Transcript Highlights:

• Their appraised values went from 2 billion to 12 billion. 6 times an increase.
• What is the appraised value for all the properties in your area?
• , affect the property tax increase when like, let's say ordinary homeowners might.
• You know, be having to pay that same value increase that maybe large industry isn't having to.
• Y'all, these homes, these properties are now paying full property tax values as if they are rental income

Transcript Highlights:

• the value of an assessed property.
• property<00:12:49.680> tax increases the cost of property tax increases the cost of property
• to defend the value of an assessed<00:12:54.720> property.
• The fair and equitable value of a property is the cornerstone of the Minnesota property tax system.
• Um appraisal uh, value of a property?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if any of you have tracked the skyrocketing increase in vacation property rentals or values
• rentals<01:29:44.000> or increase in vacation property rentals or increase in vacation property
• <01:29:54.159> values<01:29:54.480> of even pass, the increased values of even pass
• c> control, valued property rights, local control, valued property rights, local control, and<01:
• What is the assessed value of your property? My property?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you want to turn that property into becomes the standard for determining value.
• the the standard for determining value. the the standard for determining value.
• turn that property or use that property turn that property or use that property for<00:01:41.600
• the owner of the other property without an unreasonable delay or increase in cost.
• the property owners. the property owners.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee discussed House Bill 353, a proposal to tighten eminent-domain procedures and property protections while still allowing public projects. Supporters said the bill would not prohibit condemnation, but would require proof that property is in blight, give owners notice and an opportunity to cure, require a reasonable plan and funding for the public use, and ensure the taking is limited to what is necessary. They argued this would protect good-faith property owners, prevent abandoned projects, and make the process more efficient for utilities and infrastructure by encouraging easements where possible instead of full takings. Much of the discussion focused on the proper measure of compensation and the broader constitutional limits on eminent domain. Several members argued that compensation should reflect current market value and that public benefit should not be treated as the standard for value. Others said market value can be unfair in cases involving unique property uses, damage to land, or public-private projects, and suggested owners should share in some upside. Members also raised concerns about Kelo v. City of New London, the risk of abuse by governments or large corporations, and the need to protect farmers and rural landowners from one-sided treatment. A number of legislators supported the concept but asked for more detail on how the bill would work in practice, whether it is based on model legislation from other states, and how it could be tailored to Kentucky. The bill sponsor said it was a modified model policy and was open to amendments to make it more Kentucky-specific. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So higher values will lead... ...is reduced by a district's property value growth.
• So higher values will lead to higher property tax relief.
• As property values increase, we're looking at another $3.5 billion, so we're already clocking in at what
• It was, and rising property values.
• value, property tax relief.

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee convened for its first hearing of the 89th regular session, confirmed a quorum, adopted committee rules by a 15-0 vote, and began review of Senate Bill 1, the state budget for fiscal years 2026-27. Chair Huffman outlined the committee’s organization, introduced staff, and described the budget as conservative and focused on one-time investments. She highlighted major SB 1 priorities including property tax relief, full funding for public education formulas, teacher pay, school safety, border security, Medicaid growth, dementia research, energy and water infrastructure, transportation, wildfire suppression, and other capital and public safety needs. Comptroller Glenn Hager presented the biennial revenue estimate, saying the state has $194.6 billion available for general-purpose spending in 2026-27, with a projected $23.8 billion ending balance from the current biennium. He cautioned that revenue growth is returning to more normal levels and that lawmakers should avoid committing short-term surpluses to ongoing expenses. He also explained that the Economic Stabilization Fund is projected to hit its constitutional cap, meaning an estimated $5.6 billion in severance tax and related revenue would remain in general revenue in the upcoming biennium rather than flow into the fund. Senators discussed whether to raise or rename the fund and the implications of keeping more severance-tax revenue in general revenue. The Legislative Budget Board then gave an overview of SB 1 and the budget’s major funding changes. LBB staff explained that the bill is essentially flat at $332.9 billion in all funds, but includes large method-of-finance shifts and major property tax relief. They detailed how prior property tax relief enacted in the 88th Legislature grew from an estimated $18 billion to $22.7 billion because of higher property values and hold-harmless provisions, and said SB 1 continues that relief with a total of $51 billion in ongoing and new property tax support. Members asked extensive questions about the automatic growth in school tax compression, the constitutional homestead exemption, COVID-era federal funding, Medicaid assumptions, and the sunset of the non-homestead circuit breaker. No additional votes or final budget actions were taken beyond adoption of the committee rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• These include surplus properties, tax title properties, underutilized properties, and other publicly
• So the value of land banks is to provide tools that really help us strategically redevelop properties
• increases.
• property value, how that happens.
• Somewhat of a follow-up for clarification: Is there a correlation, then, with the increase in the value

Summary: The committee met for work sessions on land banking/shared homeownership and on maximizing existing housing stock. Members first heard an overview from Commerce on alternative homeownership models, including community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, middle housing, church land for housing, and public land transfers. The discussion focused on how these models can help households build equity while keeping housing permanently affordable. Committee members asked about statewide counts of co-ops and land trusts, and Commerce said it does not track all of those entities directly. Pierce County staff then described the Pierce County Community Development Corporation’s rapid acquisition fund and its role in acquiring, holding, and transferring public land for affordable housing. They said the county used general fund and affordable housing sales tax dollars to buy properties, preserve a manufactured home park through resident ownership, and create a pipeline of sites for future development. Members asked about the advantages of a public development authority, funding sources, the use of surplus and underutilized public property, and how the model works with housing authorities. Spokane land bank staff followed with testimony that land banks can reduce blight, preserve affordability, and help nonprofits acquire land quickly, but that holding costs and taxes can make the work harder without state support. They also described brownfield assessments, donated properties, and work on Black homeownership and public surplus properties. The committee then heard from the Northwest Cooperative Development Center on limited equity cooperatives, especially in manufactured housing communities. The witness said Washington now has about 43 limited equity co-ops and that recent subsidy funding and legislation have accelerated resident purchases of manufactured home communities. Members asked how residents benefit from capped equity, how values are affected, and whether the model improves access to lending; the witness said the model stabilizes costs, allows modest equity gains, and that a recent law allowing manufactured homes in co-ops to be titled as real property should improve access to traditional financing. The committee also discussed House Bill 1974 from the prior session and possible updates to land banking legislation. In the second work session on maximizing existing housing stock, Commerce reviewed recent housing laws and implementation timelines, including ADUs, middle housing, condo liability reform, SEPA changes, tiny homes, and co-living. Members raised concerns about the long implementation horizon, vacancy data, corporate ownership of homes, and the need for better support for small landlords and first-time ADU owners. Sightline then testified on mobile dwelling units, arguing that RVs, tiny houses on wheels, and similar units are a low-cost, quick-to-install housing option that is often blocked by zoning; the witness said many Washington residents already live in these units, often informally. Finally, AARP discussed housing options for older adults, including ADUs, missing middle, manufactured home communities, co-living, universal design, and village-style support models, emphasizing aging in place and the need for more accessible, affordable housing choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, well, the value of the land is wrapped up in the value of the property.
• the value of the property.
• The property, their property right, is based on the property sitting on top of the land.
• So, yeah, it’s, you know, the problem with the argument is that the leasehold property value is actually
• “But transferring the property value of the leasehold to the tenant is entirely inappropriate from our

Summary: The committee heard AB 736, a proposed $10 billion Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, with Assembly Member Buffy Wicks and numerous housing, local government, labor, and advocacy groups testifying in strong support. Supporters said the bond would fund multifamily housing, permanent supportive housing, homeownership, preservation, farmworker, tribal, and other programs, and argued that the state needs new capital because prior bond funds are exhausted and many shovel-ready projects are waiting. Habitat for Humanity California opposed the bill unless it was amended to dedicate 10% of bond proceeds to Cal Home for affordable homeownership, and several senators said they supported the bond but wanted Cal Home strengthened. The committee voted do pass to Senate Appropriations, with the measure placed on call for absent members. The committee also heard SB 1361 by Senator Durazo, which would limit local governments from using SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements as a reason to stall or condition planned transit projects. Los Angeles Metro, the Building Trades, and several cities and advocacy groups supported the bill, saying it would protect transit investments, jobs, and federal funding from opposition tied to future density around transit stops. Several groups that had initially opposed or been concerned about the bill, including West Hollywood, Streets for All, Greenbelt Alliance, California YIMBY, and the Bay Area Council, withdrew opposition or moved to neutral after amendments. The committee approved the bill as amended to Senate Local Government, with the measure also placed on call. Senator Grayson presented SB 1003, creating an Infrastructure Partnership Financing Program to help local governments and developers fund infrastructure needed for infill housing, and SB 1014, which would require local agencies to provide early, good-faith estimates and itemized lists of required on-site and off-site improvements for housing projects. Both bills were supported by housing advocates, Habitat for Humanity, SPUR, and industry groups, who said the measures would reduce uncertainty, late fees, and project delays. The committee advanced both bills as amended to Senate Appropriations, placing them on call. The committee also took up SB 908, which streamlines energy-code-compliant window replacement and limits aesthetic review, especially for residential replacements; it passed as amended to Appropriations after support from affordable housing and green building groups and no opposition. Later, Senator Allen presented SB 1092 and SB 1093 on mobile home park preservation and post-disaster protections. SB 1092 would give residents notice and an opportunity to make a competing bid when a park owner intends to sell, with supporters arguing it would help preserve unsubsidized affordable housing and protect displaced residents, while park owner representatives argued it would devalue properties, create litigation risk, and interfere with market transactions. SB 1093 would require more communication, access, and consideration of rebuilding or closure after disasters, and would restore certain resident reimbursement rights; supporters cited the Palisades fire and survey data showing residents lacked information and access, while opponents said the bill imposed onerous timelines, liability issues, and penalties and could force owners into rebuilding or compensation assumptions they disputed. Both bills were discussed at length, but the transcript ends before final recorded votes on them.

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:59:06.720> rates<00:59:07.079> and property values and the tax rates and property
• of properties in the assessed values of properties in every<00:59:51.599> town<00:59:52.599><
• When you're increasing swept, it's based on your share of the state's property values.
• :14:38.760> so share of the state's property values so share of the state's property values so
• values sway from one component to another that affects the market value of property in the town.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on school funding formulas, adequacy aid, and special education aid, with the chair outlining a schedule for the next several Tuesdays and noting that the committee would likely need multiple executive sessions to narrow down the bills. Members discussed the FY 26 formula, including base cost, differentiated aid, extraordinary needs grants, hold harmless provisions, and the roughly $28 million in excess statewide education property tax (SWP) funds that are not currently returned to the state under the existing formula. The first bill discussed was HB 137, which would allow excess SWP funds to remain with the local municipality for school and municipal purposes. Representative Spilsbury argued the issue is fundamental and suggested the state should require excess funds to be remitted back to the state, while Representative Damon said the bill appears to codify current practice and may be unnecessary, especially given possible court action. The discussion then shifted to a related bill from Representative Fellas that would redefine SWP as local money rather than state money and keep the current adequacy aid numbers revenue-neutral for now. Representative Fellas explained that SWP was created in 1999 after the Claremont lawsuit as part of the state’s effort to show increased school aid, but that it effectively labeled part of the local property tax as state money without changing property tax bills. She argued the state should not be tapping local property tax revenue and said her bill would preserve the current distribution while removing the SWP tax label, with future work possible on a different measure of local capacity such as income, home values, or poverty rate. Members also referenced prior discussions of fiscal capacity aid, relief aid, and other formula changes as part of the broader effort to restructure school funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2023 through 2024, CPI increased by 3.3%, and property tax collections increased by 13.9%.
• We have captured the value of property increases over the years, and that is how we have paid for inflation
• Interesting to note is that our fiscal year '27 property value is only estimated to increase a little
• And incomes, property values, yes, they have increased.
• And incomes, property values, yes, they have increased. But this would be devastating.

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:

• <00:37:50.320> value,<00:37:50.960> particularly for that increased value, particularly
• for that increased value, particularly in<00:37:51.680> northern<00:37:51.920> and<00:
• and how this on the Lakeshore value and how this valuable<00:45:17.599> property<00:45:18.160
• uh in lie of property taxes and increasing<00:51:18.319> pill<00:51:18.640> payments,<
• <01:10:07.199> property<01:10:07.520> tax inspections and increased property tax inspections

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The seasonal recreational properties are not in the tax space for what we call referendum market value
• The seasonal recreational properties are not in the tax space for what we call referendum market value
• "The seasonal recreational properties are not in the tax space for what we call referendum market value
• The seasonal recreational properties are not in the tax space for what we call referendum market value
• values increase over time, but $120 million in the first year will be the appropriation cost.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• strain property values Place additional strain property values Place additional strain on<00:
• tax reducing property values and shift tax reducing property values and shift tax burdens<00:09:
• housing supply, increase the value of our downtown buildings and the downtown tax base, and increase
• values rise tax with activity property values rise tax revenues<00:12:01.600> grow<00:12:02.200
• <00:18:39.840> values<00:18:40.159> are as as these downtown property values are as

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• the tax burden of some property owners in our state over others. increase in our overall property tax
• Increasing SWEPT means increasing property taxes for everybody and reducing state aid.
• /c><04:38:33.199> everybody increasing property taxes for everybody increasing property taxes
• properties up to current market value properties up to current market value the<04:39:05.039>
• to their property greatest increases to their property taxes<04:42:10.560> in<04:42:10.798>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• on January 1st is the market value of the property.
• If the owner purchases the property, the purchase price of the property is considered the market value
• Increases in that appraised value of the property for subsequent tax years based on the inflation rate
• on January 1st is the market value of the property.
• This proposal aims to limit the increases of the appraised value of the property for subsequent tax years

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if any of you have tracked the skyrocketing increase in vacation property rentals or values
• on the assessed value of the property. on the assessed value of the property.
• What is the assessed value of your property? My property?
• And this would work to limit what the value of that property is.
• :26:46.000> you<02:26:46.160> can preserve property values or you can preserve property

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1596, which would raise New Hampshire’s cigarette excise tax from $1.78 per pack to about $2.80, using an inflation-based adjustment since the rate was last set in 2008. Representative Jerry Stringham, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure would keep New Hampshire competitive with neighboring states, generate revenue, and help offset other budget pressures. He also described the bill as repealing an income-based premium charge in Medicaid/CHIP-related programs and restoring cuts to the University System of New Hampshire, arguing that the combined package would still leave the state in a positive fiscal position. He said the tobacco tax increase would likely have some cessation effect but would remain low relative to other New England states, and he cited prior testimony from health groups supporting a larger increase. Members questioned the sponsor about how the new rate was calculated, the prior tobacco tax reduction and restoration, whether tobacco companies would absorb or pass on the tax, and the fiscal note’s estimates for Medicaid premium revenue and UNH funding. Stringham said he used Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation data, that the earlier 10-cent reduction did not produce the expected sales increase, and that the current bill would eliminate the premium charges now in the budget. He later clarified that the Department of Medicaid Services had updated the revenue estimate, but said the bill still showed a surplus overall. He also said the federal government already imposes a $1-per-pack tax and that New Hampshire would remain below neighboring states even after the increase. Two public witnesses testified in opposition to the tax increase. Anna Bettincourt, a tobacco category manager, argued that higher tobacco taxes would unfairly target smokers, reduce New Hampshire’s tax advantage, and likely shift purchases to other states or illicit markets rather than reduce use. She said tobacco companies generally do not lower prices and that Massachusetts’ flavor restrictions had not eliminated sales. In response to questions, she maintained that a smaller increase would still be harmful and that enforcement problems make bans ineffective. The sponsor and some members countered that smokers impose higher health costs and that tobacco taxes are a policy tool for both revenue and public health. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• if your just value of the property had either stayed the same or decreased.
• Their property value had decreased, for example in their condos for $40,000, but because there was a
• spread between their property value and their assessed value, their assessed value increased so their
• So that when your property value is higher and it is decreasing or remaining the same in a three year
• This HJR modernizes property tax assessments by slowing the rapid increases while fully protecting school

Transcript Highlights:

• and the many individuals who testified on this resolution and what was once a bill, on trying to increase
• was once a bill um um um on<00:39:16.400> trying<00:39:16.880> to<00:39:17.040> increase
• data<00:39:18.080> and<00:39:18.320> access<00:39:18.920> to on trying to increase
• data and access to on trying to increase data and access to arts<00:39:19.320> education.

Bills: SB3136, SB2521, SB2851, SB3154, SB3262, SB2387, SB3001, SB2818, SB2972, SB2372, SB2108, SB888, SB3320, SB2798, SB2110, SB3007, SB2615, SB2095, SB2101, SB3138, SB2756, SB3229, SB2969, SB3286, SB3238, SB2557, SB3140, SB2014, SB3097, SB3096, SB3069, SB99, SB2930, SB2268, SB2543, SB3022, SB3109, SB3215, SB3152, SB3156, SB3234, SB3053, SB3067, SB2673, SB411, SB2041, SB2919, SB2532, SB2152, SB2721, SB2446, SB2601, SB2239, SB2804, SB3324, SB2802, SB2577, SB2320, SB2706, SB2595, SB2781, SB2961, SB2433, SB2657, SB2340, SB3045, SB3203, SB2861, SB3245, SB2803, SB3204, SB3025, SB2138, SB2645, SB3082, SB2109, SB2261, SB3332, SB2811, SB2567, SB2125, SB2866, SB83, SB874, SB2386, SB3137, SB3132, SB2175, SB2272, SB2271, SB847, SB3302, SB2089, SB2102, SB2050, SB2694, SB2487, SB2061, SB709, SB3083, SB2151, SB2852, SB2471, SB2568, SB2253, SB2697, SB2429, SB2929, SB3032, SB2057, SB148, SB2353, SB2075, SB2907, SB2074, SB3219, SB3218, SB2367, SB3048, SB17, SB3253, SB2376, SB3103, SB2999, SB3255, SB1166, SB3157, SB2698, SB3029, SB2146, SB2470, SB3040, SB3076, SB2575, SB3294, SB2438, SB2530, SB2688

Keywords: lead-free, lead in drinking water, drinking water, water infrastructure, public water system, plumbing, pipe fittings, solder, flux, fixtures, cast iron pipe repair, nonpotable water, Safe Drinking Water Act, Department of Health, water quality, lead exposure, lead contamination, water utilities, backflow preventer, fire hydrant

Bills: SB3136, SB2521, SB2851, SB3154, SB3262, SB2387, SB3001, SB2818, SB2972, SB2372, SB2108, SB888, SB3320, SB2798, SB2110, SB3007, SB2615, SB2095, SB2101, SB3138, SB2756, SB3229, SB2969, SB3286, SB3238, SB2557, SB3140, SB2014, SB3097, SB3096, SB3069, SB99, SB2930, SB2268, SB2543, SB3022, SB3109, SB3215, SB3152, SB3156, SB3234, SB3053, SB3067, SB2673, SB411, SB2041, SB2919, SB2532, SB2152, SB2721, SB2446, SB2601, SB2239, SB2804, SB3324, SB2802, SB2577, SB2320, SB2706, SB2595, SB2781, SB2961, SB2433, SB2657, SB2340, SB3045, SB3203, SB2861, SB3245, SB2803, SB3204, SB3025, SB2138, SB2645, SB3082, SB2109, SB2261, SB3332, SB2811, SB2567, SB2125, SB2866, SB83, SB874, SB2386, SB3137, SB3132, SB2175, SB2272, SB2271, SB847, SB3302, SB2089, SB2102, SB2050, SB2694, SB2487, SB2061, SB709, SB3083, SB2151, SB2852, SB2471, SB2568, SB2253, SB2697, SB2429, SB2929, SB3032, SB2057, SB148, SB2353, SB2075, SB2907, SB2074, SB3219, SB3218, SB2367, SB3048, SB17, SB3253, SB2376, SB3103, SB2999, SB3255, SB1166, SB3157, SB2698, SB3029, SB2146, SB2470, SB3040, SB3076, SB2575, SB3294, SB2438, SB2530, SB2688

Keywords: lead-free, lead in drinking water, drinking water, water infrastructure, public water system, plumbing, pipe fittings, solder, flux, fixtures, cast iron pipe repair, nonpotable water, Safe Drinking Water Act, Department of Health, water quality, lead exposure, lead contamination, water utilities, backflow preventer, fire hydrant

Transcript Highlights:

• So higher values will lead to higher property tax relief.
• As property values increase, we're looking at another $3.5 billion, so we're already clocking in at what
• It was, and rising property values.
• value, property tax relief.
• value, property tax relief.

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee held its first hearing of the 89th regular session, adopted nearly identical committee rules from the previous legislature by a 15-0 vote, and began review of Senate Bill 1, the state budget for fiscal years 2026-27. Chair Huffman outlined the budget framework, emphasizing conservative spending, a $332.9 billion all-funds budget, and major priorities including property tax relief, public education, border security, health and human services, transportation, energy, and water infrastructure. She also introduced committee and leadership staff and described the hearing schedule and public testimony procedures. Comptroller Glenn Hager presented the biennial revenue estimate, saying the state has $194.6 billion available for general-purpose spending, including a $23.8 billion ending balance, but warned that revenue growth is returning to more normal levels and that lawmakers should avoid using temporary spikes for ongoing commitments. Senators questioned him extensively about the Economic Stabilization Fund cap, sales tax trends, inflation, and whether the state should consider raising the cap or using severance-tax revenues differently. Hager said the Rainy Day Fund is expected to hit its cap, which would leave more severance-tax revenue in general revenue, and he stressed that infrastructure needs remain significant. The Legislative Budget Board then gave a detailed overview of SB 1 and the budget’s major components. LBB staff explained that the bill includes continued funding for the Foundation School Program, $850 million for the Texas State Technical College endowment, $1.3 billion for the Texas University Fund, $6.5 billion for border security, salary increases for correctional officers and state troopers, $3 billion for dementia research, higher community attendant wages, expanded community-based care, $5 billion for the Texas Energy Fund, and funding to clear volunteer fire department grant backlogs. They also outlined supplemental priorities such as water infrastructure, retirement legacy payments, rail grade separations, wildfire aircraft, and emergency facilities, and said the current controlling budget limit is the tax spending limit. A major portion of the hearing focused on property tax relief. LBB explained that prior-session relief grew from an expected $18 billion to $22.7 billion because of higher-than-anticipated property values and interactions among hold-harmless provisions, and that SB 1 continues and expands relief with $51 billion in total property tax relief, including $3 billion more for compression, $3 billion to raise the homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000, and a $500 million placeholder for business tax relief. Senators discussed the automatic nature of some of these costs, the effect of the non-homestead circuit breaker, the role of federal COVID funds, and the need to maintain school finance commitments if the state continues to compress school tax rates.

Transcript Highlights:

• the property on January 1st is the market value of the property and that if the owner purchased the
• property, the purchase price of the property is considered by to be the market value of the property
• for that tax year and to limit increases in that appraised value of the property for subsequent tax years
• price of the property is considered to be the market value of the property for that tax year and to
• limit the increases of the appraised value of the property for subsequent tax years based on inflation