Transcript Highlights:

• The projects have It's a new session. The projects have been previously overwritten.
• , and it's Session, it's the same project, and it's a project from the same year that he vetoed.
• There were no new projects in this local improvements projects fund bill.
• When you say same projects, well, the old projects, the ones that keep getting...
• Even though it's a new bill, it's the same projects. It's old projects.

Bills: HR144, HB4182, HC51, HR169, HB4178, HB4179

Keywords: commendation, sports, team achievement, high school, state championship, suffrage, restoration of voting rights, conviction, probation, law-abiding citizen, congressional term limits, constitutional amendments, Article V, state resolution, political reform, Jackson State University, Veterans Memorial Stadium, economic growth, property tax, multi-purpose facility

Transcript Highlights:

• We can bring in project financing.
• like the Trap Rock project.
• There was something called the ARPA-E MINER project, and that project was an investigation of critical
• Most of these projects are bioethanol and natural gas processing, and increasingly we're seeing projects
• There are also some small power projects, hydrogen, and direct air capture projects.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee’s interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), with presenters from industry, nonprofits, and state agencies describing Washington’s geologic potential, the role of basalt formations, and the difference between point-source capture, direct air capture, utilization, and permanent storage. Industry and project developers emphasized that Washington has major opportunities to reduce industrial emissions, create jobs, and support hard-to-electrify sectors, while state agencies explained current policy touchpoints in the Cap and Invest Program, emissions exemptions for permanently stored CO2, and the Clean Energy Transformation Act. Several presenters urged clearer statutory and regulatory pathways, including rules for pore space, subsurface rights, pipeline siting, and long-term liability; others cautioned that CCUS should be limited to real emissions reductions and not treated as a substitute for broader clean energy measures. Committee members asked about public comment opportunities, whether mineralized carbon would qualify for exemption under the Climate Commitment Act, the energy intensity of capture systems, aquifer protection, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Ecology said it is developing guidance through a public engagement process running through late June and that mineralized or otherwise permanently stored CO2 would likely qualify if it meets the 1,000-year permanence standard. DNR and outside experts also discussed trust lands, water rights, and the need for additional geophysical surveys and test wells. The panel did not take any votes or formal actions. The second half of the meeting turned to hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility. Ecology reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described how moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste are currently collected through county facilities and events. Ecology said the electronics program is its best model, while the mercury lamp program is currently in transition after the prior stewardship organization exited and a new organization is seeking approval. Ecology recommended that future EPR programs have clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong enforcement authority. Local government witnesses from King County and Douglas County described rising costs, access barriers in rural areas, and the need for stable funding and flexible local delivery models. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and argued that EPR could reduce costs for ratepayers and improve equity. Douglas County stressed that rural residents are willing to participate when services are available, but travel distance and operating costs make access difficult. An industry representative supported narrowly scoped stewardship programs like PaintCare but warned that broad household hazardous waste EPR systems can become difficult to administer and may require legislative revisions if responsibilities are not clearly defined. No votes were taken on the hazardous waste topic either.

Transcript Highlights:

• know, some of the projects.
• <00:03:52.200> I you know, some of the uh projects. I you know, some of the uh projects.
• > uh think most projects that uh think most projects that uh that<00:03:54.640> will<00
• in your deliberation of the projects in your deliberation of the projects going<00:08:59.960>
• mitigation projects came into play. mitigation projects came into play.

Keywords: Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks - Room 210, 18 March, 2026; 1:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The Wildlife, Fisheries Committee met to consider several Senate nominations to the Outdoor Stewardship Trust Fund board. The nominees included Richard Webster, Peyton Locky, Josh Ragio, and reappointee Van Ray. Each nominee briefly described his background and connection to the outdoors, conservation, or related business experience. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that the board should focus on projects that improve public access and advance conservation, while also considering projects across all regions of Mississippi, including north Mississippi. Members also raised concerns about the use of trust fund money for land purchases, noting that buying land can remove property from county tax rolls. Several senators urged the nominees to favor projects that maximize public benefit, avoid overemphasis on city parks or ball fields, and consider leasing land instead of purchasing it when possible. The nominees generally agreed that projects should be judged on merit, public access, and conservation value. One nominee, Webster, was reminded to file a statement of economic interest with the Mississippi Ethics Commission before floor consideration. The committee voted to advise and consent on Senate Nominations 2, 51 and 52, 53 and 54, and 89, moving all of them to the floor. The votes were taken by voice vote with no opposition recorded. Van Ray also discussed the committee’s earlier work creating procedures for the program and said the board had already supported many projects statewide, with a moratorium on land purchases currently in place.

Transcript Highlights:

• The water project fund also receives a net 8.1%.
• Here, there are different projects that we can oversee.
• Efficiency, um, projects happen.
• Um, the integrated business application project is probably the most important project for us to continue
• So that is uh, on a project by project basis, we have that monthly informal communication.

Transcript Highlights:

• funds to fix this project currently? funds to fix this project currently?
• two separate projects.
• The Highway 65 reconstruction project The Highway 65 reconstruction project will<00:36:32.640>
• <00:54:19.920> Uh, project. Uh, Mr. Shutton Shutton. Uh, project. Uh, Mr.
• payment projects. Mr. Turjan. payment projects. Mr. Turjan.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for aahu with just the known projects for aahu with just the known projects identified<00:25:21.159
• identified projects not including public identified projects not including public lands<00:25:23.679
• uh historic properties within a project uh historic properties within a project area<00:29:09.679
• to submit the project completely.
• project scope project area construction project scope project area construction phases<01:46:47.520

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee heard testimony on several housing-related bills. On SB 26, SD 2, relating to affordable housing, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development explained a prior transit-oriented development study that identified roughly 59,000 possible units and about 25,000 affordable units from known projects, and said the bill would help fill gaps by evaluating additional public lands for housing suitability and possible co-use with existing facilities. Members asked about the need for resources and staffing to do that work, and OPSD said it would need time and consultant support to carry it out. Testimony on the bill included support from state and county housing agencies and comments from planning and land use entities. On SB 66, SD 2, relating to housing and historic preservation review, SHPD and OHA both testified. SHPD said the bill would not override existing burial-site protections and that county staff with proper qualifications could make historic-property determinations locally, while OHA asked for clearer language requiring consultation when Native Hawaiian historic sites are involved and clearer procedures if an adverse effect is found. Committee members and SHPD discussed whether the bill should explicitly preserve existing Chapter 6E processes, whether counties have qualified staff, and how quickly a county would have to decide if it cannot complete the review itself and must use a third-party reviewer. Supporters said the measure could speed permitting and keep decisions local; one opponent argued it could rush approvals and strain infrastructure. The committee also heard support from housing, construction, business, and food-industry groups, and opposition from some preservation and community advocates. The committee then heard SB 332, SD 1, on foreclosure-related protections, with testimony focused on Lānaʻi and concerns about speculative real estate after the foreclosure moratorium ended. SB 414, SD 2, on restoring access to disaster-affected areas, drew support from HHFDC, DHS, and the Maui Chamber; HHFDC noted DOH plans for a temporary paved access road to the Kayola temporary housing site and said agencies were discussing which parcels would be needed. On SB 102, SD 2, relating to affordable housing and third-party historic review, SHPD said it would need to do more upfront screening and that the bill’s timelines and third-party provisions should be clearer; OHA said the measure should include a sunset and better staffing, and asked that the department fill positions to meet review demand. No votes or final committee actions were reported in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• I really am concerned about the Transportation Project Fund.
• Project funds are very important in our districts.
• We didn't do that at this year, but in terms of projects.
• Those projects are identified by the department.
• Whatever big bridge projects, that kind of stuff.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:02.839> that EA not required for projects that EA not required for projects that require
• <00:21:53.080> and<00:21:53.240> all Listing of all the projects and all these projects
• <00:24:21.919> is project site and that project is project site and that project is effectively
• add to more time on some of our projects add to more time on some of our projects and<00:24:52.600
• :00.799> two clean water retention project in the two clean water retention project in the two

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 8, which was moved for referral to the Labor and Workforce Development Committee. The bill’s author described it as a permitting and environmental review reform measure intended to maintain environmental standards while making permitting more predictable and timely for businesses, municipalities, and agricultural projects. He walked through nine sections, including limiting Wetland Conservation Act extension requests, requiring the MPCA to issue permitting efficiency reports twice a year, separating municipal and industrial permit data, allowing judicial review when the MPCA misses a 150-day two-tier permit goal, requiring quicker notice of incomplete applications, allowing separate construction and operation permits, creating a business permitting ombudsman at DEED, eliminating duplicative scoping EA requirements for projects already requiring a mandatory EIS, and adding an intent statement that the bill does not relax standards. The author and supporters emphasized that the bill is meant to reduce delays and duplication rather than weaken protections. He cited letters of support from groups including Building Trades, Mining Minnesota, pork producers, the Minnesota Biofuels Association, Apex, and the Red River Watershed, while noting that some groups opposed the bill. Testimony in support came from the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the Red River Watershed Management Board, and Minnesota Milk, all of whom said permitting delays and inconsistent processes add significant cost and uncertainty. They argued the bill would help farmers, watershed projects, and businesses invest and expand in Minnesota while preserving environmental standards. Supporters also provided examples of the costs of current permitting processes, including long delays for air permits, repeated extensions, and large sums spent on environmental review before projects are halted or delayed. The Red River Watershed Management Board said its projects have spent millions on permitting and review, with some projects taking years and involving many permits from state, local, and federal agencies. Minnesota Milk said the bill and amendment would let farmers and responsible governmental units sequence applications more efficiently. No vote was taken in the portion provided beyond the motion to recommend re-referral, and the committee proceeded to public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• This to be very clear does not apply to things like major projects around wastewater projects and around
• <00:04:44.960> around things like major projects around things like major projects around
• > uh<00:04:47.840> sewage wastewater projects and around uh sewage wastewater projects
• It gets to who's doing the rulemaking on different types of projects, for example, wastewater projects
• example, wastewater projects. for example, wastewater projects<00:09:02.000> that<00:09:02.160

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 2418 from Representative Tabke, a policy bill focused on requiring local governments seeking state bonding support to show whether they have a capital maintenance or preservation plan for the project. The bill was described as a continuation of work with Chair Lee and others to ensure that when the state invests in local capital projects, the local jurisdiction has a plan to maintain the asset over time rather than returning later for additional state funding. Representative Tabke emphasized that the proposal is not intended to block projects, but to provide information to the capital investment process and encourage responsible long-term planning. Members asked several questions about how the requirement would work in practice, including whether a “no” answer on the maintenance-plan checkbox would disqualify projects, how the rule would apply to small communities, and whether major infrastructure such as wastewater or sewer projects would be exempt. Tabke clarified that the intent is informational and that projects without a maintenance plan should raise concerns, but that the proposal would not apply to major utility projects with separate funding mechanisms. He also explained that the earlier draft had been simplified after input from MMB, and that the adopted DE4 amendment adds the requirement through section 16A.86 for political subdivisions submitting bonding requests. Chair Lee and other members supported the concept as a way to ensure state-funded assets are maintained locally and not repeatedly returned to the state for repairs decades later. One member requested clarifying language to make sure the bill does not apply to water treatment or sewer projects, and Tabke agreed that such language could be added. Tabke said the language had been developed with stakeholders including the League of Minnesota Cities, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, and small cities, and that they had agreed on the approach. The committee adopted the DE4 amendment and then laid House File 2418 over for possible future consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:28.080> put<00:09:28.320> on<00:09:28.480> hold projects put on hold projects
• Thank you. development projects that bring development projects that bring prosperity<00:11:46.079>
• <00:12:51.839> and a pot for uh competitive projects and a pot for uh competitive projects
• <00:13:14.000> all fall and uh so there are projects all fall and uh so there are projects
• <00:13:43.920> We project instead of $5 million. We project instead of $5 million.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• we looking at speculative projects?
• So those projections will get real. With those projections haven't gone into effect yet.
• So those projections will get real.
• Lastly, projects are inspected.
• And lastly, projects are inspected every three years at the cost of the project to ensure compliance

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• recommended All project managers for recommended All project managers for recommended projects
• These are projects that would contribute to... projects that would help Minnesota's projects that would
• > help<00:21:52.720> ensure are projects that would help ensure are projects that would
• for projects involving children. for projects involving children.
• the projects is there? the projects is there?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think because housing projects tend to look more alike, there are a lot more ready projects for the
• Pending for a similar project.
• Projects totaling almost $260 million roughly. So, those are projects that we will see.
• Chairman, and thank you again on the project in Towson under the Workforce Housing Project.
• Now we're working with Trails Plus and working on their projects, so we can try to project here.

Transcript Highlights:

• So these are all line-item projects, legislative line-item projects.
• So in project management, they're doing project management.
• So they have projects too, though. They have projects, but they're not overseeing their project.
• for projects under other project managers, yes.
• <01:10:07.040> it's project or no it's not per project it's project or no it's not per project

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:46.840> thank project thank project thank you<00:01:48.799> thank<00:01:48.960><
• Yes, we can phase the project.
• The Mountain project, or excuse me, the Excelsior project?
• Is this project able to be phased at all? Is this project able to be phased at all?
• The project cost has gone up.

Bills: HF201, HF217, HF314, HF315, HF406, HF408, HF425, HF426, HF730, HF731, HF652, HF761, HF1079, HF928, HF1017, HF1056, HF1081

Keywords: HF201, Minnesota income tax, tax subtraction, tax deduction, volunteer firefighter, volunteer fire and rescue, emergency responder, ambulance service personnel, EMR, EMS, search and rescue, canine search and rescue, underwater search and rescue, paid-on-call, part-time volunteer, tax relief, state tax law, section 290.0132, drivers license, identification card

Transcript Highlights:

• This is down from a projected $321 million in fiscal year '26.
• projections by fiscal year and calendar quarter.
• revenue projections by fiscal year and calendar quarter.
• They're very difficult to project.
• There's a lot of error in those projections, but that's a very difficult project.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate and House Ways and Means chairs opened the FY 2027 consensus revenue hearing by emphasizing the need for a balanced, fiscally responsible budget amid federal funding cuts, health care cost pressures, and uncertainty around the federal tax law changes referred to as OB3. They also noted the state’s current revenue performance is slightly above benchmark and paid tribute to the late Representative Anne Margaret Ferranti. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorkowitz echoed the call for caution, saying Massachusetts has protected core services while building reserves and that the FY27 budget process begins with a careful revenue estimate. Department of Revenue Commissioner Jeff Snyder, along with DOR staff, presented FY26 and FY27 tax forecasts and identified major drivers and risks: OB3’s negative impact on state revenue, surtax collections, labor market conditions, capital gains, and corporate/business excise taxes. DOR estimated OB3 would reduce FY26 revenue by about $664 million and FY27 by about $282 million, while surtax and capital gains were expected to remain strong in FY26 but soften in FY27. Members questioned the outlook for surtax, capital gains, and the potential fiscal effect of a ballot question reducing the income tax rate from 5% to 4%; DOR said that proposal could cost roughly $4.2 billion to $4.8 billion annually, with a smaller but still significant impact in FY27 because of phase-in timing. Treasurer Deb Goldberg testified next on the stabilization fund, lottery, PRIM, unclaimed property, and the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. She reported the rainy day fund at about $8.1 billion, said the lottery was on track for $1.5 billion in FY26 net profit and projected $1.25 billion in FY27, and highlighted that iLottery is expected to launch in summer 2026 with revenue beginning in FY27 and dedicated to child care initiatives. She also described strong PRIM performance and record unclaimed property returns, while members asked about the child care use of iLottery revenue, multilingual outreach, and the economic impact of expanded liquor licensing. Mass Taxpayers Foundation President Doug Howgate and Tufts’ Evan Horowitz then offered differing revenue outlooks and policy warnings. Howgate projected modest growth, cautioned against overusing reserves for ongoing obligations, and urged caution on federal tax conformity changes and health care spending pressures. Horowitz projected higher FY26 and FY27 revenues than other witnesses, warned that the surtax and capital gains make the tax system more volatile, and said a 4% income tax ballot question could reduce FY27 revenues by roughly $800 million to $1 billion. He also flagged the rent control ballot question as a potential risk to municipal finance and suggested the state consider giving a permanent home to the independent revenue model used by Alan Clayton-Matthews.

Transcript Highlights:

• Projects.
• Most of my clients are linear pipeline projects, linear highway projects. ...projects, linear power line
• If projects or structures that have movement are a higher risk than projects or structures that don't
• There are very few wind projects that are being planned, future wind projects in those areas.
• In construction projects, performance bonds guarantee that a contractor will complete a project according

Bills: HB3129, HB3251, HB3556, HB3724, HB3887

Keywords: construction, wildlife impact, height restrictions, national wildlife refuge, environmental regulations, HB 3887, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Parks and Wildlife Code, performance bond, payment bond, contractor bonding, public works, construction contracts, public building, procurement, bid security, subcontractors, suppliers, contractor payment protection, project completion

Transcript Highlights:

• So our project in Abilene and the Natura project is sponsored with Fabling, UT, Georgia Tech, A&M, and
• You have licensing projects. which is what we went through, a four-year project to get that permit.
• And then some of the examples that he just stated... and the project, whether the projects have been
• , early on a project, and toward the end of a project.
• That's a broken project.

Bills: SB1468, SB1612, SB1789, SB2530, SB2571, SB2717, SB2967

Keywords: utility systems, Texas A&M, regents authority, construction, improvement, construction contracts, trust funds, property rights, mechanics lien, contractors, trustee liability, mechanic's lien, liability, attorney's fees, windstorm insurance, Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, insurance regulation, administrative penalties, coastal counties, catastrophe year

Transcript Highlights:

• state if the project does not move forward and the state elects to buy out project assets, ensuring
• So yes, we pursue projects like this that have got implications that are So, yes, we pursue projects
• And it has also created a tremendous amount of uncertainty for this project and other projects.
• Of uncertainty for this project and other projects.
• Liquefied natural gas project.

Keywords: 905, all

Summary: The House met with a quorum, approved the journal, and received messages from the governor and Senate, including notice that the governor vetoed CSHB 16 and allowed HB 14 to become law without signature. The chamber then took up the conference committee report on HB 381, a major Alaska LNG-related bill that revises the project’s tax and regulatory structure. The conference report was explained as a compromise package that, among other things, changes required local contribution language, expands disclosure and notice requirements, adjusts foreign ownership reporting, extends the Phase 1 construction deadline, adds a $10 million workforce development/community impact fund, modifies project labor agreement provisions, and exempts the Alaska LNG project from the new pass-through entity tax while still requiring an informational tax return in 2027. The Speaker also announced the governor had issued a proclamation calling the legislature back into session on July 27, 2026, and said sine die would be moved after debate. Debate on HB 381 was sharply divided. Supporters argued the bill is necessary enabling legislation to improve the project’s financial viability, protect Alaska’s interests, and move the North Slope gas line toward final investment decision, while also adding transparency, foreign ownership safeguards, and labor and workforce provisions. Several members said the conference committee process was collaborative and that the bill reflects hard-fought compromise with the developer, AGDC, labor, and the administration. Opponents focused on the addition of the pass-through entity/S-corp income tax and related reporting requirements, arguing it is a separate tax policy issue that should have been considered in its own bill, creates uncertainty and litigation risk, could harm existing oil and gas and Cook Inlet production, and may discourage investment. Multiple members also criticized the process as rushed and insufficiently transparent, especially the limited opportunity for the minority and the absence of Department of Revenue testimony during conference. No final vote on the conference committee report is shown in the transcript excerpt. The debate continued with members alternating between support for the gas line project itself and opposition to the tax provisions and process used to advance HB 381.

Transcript Highlights:

• the demand exists for these projects.
• The program is going to support project types that are similar to programs and projects that we've already
• We do track project outcomes.
• But no impact on projects, right? Correct.
• We track all of our projects pretty extensively.

Keywords: 988, house, all