Transcript Highlights:

• gaming on certain lands under state law. to state affairs. designate subjects for legislation during a special

Bills: SJR36 , SJR3 , SB616 , SB565 , SB384 , SB5 , SJR52 , SJR53 , SJR54 , SJR55 , SCR18 , SCR19 , SCR22 , SB27 , SB29 , SB35 , SB1151 , SB1152 , SB1153 , SB1154 , SB1155 , SB1156 , SB1157 , SB1158 , SB1159 , SB1160 , SB1161 , SB1162 , SB1163 , SB1164 , SB1165 , SB1166 , SB1167 , SB1168 , SB1169 , SB1170 , SB1171 , SB1172 , SB1173 , SB1174 , SB1175 , SB1176 , SB1177 , SB1178 , SB1179 , SB1180 , SB1181 , SB1182 , SB1183 , SB1184 , SB1185 , SB1186 , SB1187 , SB1188 , SB1189 , SB1190 , SB1191 , SB1192 , SB1193 , SB1194 , SB1195 , SB1196 , SB1197 , SB1198 , SB1199 , SB1200 , SB1201 , SB1202 , SB1203 , SB1204 , SB1205 , SB1206 , SB1207 , SB1208 , SB1209 , SB1210 , SB1211 , SB1212 , SB1213 , SB1214 , SB1215 , SB1216 , SB1217 , SB1218 , SB1219 , SB1220 , SB1221 , SB1222 , SB1223 , SB1224 , SB1225 , SB1226 , SB1227 , SB1228 , SB1229 , SB1230 , SB1231 , SB1232 , SB1233 , SB1234 , SB1235 , SB1236 , SB1237 , SB1238 , SB1239 , SB1240 , SB1241 , SB1242 , SB1243 , SB1244 , SB1245 , SB1246 , SB1247 , SB1248 , SB1249 , SB1250 , SB1251 , SB1252 , SB1253 , SB1254 , SB1255 , SB1256 , SB1257 , SB1258 , SB1259 , SB1260 , SB1261 , SB1262 , SB1263 , SB1264 , SB1265 , SB1266 , SB1267 , SB1268 , SB1269 , SB1270 , SB1271 , SB1272 , SB1273 , SB1274 , SB1275 , SB1276 , SB1277 , SB1278 , SB1279 , SB1280 , SB1281 , SB1282 , SB1283 , SB1284 , SB1285 , SB1286 , SB1287 , SB1288 , SB1289 , SB1290 , SB1291 , SB1292 , SB1293 , SB1294 , SB1295 , SB1296 , SB1297 , SB1298 , SB1299 , SB1300 , SB1301 , SB1302 , SB1303 , SB1304 , SB1305 , SB1306 , SB1307 , SB1308 , SB1309 , SB1310 , SB1311 , SB1312 , SB1313 , SB1314 , SB1315 , SB1316 , SB1317 , SB1318 , SB1319 , SB1320 , SB1321 , SB1322 , SB1323 , SB1324 , SB1325 , SB1326 , SB1327 , SB1328 , SB1329 , SB1330 , SB1331 , SB1332 , SB1333 , SB1334 , SB1335 , SB1336 , SB1337 , SB1338 , SB1339 , SB1340 , SB1341 , SB1342 , SB1343 , SB1344 , SB1345 , SB1621 , SJR57

Keywords: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, aquifer, water management, Edwards Aquifer, sustainability, regulatory framework, SB 565, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, compliance agreement, enforcement suspension

Transcript Highlights:

• It is rarely done where the special assessment is cash up front to pay for the expense.
• It is rarely done where the special assessment is cash up front to pay for the expense.
• This special assessment of $11,500 didn't even address the pool.
• assessment now we have a new board which I'm president of we have passed a special assessment we have
• passed a special assessment.

Committee: Senate Senate Government Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first considered SB 1825, which would shift the precinct committeeman vacancy application and nomination process from county party chairs to legislative district chairs where established, and require applicants to submit to the authorized chair within five days. Supporters said the change would streamline appointments, reduce bottlenecks in large counties, and strengthen grassroots, bottom-up party organization. County supervisors’ association staff said they had no objection to the district-chair process but raised concern that the five-day deadline for boards to act was too short. The committee adopted a do pass recommendation on SB 1825, with members noting the five-day issue should be worked out later. The committee then heard SB 1566, as amended, which targets malicious delays by municipalities, counties, the state, or state agencies in licensing and permit decisions, with a civil penalty and Attorney General enforcement. The amendment narrowed the bill to statutory licensing timeframes for single-family residential construction and clarified definitions and certificate-of-occupancy authority. The sponsor and home builders argued the bill would deter intentional delays that add to housing costs, while questions focused on how malice would be proven and whether the language was too broad. The committee adopted the amendment and gave SB 1566 a do pass as amended recommendation. Next, SB 1571, as amended, would bar monopoly utilities from passing marketing, sponsorship, community relations, and similar costs through to ratepayers, require annual reporting and attestation, and define the covered utilities. Supporters said ratepayers should not fund utility advertising or sponsorships, especially amid rising rates, while opponents from municipal and public-power utilities warned the language could sweep too broadly and interfere with legitimate customer communications, especially for smaller not-for-profit systems. The committee adopted the strike-everything amendment and gave the bill a do pass as amended recommendation. The committee also advanced SB 1501, expanding Administrative Rules Oversight Committee review to include whether agency actions exceed statutory authority, and SB 1805, requiring county recorders to verify the notary status on quitclaim deeds before recording them; both received do pass recommendations despite some concerns about scope and administrative burden.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, when we're talking about special ed initiatives, does that mean covering All of special education
• Again, we're already doing assessments.
• Chairman, you mentioned that for this one, the assessment would be a mirror assessment that we have in
• place would be the assessment.
• Okay, another Office of Special Education.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Regarding special education funding and possible special education funding models.
• So it's directed to the special ed cost versus the rest of the special ed dollars.
• Chair Richter, members of the committee, so there was not a special factor for special education.
• special education.
• CTE teaching special education.

Committee: Joint Special Education Funding Committee

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the March 4, 2026 minutes, and received a lengthy Department of Public Instruction presentation from Stanley Schauer Jr. on North Dakota student performance data in math and ELA, with comparisons between students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Schauer explained the assessment systems used, the 1% alternate assessment cap for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the absence of 2019-20 data due to the pandemic, and how state standards are set by North Dakota educators. Members asked about cohort trends, the role of alternate assessments, grade-level patterns, and whether the state should focus more on reducing the novice category than on moving students from approaching to proficient. Schauer also discussed the new NDA Plus assessment, the state’s planned growth model, and the possibility of future breakdowns by disability category or by schools using science-of-math approaches. Special education educators testified that students with disabilities continued to receive services during COVID because of FAPE obligations, which likely helped limit learning loss, and emphasized that IEP teams focus on individual growth rather than only proficiency buckets. Committee members then shifted to special education funding and possible funding models. Brandon Bombach of Grand Forks Public Schools presented on the state aid formula, focusing on the special education weighting factor and arguing that the current formula does not adequately respond to growing student needs because it counts enrollment but does not adjust when the number of students with IEPs rises. He used examples to show that a district can have the same enrollment and receive the same weighting even if the number of students needing services increases. Members discussed whether the formula should be tied more closely to actual need and accountability, and the chair indicated that the committee would continue gathering data and ideas for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• This budget is a true representation of each single person who is on this floor, whether it's special
• DEI efforts often provide support for special education programs, including resources and training for

Bills: SB1637 , SB1 , HB300 , SB2601 , SB37 , HB2011 , HB3595 , HB3071 , SB12 , HB3372 , SB457 , HB2067 , SB2337 , SB447 , SB1506 , SB1566 , SB763 , HB3556 , SB13 , SB2018 , SB331 , SB379 , HB145 , SB441 , SB2878 , HB2885 , HB2017 , HB5246 , SB8 , SB2308 , SB1540 , HB 119 , SB1405 , SB3059 , SB15 , SB568

Keywords: SB 1637, deadly conduct, Texas Penal Code, Section 22.05, firearm, gun, pointing a gun, recklessness presumption, peace officer, law enforcement, police, officer-involved shooting, use of force, justification, self-defense, defense of others, Chapter 9, criminal prosecution, Penal Code amendment, appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> municipalities to establish special municipalities to establish special assessment<00:56:43.040>
• <c> a</c> special assessment district for a special assessment district for a defined<00:57:29.119><c
• </c> the building and then a special the building and then a special assessment<00:58:48.079><c> tax<
• > levy</c><01:01:07.119><c> on</c> special assessment that we'll levy on special assessment that we'll
• </c> assessment and there would be a special assessment and there would be a special tax<01:01:46.240

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:27.920><c> taxing</c> 27566 uh lists all the special taxing 27566 uh lists all the special
• Even though a property is exempt, the local law requires properties to pay special assessments.
• </c> requires properties to pay special requires properties to pay special assessments<00:10:57.519><
• assessments.
• Special assessments are a charge based on a public improvement that benefits the property, so that's

Committee: Senate Taxes

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform will now come to order.
• And the way it runs is because of the assessment cycle.
• You basically start an assessment cycle in September.
• You basically start an assessment cycle in September.
• , assessed values up.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Summary: The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform heard public testimony on House Bills 3253 and 3254, presented by Representatives Steinhoff and Jobe. The bills would expand assessor training and continuing education requirements, require physical inspections for large assessment increases on commercial property as well as residential property, allow greater use of technology and remote imagery in assessments, create optional electronic notices and communications for taxpayers, and move toward setting property tax levies by subclass with a small-parcel exception. The bill also included provisions to raise the per-parcel reimbursement floor for assessors, reimburse local governments for revenue losses tied to SB 190 and SB 3, provide payment options during appeals, and require counties to offer installment payment options for property taxes. The sponsors said the proposal was built from bipartisan committee discussions and statewide listening sessions, and they emphasized assessor professionalism, taxpayer flexibility, and fairness in the assessment process. Committee members asked about assessor training, the fiscal note, the parcel reimbursement formula, and how the subclass levy system would work in small jurisdictions. Witnesses from the Missouri Special Districts Association and school administrators generally supported the concepts of better assessor training, more resources, and taxpayer payment flexibility, while also warning about implementation burdens and the fiscal impact of state backfill for SB 190 and SB 3. Testimony also focused on the accuracy of ratio studies and the fairness of moving to subclass-based levies. Some members argued the current system can shift tax burdens unfairly between residential, commercial, and agricultural property owners, while others cautioned that the new structure could create winners and losers depending on local assessment practices. A representative from the State Tax Commission clarified that commissioners do receive training, corrected the parcel reimbursement discussion to note the first 20,000 parcels are treated differently under current law, and said the commission already provides assessor training. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Property taxes are not the same thing as a special assessment, which can come on your tax bill.
• Special assessments are essentially fees levied by local governments to direct fund-specific projects
• Property taxes are not the same thing as a special assessment, which can come on your tax bill.
• Special assessments are essentially fees levied by local governments to direct fund-specific projects
• The assessed value is the value of the property after applying any assessment limitations.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• project or special assessment in the future for... ...and pledge it basically under a special project
• or special assessment in the future for debt service to show the borrower's basically ability to pay
• Special assessments. There is nothing in this bill that does that.
• There's nothing that prevents them from being able to impose a special assessment.
• But there are some things like special districts that don't have the ability to assess fees.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• for, the difference between local assessments, state assessments, and national assessments.
• ,</c><01:50:18.880><c> state</c><01:50:19.119><c> assessments,</c> local assessments, state assessments
• , local assessments, state assessments, national<01:50:20.239><c> assessments.
• They also do um local assessments. data. They also do um local assessments.
• . assessment. assessment.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting focused on school governance and a proposed shift in responsibilities related to SAU consolidation, with committee members first discussing how school board members and other local officials would be selected for future testimony. The main presentation came from the New Hampshire Association of School Principals, whose executive director Brady Belair and several principals argued that mandatory statewide administrative consolidation should be approached cautiously and that any consolidation should be voluntary and locally driven. They said anticipated savings may not materialize, citing possible higher personnel, transportation, and technology costs, and warned that forcing changes could create disruption without improving student outcomes. Principals testified that their jobs are already broad and demanding, centered on instructional leadership, student safety, staff supervision, family communication, and day-to-day crisis response. Kathleen Murphy of Amherst described working 60 to 70 hours a week and said principals spend substantial time coaching teachers, handling student issues, and supporting school climate; she said adding more administrative duties would compromise student learning and teacher growth. Adam Osborne of Bow Memorial School similarly described principals as daily problem-solvers who set school-level direction and create conditions for schools to thrive. The witnesses also emphasized that principals, superintendents, school boards, and business administrators have different training and responsibilities, and that specialized tasks such as special education compliance, FERPA/HIPAA issues, and labor matters require appropriate expertise. Committee members questioned the witnesses about overlap between superintendent and principal duties, the completeness of statutory responsibility lists, and whether some functions such as curriculum, discipline, hiring, and evaluation are shared. The principals acknowledged some overlap and collaboration, but said superintendents typically handle broader system-level, legal, and central-office responsibilities while principals focus on building-level leadership and teacher support. One member raised the earlier expectation that districts might move to a principal-plus-business-manager model, but the witnesses said that model did not develop as expected and that district structures vary widely. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• project or special assessment in the future, for... ...and pledge it, basically, under a special project
• or special assessment in the future for debt service to show the borrower's basically ability to pay
• Special assessments. There is nothing in this bill that does that.
• There's nothing that prevents them from being able to impose a special assessment.
• But there are some things like special districts that don't have the ability to assess fees.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is our state assessment.
• ,</c><01:50:18.880><c> state</c><01:50:19.119><c> assessments,</c> local assessments, state assessments
• , local assessments, state assessments, national<01:50:20.239><c> assessments.
• </c> assessment, then they would not take it. assessment, then they would not take it.
• They also do um local assessments. data. They also do um local assessments.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met to hear from the New Hampshire Association of School Principals as part of its review of a proposal involving statewide administrative consolidation and changes to school governance. Members first discussed how school board witnesses would be selected, with the chair saying the committee would seek a mix of district sizes and structures and would also accept emailed input. The principals’ association said it represents more than 550 principals and assistant principals and urged caution about any mandatory consolidation, arguing that successful consolidations are gradual and voluntary. Association leaders and principals testified that principals already handle a wide range of responsibilities, including instructional leadership, student discipline, safety, staff supervision and evaluation, family and community engagement, and day-to-day crisis response. They argued that shifting more legal, budgetary, and administrative duties onto principals would reduce time for coaching teachers and supporting students, increase burnout and turnover, and create legal and training risks, especially in areas such as special education, privacy, and labor issues. They also said the roles of superintendents, principals, and school board members are distinct and require different training and expertise. Members asked detailed questions about how responsibilities are divided between principals and SAUs, whether principals recruit and evaluate staff, and how much time principals work. One principal said she works about 60 to 70 hours a week and that additional duties would be difficult to absorb. Another principal described his school’s structure, the importance of community building, and the need to preserve district-wide alignment if consolidation moves forward. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The result will be larger special and emergency assessments that homeowners are unable to plan for.
• So they don't need a vote for a special assessment.
• They can levy a special assessment without a vote to cover the insurance premiums.
• a special assessment.
• assessment without going to a vote, but that special assessment is capped at 5%.

Committee: Senate Housing

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• IN 2023 THE LEGISLATURE DIRECTED A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAM WITH THE FINAL REPORT DUE OUT JUNE
• THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IDENTIFIED SOME PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES AND PROVIDED SEVERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• AS A RESULT OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS THE FX PROGRAM PAUSED THEIR WORK IN 2024 TO UNDERGO A
• AS THE CHAIR A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED IN 2023. 81 RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE AS A
• RESULT OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY THE AGENCY.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then regarding assessment, the state has to have an assessment, and it must contain at least three
• So with that, ATLAS assessments for grades 3 through 10 assess in three main subjects: English language
• So with that, Atlas Assessments for grades 3 through 10 assess in three main subjects, English language
• The ATLAS assessments include summative assessments for students in grades 3 through 10, as well as end-of-course
• The ELPA 21, or English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century, is the assessment used

Summary: The committee received a lengthy Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas academic standards, accountability systems, and adequacy requirements. Staff reviewed how state curriculum and standards have evolved from the 1997 Public Education Act through the 2003 Quality Education Act and the 2017 Educational Support and Accountability Act, including required coursework, standards for accreditation, career and technical education, graduation requirements, and recent additions such as computer science, personal finance, firearm safety, and fetal growth and development instruction. Members asked for a chart comparing the major laws and repeals over time, and staff agreed to provide one. The presentation then turned to federal ESSA requirements and Arkansas’s state accountability system. Staff explained Arkansas’s long-term goals for proficiency, English learner progress, and graduation rates, and reported 2025 ATLAS proficiency results, which remained below the 80% goal across student groups. They also reviewed English learner progress, graduation rates, school support and improvement, and equitable access to educators. Data showed gaps by subgroup and by school poverty/minority concentration, with Title I and high-poverty schools more likely to have emergency/provisional teachers and less experienced staff. Members questioned the lack of recent data for some ESSA measures, including equity labs and school index calculations, and asked staff to follow up with the Department of Education. The committee also discussed NAEP results, ACT scores, and teacher quality measures under the state accountability act. Arkansas’s NAEP performance remained below national averages in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math, and ACT composite scores and benchmark attainment were also reviewed. Members asked for additional information on historical highs and lows, the number of assessments students take by grade, dropout data, and comparisons with other states. No formal votes were taken; the main action was agreement to request additional information from DESE and to schedule department follow-up at a future meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• project or special assessment in the future, for... ...and pledge it, basically, under a special project
• or special assessment in the future for debt service to show the borrower's basically ability to pay
• And also remember... ...special assessments. There is nothing in this bill that does that.
• There's nothing that prevents them from being able to impose a special assessment.
• But there are some things like special districts that don't have the ability to assess fees.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• The result will be larger special and emergency assessments that homeowners are unable to plan for.
• So they don't need a vote for a special assessment.
• They can levy a special assessment without a vote to cover the insurance premiums.
• a special assessment.
• going to a vote, but that special assessment is capped at 5%.

Summary: The committee heard presentations on several bills. SB 1091, by Senator Kavayetal, would create the Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation (CAP) program within HCD to provide financing and technical support for nonprofit and local efforts to acquire unsubsidized rental housing and preserve it as affordable housing or homeownership opportunities. Supporters, including Enterprise Community Partners, the Unity Council, and several housing and tenant groups, said preservation is a fast, cost-effective way to prevent displacement and homelessness. Members discussed funding, with the author and chair noting the program is intended to be funded through housing bond legislation and would be implemented upon appropriation. The bill was moved on a due-pass motion to Judiciary and passed out of committee. SB 904, by Senator Seyarto, would codify and expand the state’s coordinated wildfire recovery response by requiring HCD and other agencies to identify permitting and code barriers after future state-of-emergency wildfires and report on ways to speed rebuilding. The author cited the faster permitting response after the Los Angeles fires compared with the Camp Fire. Some members supported the goal but raised concerns about repeated reports and the burden on smaller jurisdictions; the author said the bill is meant to avoid reinventing the wheel and to streamline recovery. The committee noted the bill is fiscal and would go to Appropriations, and it was reported out with sufficient votes. SB 1007, by Senator Menjivar, would increase transparency and limit assessment growth in homeowners associations by requiring clearer disclosure of HOA finances and violation evidence, and by replacing the current 20% annual assessment increase ceiling with a cap tied to inflation, with possible amendments still under discussion. Supporters, including consumer and homeowner advocates, said the bill would help protect homeowners from steep fee hikes and opaque budgeting. Opponents from HOA management and industry groups argued the bill could undermine reserve funding, delay maintenance, and create more special assessments, while also adding duplicative disclosure requirements. Members debated whether the bill would protect homeowners without harming HOA finances; the author said he would continue negotiations and that the bill would look different in the next committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then regarding assessment, the state has to have an assessment, and it must contain at least three
• So with that, ATLAS assessments for grades 3 through 10 assess in three main subjects: English language
• So with that, Atlas Assessments for grades 3 through 10 assess in three main subjects, English language
• This is accomplished with the Atlas assessments that include summative assessments for students in grades
• Is that a difference in testing or a difference in assessment, or was there no change in assessment?

Summary: The committee received a lengthy Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas academic standards, accountability systems, and adequacy-related requirements. Staff reviewed the history of state curriculum and accreditation laws, the current standards for grades K-12, required high school units and graduation pathways, and recent changes such as career-ready pathways, embedded instruction requirements, and the distinction between courses required to be offered versus courses actually taken by students. Members asked for a chart comparing the 1997, 2003, 2015, 2017, and later law changes, and staff agreed to provide one. The presentation then turned to the federal ESSA plan and Arkansas’s state accountability system. Staff summarized ESSA requirements, Arkansas’s long-term goals for proficiency, English learner progress, and graduation rates, and recent data showing that 2025 proficiency rates remained well below the 80% goal, while English learner progress and graduation rates were also below long-term targets. The committee discussed school support and improvement, equitable access to educators, report cards, and the apparent lack of evidence that equity labs are currently being conducted. Members requested follow-up from the Department of Education on equity labs, report card data, and whether the ESSA plan can be changed. The presentation also covered state assessment results under the Arkansas Accountability Act, including ATLAS, DLM, ELPA 21, ACT, and NAEP data, along with teacher access measures and geographic shortage districts. Staff reported that Title I and high-poverty schools tend to have more emergency/provisional teachers and less experienced staff, and that shortage districts are concentrated in parts of the state. Members asked for additional information on test highs and lows, the number of assessments students take, dropout data, and whether higher teacher salaries have affected shortage areas. The committee also discussed district levels of support under the state accountability system, including the possibility of state intervention at the highest level of support.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform will now come to order.
• But that's due to the assessment cycle. I've seen that happen.
• And the way it runs is because of the assessment cycle.
• You basically start an assessment cycle in September.
• But it has to do with the assessment cycle. That was my question.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Keywords: 959, house, all