared with the House, the Senate budget generally showed higher revenues, lower or different appropriations in some areas, and larger balances carried forward, including a larger education trust fund balance and a different rainy day fund transfer. The Senate’s approach also changed several policy assumptions, such as maintaining liquor revenue dedication, removing the House’s meals-and-rooms distribution cap, changing the treatment of unique revenue, and altering the process for meeting a targeted revenue amount by giving the governor more flexibility. On the appropriations side, the Senate removed or modified several House reductions and added funding or adjustments in areas including the judicial branch, corrections, HHS, the Human Rights Commission, and certain settlement costs. The presenter also highlighted Senate changes in House Bill 2 and related budget provisions, including a new arts tax credit, a nursing home bed fee, changes to Medicaid premium assumptions, and differences in how motor vehicle inspection repeal and BLT-related revenue are handled. No votes were taken in the portion shown; the discussion was informational and comparative, aimed at explaining the Senate budget changes before conference committee negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• In total revenues, you can trust fund of what the house had trust fund of what the house had proposed
• So in total for 25 just to trust fund.
• <00:22:02.480> fund in the general and education trust fund in the general and education trust
• trust fund share. um no change education trust fund share. um no change to<00:25:47.919> the<
• /c><00:26:48.799> you're education trust fund balance, you're education trust fund balance, you're

Keywords: LBA Briefing on Budget, 928, house, all

Summary: The presentation was an LBA overview of Senate changes to the House-passed state budget, with Michael Kane explaining how Senate Finance updated revenue and spending estimates after April revenue figures and agency discussions. He said the Senate’s revenue outlook was higher than the House’s in some areas, but lower in others, especially video lottery terminal revenue, and that the biggest differences also came from changes to revenue splits between the general fund and education trust fund, lapse estimates, and several policy changes in House Bill 1 and House Bill 2. Kane highlighted several major revenue and policy differences: the Senate changed the business tax, tobacco tax, and real estate transfer tax splits; adjusted liquor revenue dedication; removed the House’s meals-and-rooms distribution cap; delayed the Lakes Region facility proceeds plan; altered the PECARD fund treatment; added a granite patron of the arts tax credit; and changed the treatment of unique funds and video lottery terminal revenue. On spending, he noted Senate changes to judicial, corrections, HHS, human rights commission, and other budgets, including additional settlement costs, higher lapse assumptions, and a different approach to Medicaid premium revenue and retirement savings. He also described Senate additions such as a nursing home bed fee, Hampstead Hospital transition funding, and changes to the YDC claims settlement fund. The presentation focused on comparing House and Senate surplus statements across fiscal years 2025 through 2027, including projected ending balances and rainy day fund transfers. Kane repeatedly emphasized that the numbers were still dependent on final revenues and lapse amounts, and that some balances would be carried forward and trued up later in the biennium. No committee vote or final action was described in the excerpt; it was an informational budget briefing and comparison of the two chambers’ proposals.