Transcript Highlights:

• So one question after reviewing the member said that was adopted in reference in Senate committee, and
• So I guess my question to you guys at the table, and I know you did review the timeline as far as how
• That defines what can be a capital A project and what qualifies through the review process that we do
• the bill because we don't think they qualify based on that definition, but I think maybe we should review
• I think we received 1,900 and some odd requests last year, and part of our requirements are to review

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on May 26 and first took up Senate Bill 406, which authorizes the city of Slidell to seek voter approval for a local hotel and motel occupancy tax. The bill was described as a local measure giving the city council authority to place the tax on the ballot, with members noting that similar taxing authority exists in many other municipalities. Representative Wiley moved favorable passage, there was no objection, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee then received an update from the Division of Administration’s Office of Facility Planning and Control on capital outlay savings identified through cash-flow review and project “scrubbing.” Officials said they found about $50 million in savings from updated cash flows, over-appropriations, projects bid under budget, and reduced appropriations in bundled projects. They explained that bundling projects, including some LED-related projects, allows agencies to shift savings within a bundle and manage overruns or underruns more flexibly. Members praised the savings work but asked whether the process could be moved earlier so the House could benefit sooner, and whether similar reviews could be expanded to other administering agencies and non-state projects. One member raised concerns about whether some projects, including schools and certain NGO-related items, should qualify for capital outlay funding at all, and urged a review of the statutory definition and project approval criteria. Staff said they would look at the definition, review recommendations from prior discussions, and consider ways to tighten the process. The committee then adjourned without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• reminder, Senate Bill 6291 would increase the maximum period that a non-certified individual could review
• the plan or assessment that the EITE must do can be done by an internal engineer, but it has to be reviewed
• But it has to be reviewed by an outside unaffiliated engineer before it is submitted to Ecology.
• the same: that this is a requirement to develop and evaluate some options and have some third-party review
• The fiscal note on the bill, as you mentioned, will reflect the cost of Ecology to receive and review

Bills: SB6291

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• that several of you have not been here in previous meetings, so we can take just a minute, uh, to review
• Uh, and we are working continuously with uh HED to work on a review process where HED has their agencies
• We'll be um working in parallel as we are also working with the city of Albuquerque and the historic Review
• Um, so we had to, uh, basically work with the subcommittee from the historic review board, so that way
• Once we get their comments, then we'll go back before the historic review board.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:33:57.320><c> form</c> and health side is we review form and health side is we review form so
• So Marian's review is separate from the Consumer Protection Bureau's review.
• </c> review our review is focused review our review is focused specifically<03:55:01.600><c> on</c><03
• </c><04:06:26.359><c> that</c> resolution but we still review that resolution but we still review that
• </c> we uh that we do review we uh that we do review those<04:22:43.920><c> are</c><04:22:44.520><c>

Summary: The meeting began with introductory remarks for new and returning members of the House Commerce Committee, led by Chairman John Hunt. Members briefly introduced themselves and their backgrounds, and several noted the committee’s bipartisan, collegial tone. Hunt explained the committee’s structure and traditions, including the division into three subcommittees: banking and business, consumer protection, and liquor commission matters, with insurance now handled as a single area. He also reviewed basic hearing procedures, including decorum, questions for information only, and the committee’s practice of moving bills through subcommittees before full committee executive sessions. The committee then heard an overview from the New Hampshire Insurance Department, led by Commissioner DJ Bettencourt and staff. The department described its mission as promoting a safe and competitive insurance marketplace and emphasized consumer protection, market competition, and affordability. Officials outlined the department’s responsibilities, including licensing insurers, producers, adjusters, and TPAs; reviewing insurance forms; regulating companies and market conduct; overseeing financial solvency; and investigating insurance fraud. They also noted that the department is self-funded through assessments on insurers, collects premium taxes and fees for the state, and returned more than $2.7 million to companies in fiscal year 2024 due to underspending. The presentation also covered the broader regulatory framework for insurance, including the role of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in promoting uniform standards across states and territories. Officials said New Hampshire licenses about 1,200 insurance companies and roughly 245,000 producers and adjusters, and that the department’s financial examinations are part of an accreditation system used nationwide. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the session was primarily organizational and informational, with the insurance department presentation beginning the committee’s substantive work for the term.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this bill proposes moving that review under the Secretary of State.
• These are rules that are currently not going up to the governor to review.
• So if you're a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy, you want the process to review these actions.
• But it gives somebody in that world the ability to engage with this whole review of licensing that's
• It's under review currently. Will this be a big cost to the counties for this assessment?

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 419, as amended to update the effective date to 2026. The bill would allow the State Treasurer and the Department of Wildlife Conservation/Wildlife Conservation Commission to employ or appoint attorneys, joining other entities already authorized to do so. Supporters argued the treasurer’s office handles highly specialized financial matters and large state assets, and that in-house counsel could provide faster, more specialized advice. Members questioned possible conflicts with the Attorney General’s role, the fiscal impact, and why Wildlife was included; the sponsor said Wildlife’s inclusion was tied to similar specialized needs and indicated willingness to remove it if needed. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 7-2 vote. The committee then heard Senate Bill 835, also amended to update the effective date to 2026. This measure would require qualifying licensing boards and commissions to submit proposed non-rulemaking actions with anti-competitive implications for review, shifting oversight from the Attorney General to the Secretary of State. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address antitrust concerns raised by the North Carolina dental board case and to provide earlier executive-branch review of potentially anti-competitive board actions. Members raised concerns about whether the Secretary of State should be the arbiter of anti-competitive conduct and whether existing court remedies or current executive-order processes were sufficient. The bill passed on an 8-2 due pass vote. Senate Bill 1618 would require courts to conduct pretrial risk assessments early in criminal cases. The sponsor said the assessments would be one tool judges could use in setting bond and determining release conditions, and that the bill was intended to make the practice available statewide rather than only in some counties. Questions focused on who would validate the assessments, whether counties already could do this, whether it would delay release in smaller counties, and whether it would add costs; the sponsor said counties could tailor the process, that it was already being done in some places, and that the fiscal impact would be minimal. The committee voted 6-4 to report the bill due pass. Finally, the chair presented Senate Bill 262, which had been amended and had its title and enacting clause struck as part of ongoing work. The bill was described as an effort to reduce county jail overcrowding by allowing certain inmates awaiting transfer to the Department of Corrections to be handled differently, with further amendments expected. Members discussed concerns about fairness and the use of factors such as community ties in release decisions, and the sponsor said the measure was still being refined and was intended to solve a practical jail-capacity problem. The committee voted 8-1 to pass the bill out.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, it establishes court requirements for an expedited judicial review of a malicious delay claim
• Additionally, the bill provides an appeal process for individualized determinations and a judicial review
• The bill also requires DHS and AHCCCS to review their rules and policies relating to behavioral health
• So I've sent language that's being reviewed at 10 o'clock today to see if we can get a COW amendment.
• The bill also requires DHS and AHCCCS to review their rules and policies relating to behavioral health

Summary: The caucus reviewed a long list of Senate bills and memorials, mostly on consent calendars, covering housing, elections, health care, public safety, land use, transportation, and water. Several measures focused on housing and local government regulation, including limits on municipal interference with home design standards, restrictions on alleged “malicious delays” in permitting, and rules on exactions. Election-related bills addressed internet access for voting equipment, timekeeping requirements for election systems, primary election timing, precinct committeeman vacancies, and other election administration changes. Other topics included liquor law updates, assisted living facility rules, deed and title fraud prevention, a Freedom of Speech Monument committee, renaming public spaces, and a bill restricting gender transition procedures for minors. Health and human services bills drew discussion on behavioral health technician definitions and AHCCCS/DHS coordination, Medicaid billing during facility ownership changes, breast cancer screening cost-sharing, naturopathic physicians administering IV antibiotics and similar drugs, safe-haven newborn surrender at hospitals, and reporting requirements for dialysis social workers. In public safety and judiciary, members considered bills on probation for dangerous crimes against children, sex offender registration limitations, victim restitution costs, unlawful alerting, increased penalties for unlawful flight, and a new offense for motor fuel theft. One member noted a no vote on extending the Vulnerable Adult System Study Committee, saying it would become a long-running study committee, while supporters said the committee had produced useful recommendations. The caucus also heard land, agriculture, energy, water, and transportation measures, including creation of a foreign entity land review commission, restrictions on transporting Mexican gray wolf pups with state resources, water reuse and banking provisions, solar installation disclosures and roof inspections, a larger revolving fund loan cap, and several congressional memorials. Transportation items included roadable aircraft registration, motor vehicle booting rules, military property signage, a towing and impound study committee, and photo enforcement penalties. Public safety bills included extending traumatic event counseling programs and requiring state data sharing with the federal government regarding unauthorized aliens. No formal votes were taken in the transcript; members mostly asked clarifying questions and several sponsors explained the intent and practical effects of their bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't believe this bill deteriorates chart review or anything like that, does it?
• I think under current law, they have to review 10% of the charts, and then if there's some controlled
• So they're only kind of spot-checking the chart reviews right now, and that doesn't change under this
• I'm going to look to chart review. It's just chart review, I guess.
• If nothing is changing, really, if the reviews are going to be the same, you said 10 percent on spot,

Committee: House General Laws

Transcript Highlights:

• about three years ago, I sat down, and as part of the membership on that committee, we were asked to review
• every one of our official recommendations that we give back to our colleges and universities after reviewing
• So yes, we did talk to them as part of that review process.
• They are asked to review at least annually to see if there are qualified accreditors that exist.
• I see it being burying on that, and I think it would slowly just a quick review.

Bills: HB3700 , HB3315 , HB3242 , HB3379 , HB3129 , HB3132 , HB2950

Committee: House Postsecondary Education

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we're reviewing a law that we already have on the books to cap excess profits in auto insurance
• So it's a wider geography, and that's reviewed as kind of a rating factor, but not specific zip codes
• So I will, so in underwriting, we don't review each underwriting specifically because that's kind of
• We review an overall underwriting approach and policy for a carrier, and so in there we will look and
• We review an overall underwriting approach and policy for a carrier, and so in there we will look and

Committee: Senate Banks

Summary: The Senate Banking Committee met for its first meeting of the session, with Chair James Sanders Jr. and Ranking Member George Borrello opening the hearing and noting a collaborative approach to committee work. The committee first considered and advanced several bills: S.114, which would prohibit state-chartered banks from investing in or financing private prisons; S.2040, which would require money transmitters to provide a consumer warning; S.5473, which would require disclosures in advertisements involving virtual tokens; and S.8406, Sanders’ bill to amend the community bank deposit program. Each bill was moved and approved by committee, with S.8406 passing unanimously. The committee then heard from Caitlin Azar, Acting Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services (DFS), who outlined her background and DFS priorities. She emphasized affordability, consumer protection, stability, and innovation, and discussed DFS-led initiatives in the governor’s budget, including Banking Development Districts, non-bank mortgage CRA regulations, CDFI investment guidance, and consumer restitution. She also said DFS plans to issue buy-now-pay-later regulations in February, expand student lending protections and borrower education, and continue work on insurance affordability, including auto and homeowners insurance reforms, anti-fraud efforts, and discounts tied to telematics, dash cameras, and safe-driving courses. Members questioned Azar about the balance between regulation and access, especially in crypto, buy-now-pay-later, and insurance markets. She said DFS aims to preserve competition while preventing discriminatory or excessive practices, and described existing oversight of virtual currency, including coordination with federal regulators. Another member asked about AI in auto insurance underwriting and pricing; Azar said DFS requires transparency, bias review, governance controls, and consumer recourse, and that credit scores cannot be used to deny or increase rates. The chair also raised concerns about foreclosure in Southeast Queens, improving BDD paperwork and data collection, and increasing the number of state-chartered credit unions. Azar said DFS is working on process improvements, community input, and maintaining open communication with the committee, but no additional votes or formal actions were taken during the DFS hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for
• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for
• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for
• All right, let's move on to the review of the draft interim work plan.
• This is your regular opportunity to review the work plan and then make adjustments as you look ahead

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy Executive Committee approved the June minutes and received a brief update from Assistant Attorney General Jesse Yoder, who had no litigation updates but offered to answer questions. Actuary Michael Harbour then previewed the September full committee meeting, which will include a report on the financial condition of the DRS-administered pension plans and the state actuary’s recommended economic assumptions. He also cautioned that any actuarial pricing done over the summer could change if assumptions are updated, and suggested taking votes on potential legislation later in the interim, possibly in November or December. A discussion followed about the Left 1 benefit improvement and where the funding came from. Harbour said the benefit tied to SSB 5791 (2022) was paid from the Left 1 trust fund, while a separate Left 2 benefit improvement was in SHB 1701, and he agreed to double-check the issue with DRS after members raised conflicting information. Members then discussed the broader Left 1 study, including whether IRS approval is a key barrier and whether options are limited to merger or closure. Several members asked to hear from Ice Miller, which has been advising on the tax issues, and staff said the committee should receive a written response in the next couple of weeks and could have Ice Miller appear in October. The committee reviewed and adjusted its interim work plan. September will include the actuarial presentations, a more detailed Left 1 study update, and a presentation on PERS and TERS Plan 1 COLAs, including a recap of the bill recommended this year and initial considerations for an ad hoc COLA. October is expected to include DRS administrative and performance updates, with November reserved for the State Investment Board update and a final Left 1 study update, and December may include an educational presentation on excess compensation. Members also requested a future briefing on the month-of-death benefit discussion. The September agenda was adopted, correspondence materials were noted, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Had a bathroom bill in this chamber last week that explicitly prohibits state courts from reviewing its
• this legislature ever said, we're gonna pass a law and tell the court, you don't have the right to review
• What's next when the courts can't review what a legislature does?
• when you think it's not the correct one, and we pass a law that says, by the way, the courts can't review
• We all rely on a judiciary that has the power to review the legislative branch of government.

Bills: HCR35 , SJR59 , SJR84 , SCR30 , SB127 , SB317 , SB324 , SB457 , SB506 , SB511 , SB529 , SB547 , SB584 , SB619 , SB636 , SB646 , SB659 , SB715 , SB732 , SB735 , SB771 , SB784 , SB800 , SB801 , SB904 , SB1026 , SB1049 , SB1065 , SB1181 , SB1224 , SB1250 , SB1383 , SB1467 , SB1524 , SB1528 , SB1531 , SB1568 , SB1585 , SB1640 , SB1681 , SB1754 , SB1757 , SB1777 , SB1972 , SB1980 , SB2007 , SB2041 , SB2046 , SB2050 , SB2055 , SB2069 , SB2080 , SB2119 , SB2138 , SB2139 , SB2154 , SB2201 , SB2225 , SB2268 , SB2306 , SB2308 , SB2310 , SB2330 , SB2366 , SB2375 , SB2392 , SB2401 , SB2422 , SB2480 , SB2514 , SB2530 , SB2533 , SB2543 , SB2544 , SB2589 , SB2610 , SB2615 , SB2623 , SB2660 , SB2662 , SB2693 , SB2695 , SB2707 , SB2722 , SB2742 , SB2753 , SB2807 , SB2843 , SB2844 , SB2858 , SB2880 , SB2885 , SB2891 , SB2925 , SB2938 , SB2986 , SJR3 , SJR18 , SB5 , SB914 , SB963 , SB1197 , SB1415 , SB1437 , SB1786 , SB326 , SB767 , SB769 , SB783 , SB1035 , SB1271 , SB1619 , SB1637 , SB1806 , SB1 , SB260 , HB135 , HB 1109 , HCR35 , HCR64 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SJR84 , SJR59 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SCR48 , SCR19 , SCR30 , SCR3 , SB2023 , SB619 , SB2742 , SB646 , SB1026 , SB2880 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB1502 , SB507 , SB1434 , SB1376 , SB1585 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1163 , SB1122 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB261 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB529 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB1999 , SB511 , SB2309 , SB510 , SB584 , SB1085 , SB2046 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB1524 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB884 , SB517 , SB1200 , SB1845 , SB1863 , SB2681 , SB2200 , SB2199 , SB1757 , SB2050 , SB2458 , SB2201 , SB2660 , SB2662 , SB1065 , SB801 , SB2533 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB1721 , SB2366 , SB1013 , SB2797 , SB2383 , SB1754 , SB2119 , SB2448 , SB1777 , SB1283 , SB2392 , SB2076 , SB2786 , SB2876 , SB2284 , SB2225 , SB1540 , SB2929 , SB1972 , SB2540 , SB2595 , SB2217 , SB715 , SB2330 , SB1383 , SB500 , SB1640 , SB2001 , SB2080 , SB506 , SB2514 , SB2753 , SB2398 , SB1241 , SB2927 , SB2173 , SB2538 , SB898 , SB1449 , SB2529 , SB1531 , SB2846 , SB2476 , SB986 , SB1181 , SB2075 , SB2154 , SB2864 , SB1359 , SB2386 , SB771 , SB2844 , SB2550 , SB1351 , SB1423 , SB1931 , SB2245 , SB2589 , SB2707 , SB2807 , SB410 , SB659 , SB2776 , SB2693 , SB2580 , SB1980 , SB1886 , SB1234 , SB739 , SB456 , SB127 , SB1666 , SB2843 , SB2801 , SB800 , SB2055 , SB784 , SB2986 , SB735 , SB1012 , SB324 , SB2926 , SB2938 , SB2007 , SB2138 , SB1242 , SB2615 , SB1049 , SB2310 , SB1224 , SB2972 , SB1568 , SB2841 , SB2885 , SB3016 , SB2858 , SB2610 , SB2139 , SB1856 , SB2035 , SB2308 , SB2306 , SB2041 , SB1528 , SB1681 , SB1141 , SB2401 , SB2530 , SB2375 , SB547 , SB1266 , SB1373 , SB1467 , SB2069 , SB2269 , SB2480 , SB2544 , SB672 , SB904 , SB2695 , SB2891 , SB2422 , SB2543 , SB1854 , SB317 , SB2539 , SB2532 , SB2925 , SB1250 , SB2082 , SB2203 , SB457 , SB2357 , SB2721 , SB243 , SB1285 , SB2568 , SB1959 , SB1442 , SB1454 , SB2520 , SB2541 , SB1708 , SB1237 , SB1844 , SB1586 , HB1392 , HB22 , SB1551 , SB3039 , SB2819 , SB66 , SB629 , SB1015 , SB2342 , SB2903 , SB2933 , SB1965 , SB2477 , SB3029 , SB2605 , SB2419 , SB1957 , SB375 , SB250 , SB777 , SB628 , SB2523 , SB2367 , SB2703 , SB2608 , SB2778 , SB3044 , SB2965 , SB2521 , SB865

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, we actually need a day to re-review the CD on this one. effective date for electronic voting
• So um we actually need a day<00:02:49.760><c> to</c><00:02:50.000><c> re-review</c><00:02:50.480><c>
• </c> day to re-review the CD on this one. day to re-review the CD on this one. Okay. Okay. Okay.
• We're sending you an updated CD1 that you can review, and then we do need you to approve that updated
• The substance of the bill is being sent in an updated CD1 for review and approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• YOU DESCRIBED THE WATCHDOG BETWEEN THE UTILITIES AND THE FLORIDIANS BECAUSE YOU ARE CHARGED WITH REVIEWING
• TRANSPARENCY, ONE OF THE WAYS THE PUBLIC, ONE OF THE WAYS THE LEGISLATURE, LEGISLATORS CAN LOOK AND REVIEW
• THAN JUST UNIMPRESSED, HE WAS QUITE FRUSTRATED WITH THE ORDERS THAT THE COURT WAS BEING ASKED TO REVIEW
• TO PIGGYBACK ON A QUESTION BY SENATOR BRADLEY, WHY WASN'T THE PSC PROVIDING THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW TO THE
• THE AFFIRMATIVE WHETHER IT WAS A SETTLEMENT CASE OR FULLY LITIGATED CASE BUT THE ORDER THAT THEY REVIEW

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to summarize briefly our review of the budget change proposals before you for the High-Speed
• So you'll want to make sure, I think, that you have the time to review those because they are potentially
• So you'll want to make sure I think that you have the time to review those because they are potentially
• that the Legislature has asked for and has wanted that were lacking in that review.
• When we reviewed steel factories in California, we were not able to find one who can do the European

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to summarize briefly our review of the budget change proposals before you for the High-Speed
• So you'll want to make sure, I think, that you have the time to review those because they are potentially
• that the Legislature has asked for and has wanted that were lacking in that review.
• When we reviewed steel factories in California, we were not able to find the one who can do the European
• When we reviewed steel factories in California, we were not able to find the one who can do the European

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard an update from the California High-Speed Rail Authority on its draft 2026 business plan and related budget proposals. The Authority reported continued Central Valley construction progress, including completion of 59 of 92 major structures, 80 of 119 miles of guideway under construction, 93% utility relocation completion, and plans to begin track laying and electrification soon. It said the revised goal remains completing the Merced-to-Bakersfield early operating segment by 2032-33, while also pursuing ancillary revenue opportunities, a private partner through a co-development procurement, and two budget change proposals to reappropriate $423 million for Link Union Station and $246 million in federal trust funds before they expire. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said it had no specific concerns with the budget change proposals but raised major concerns about the draft business plan and the project’s broader fiscal outlook. LAO said the plan appears incomplete in several respects, that funding is likely insufficient to complete the revised initial operating segment and would leave a larger gap for expansion beyond the Central Valley, and that borrowing costs, optimistic assumptions, and uncertainty around future greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues could worsen the outlook. LAO suggested the Legislature could wait for a finalized business plan and highlighted unresolved questions about the scope of the project, borrowing, public-private partnerships, and proposed statutory changes. Members focused on whether the project can be delivered on time and what financial obligations the state could face. Senators questioned the need for tax increment financing, value capture, and other legislative changes, with concerns about impacts on local governments and school districts. The Authority said utility relocation authority is its top legislative priority and that value capture is a longer-term tool that would not affect civil construction of Merced-to-Bakersfield, but could affect payback timing. It also said the state’s $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funding through 2045 is currently assumed to cover the Central Valley segment, while private partners could either finance against that state commitment or invest additional capital in other segments. Public testimony was mixed: building trades and labor groups supported the project and the Authority’s request, while local government and special district representatives opposed tax increment proposals and urged consent from affected agencies; environmental and rail advocates supported the project and urged action on utility relocation. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The penalty piece comes through when we are reviewing returns or we get a tip, as a lot of the time that
• returns or we get it a tip are reviewing returns or we get it a tip as<00:05:24.400><c> a</c><00:05:
• Bears explained that, in many cases, the Department reviews the matter and finds program fraud that can
• She said the Department gets information from many different areas and reviews it thoroughly regardless
• areas, and always review thoroughly when we<00:10:43.240><c> receive</c><00:10:43.560><c> those,</c>

Summary: The committee heard House File 5040, the “Take It Back Act,” presented by Representative Anderson. The bill, as amended by the DE1 amendment, would impose a 100% tax on amounts a person is convicted of stealing through fraud against Minnesota public programs, with the stated goal of recovering taxpayer dollars. Anderson said the measure is bipartisan, has many co-authors, and was developed with the Department of Revenue to ensure it could be administered without undue burden. Joanna Bears of the Department of Revenue testified in support of the bill’s administration and thanked the authors for working with the department. She explained that the bill has two parts: a conviction-based tax that would be assessed after a fraud conviction, and a penalty piece tied to fraud identified through the department’s existing review and tip processes. In response to member questions, Bears said the department already receives tips and information from other agencies, reviews them carefully, and would use the bill as another tool to address public fund fraud. Members also asked about timing, restitution, and whether the bill could be misused by bad-faith tips; Anderson and Bears said the conviction-based portion is not tip-driven and that the bill is intended to be administered legally and efficiently. Representative Smith asked about the relationship to the Fraud Restitution Fund and whether the bill would apply to private-sector tax fraud. Bears said restitution would likely be collected first depending on statutory priority, and clarified that the new 100% penalty would apply only to public fund fraud, not general tax fraud, and only to the fraudulent public-fund amount. Representative Witty and others expressed support for the bill as a tool to combat fraud. At the end of the hearing, Representative Anderson renewed her motion to lay over House File 5040, as amended, for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill, and the chair indicated that was the plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• gentleman on the second floor signed Executive Order 2026-01, which directed the executive departments to review
• As a follow-up to their full chapter review, the board is committed to ensuring that the rules remain
• Multiple reviews delayed urgent work for months while fire spread.
• Multiple reviews delayed urgent work for months while fire spread.
• Councilwoman, the Sibanye Gold Project's review began before the rescission.

Committee: Senate Resources and Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• you know, their oversight role has been far more technical and far more strict, if you would, in reviewing
• The Department does what it calls an in-depth review every other year.
• The Department does what it calls an in-depth review every other year.
• Property appraisers submit their budgets to the Department of Revenue for review and approval, along
• DOR certainly pushes back each and every time they do an in-depth review.

Committee: Senate Finance and Tax

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:

• At that time, there is a review done by the department on a reorganization, and that would include Of
• schools, so I just want to share that there's a timeline associated with that review and that we could
• So those sorts of things go through a review process and approval process by the department.
• Your e-books, a letter of intent, also provided for your review, the total of 79 applications, spanning
• Moving through that, I believe we're at the point where we're reviewing two final candidates this morning

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• previously awarded projects, you have seen on the financial plan over time, the eligibility for the review
• The process to review would be that PSFA staff would conduct a comparative analysis of the original award
• This is what we really need to be looking at when reviewing these requests.
• The final date for the PSCOC to review and approve these requests is at the November 19th PSCOC meeting
• But I would agree, as long as we can review it later. Thank you, Mr. Chair.