Transcript Highlights:

• and why we assessed and how the assessment process works.
• The board unanimously agreed we needed to assess.
• They had some of, some of the assessment was split, was assessed at one rate and some at another, depending
• And we ended up assessing twice, because the first one, we ran out of money, and so we had to assess
• I think your assessment in 2021, 2021.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focused on the plan’s rapid growth, its financial stability after the January Southern California wildfires, and its role as the insurer of last resort. Fair Plan officials explained that the plan was created in 1968, is a not-for-profit involuntary association of licensed property insurers, and is intended to be a temporary safety net until policyholders can return to the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan is not a state agency or taxpayer-funded, but is regulated by the Department of Insurance and supported by member-company assessments if claims exceed available funds. Victoria Roach and Armand Feliciano said the Fair Plan has grown sharply since 2018 and especially after market pullbacks by major insurers, reaching about 575,000 policies and roughly $600 billion in exposure by spring 2025. They noted that growth is increasingly occurring in lower wildfire-risk areas, where the plan can sometimes be cheaper than the voluntary market, and said this undermines depopulation back into the private market. They also discussed recent policy expansions, including coverage for farms, higher residential and commercial limits, and pending or proposed changes such as AB 290, SB 525, and AB 226, which would add tools like a line of credit and bond access. A major portion of the hearing addressed the January wildfire losses and the plan’s financial response. Fair Plan officials said they assessed member insurers for $1 billion after determining claims and cash flow would exceed available resources, and that the process was approved quickly and paid smoothly, with more than 80% of the assessment collected within 10 days. They also described the reinsurance tower, the plan’s limited surplus, and the need for actuarially sound rates to reduce future reliance on assessments. On claims handling, they said the plan has received over 5,500 claims from the fires, has paid more than $2.9 billion so far, expects total payments near $4 billion, and has focused on advancing payments quickly for total losses and other urgent needs. Members questioned the plan’s solvency, the growth in non-wildfire areas, claim denials, smoke-loss coverage, and how depopulation works. Roach said most closed claims without payment were duplicates rather than denials, and that smoke claims require direct physical loss under the policy, with coverage determined case by case. Public commenters from the California Building Industry Association and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California said the Fair Plan’s growth reflects a weak voluntary market, inadequate rates, and insurer fear of future assessments, and urged support for rate increases and AB 226. The hearing concluded with no vote, but with a commitment from Fair Plan officials to follow up on unanswered questions and continue providing more transparency through public data and website disclosures.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was on the lethality assessment that you mentioned.
• It was on the lethality assessment that you mentioned.
• department, if they go out, they do a lethality assessment.
• You mentioned the evidence-based lethality assessment program.
• So we assess and start working with them.

Summary: The committee held a panel discussion on Florida’s domestic violence system, focusing on the roles of the state, the federally designated coalition, direct-service providers, and law enforcement. Members reviewed the history of the system after the dissolution of the former coalition in 2020, the creation of the Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence, DCF’s Office of Domestic Violence, and the current contract structure involving Women in Distress and its subcontractors for hotline and legal services. Panelists also discussed the 2024 lethality assessment law, the workgroup’s conclusion that the evidence-based Maryland tool could not be used because of copyright and cost issues, and the state’s current use of statutory questions instead. DCF and FDLE described the statewide certification and funding framework, including more than $60 million in domestic violence funding for fiscal year 2025-26 and the requirement that law enforcement complete lethality-assessment training by October 1, 2026. Testimony highlighted both collaboration and conflict. Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence and Women in Distress described overlapping training and technical-assistance roles, but disagreed sharply about the quality of their relationship with DCF and whether the current structure is duplicative. DCF said it maintains communication with both the coalition and the centers and emphasized that the coalition is federally required, while the coalition argued that the department has obstructed its work. Women in Distress and Hope Villages stressed direct services, prevention, and the need for more housing, staffing, and funding, especially in rural areas. They also described programs in schools, hospitals, and child welfare settings, and noted that children exposed to domestic violence often need specialized services. Members asked about funding flows, certification, rural coverage, the number of centers, and the lethality assessment rollout. DCF said the 41 certified centers serve all 67 counties and that no new applications have been received in about 15 years. FDLE reported that 46 of roughly 400 law enforcement agencies had completed the lethality-assessment training and attestation, with the statutory deadline still ahead. Panelists said domestic violence appears to be increasing, citing higher hotline demand, shelter occupancy, and local case numbers, while also noting that statewide crime data remains outdated. The discussion ended with calls for better coordination, clearer implementation of statutes, more funding, and possible legislative fixes to improve data collection, training, and service delivery.

Transcript Highlights:

• That comes often in the assessment structure.
• value goes up, that assessment limitation limits how much your assessment goes up, based on whichever
• Here, there is a 10% assessment limitation.
• Centrally assessed property primarily includes railroads that are assessed at a statewide level, and
• You have assessment limitations that limit how your assessed value is able to grow.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Finance and Tax met to hear a staff presentation on Florida property taxes. Staff Director Azar Khan gave an overview of the property tax system, including constitutional limits, January 1 assessment rules, homestead and non-homestead residential property, commercial and agricultural classifications, tangible personal property, and centrally assessed property. The presentation highlighted major exemptions and assessment caps, such as the homestead exemptions, Save Our Homes, the 10% cap for non-homestead property, and favorable treatment for agricultural/classified use land. It also reviewed long-term growth in just value and taxable value statewide, along with declining millage rates over time as taxable values have risen. Members then discussed the possibility of eliminating property taxes and the fiscal consequences of doing so. Senator Jones asked about the impact on local governments and referenced estimates that replacing property tax revenue could require roughly $43 billion; staff responded that current levied amounts are in the ballpark of more than $30 billion for non-school levies and more than $20 billion for school levies, but that the exact impact would depend on county and district budgets and collections. Senators Bernard, Passidomo, Gates, and others emphasized the need for more data on alternative revenue sources, such as sales tax increases or other combinations, and for input from counties and cities before considering broad tax changes. Chair Avila explained the presentation was intended to give members a foundation before property tax proposals are heard in committee, noting that several bills had already been filed involving homestead and tangible personal property. No bills were voted on, and no formal action was taken beyond the informational presentation. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• assessments that needed to be collected. assessments that needed to be collected.
• yet would be to avoid assessments yet would be to avoid assessments altogether<01:09:04.640>
• non-assessible risk pool, we have non-assessible risk pool, we have something<01:34:25.120> called
• Uh but that return of assessment.
• expecting that assessment that year. expecting that assessment that year.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a $1.4 billion emergency assessment.
• The amount of the assessment was scheduled to be 1.4% over 10 years.
• We don't want to have to levy assessments, but we try and avoid that.
• We don't want to have to levy assessments, but we try and avoid that.
• from an assessment for these 2024 storms.

Summary: The Insurance and Banking Subcommittee received a lengthy presentation from Citizens Property Insurance Corporation CEO Tim Serio, with Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworski also answering questions. Serio reviewed Citizens’ role as Florida’s insurer of last resort, its statutory funding structure, eligibility rules, depopulation program, reinsurance obligations, and the surcharge/emergency assessment mechanisms that can be used if Citizens runs a deficit. He emphasized that recent legislative reforms, combined with lower litigation and improved market conditions, have helped the private market recover and reduced Citizens’ policy count from a peak of about 1.41 million in 2023 to 936,182 at the end of 2024, with a projected drop to about 771,000 by the end of 2025. He also said the reforms reduced Citizens’ rate need and helped avoid an emergency assessment after the 2024 storms. Members asked about Citizens’ rate increases, why Citizens still seeks higher rates despite lower litigation, how the 20% eligibility threshold works, whether Citizens should be wind-only, and whether the state or federal government could help with deficits. Serio explained that Citizens is still charging below actuarially sound rates in most areas, that rate filings reflect reduced litigation and lower reinsurance exposure, and that assessments on all Florida property policyholders are the reason Citizens tries to build surplus and depopulate. He said the depopulation program is working better than in the past, with less than 2% of takeout policies returning to Citizens, and that the Office of Insurance Regulation has been vetting takeout companies more carefully. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on claims handling after Debby, Helene, and Milton, including flood-versus-wind disputes and Citizens’ use of the Division of Administrative Hearings for some claim disputes. Serio said Citizens had received 76,625 claims from the three storms and had paid nearly $823 million in indemnity and expenses as of January 7, 2025. He said many closed-without-payment claims were either below deductible, withdrawn, duplicate, or flood-only, and that Citizens had asked its internal audit function to independently review the claims data and denials. He also described Citizens’ storm outreach, catastrophe response centers, managed-repair program, and claim review process, and said the corporation remains focused on paying valid claims while minimizing the risk of assessments on the broader Florida market.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was on the lethality assessment that you mentioned.
• "So there's, you mean, when do we do a lethality assessment?" "Yes."
• department, if they go out, they do a lethality assessment.
• You mentioned the evidence-based lethality assessment program.
• So we assess and start working with them.

Summary: The committee held a panel discussion on Florida’s domestic violence system, focusing on how state and federally funded services are coordinated, the role of the Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence (FPEDV), the Florida Domestic Violence Collaborative, DCF, and certified domestic violence centers. Members reviewed the post-2020 restructuring after the dissolution of FCADV, the current hotline, legal services, training, and technical assistance contracts, and the Legislature’s recent work on lethality assessments under SB 1224. Panelists also described prevention, shelter, counseling, child advocacy, and legal support services, along with the statewide network of 41 certified centers serving all 67 counties. Testimony highlighted both collaboration and tension. FPEDV and Women in Distress described overlapping training and technical assistance roles, but FPEDV said its relationship with DCF has been difficult and at times obstructive, while DCF said communication and coordination are ongoing. Women in Distress and other providers emphasized the importance of direct services, the statewide hotline, injunction assistance, child welfare co-located advocates, and prevention programs. Several members asked about funding flows, certification, and whether the current structure is sufficient for rural counties; witnesses said federal FVPSA funds are formula-based, DCF contracts directly with centers, and rural programs face staffing and fundraising challenges that limit beds and services. A major portion of the discussion centered on the lethality assessment work group and implementation of the new statewide tool. FDLE explained that the work group concluded the Maryland model was copyrighted and costly to replicate exactly, so Florida adopted a statutory assessment that is not evidence-based in the same way, with training available online and 46 of about 400 law enforcement agencies having completed it so far. Senators raised concerns about multiple assessments, redacted police reports, and whether the tool will be useful without better coordination and data collection. Witnesses also discussed rising domestic violence, teen dating violence, and strangulation cases, with providers reporting increased demand, full shelters, and greater use of hotels and mobile crisis responses. No formal votes or actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• assessed valuation. assessed valuation.
• . assessments. assessments.
• So they had two assessments. Correct. So they had two assessments.
• prepare for that assessment. prepare for that assessment.
• assessment?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• assessing at full fair market value.
• the dirt is assessed.
• the property assessments of a property that doesn't sell, the U.S.
• Let's say you got 50% of your assessment up to 100,000, then you got 20% of the assessment between 100
• to contest assessments.

Summary: The Committee on Finance and Tax met with a quorum present and heard a presentation from the Property Appraisers Association of Florida on ad valorem valuation, exemptions, and the property tax process. Lauren Levy reviewed the legal and historical framework of Florida property taxation, including Save Our Homes, the 10% cap on non-homestead assessments, portability, tangible personal property exemptions, TRIM notices, and the distinction between taxable value and millage rates. He emphasized that property appraisers are independent constitutional officers who assess just value, administer exemptions, and are overseen by the Department of Revenue, with values and exemptions generally determined as of January 1 and subject to challenge through the Value Adjustment Board or circuit court. Mike Twitty described the mass appraisal process in Pinellas County, explaining how property appraisers value large numbers of parcels using the same core approaches as fee appraisals but with statistical testing, field reviews, aerial imagery, and technology. He discussed the importance of budget, staffing, and the January 1 valuation date, and noted that recent hurricanes caused significant damage, increased petitions, and required new procedures to help property owners with value reductions and FEMA-related issues. Paul Polk focused on Department of Revenue oversight, explaining sales ratio studies, uniformity measures such as COD and PRD, time adjustments, sales qualification reviews, and in-depth studies that can lead to corrective action if assessment standards are not met. He also noted that the Department reviews property appraiser budgets to preserve independence from county pressure. Senators asked about the supersized homestead concept, DOR review and rejection standards, value trends, and the impact of storms and new construction on taxable value. Twitty and Polk said value growth has been driven by a mix of new construction, market appreciation, cap resets, and storm-related adjustments, while noting that some counties saw market value decline even as taxable value rose. They also said some property tax relief proposals would be easier to implement than others depending on how local tax bills are structured, especially where law enforcement millage is separately identified. No votes were taken on legislation, and the committee adjourned after the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• When you assess value, okay, you're assessing value on that market price, okay?
• They're used to address how assessed value is derived by creating assessment limitations or, in some
• And so this is functionally, they're used to address how assessed value is derived by creating assessment
• They occur after assessed value has been set.
• to 15% of the market value of the property is what the assessed value of the property is what the assessed

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:

• So, the assessment, who gets assessed?
• So, the assessment, who gets assessed?
• who gets assessed yeah so the assessment who gets assessed the<00:42:04.760> assessment<00:42
• the assessment um that the assessment the assessment um that the assessment that<00:42:06.960> this
• <00:51:55.119> is<00:51:55.240> on assessing you know the assessment is on assessing

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , other properties to justify assessments, other properties to justify assessments, meaning<00:01
• a more accurate assessment.
• challenge their assessments. challenge their assessments.
• > longstanding Assess officers have a longstanding Assess officers have a longstanding history<00
• challenge a tax assessment. challenge a tax assessment.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We've got assessment results. And so what's that? Statistics Day. Yeah. Assessment results.
• These assessments represent one of a few.
• Chairman, is I've been talking about for some time is the assessment and our New Mexico assessment in
• comparison to the assessment of other states.
• So the kid is assessed sometime in the spring...

Bills: HR286, HR287, HR288, HR289, HR290, HR291, HR292, HR293, HR294, HCR114, HR275, HR276, HR277, HR278, HR279, HR280, HR282, HR283, HR284, HR285, HCR112, HCR113, SCR62, SCR64, SB132, SB135, SB405, HR179, HR216, HR223, HR225, HR274, HCR89, SB39, SB99, SB111, SB112, SB124, SB134, SB174, SB189, SB190, SB201, SB233, SB236, SB258, SB270, SB273, SB288, SB307, SB313, SB320, SB321, SB325, SB326, SB331, SB339, SB341, SB345, SB346, SB347, SB353, SB357, SB359, SB387, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB419, SB422, SB426, SB435, SB437, SB440, SB451, SB464, SB470, SB487, SB488, SB495, SB504, SB505, SB518, SB523, SB228, SB408, HR168, HR174, HR194, HCR54, HCR74, HCR79, HCR87, HCR94, HCR95, HCR97, HCR98, HCR102, HCR104, SCR23, SCR38, HCR26, HB250, HB265, HB339, HB427, HB445, HB463, HB468, HB606, HB639, HB649, HB665, HB746, HB781, HB853, HB861, HB872, HB886, HB916, HB937, HB1054, HB1068, HB1117, HB1237, HB75, HB705, SB34, SB164, SB172, SB198, SB208, SB232, SB281, SB286, SB317, SB322, SB334, SB380, SB385, SB409, SB417, SB421, SB430, SB439, SB447, SB458, SB510, SB54, SB56, SB72, SB79, SB97, SB105, SB123, SB125, SB129, SB163, SB171, SB252, SB287, SB375, SB386, SB461, SB466, HR84, SCR3, HB582, HB625, HB646, HB998, HB1191, HB1255, SB81, SB100, SB109, SB197, SB374, SB479, SB78, HB901, HR20, HR74, HCR65, HCR71, HB284, HB302, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1240, SB82, SB89, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782, SB149, SB382, SB441

Keywords: HR286, House Resolution 286, LED, Louisiana Economic Development, rural development, energy efficiency, renewable energy, public-private partnership, tax credits, economic development, workforce training, school energy costs, community colleges, technical colleges, local government, building modernization, on-site energy generation, public facilities, rural parishes, distressed communities

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Owen to urge and request the Surgeon General and Department of Health conduct a professional assessment
• Assessment. Members, if you can, please hold the conversations down. Representative Owen.
• promulgation rules, and provide for powers and duties including authorization to levy taxes and special assessments

Bills: HR286, HR287, HR288, HR289, HR290, HR291, HR292, HR293, HR294, HCR114, HR275, HR276, HR277, HR278, HR279, HR280, HR282, HR283, HR284, HR285, HCR112, HCR113, SCR62, SCR64, SB132, SB135, SB405, HR179, HR216, HR223, HR225, HR274, HCR89, SB39, SB99, SB111, SB112, SB124, SB134, SB174, SB189, SB190, SB201, SB233, SB236, SB258, SB270, SB273, SB288, SB307, SB313, SB320, SB321, SB325, SB326, SB331, SB339, SB341, SB345, SB346, SB347, SB353, SB357, SB359, SB387, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB419, SB422, SB426, SB435, SB437, SB440, SB451, SB464, SB470, SB487, SB488, SB495, SB504, SB505, SB518, SB523, SB228, SB408, HR168, HR174, HR194, HCR54, HCR74, HCR79, HCR87, HCR94, HCR95, HCR97, HCR98, HCR102, HCR104, SCR23, SCR38, HCR26, HB250, HB265, HB339, HB427, HB445, HB463, HB468, HB606, HB639, HB649, HB665, HB746, HB781, HB853, HB861, HB872, HB886, HB916, HB937, HB1054, HB1068, HB1117, HB1237, HB75, HB705, SB34, SB164, SB172, SB198, SB208, SB232, SB281, SB286, SB317, SB322, SB334, SB380, SB385, SB409, SB417, SB421, SB430, SB439, SB447, SB458, SB510, SB54, SB56, SB72, SB79, SB97, SB105, SB123, SB125, SB129, SB163, SB171, SB252, SB287, SB375, SB386, SB461, SB466, HR84, SCR3, HB582, HB625, HB646, HB998, HB1191, HB1255, SB81, SB100, SB109, SB197, SB374, SB479, SB78, HB901, HR20, HR74, HCR65, HCR71, HB284, HB302, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1240, SB82, SB89, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782, SB149, SB382, SB441

Keywords: HR286, House Resolution 286, LED, Louisiana Economic Development, rural development, energy efficiency, renewable energy, public-private partnership, tax credits, economic development, workforce training, school energy costs, community colleges, technical colleges, local government, building modernization, on-site energy generation, public facilities, rural parishes, distressed communities

Summary: The House met with a quorum, received a guest minister for prayer, approved the journal, and heard several announcements and recognitions, including NEC Awareness Day, a European Union delegation visit, and the Glenmore Wildcats baseball team’s state championship. Members also received Senate messages, including concurrence on some House measures, the filing of Senate bills, and several Senate resolutions and bills laid over for later consideration. The chamber then took up a long series of resolutions and bills. Among the resolutions adopted were measures on a Louisiana-United Kingdom Trade Commission, support for migratory waterfowl studies, hunting education in schools, SNAP delivery-fee studies, fraud prevention for seniors, subsurface data preservation, boating safety reporting, and visual acuity screening data. Some items were temporarily returned to the calendar, including a sales-tax uniform-base rule resolution and several Senate measures. The House also adopted a resolution creating an agricultural national security task force and another supporting a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On legislation, the House passed bills on missing-person alerts for people with disabilities (“Brian’s Call”), first responder status for public works employees, planning commission procedures, historic preservation district rules, judges’ supplemental compensation, the Baker Economic Development District, New Orleans downtown development district tax authority, a local crime prevention district, clerks of court records, hotel occupancy taxes in Shreveport-Bossier, firefighter cancer screenings, Shreveport police civil service rules, local ethics entity funding, hemp/alcohol age restrictions, OMV digital signatures, LED recreation, TOPS Tech eligibility for veterans, anatomical gift recordkeeping, crypto kiosk fraud protections, firefighting foam definitions, and consumer data privacy. Several bills failed, including HB 705 on legislative contempt penalties and HB 75 on gaming promotional play. One bill on vehicle insurance reinstatement fees was amended and passed, and a bill on judicial compensation fund adjustments was amended and passed after questions about CPI indexing.

Transcript Highlights:

• entities that assess this property.
• entities that assess this property.
• assessment and a DRA assessment.
• assessment. That was their big rub. assessment. That was their big rub.
• Does the DRA use subjective assessments, or what is the standard that is used to get to an assessment

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 302, which would allow the state treasurer to invest public funds in precious metals and digital assets. The sponsor was not present, so Representative Urs introduced the bill briefly and said he did not know much about it. No one from the Treasury Department testified, and members repeatedly noted the treasurer’s absence. Susan Elme testified against the bill, arguing that these investments are highly volatile and contrary to the treasury’s duty to remain stable and liquid. She said the bill should be killed. In questioning, she estimated the 5% cap in the bill would amount to roughly $10 million, depending on available funds, and said such investing would be more appropriate for an individual day trader than for the state treasury. Members also discussed prior legislative experience with Bitcoin-related proposals and raised concerns about whether the treasury had the staff expertise to manage commodity or digital asset investing. The committee did not take a final vote; instead, it agreed to hold a work session and seek additional information from the treasurer, with a plan to revisit the bill on April 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so a lot of the assessment structure, the exemption structure and the assessment limitation, the
• That 1.1 billion value from flowing in through your tax assessment and you are save our homes assessment
• Our homes assessment benefit.
• I hear there is a 10% assessment limitation.
• You have assessment limitations that how your assessed values able to grow.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and to identify when the assessed and to identify when the assessment<00:40:45.680> may<00:40
• assessed for any reason. assessed for any reason.
• uniform assessments. uniform assessments.
• . assessments. assessments.
• the assessment is a very, very low bar. the assessment is a very, very low bar.

Bills: HF4906, HF3971, HF4777, HF2109, HF2988

Keywords: property tax, tax refund, taxpayer relief, Minnesota taxation, one-time payment, taxation, property valuation, Tax Court, evidentiary standards, Minnesota Statutes, disparity reduction, aid payments, local government, funding, Fillmore County, education funding, managed forest land, classification, forest management plan, agricultural land

Summary: The committee first approved the April 9 minutes, then took up House File 2988, which would extend for eight more years a sales tax exemption tied to Minnesota State High School League tournament ticket revenue that is funneled into the league’s foundation and returned to schools as grants. Chair Youakim and Executive Director Eric Martins said the program sends more than $1.1 million annually back to schools for activity fee reductions, scholarships, coaching and training, AEDs, late buses, and other school needs, with over 98% of funds going directly to schools. Representative Huot and others spoke in support, while Representative Robinson questioned the structure and suggested the state could instead simply reduce ticket prices and not tax the tickets. The committee laid HF 2988 over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill. The committee then heard House File 4906, as amended, which would create a one-time property tax refund in calendar year 2026 for owners of residential homesteads and the homestead portion of agricultural property, funded by a $4 billion appropriation in fiscal year 2027. The bill includes a clawback for delinquent taxpayers and offsets to ensure no one receives more in property tax refunds than they paid. A House Research staffer said the Department of Revenue viewed the refund as potentially taxable, while House Research said it likely should be treated as a recovery of prior taxes, and the two would follow up. The bill was introduced with testimony from Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota and Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project, both of whom opposed it, arguing it would create a large budget hole, force future cuts, and disproportionately benefit homeowners while excluding renters and lower-income Minnesotans. Several members also raised concerns. Representative Hewitt said the state should prioritize public safety, rural EMS, and safety-net hospitals rather than a large rebate, and Representative Youakim argued the money would be better spent on longer-term property tax relief and education funding. Representative Hollins said the proposal would worsen racial and wealth inequities because homeownership is lower among communities of color and renters would get nothing. In response, the author and supporters said the bill is meant to put money back into people’s budgets and that individuals should be able to decide how to use their own money. The discussion continued with questions about the bill’s size and fiscal impact, but no final action on HF 4906 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• pre-trial assessments and reports. pre-trial assessments and reports.
• pre-trial assessments and reports. pre-trial assessments and reports.
• assessment, exactly as it sounds.
• Hawaii is one that uses the risk assessment. Use of pre-trial risk assessment.
• this assessment. this assessment.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AS WELL AS FOCUSED ASSESSMENTS.
• ART ASSESSMENT WAS SERVING AS A INTERVIEWEE.
• WE WERE LATER ASKED FAUST BY THE AGENCY TO PERFORM A FOCUS ASSESSMENT OF LBD TO THE ASSESSMENTS FINDINGS
• THE ASSESSMENTS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
• SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH OUR ASSESSMENT, SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH OUR ASSESSMENT, OUR REPORT, WE JUST

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:53:12.319> of the uh medical doctor U assessment of the uh medical doctor U assessment
• The word assessment, what you assess it, we're assessing the insurance companies who do business in the
• But what does the term assessment mean in this context? The word assessment: what you assess it.
• to<01:17:22.560> help assess everybody gets assessed to help assess everybody gets assessed
• assessment a separately made assessment assessment a separately made assessment on<01:38:49.000>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first reviewed its schedule, noting that 13 bills were being executed the next day and that additional subcommittee work would be scheduled around Town Meeting Day and the following session days. The chair explained that the committee would not meet on Town Meeting Day, would handle the remaining bills on the next available subcommittee day, and would continue any unfinished items later in the month. The committee then took up House Bill 774, which concerned Medicare-related coverage issues. Members discussed the bill’s purpose and the differences between Medicare standard and Medicare Advantage, with one member saying the proposal was informative but did not offer a workable solution. The committee also moved to inexpedient to legislate on House Bill 185, and the motion passed on a 6-0 vote. House Bill 241, relating to alternatives to opioids, was retained for further work. Members said the bill raised concerns about insurers effectively practicing medicine and about the lack of evidence on the efficacy of some alternative treatments, while also noting that chiropractic coverage mandates already exist in statute. The committee voted to retain the bill, with the motion passing 6-0. The most extended discussion was on House Bill 648, which would expand insurance coverage for glucose monitoring. Testimony and committee comments focused on whether coverage should be tied to insulin use or instead to a physician’s medical judgment, the role of continuous glucose monitoring for people with type 2 diabetes who are not on insulin, and the potential cost impact. An insurance department fiscal analyst said the original $22-per-member estimate was based on the unamended bill and that the amended version would require updated analysis; members agreed to retain the bill to narrow the eligible population and revisit the language later.