Bills: SB2901, SB2902, SB2903, SB2904, SB2905, SB2906, SB2907, SB2908, SB2909, SB2910, SB2911, SB2912, SB2913, SB2914, SB2915, SB2916, SB2917, SB2918, SB2919, SB2920, SB2921, SB2922, SB2923, SB2924, SB2925, SB2926, SB2927, SB2928, SB2929, SB2930, SB2931, SB2932, SB2933, SB2934, SB2935, SB2936, SB2937, SB2938, SB2939, SB2940, SB2941, SB2942, SB2943, SB2944, SB2945, SB2946, SB2947, SB2948, SB2949, SB2950, SB2951, SB2952, SB2953, SB2954, SB2955, SB2956, SB2957, SB2958, SB2959, SB2960, SB2961, SB2962, SB2963, SB2964, SB2965, SB2966, SB2967, SB2968, SB2969, SB2970, SB2971, SB2972, SB2973, SB2974, SB2975, SB2976, SB2977, SB2978, SB2979, SB2980, SB2981, SB2982, SB2983, SB2984, SB2985, SB2986, SB2987, SB2988, SB2989, SB2990, SB2991, SB2992, SB2993, SB2994, SB2995, SB2996, SB2997, SB2998, SB2999, SB3000

Keywords: geological subsurface characterization, groundwater, geothermal resources, environmental review, Hawaii groundwater and geothermal resources center, scientific research, non-extractive, public trust doctrine, clean energy, greenhouse gas, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy policy, Hawaii state energy office, emissions reduction, sustainable development, fare-free transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, public transit, tax on petroleum

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for that question; it covers the northern part of Roger Mills County into the far west side
• of Dewey County, up into Ellis County.
• This is to humbly acknowledge as my good friend from Cherokee County pointed out to me that John Wayne

Bills: HB4319, HB4317, HB1225, HB3076, HB3081, HB4226, SCR17, HB4432, HB3304, HB3411, HB3435, HB4339, HB4331, HB4341, HB4342, HB1770, HB1016, HB4113, HB2950, HB4141, HB3277, HB2988, HB3029, HB3338, HB1889, HB3834, HB3831, HB2939, HB3045, HB3657, HB1739, HB3759, HB3755, HB4484, HB4486, HB4108, HB1250, HB2961, HB1219, HB3025, HB1782, HB1907, HB3718, HB4459, HB2976, HB3548, HB3545, HB2952, HB2929, HB2956, HB2973, HB3055, HB3086, HB3040, HB3794, HB4336, HB3151, HB1590, HB3581, HB3313, HB3429, HB3448, HB1752, HB2650, HB3584, HB4202, HB3586, HB4321, HB4280, HB3650, HCR1020, HB2116, HB2206, HB4301, HB3625, HB3147, HB3403, HB3498, HB3970, HB3975, HB3976, HB3980, HB4265, HB4266, HB3638, HB3880, HB3930, HB3942, HB3944, HB4191, HB3242, HB3678

Keywords: administrative procedures, rulemaking authority, specific authority, legislative review, agency rules, accounting, CPA, licensure, educational requirements, reciprocity, professional conduct, vital records, birth certificate, birth registration, biological sex, sex designation, male, female, nonbinary, gender identity

Transcript Highlights:

• south gallery and if they would stand I'm proud to have with us today the hardest working group of county
• elected officials in the state of Oklahoma from Osage County.
• Council county a declare the vote. 90 in favor, 0 against.

Bills: HB4319, HB4317, HB1225, HB3076, HB3081, HB4226, SCR17, HB4432, HB3304, HB3411, HB3435, HB4339, HB4331, HB4341, HB4342, HB1770, HB1016, HB4113, HB2950, HB4141, HB3277, HB2988, HB3029, HB3338, HB1889, HB3834, HB3831, HB2939, HB3045, HB3657, HB1739, HB3759, HB3755, HB4484, HB4486, HB4108, HB1250, HB2961, HB1219, HB3025, HB1782, HB1907, HB3718, HB4459, HB2976, HB3548, HB3545, HB2952, HB2929, HB2956, HB2973, HB3055, HB3086, HB3040, HB3794, HB4336, HB3151, HB1590, HB3581, HB3313, HB3429, HB3448, HB1752, HB2650, HB3584, HB4202, HB3586, HB4321, HB4280, HB3650, HCR1020, HB2116, HB2206, HB4301, HB3625, HB3147, HB3403, HB3498, HB3970, HB3975, HB3976, HB3980, HB4265, HB4266, HB3638, HB3880, HB3930, HB3942, HB3944, HB4191, HB3242, HB3678

Keywords: administrative procedures, rulemaking authority, specific authority, legislative review, agency rules, accounting, CPA, licensure, educational requirements, reciprocity, professional conduct, vital records, birth certificate, birth registration, biological sex, sex designation, male, female, nonbinary, gender identity

Transcript Highlights:

• For charter counties—so we have 20 charter counties in the state.
• County, Becky Troutman of Polk County, and Carolyn Spooner of Bradford County, who is appearing with
• Madison County is a small, Madison County is a small, fiscally constrained county, population 18,000
• end of the county.
• Madison County is working great for their county.

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss Florida county commission districting options, with an overview from Ginger Delagall of the Florida Association of Counties. She explained the constitutional, statutory, local charter, and federal Voting Rights Act framework governing county commissions, including the default five-member at-large model for non-charter counties, the option for seven-member mixed boards with a referendum, and the broader flexibility available to charter counties, which can choose different board sizes, election methods, and term limits. She also described the current distribution of county structures across the state and noted a few counties in transition or litigation, including Orange, Lee, and Alachua. County commissioners from Bay, Madison, Pinellas, Polk, and Bradford counties testified about how their current systems work in practice. Commissioners from Bay and Polk defended at-large systems as promoting countywide accountability, broader perspective, and collaboration, especially in large or diverse counties. Commissioners from Madison and Bradford supported single-member districts as improving local access, clarity, and responsiveness, particularly in smaller rural counties. Pinellas Commissioner Dave Eggers described a mixed system in a large charter county and said it balances district-level responsiveness with countywide accountability. Several members asked about Orange County’s mayor-chair structure, the effects of single-member versus at-large representation, and whether counties had considered changing their systems. In questions and discussion, members raised concerns about accountability, representation, gerrymandering, countywide versus district-specific interests, and whether certain structures better serve rural or urban counties. Delagall said the association had not done cost or equity studies comparing systems. The panel repeatedly emphasized home rule and local choice, with commissioners and Delagall urging the Legislature to let counties and their voters decide their own form of government. No votes were taken on any bill or proposal, and the meeting ended with adjournment after the presentations and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just think today, when you think of the county family, a county budget, this is what's in the county
• Just think today, when you think of the county family, a county budget, this is what's in the county
• Just think today, when you think of the county family, a county budget, this is what's in the county
• Just think today, when you think of the county family, a county budget, this is what's in the county
• the county.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met to review how county budgets are developed and how constitutional officers fit into that process. Davin Suggs of the Florida Association of Counties gave an overview of county budgeting, explaining the statutory framework, the role of property taxes and TRIM notices, the fiscal-year timeline, fund balances and reserves, and the Department of Revenue’s oversight. He emphasized that county budgets include the board’s budget plus the budgets of constitutional officers, and that relationships and communication are critical to resolving budget issues. A panel of constitutional officers then described their offices’ budget processes and responsibilities: Escambia County Sheriff Chip Simmons discussed law enforcement budgeting and the importance of negotiated agreements with county commissions; Alachua County Property Appraiser Aisha Solomon explained the June 1 budget deadline, valuation methods, and the appeal process for property assessments; Manatee County Clerk and Comptroller Angelina Coleniso outlined the clerk’s court and finance duties, the county-side budget process, and the clerk’s personal liability under section 129.09 for unlawful expenditures; Leon County Supervisor of Elections Mark Early described the cyclical nature of election costs, staffing, equipment, and the impact of turnout and election law changes; and Columbia County Tax Collector Kyle Keene explained that tax collectors’ budgets are reviewed by the Department of Revenue, with fee offices funding themselves through service charges and budget offices relying on county support. Members asked about personal liability for unlawful spending, conflicts between clerks and county commissions, property valuation and storm damage adjustments, reserve levels, and whether tax collectors can retain excess fees. Responses noted that clerks must refuse illegal expenditures, property appraisers use market-based assessments with VAB and court review available, counties should maintain healthy fund balances for cash flow and emergencies, and tax collectors generally must zero out year-end balances and distribute excess revenues to taxing authorities. The committee took no votes and adjourned after thanking the panelists for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• the Algo County.
• , the larger counties, such as Harris County, Tarrant, Representative Muñoz, a lot of the counties, the
• larger counties, such as Harris County, Tarrant County, Travis County.
• of Nueces County?
• I'm a county commissioner in Johnson County.

Bills: HB240

Keywords: tax exemption, farm products, ad valorem taxation, tax code, producer ownership

Summary: The subcommittee heard a series of county and regional government bills, with most measures left pending after testimony. HB 2097 would let counties that opt in give sheriff’s deputies an alternative appeal route for certain discipline cases through an independent hearing examiner instead of the Civil Service Commission. The author and a CLEET witness said it would be faster, cheaper, and fairer; questions focused on why the bill was needed and whether sheriffs could already use such a process. No opposition testified, and the bill was left pending. HB 4642 drew extensive testimony after the author said it was prompted by a death involving an out-of-state jail contract. The bill would require counties contracting with out-of-state jail facilities to include Texas-like jail standards and oversight provisions. The author, a former detainee held in Louisiana, his wife, and a Texas Jail Project advocate described poor conditions, lack of accountability, and multiple deaths of Texans housed out of state. The Texas Commission on Jail Standards director said five counties are currently housing 1,251 Texas inmates out of state, mostly because of staffing shortages, and said the bill would give the commission more authority and oversight. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard HB 4350, which would allow peace officers to request redaction of personal information from online real property records. Supporters said officers face retaliation risks and should have protections similar to judges and other officials; a title industry witness cautioned that redaction should not compromise the integrity of land records. The bill was left pending. HB 3687 would require county fire marshals in counties over 100,000 to meet specified training and certification standards, and HB 4105 and HB 4205 would give Harris County preferences in construction contracting and require pay parity for comparable law enforcement ranks within the county, respectively; all drew support from county officials and were left pending. HB 5403 would repeal a special rule requiring Dallas and Tarrant county sheriffs to get commissioners court approval for commissary disbursements, and it was also left pending. Later, HB 4462 would let elected county officials in large counties choose outside counsel in civil cases involving them, rather than relying solely on the county attorney. Supporters argued this would reduce conflicts of interest and protect officials’ reputations; questions centered on who qualifies and whether it could conflict with county interests. Finally, HB 240 would restore a five-member quorum requirement for Harris County tax levies, effectively requiring all commissioners to be present before a new tax rate can be adopted; supporters framed it as a taxpayer protection, while the Conference of Urban Counties opposed it as giving one member a de facto veto and potentially disrupting the budget process. Both bills were left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• County.
• county government. county government.
• ><02:20:10.240> gets county, the county administrator gets county, the county administrator gets
• You had stated that county, county, county, state<03:08:00.399> and<03:08:00.720> county
• county bill or a county commission. county bill or a county commission.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Breenriidge County in this case. Breenriidge County in this case.
• Pad Elmore, Harden County Corner. Pad Elmore, Harden County Corner.
• County Corner. County Corner.
• of the county. of the county.
• consistent across every county? consistent across every county?

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Mateo County and Santa Clara County opted in.
• County and into the city and county of San Francisco.
• Santa Clara County and Alameda County are bigger counties that pay a lot of sales tax.
• And then San Mateo County opted in, Santa Clara County opted in.
• And then San Mateo County opted in, Santa Clara County opted in.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard SB 63 by Senator Wiener, as amended and coauthored by Senator Arreguín, a Bay Area transit funding measure intended to avert major service cuts at BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit. The authors said the region faces a fiscal cliff and that without new revenue, BART could collapse and other systems could face severe reductions. They described the bill as the product of extensive negotiations among the five Bay Area counties and transit operators, with San Mateo and Santa Clara counties opting in during the process. Much of the discussion focused on accountability and governance. Supporters said the bill includes some of the strongest oversight provisions in recent memory, including a third-party efficiency review and ad hoc adjudication committees that can withhold a portion of funding if operators fail to correct problems. Assembly Member Papin and Assembly Member Lackey argued the measure amounts to a taxpayer bailout with insufficient representation and too much control left to MTC, while the authors responded that the bill gives affected counties direct complaint and enforcement authority and that MTC must follow the ad hoc committees’ recommendations. Several members asked about complaint procedures, withholding thresholds, opt-in/opt-out issues, and whether the funding would return to the source counties if withheld. Testimony in support came from SPUR, Caltrain, MTC, the Bay Area Council, BART, SamTrans, VTA, San Francisco MTA, transit coalitions, environmental groups, local governments, and labor. Supporters emphasized the risk of severe service cuts, the importance of preserving recent investments such as Caltrain electrification, and the need for regional self-help. There was no registered opposition witness, though some members spoke against the bill. The committee ultimately voted 11-5 to pass SB 63 as amended to the floor, with the committee amendments also removing urgency language.

Transcript Highlights:

• County Hospital Board.
• At 1.2, I think it's four counties, maybe five counties. Okay. All right.
• Harris County is not a defunding county right now. Just didn't pursue it.
• county.
• The other counties I believe are Harris County, Tarrant County, Dallas County, Bexar County, Hidalgo

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the county.
• Burleigh County does. Stutsman County does.
• Burley County does. Stetsman County does.
• Association of counties, every county is a member, correct?
• their county.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met with a quorum to begin its study of whether the content of North Dakota real estate tax statements should be revised to improve transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the background for the study, including House Bill 1176, current statutory requirements for tax statements, and recent changes such as separate line items for bonded debt, primary residence credit, and legacy fund-related amounts. The Tax Department then explained the current statement format and noted that the form is prescribed and approved by the tax commissioner, with changes typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual process for preparing budgets, setting levies, calculating taxable values, and issuing notices and tax statements. They said counties spend significant time coordinating with taxing districts, neighboring counties, and software vendors, and that the new budget hearing notices and valuation notices have not generated much public response. Members raised concerns about the usefulness and clarity of certain line items, especially the legislative tax relief calculation and the primary residence credit, and discussed whether the current statement creates confusion rather than transparency. Testimony also addressed the 3% cap, mill levy worksheets, assessment cycles, and the role of county auditors and tax directors in maintaining accurate values. The committee also heard from software vendors CPT and Tyler Technologies about how legislative changes are programmed into tax systems and how online taxpayer portals can provide more detailed breakdowns of tax bills. Vendors said changes required by law are generally absorbed in contracts rather than billed directly to counties, and they demonstrated web tools and pie-chart style breakdowns that show where tax dollars go. NDACO presented a survey of eight counties estimating tax statement preparation and mailing costs, concluding that outsourced printing tends to be cheaper on average and that total statewide tax statement costs may be roughly $600,000, though the estimate was based on limited data. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll now turn it over to county leaders, starting with Commissioner Jenny Mojo from Clay County.
• I'll now turn it over to county leaders, starting with Commissioner Jenny Mojo from Clay County.
• I'm a county commissioner from Clay County.
• 37.960> you commissioner from Clay County thank you commissioner from Clay County thank you for
• Part of that, I was a child protection prosecutor for Hennepin County and then Carlton County.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• People don't wanna be cops in Harris County. They're going to other counties. Thank you.
• At 1.2, I think it's, 4 counties, maybe 5 counties. OK.
• is not a defunding county.
• Harris County Precinct. I mean, all right, Harris County Precinct 3 Constable's office.
• The other counties, I believe, are Harris County, Tarrant County, Dallas County, Bear County.

Transcript Highlights:

• counties?
• county jail.
• We have one ESD in our county, our county to the south, Williamson County. which I think has, I don't
• Travis County or Hayes County doesn't work in Mason County, Palmer County, or Cherokee County.
• County.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• close a county jail. close a county jail.
• a core responsibility of county a core responsibility of county governments.<00:13:52.480> Counties
• . counties. counties.
• total county inmates. total county inmates.
• . counties. counties.

Keywords: Reupload to restore attendance roll call Roll Call 00:00:00 Approval of Minutes from September Meeting 00:00:24 Presentation of the Kentucky Association of Counties Legislative Platform for the Upcoming 2026 Session 00:01:48 Discussion of Legislation Concerning Firefighter Death Benefits 00:35:43 Discussion of DNA Collection in Jails for Felony Arrests 00:45:52 Discussion of Federal Immigration Law Enforcement 00:54:18 Adjournment 01:15:39, 958, all

Summary: The committee met for its sixth meeting, established a quorum, and approved the minutes from the October 21 meeting. The main agenda item was a presentation from Kentucky Association of Counties (KACo) leaders and county officials on jail funding and jail-system reform. Speakers said county jail costs have reached crisis levels, citing large and rising general-fund subsidies in counties such as Hardin, McCracken, and Warren, and noting that county general-fund contributions to jail funds have increased by 76% since 2019. KACo outlined a three-part legislative approach for the upcoming session: incentivizing regional jails, clarifying responsibility for pre-trial felony detainees, and redefining the model for housing state inmates in county jails. On regional jails, they proposed one-time state construction funding, statutory changes to allow former county jails to serve as 96-hour holdover facilities, broader participation of jailers on regional jail authority boards, an increased supplement for closed county jails, and a one-time payment for counties that close local jails and join regional facilities. Union County Judge Adam Onan described his county’s savings from contracting with Webster County and said regionalization can reduce costs where feasible. Harlan County Judge Executive Dan Mosley focused on pre-trial felony detainees, saying counties bear the full cost of housing people awaiting trial for long periods, sometimes years, and that pre-trial time is later credited toward state sentences. He argued the state benefits from that credit and referenced prior bills that would have reimbursed counties for time-served credit. Shelley Hampton then proposed replacing the current per diem model for state inmates with contracts requiring the Department of Corrections to pay actual housing costs and to support programming such as substance abuse treatment, cognitive behavioral programming, re-entry services, workforce training, and academics. No votes were taken on the jail proposals, and the meeting ended with the presentation and discussion of the county recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• counties, all counties across the state.
• We have one ESD, uh, in our county, unlike our county to the south, Williamson County, uh, which I think
• For um My county and other counties to, uh, corporate the, the county government and state government
• And what works in Harris County, Travis County, or Hayes County doesn't work in Mason County, Palmer
• County, or Cherokee County.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of counties.
• the county.
• for the county.
• Burleigh County does. Stutsman County does.
• their county.

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met to begin its study of the feasibility and desirability of revising the content of the real estate tax statement to improve property tax transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the study directive under House Bill 1176 and the statutory requirements for tax statements, including required line items such as true and full value, mill levy, legislative tax relief, primary residence credit, and the Legacy Fund portion of that credit. The Tax Department then explained how the current uniform statement is prescribed and approved, and noted that changes are typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual tax cycle, from county budgeting and valuation notices to budget hearing notices, levy certification, cap calculations, and final tax statement mailing. They emphasized that counties and auditors do extensive coordination with taxing districts and neighboring counties, and that the process is labor-intensive and often manual. Members discussed the limited public response to budget notices and tax statements, the difficulty of explaining the legislative tax relief line, the 3% cap and valuation issues, and whether more frequent assessments or different timing would improve understanding. Several members and witnesses noted that many taxpayers only engage when they receive their final bill, and that clarity may be more important than adding more detail. NDACO also presented a rough cost survey from eight counties, estimating an average tax statement cost of about 74 cents and a statewide total near $600,000 for printing and mailing tax statements alone, with outsourcing generally cheaper than in-house printing. Witnesses noted that House Bill 1176 added other mailings and notices, increasing county workload and cost beyond the statement itself. The committee then heard from software vendors, who explained how their systems handle tax billing, budget notices, valuation notices, primary residence credit processing, and tax levy calculations, and they identified the 1600/1685 primary residence credit and discount interaction as a current programming challenge. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• the county.
• for the county.
• We currently have 33 Minnesota counties and six North Dakota counties.
• Association of counties, every county is a member, correct? Yep.
• their county.

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met to begin its study of whether the content of the real estate tax statement should be revised to improve transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the study directive from HB 1176 and the statutory requirements for tax statements, including required line items such as true and full value, mill levy, legislative tax relief, primary residence credit, legacy fund share, discounts for early payment, and special assessments. The Tax Department then explained how the current uniform statewide statement is prescribed and approved, and noted that changes are typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from NDACO, including auditors from McKenzie and Richland counties, described the full annual property tax timeline from budgeting through mailing final statements. They explained how counties gather budgets, calculate levies, verify taxable values, handle centrally assessed property, and prepare required notices and statements. They also said public attendance at budget hearings is generally very low, though the notices and statements generate some calls, mostly about whether attendance is required or why taxes are changing. Several members questioned the usefulness of the legislative tax relief line and the complexity of the 5% discount calculation, and county officials said the current process can be confusing and depends on manual data entry and coordination among counties, vendors, and taxing districts. The committee also discussed assessment frequency, valuation equalization, the 3% cap, and whether more frequent reassessment would reduce large jumps in taxable value. County officials said they try to use rotating reassessments and sales-ratio reviews to keep values within statutory tolerance, but staffing, training, and local market changes make the work difficult. NDACO staff estimated, based on a small county survey, that tax statement preparation and mailing costs average about 74 cents per statement, with outsourcing generally cheaper than in-house printing, and said HB 1176 added some mailing and administrative costs even if the tax statement itself did not change dramatically. Software vendors from CPT and Tyler then began presentations showing how their systems handle budgeting, valuation notices, tax statement generation, primary residence credit processing, and levy worksheets, emphasizing that many of the required calculations and reports are still manually entered or verified by county staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• of counties.
• This is an optional one for each county, and so if you have a county taxable value and your county has
• This is an optional one for each county, and so if you have a county taxable value and your county has
• if you're in this county or county A or county B; that entire water management district receives the
• to county.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Department, I'm sorry, I repeat, this bill would allow for Harris County and the Harris County Sheriff's
• with the county judge and the commissioner's court, but also the Harris County Sheriff's.
• I'm from Aascosa County.
• Current law stipulates that the chair of a county commit, excuse me, county ethics commission.
• counties.