Video & Transcript Research : 'judicial fund'
Page 79 of 500
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety - 03/17/25
Judiciary and Public Safety
Transcript Highlights:
- that are made from the uh from the fund. that are made from the uh from the fund.
- Minnesota Judicial Branch. I'm pleased Minnesota Judicial Branch.
- <00:53:10.000>
for <00:53:10.160>the <00:53:10.319>judicial permanent funding - for the judicial permanent funding for the judicial branch<00:53:11.440>
cyber <00:53:11.839>< - independence of the judicial branch. independence of the judicial branch.
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
IC - Legislative Finance Nov 18th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- funding.
- funds.
- We're asking for two... ...additional funding for two additional judicial specialists to support our
- We need funding to continue our statewide program as we expand to the 11th Judicial District at this
- We are asking for a couple of positions: one FTE and funding for a Judicial Specialist II, Financial
NM
New Mexico 2026 Regular Session
House - Appropriations and Finance Jan 23rd, 2026 at 12:42 pm
House Appropriations & Finance
Transcript Highlights:
- started funding this out of your general funding?
- Fund.
- fund?
- Vice Chair Dixon, committee members, the Sixth Judicial District Court, it's a 2.4% general fund increase
- funding.
Summary:
The committee first heard an Aging and Long-Term Services Department budget presentation comparing the LFC and executive recommendations. The main differences were in the Aging Network, Adult Protective Services, Program Support, and Long-Term Care Division, especially the executive’s proposed $10 million infusion into the Kiki Savadra Senior Dignity Fund and $6.2 million for expanding New Mexico Care. LFC staff explained that the committee recommendation was lower in general fund and fund-balance use, while the executive emphasized rising senior population needs, meal and transportation costs, and the cost savings of keeping older adults at home. The secretary also reviewed the department’s special requests, including the conference on aging, outreach, emergency preparedness, and the Kiki fund, and described New Mexico Care’s growth, its evaluation results, and the department’s plan to separate Kiki into its own accounting fund.
Members largely focused on senior services, rural meal delivery, transportation, caregiver support, and the Kiki fund. Several members urged stronger support for non-metro aging providers and for New Mexico Care, citing its role in keeping seniors out of nursing homes and the program’s reported savings and outcomes. Questions also covered eligibility, background checks for caregivers, respite care, dementia and Alzheimer’s screening, and whether Kiki funds can support home modifications such as ramps. The committee then voted to adopt the LFC recommendation with one executive language change: adding the executive’s page 14 language allowing an additional 12.5% distribution for initial payments to aging network providers at the start of FY27. Representative Dow opposed the motion.
The committee then moved to the Attorney General’s budget. LFC staff explained that the office’s budget relies heavily on the Consumer Settlement Fund, with both recommendations reducing general fund revenue while increasing settlement-fund use, and that performance measures were in consensus. The Attorney General said the office was not seeking more general fund, but wanted greater ability to use funds it recovers. He highlighted major consumer and public safety work, including litigation against major social media and AI platforms, a case involving Snapchat and child exploitation/extortion, the statewide crime gun intelligence center, efforts to address oilfield theft, work on missing and murdered Indigenous persons, and efforts to protect federal funds coming into New Mexico.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Judiciary Committee Meeting - 2026-04-14
Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
Transcript Highlights:
- For instance, one judicial district may determine how to staff and fund guardianship-related activities
- judicial branch. judicial branch.
- judicial oversight. judicial oversight.
- The judicial branch is not.
- lose $3.5 billion in federal funding. lose $3.5 billion in federal funding.
Keywords:
foster care, ombudsperson, investigative powers, children's rights, complaint process, HF4428, Medical Assistance, Medicaid, community engagement, work requirement, work mandate, employment requirement, community service, 80 hours, half-time student, income threshold, federal minimum wage, eligibility verification, benefit suspension, benefit termination
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Well and put so much thought into of, you know, sending more funding, funding to our schools but in targeted
- I had a question about the judicial transparency information section.
- Cindy Thomas, general counsel for the state commission on judicial conduct.
- left judicial compensation behind.
- And so judicial pay plays into the democratic process and the true.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation Apr 16th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- The Equal Access Fund in the Judicial Branch budget was created in 1999 at $10 million and has grown
- The Equal Access Fund in the Judicial Branch budget was created in 1999 at $10 million and has grown
- As a brief overview, the judicial branch represents about 1.3% of the state's General Fund budget.
- And unlike the other two branches of government, judicial branch funding for staff salary increases is
- In this request, the Judicial Council is requesting $11 million in ongoing General Fund to address a
Summary:
The Senate Budget Subcommittee heard presentations on the Office of the State Public Defender, statewide public defense workloads, legal aid funding, and Judicial Branch operations. OSPD requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the workload has become ongoing and now includes additional Supreme Court briefing, habeas proceedings, investigations, expert analysis, and data work. The State Public Defender also presented findings from the California Public Defense Workload and Staffing Report, which concluded that county public defense systems are structurally understaffed, lack sufficient investigators and support staff, and operate without statewide standards; members discussed the need for phased state funding, rural recruitment, and the impact of recent policy changes such as Prop. 36. In the legal aid panel, advocates and a Los Angeles Superior Court judge described severe unmet civil legal needs, especially in eviction defense, homelessness prevention, domestic violence, and immigration detention cases, and requested a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access services, along with additional targeted investments from the California Access to Justice Commission. The committee also asked for follow-up information on services, outreach, and funding losses, including reduced federal support and the scale of the justice gap.
For the Judicial Branch, the Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including a $70 million increase for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, additional funding for appellate counsel and case processing, and courthouse construction and facilities funding. They said the money is needed to offset inflation, supply costs, and staffing retention problems, and to preserve access to justice through timely case processing and remote proceedings. Senators raised concerns about interpreter shortages, the difficulty of hiring staff interpreters for less common languages, and the lack of a midyear process for courts to request more language-access funding; Judicial Council staff said they reallocate interpreter funds among courts and continue to work on recruitment. The committee also pressed the branch and the Department of Finance on courthouse facilities needs, noting that the long-term backlog is far larger than the current budget can address; Finance said the estimated need discussed previously was about $22.5 billion to start 68 projects and $29.4 billion to complete the remaining projects. No votes were taken during the hearing, but members requested follow-up materials and additional budget information.
FL
Transcript Highlights:
- They requested additional funds from the CCOC to fund new FTEs, and they reassigned resources. would
- They requested additional funds from the CCOC and to fund new FTEs, and they reassigned resources. ..
- Most, if not all, of them rely on other funding sources, multiple sources of funding.
- Not all of them rely on other funding sources, multiple sources of funding, to operate.
- Some of those include county and city government, local trust funds, court fees and fines, funding that's
Summary:
The Judiciary Committee met with a quorum present and heard several Office of the State Courts Administrator presentations. Judge Mark Mahan discussed the impact of 2023’s HB 837 litigation reforms on court operations, explaining that the law’s changes to comparative negligence, filing deadlines, collateral source evidence, premises liability, bad faith claims, attorney’s fees, and offer-of-judgment rules triggered a major March 2023 civil filing surge. He described how filings tripled statewide, with especially large increases in auto negligence and premises liability cases, and outlined how circuits responded through active case management, added resources, and workflow changes. Members asked whether the bill’s immediate effective date contributed to the surge and whether clearance rates would normalize over time; Judge Mahan said the court system viewed its response as a success and expected rates to settle as the backlog is worked through.
The committee then received a presentation on problem-solving courts from Jennifer Grandal and Judge Nina Richardson. Grandal reviewed Florida’s drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts, dependency and early childhood courts, noting statewide best-practice standards, annual reporting requirements, funding sources, and data collection systems. Judge Richardson gave a local perspective on treatment courts, emphasizing that they address underlying mental health and substance use issues, rely on judicial supervision and sanctions as well as incentives, and help participants achieve recovery and avoid reoffending. She said the programs are accountable, transparent, and effective, and thanked the Legislature for continued support.
Finally, Judge Rachel Nordby and Eric McClure outlined the judicial branch’s legislative agenda. Nordby summarized the Supreme Court workgroup’s recommendations to expand Florida’s vexatious litigant law, including broader coverage, fewer qualifying adverse cases, a longer lookback period, and a public records exemption for stricken defamatory or sham material. McClure then highlighted additional agenda items: modernizing the duty-judge statute, expanding senior management retirement eligibility, authorizing additional judgeships based on workload studies, removing the statutory cap on court-ordered nonbinding arbitration compensation, protecting appellate clerks’ personal information, allowing alternative authentication for certain judicial notarizations, and creating a hearsay exception for guardian ad litem reports and testimony. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after member introductions and staff introductions.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Convention of the California Legislature State of the Judiciary Mar 18th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- And we're honored that judges and justices from all 58 counties representing the Golden State's judicial
- And it's this judicial independence that separates the United States of America And it's this judicial
- Currently, we have about 67 judicial vacancies. I had to update the number from yesterday.
- allocated to the judicial branch.
- The Judicial Council will vote on this recommended rule later this year.
Summary:
The California Legislature met in joint convention for the annual State of the Judiciary address, with judges and justices from across the state in attendance along with Governor Newsom and other statewide officials. The opening included prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by the formal introduction of Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and the California Supreme Court justices. Speakers emphasized the importance of judicial independence, the courts’ role in protecting rights and democracy, and the value of collaboration between the legislative and judicial branches.
Chief Justice Guerrero focused on the state of the judicial branch, beginning with budget pressures from prior cuts and noting partial restoration in the governor’s proposed budget, while urging continued stable funding for courts, court-appointed counsel, and judgeships in high-need counties. She highlighted the expansion and benefits of remote proceedings, ongoing judicial vacancies, workload growth, and efforts to improve data collection and case-weighting. She also discussed implementation of the CARE Act, the court interpreter workforce pilot, CASA and kin-first child welfare efforts, courthouse security and facilities projects, and the judiciary’s work on generative AI guardrails.
A major portion of the address addressed the recent problems with the California bar exam and broader State Bar oversight. Guerrero said the court would pursue remedies for examinees harmed by the failures and would strengthen admissions oversight, including the role of the Committee of Bar Examiners. She also reiterated support for pro bono legal services and discussed immigration-related courthouse access, citing state laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in courthouses. The convention concluded after remarks thanking the judiciary and Legislature, and the joint session adjourned without any recorded votes or formal legislative action.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- What the court said in Fund Texas Choice v.
- I have you testifying on behalf of Fund Texas Choice and yourself, and you are against House Bill 44.
- Abortion funds help people live. So yes, there's a crisis, but HB44 doesn't solve it. deepens it.
- Hill and reiterated in a preliminary injunction in the and fund Texas Choice v. Paxton.
- Abortion funds and advocates will be criminalized.
Keywords:
HB 44, Life of the Mother Act, abortion exceptions, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, fetal survival, Texas abortion law, abortion ban, physician liability, health care provider, disciplinary action, aiding and abetting, emergency abortion, obstetric care
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
HF2432, the omnibus judiciary, public safety, and corrections bill is repassed in MN House 5/19/25
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Just as surely as this legislature must be funded for our democracy to continue, the judicial branch
- responsibility to fund our independent judicial judicial judicial branch.<00:31:27.760>
The <00 - <00:31:52.080>
The <00:31:52.320>judicial funded appropriately. - The judicial funded appropriately.
- the judicial branch that underfunds the judicial branch.<00:32:53.360>
We <00:32:53.600>funded
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 4/8/25
Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
Transcript Highlights:
- note for the um sealing of judicial note for the um sealing of judicial property<00:08:17.680>
additional civil legal aid funding. additional civil legal aid funding.- >
carried <00:13:44.880>by judicial branch bill carried by judicial branch bill carried- Um, which meant our judicial law clerks.
- >
- We need the inflationadjusted funding.
Bills:
HF2300
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary Jan 14th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- And previous Chief Judge in the 4th Judicial Circuit. Good afternoon.
- Regarding funding, in 2018, the Legislature appropriated problem-solving court funding through a special
- So, yes, there is judicial supervision, and yes, there are sanctions.
- The judicial certification opinion indicates a need for new judges.
- The next issue relates to judicial notarization.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety - 01/22/25
Judiciary and Public Safety
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:02:39.599>
Judiciary Grove uh I served on a judici Judiciary Grove uh I served on a judici - <00:13:55.279>
almost general fund budget we are funded almost general fund budget we are - I certainly fully support funding our Judiciary. Thank you. Support funding our Judiciary.
and ability to fund the judicial branch and ability to fund the judicial branch and keeping<00- branch, to ask for full funding.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Legislation to fund extra security for Minnesota courtrooms, judges stalls in divided committee Apr 16th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- as it came to us from judicial budget as as it came to us from the<00:04:27.360>
judicial <00: - I I want to say the judicial branch.
- That means employees of the judicial branch are underfunded, and when they do not fund the court's request
- That means employees of the judicial branch are underfunded, and when they do not fund the court's request
- , the courthouse fund.
Summary:
The committee took up House File 3874, the Judiciary budget bill, and first moved it to the Ways and Means Committee. The bill was described as funding the judicial branch’s budget request, including courthouse and judge security measures, home safety for judges and staff, a $1 million courthouse safety grant program, and funding related to paid family and medical leave costs that the courts must absorb. A court administrator explained that some base adjustments were budget-neutral internal shifts within the court system, moving money from district courts to other courts to better meet overall needs.
Members then debated several amendments. The A7 amendment, which reduced some of the requested security funding for administrators and aligned it more closely with legislative security levels while retaining flexible Supreme Court security personnel, was adopted. The A1 amendment, which would have deleted the additional operating adjustment for paid family and medical leave, failed on a 7-7 tie after debate over whether the courts should bear the employer share of that cost and whether the program itself was an unfunded mandate. The A2 amendment, also related to paid family and medical leave funding, likewise failed on a 7-7 tie after similar discussion about the judiciary’s ongoing employment costs and the branch’s inability to raise its own revenue.
The committee then adopted the A4 amendment, which increased the courthouse safety grant program from $1 million to $4 million. Supporters said there was unmet demand for courthouse security grants and that the money would help with hardware such as screening equipment, while the court administrator said the branch would not spend more than it could use and that the grants would be reviewed by a committee including law enforcement and county representatives. The administrator noted the funding would be one-time money and would not cover staffing costs. The committee also discussed the judiciary’s ongoing need for funding, with members arguing both that the courts should be treated like other employers and that the judicial branch, as an independent branch of government, must be funded by the legislature. The final A5 amendment was then introduced, with staff noting it would delete a section already covered by the adopted A7 amendment and reduce an appropriation on page four, line 14.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Finance Division I (03/21/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- They used it to fund a criminal justice clinic at Franklin Pierce, and they worked with the judicial
- And within that, we do have listed the judicial council's requests, additional funding requests, and
- funding them with the general fund. funding them with the general fund.
- funds to fund the activity or not.
- general funds to fund the granted general funds to fund the granted advantage<02:39:25.600>
program
Summary:
The committee worked through several HB 2 budget amendments, focusing first on energy-related transfers and then on judicial funding. For the energy item, members discussed moving remaining money from the renewable energy fund into the general fund for the biennium, with later-year amounts going to the general fund rather than ratepayers. They noted the proposal was based on prior House Bill 111 language, that the exact amount was still being worked out with the Department of Energy, and that some language about “incentive payments” was being removed or clarified. Amendment 1211H was moved and adopted on a 5-4 vote. The committee then considered amendment 1040 on the governor’s scholarship fund, which would eliminate the program and sweep uncommitted funds. Members supporting the program argued it helps New Hampshire students afford in-state college and should be reworked rather than repealed; opponents said the remaining balance was limited and the program should be ended. Amendment 1040 was defeated 4-5.
The committee then turned to a judicial council request tied to a Franklin Pierce criminal justice clinic that had previously used ARPA funds. Supporters said the clinic cleared 323 cases in nine months, provided training for future attorneys, and could reduce more expensive assigned-counsel costs by helping the public defender system handle cases more efficiently. The amendment would add $100,000 to the judicial council line for that purpose. There was some confusion over the line item and whether the request should be attributed to the judicial branch or judicial council, which was corrected during discussion. Members also discussed a larger issue: the judicial council’s budget request appeared lower than intended because of a possible clerical error in how prior-year funding was calculated, especially after the last budget combined HB 1 and HB 2 funding. The committee compared the public defender line and assigned counsel line, noting that if public defender funding is cut, more cases would shift to assigned counsel, which is more expensive. No final vote on the judicial council amendment is shown in the excerpt.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Conference Committee on HF2432 5/16/25
Transcript Highlights:
- :14:18.320>
the board of judicial standards, the board of judicial standards, the committee<00 - to the Secretary of State to fund to the Secretary of State to fund um<00:16:12.959>
the < - There's the special revenue fund.
- <00:24:59.919>
fund <00:25:00.159>the that were used to fund the that were used to fund - lease cost at the Minnesota Judicial lease cost at the Minnesota Judicial Center.<00:30:29.360><
Summary:
The conference committee met late on Friday evening to discuss the Public Safety and Judiciary budget agreement, beginning with a brief exchange among members about concerns that the executive branch had been delaying the committee’s work by waiting to approve legislative decisions. Members emphasized that the legislature should retain its independence while still allowing normal collaboration with the governor’s office. The committee then moved through several outstanding policy items and adopted them without opposition, including the A38 amendment addressing data-sharing concerns involving disability-related information, a study of firefighting services by the state fire marshal, and an A46 amendment governing access to unredacted portable recording system data in collision investigations, with guardrails on disclosure and use.
The committee next reviewed the spreadsheet and budget targets. Fiscal staff explained the judiciary side of the agreement, including funding for court operating costs, a one-time Justice Partner Access Program appropriation, forensic exam rate increases, guardian ad litem funding, public defense, human rights, the competency attainment board, the cannabis expungement board, and fee increases for civil filings and motions. On the public safety side, staff described the target as well as the discretionary items funded, including nonprofit security grants, BCA staffing changes, fire marshal initiatives, a 10-year arson statute of limitations, prosecutor training grants, legal representation for children, E911 funding for critical infrastructure, Philando Castile Training Fund support, corrections-related savings from the Stillwater phased closure and sentence-to-serve elimination, a mandatory minimums task force, a victims of crime account transfer, a decommissioning study, in-service use-of-force training, and extensions of several expiring appropriations. The committee also noted a correction to a spreadsheet label related to the Stillwater closure item.
After the spreadsheet walkthrough, the committee took testimony from Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and State Court Administrator Jeff Shorban on behalf of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Hudson thanked the committee for its work and said the agreement covers some unavoidable costs, including insurance, lease expenses, forensic examiner pay, and the new access system, but argued it does not adequately address the judiciary’s most urgent problem: staffing and judicial compensation. She said court employees are leaving for better-paying jobs, judicial salaries are frozen for two years, and applicant pools for judgeships have declined, especially in greater Minnesota. She also said the judicial branch was not meaningfully consulted on the budget target and urged lawmakers to recognize the courts as a constitutional obligation rather than a discretionary program.
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
IC - Legislative Finance Nov 19th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- One of them is an enterprise fund, so it is not a general fund program code.
- They were funded, but it was funded by non-recurring money.
- grant these funds for this fiscal year.
- Funding for those attorneys. Are we short nine? Or is the funding there, or you just can't hire?
- In funding attorneys. So, we are short in funding attorneys.
OK
Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session
Appropriations and Budget Judiciary Subcommittee - Afternoon Session Jan 13th, 2026 at 01:00 pm
A&B Judiciary Subcommittee
Transcript Highlights:
- We existed within the judicial branch until 1999.
- We otherwise are resorting back to our revolving funds.
- And it is $60,000 for that five-day judicial college training.
- That those funds immediately become encumbered. They sit so that no one touches those funds.
- not receive any federal funding.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- for Senate Bill 2742, relating to enforcement of electioneering prohibitions and the unlawful use of funds
- He lost in Texas, and the status of the law right now is that his clever device to circumvent judicial
- We’ve got judicial liability. And then there's the potential resurrection, or at least...
Bills:
HCR35, SJR59, SJR84, SCR30, SB127, SB317, SB324, SB457, SB506, SB511, SB529, SB547, SB584, SB619, SB636, SB646, SB659, SB715, SB732, SB735, SB771, SB784, SB800, SB801, SB904, SB1026, SB1049, SB1065, SB1181, SB1224, SB1250, SB1383, SB1467, SB1524, SB1528, SB1531, SB1568, SB1585, SB1640, SB1681, SB1754, SB1757, SB1777, SB1972, SB1980, SB2007, SB2041, SB2046, SB2050, SB2055, SB2069, SB2080, SB2119, SB2138, SB2139, SB2154, SB2201, SB2225, SB2268, SB2306, SB2308, SB2310, SB2330, SB2366, SB2375, SB2392, SB2401, SB2422, SB2480, SB2514, SB2530, SB2533, SB2543, SB2544, SB2589, SB2610, SB2615, SB2623, SB2660, SB2662, SB2693, SB2695, SB2707, SB2722, SB2742, SB2753, SB2807, SB2843, SB2844, SB2858, SB2880, SB2885, SB2891, SB2925, SB2938, SB2986, SJR3, SJR18, SB5, SB914, SB963, SB1197, SB1415, SB1437, SB1786, SB326, SB767, SB769, SB783, SB1035, SB1271, SB1619, SB1637, SB1806, SB1, SB260, HB135, HB1109, HCR35, HCR64, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR84, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR48, SCR19, SCR30, SCR3, SB2023, SB619, SB2742, SB646, SB1026, SB2880, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB1502, SB507, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB529, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB584, SB1085, SB2046, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB1524, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1845, SB1863, SB2681, SB2200, SB2199, SB1757, SB2050, SB2458, SB2201, SB2660, SB2662, SB1065, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB1721, SB2366, SB1013, SB2797, SB2383, SB1754, SB2119, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2929, SB1972, SB2540, SB2595, SB2217, SB715, SB2330, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB2001, SB2080, SB506, SB2514, SB2753, SB2398, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB410, SB659, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB456, SB127, SB1666, SB2843, SB2801, SB800, SB2055, SB784, SB2986, SB735, SB1012, SB324, SB2926, SB2938, SB2007, SB2138, SB1242, SB2615, SB1049, SB2310, SB1224, SB2972, SB1568, SB2841, SB2885, SB3016, SB2858, SB2610, SB2139, SB1856, SB2035, SB2308, SB2306, SB2041, SB1528, SB1681, SB1141, SB2401, SB2530, SB2375, SB547, SB1266, SB1373, SB1467, SB2069, SB2269, SB2480, SB2544, SB672, SB904, SB2695, SB2891, SB2422, SB2543, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB2925, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB457, SB2357, SB2721, SB243, SB1285, SB2568, SB1959, SB1442, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, HB1392, HB22, SB1551, SB3039, SB2819, SB66, SB629, SB1015, SB2342, SB2903, SB2933, SB1965, SB2477, SB3029, SB2605, SB2419, SB1957, SB375, SB250, SB777, SB628, SB2523, SB2367, SB2703, SB2608, SB2778, SB3044, SB2965, SB2521, SB865
Keywords:
spaceports, tax-exempt bonds, aerospace investment, Texas space economy, Federal legislation, education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, tax exemption, property tax, homestead, fire damage, constitutional amendment, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- To the General Fund of the state, or is it... where does it go?
- The Attorney General gets the escrowed fund? It would go to general revenue.
- However, it can be difficult to pull back funds from the General Revenue Fund, where this suspense account
- To make clear, these funds are for rail districts and for public entities; the funds would not go to
- And we have a little... ...fund balance, a low interest fund balance to borrow from, correct?
Bills:
HCR35, SJR59, SJR84, SCR30, SB127, SB317, SB324, SB457, SB506, SB511, SB529, SB547, SB584, SB619, SB636, SB646, SB659, SB715, SB732, SB735, SB771, SB784, SB800, SB801, SB904, SB1026, SB1049, SB1065, SB1181, SB1224, SB1250, SB1383, SB1467, SB1524, SB1528, SB1531, SB1568, SB1585, SB1640, SB1681, SB1754, SB1757, SB1777, SB1972, SB1980, SB2007, SB2041, SB2046, SB2050, SB2055, SB2069, SB2080, SB2119, SB2138, SB2139, SB2154, SB2201, SB2225, SB2268, SB2306, SB2308, SB2310, SB2330, SB2366, SB2375, SB2392, SB2401, SB2422, SB2480, SB2514, SB2530, SB2533, SB2543, SB2544, SB2589, SB2610, SB2615, SB2623, SB2660, SB2662, SB2693, SB2695, SB2707, SB2722, SB2742, SB2753, SB2807, SB2843, SB2844, SB2858, SB2880, SB2885, SB2891, SB2925, SB2938, SB2986, SJR3, SJR18, SB5, SB914, SB963, SB1197, SB1415, SB1437, SB1786, SB326, SB767, SB769, SB783, SB1035, SB1271, SB1619, SB1637, SB1806, SB1, SB260, HB135, HB1109, HCR35, HCR64, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR84, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR48, SCR19, SCR30, SCR3, SB2023, SB619, SB2742, SB646, SB1026, SB2880, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB1502, SB507, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB529, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB584, SB1085, SB2046, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB1524, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1845, SB1863, SB2681, SB2200, SB2199, SB1757, SB2050, SB2458, SB2201, SB2660, SB2662, SB1065, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB1721, SB2366, SB1013, SB2797, SB2383, SB1754, SB2119, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2929, SB1972, SB2540, SB2595, SB2217, SB715, SB2330, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB2001, SB2080, SB506, SB2514, SB2753, SB2398, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB410, SB659, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB456, SB127, SB1666, SB2843, SB2801, SB800, SB2055, SB784, SB2986, SB735, SB1012, SB324, SB2926, SB2938, SB2007, SB2138, SB1242, SB2615, SB1049, SB2310, SB1224, SB2972, SB1568, SB2841, SB2885, SB3016, SB2858, SB2610, SB2139, SB1856, SB2035, SB2308, SB2306, SB2041, SB1528, SB1681, SB1141, SB2401, SB2530, SB2375, SB547, SB1266, SB1373, SB1467, SB2069, SB2269, SB2480, SB2544, SB672, SB904, SB2695, SB2891, SB2422, SB2543, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB2925, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB457, SB2357, SB2721, SB243, SB1285, SB2568, SB1959, SB1442, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, HB1392, HB22, SB1551, SB3039, SB2819, SB66, SB629, SB1015, SB2342, SB2903, SB2933, SB1965, SB2477, SB3029, SB2605, SB2419, SB1957, SB375, SB250, SB777, SB628, SB2523, SB2367, SB2703, SB2608, SB2778, SB3044, SB2965, SB2521, SB865
Keywords:
spaceports, tax-exempt bonds, aerospace investment, Texas space economy, Federal legislation, education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, tax exemption, property tax, homestead, fire damage, constitutional amendment, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature