Transcript Highlights:

• under, fall under those development rules as any developer would.
• SB 1450 makes a few corrections such as adding development permits, which was inadvertently left out
• didn't necessarily include a permit.
• document and the development permit just to make sure that that is clearly stated, um.
• developer builds and, and.

Transcript Highlights:

• Permit or agreement issuance: upon approval, the agency will issue a permit or formal agreement, applying
• We worked very closely with the FDOT as they developed their one-stop permitting, and really FDOT is
• We worked very closely with the FDOT as they developed their one-stop permitting, and really FDOT is
• We know how to obtain a permit.
• don't require a permit.

Summary: The Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee met with a quorum present and first heard HB 11 from Representative Robinson. The bill would address an unintended consequence in Florida’s municipal utility surcharge law by requiring the same water/utility rate for residents when a utility facility is physically located within one municipality but owned by another, rather than allowing the owning municipality to impose a 25% surcharge. The sponsor and several members described it as a fairness issue affecting residents who do not receive local tax support for the facility but still bear the surcharge. Public testimony included support from AARP and Miami-Dade County and opposition from North Miami Beach. The bill was reported favorably on an 18-0 vote. The committee then held a panel discussion on utility use of public rights-of-way and utility relocation. Panelists from FDOT, county government, gas, water, electric, and communications sectors described the permitting process, noting that FDOT uses a detailed utility accommodation manual and that local governments may use permits, franchise agreements, or ordinances depending on the utility type. They emphasized that utilities often must coordinate early with agencies using long-range work programs and project plans, and that the process differs by utility and jurisdiction. Communications witnesses discussed Chapter 337 and the 60-day local permitting shot clock, while others noted the role of Sunshine State One Call in locating facilities before excavation. A major focus was who pays for relocations when road or infrastructure projects require utilities to move. FDOT and several panelists said utilities generally bear the cost when they are in public right-of-way, with exceptions such as certain interstate/interchange projects and easement impacts. Utility representatives said relocations are often effectively new builds, can be costly, and are ultimately reflected in rates or customer costs. Members also asked about easements versus right-of-way, damage and disputes during construction, broadband workforce needs, and whether legislation could improve coordination. Panelists largely said the existing process works best when agencies, contractors, and utilities communicate early and continuously, and that more legislation may not be necessary compared with better planning, staffing, and use of technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of times when it comes to our Our permit timelines.
• So, that's one effort related to permitting.
• And it's related to the Uniform Permitting Act.
• We've got a team that can help them walk through whether it's a water permit, an air permit, a disposal
• permit, or whatever it is they need.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , manufacturing and workforce development.
• And so the issue about permitting they are and the challenge of how do I speed up permitting of anything
• But we also asked every permit a new technology where the AP 1000 is a technology that's permit or you've
• federal, permitting and individual.
• developed.

Transcript Highlights:

• rights, and promote smart housing. development.
• When it comes to single-family development and multifamily development, it all triggers from the cost
• city or elsewhere, a building permit.
• And then once you get your building permit, you start the building process.
• In the plans and permitting process, I have heard horror stories about...

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Permit.
• It uh wetlands permitting, shoreland permitting, alteration of terrain permitting, which we're talking
• It uh wetlands permitting, shoreland permitting, alteration of terrain permitting, which we're talking
• It uh wetlands permitting,<03:18:01.920> shoreland<03:18:02.479> permitting, permitting
• , shoreland permitting, permitting, shoreland permitting, alteration<03:18:03.520> of<03:18:03.680

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 27FN, which would change how improvements to dwellings over water are handled and align those projects more closely with the state building code. The bill was presented by Trisha Milo on behalf of Senator Lang, and attorney John Cronin explained that it arose from a specific New Hampshire Supreme Court case involving the Newcombs’ lakeside property, but that it could affect a small number of older waterfront homes statewide. He said the intent was to give the Department of Environmental Services (DES) limited waiver authority for improvements that do not harm water quality, plant life, or fish, while still requiring DES review and local permits. Committee members asked several questions about the scope of the bill, including whether it was tied to one case, how many properties might be affected, what counts as “living space,” and whether the language could allow larger decks or other expansions. Cronin said the bill was meant to be narrow, focused on access and egress and not on creating new living space, and that DES would still be able to deny unreasonable requests. He also described the Newcombs’ project as a rehabilitation of an older structure that had been approved locally and later challenged by DES, leading to the current dispute. Darlene Forst, the Wetlands Bureau administrator at DES, testified in opposition. She said the department was surprised the bill was being heard because it believed the Senate had sent it to interim study, and she argued the language was unclear and could have broader statewide effects than intended. Forst also said the underlying case was still active and should not be effectively re-litigated through this bill. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Someone will get a permit, or someone will go to SOA, or someone will get denied a permit.
• and we look at the protectiveness of the permit.
• But make sure that any boxes that a developer or anybody that comes to you for a permit checks that there's
• Can a developer come to TCEQ?
• We don't permit quarries; we do permit rock crushing facilities on the site of quarries.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , the NPDES permit.
• Under the New Mexico Mining Act, there are four new mine permits. There is a permit term.
• , whereas new mine permits do have a permit term and a renewal process.
• In my mind, pursuing the permit is incumbent on the proponent of the permit.
• They are applying for a permit because they want the permit.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Board for Lease of University Lands has authority over the leasing and development of oil and gas
• the development stage. 1/3 is during the building stage, dividing that 25% up.
• Issues you have to deal with that actually hinder development?
• from that jurisdiction if it's in the city, a building permit.
• There's a 45-day shot clock for building permits.

Transcript Highlights:

• from those project developers as to whether they implement or how.
• If permitted under the exception in Section 2, subsection A.
• I am with the Waste Permits Division in TCEQ.
• We have tiers: permits, registrations, and notifications.
• Remember, the permits are to a great degree stovepipe-based.

Bills: SB3074, HB49, HB2440, HB3556, HB3619, HB3866, HB4042, HB4112, HB4271, HB4413, HB4426, HB5033, HB49

Keywords: SB 3074, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Water Code, permit applications, environmental permitting, administrative record, ex parte communications, legislative communications, governor, lieutenant governor, state legislators, district projects, public records, recusal, conflict of interest, substantial interest, agency transparency, environmental regulation, permit renewal

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund to support nuclear development through the Texas Advanced Nuclear Development Fund to support nuclear
• And the time frame to get a permit?
• That's if everything goes right for the operating, for the construction permit, then the operating permit
• We are not opposed to workforce development, by the way, and having some attention to workforce development
• We are not opposed to workforce development, by the way, and having some attention to workforce development

Bills: HB132, HB 11, HB14, HB132, HB1584, HB1606, HB5061, HB 1041, HB2286

Keywords: nuclear energy, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, energy policy, regulation repeal, state energy strategy, licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• As many comments have indicated, that includes green development or renewable development.
• We have solar development, geothermal development, and other renewable energy development underway.
• permits.
• it, the developer would have to get a permit, but not from the land grant, rather from the county or
• So if a developer came in, let's just say a developer came in and the voters approved it, and there were

Transcript Highlights:

• permit.
• permit.
• the septic tank permit before they can even apply for the building permit.
• granted a building permit?
• The construction permit, I assume you mean septic permit.

Summary: The committee first confirmed six appointees in a single vote, then took up a series of bills, most of them reported favorably. The early debate centered on SB 208, a land-use bill by Sen. McLean that would require development fees to reflect review costs and create more objective compatibility standards for residential development denials. An amendment adding housing-related provisions, including an OPAGA study of urban development boundaries, drew extended discussion over the Everglades and local control; it was adopted, while a late-filed amendment on rural boundaries was withdrawn. The bill was then reported favorably after supporters and opponents, including Miami-Dade and housing groups, weighed in. The committee also favorably reported SB 686 on agricultural enclaves after amendments adding conservation, wildlife corridor, and Everglades-related protections, with one amendment specifically preserving stronger protections in counties covered by the Northern Everglades/Indian River Lagoon plan. Several criminal justice and public records measures also advanced. SB 436 would add resisting an officer with violence as a qualifying prior offense for battery enhancement and include certain felony battery offenses in prison release reoffender status. SB 830 would extend public-records protections to county and city administrators and related family information. SB 990 would authorize protected cell captive insurers in Florida. SB 600, on bail bonds, drew the most debate: an amendment by Sen. Rouson preserved the current treatment of charitable bail organizations’ deposits, with supporters arguing nonprofits help low-income defendants and critics saying the bill should distinguish commercial and nonprofit bonding; the amendment was adopted and the bill reported favorably. SB 914 on dry needling and SB 1434 on infill redevelopment also passed, the latter with an amendment removing a 10% markup requirement for buyback provisions. The committee then moved through a large education and health agenda. SB 1504 would let high school students who complete an insurance/personal finance elective qualify later for a customer service representative license. SB 1718 would expand educator preparation and temporary certification options. SB 7038 was a broad education package covering tuition waivers for Florida State Guard members, residency rules, consumer protections, dual enrollment, grading, and college funding; amendments clarified workforce licensure and exempted certain dental training from new licensure rules. SB 1092 on podiatric medicine added definitions and restrictions for cellular/tissue-based products. SB 1138 on qualified contractors created a pre-application review program for certain local governments, with historic-preservation carveouts. SB 186 on student health and safety required seizure-training and action plans in schools, and SB 560 on child welfare streamlined psychotropic-medication procedures for children in state care while adding youth advisory meetings and insurance-data review. SB 902, a broad Department of Health bill, addressed medical marijuana facility setbacks, practitioner discipline, autism microcredentials, marriage and family therapy licensure, a neurofibromatosis grant program, and family home health aide delegation; it passed after two amendments. Finally, SB 218 on land-use regulations limited hurricane-recovery restrictions to affected counties, SB 1002 expanded child-neglect definitions tied to parental drug abuse, SB 1474 tightened biosolids land-application rules, SB 1708 eased out-of-state veterinary licensure by endorsement, and SB 314 established a Florida regulatory framework for payment stablecoins aligned with federal law. Most measures were reported favorably by committee vote after brief testimony or no debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• So those are really the two major permitting programs that developers, I think, run into when they talk
• Shoreland and our Wetlands permitting Shoreland and our Wetlands permitting program<01:42:06.400
• programs that um that major permitting programs that um that developers<01:42:24.880> I<01:42
• uh that receives a receives a permit uh that receives a permit<01:49:20.960> has<01:49:21.159
• situation as dot driveway permits situation as dot driveway permits because<01:50:22.239> do<

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As a developer, we'll look at utility prior to development. Thank you.
• Permitting, cost, and timing.
• Permitting, cost, and timing.
• We're a year into the permitting process, and we finally secured enough permits.
• Developers make a huge profit, often after obtaining an extraction permit under false pretenses.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing covered a broad set of environmental and water-related bills, with much of the testimony focused on blue economy and circular economy proposals, drought management, drinking water safety, flood resilience, and water infrastructure funding. Supporters of bills such as H. 987 and H. 988 described grant programs for blue economy workforce development, research, small businesses, and public education about a circular economy. Other speakers backed measures on coastal erosion research, recreational boating dredging, cranberry water-right transfers, sand mining oversight, and a voucher program for home water filtration in PFAS-impacted communities. Several elected officials and advocates also urged passage of bills to require private well testing, improve school drinking water safety, and address sand mining pollution and PFAS contamination. Water supply and drought issues drew extensive testimony. Senator Eldridge and others supported legislation to let the state, through DEP and the drought management task force, impose regional water-use restrictions during droughts and make the task force permanent in statute. Advocates from watershed groups, farms, and environmental organizations said the current town-by-town approach is inconsistent and ineffective, and they described drought impacts on rivers, farms, private wells, and wildfire risk. A related bill on private wells was supported as a way to help homeowners test and remediate contaminated wells, especially in rural areas without public water. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to allow the Lynnfield Water District to join the MWRA, with local officials saying the move would help address PFAS and other contamination and improve supply reliability. Another major panel supported a water infrastructure funding bill, arguing that aging drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems need major new investment, including support for PFAS treatment, sewer rate relief, biosolids research, and regional interconnections. Members asked about costs, funding sources, and the relationship to existing revolving loan funds; witnesses said the bill would need to be paired with future bond funding and new revenue ideas. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs repeatedly invited written testimony and noted the large number of speakers.

Transcript Highlights:

• We understand the author intends to remove the proposed moratorium on major air permits.
• permit if the new structure is similar to the original.
• It states that property owners would not be exempt from a coastal development permit if the replacement
• They'd still be allowed to build, just through a more rigorous review and permitting process.
• Developers can buy up fire-damaged coastal properties and rebuild without a coastal development permit

Summary: The committee considered several coastal, climate, and air quality measures. Senator Laird presented SCR 136 marking the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act and Coastal Conservancy Act, and SJR 12 opposing the federal offshore oil and gas leasing program; both drew broad support from environmental groups, local governments, and other advocates, with no opposition heard. Senator Padilla presented SB 10, requiring state climate plans to include gender impact assessments, with supporters arguing climate harms fall disproportionately on women and LGBTQ+ people; the bill also drew no opposition in the hearing. Senator Padilla also presented SB 675 to restructure the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District board and expand public transparency, while supporters cited severe air quality problems and opponents raised concerns about unfunded mandates, consultation, and impacts on local permitting and economic development. Senator Allen presented SB 1229 to limit disaster-rebuild coastal permit exemptions when replacement structures would newly impede coastal access or sensitive protections, with supporters saying it would prevent investor abuse of post-disaster rebuilding rules. After testimony, the committee took up the measures and recorded votes. SCR 136, SJR 12, SB 10, SB 675, and SB 1229 all advanced on party-line or near-party-line votes, with some members voting no on the more regulatory measures. The consent calendar was also approved, including ACR 157, SB 899, SB 949, SB 963, SB 1008, SB 1207, SB 1428, and SJR 5. All of the listed measures were sent onward, generally to Appropriations, and the committee concluded its hearing after the roll calls.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we are also developing tools to help.
• The local planning office or building permit office looks and says, wait a minute, someone did a permit
• Permitting data: is there any kind of state-level flow of permitting data or anything coming out of EOHLC
• We had a permitting system back when we were doing this, you know, ten years ago, but this new permitting
• the permitting process?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census held a hearing on September 22, 2025 focused on preparations for the 2030 census, with an emphasis on Massachusetts’ role in building a complete address list and improving local participation in census-related address review programs. Chair Brownsberger and witnesses from the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office, the UMass Donahue Institute, Watertown, and MassGIS described the importance of accurate address data for congressional apportionment, federal funding, and state and local planning. They also discussed the first major upcoming step, the Block Boundary Suggestion Project, and the later Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) process, both of which rely on municipalities reviewing and correcting census geography and address files. John Rosenberry of the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office said outreach to cities and towns is beginning now, with a likely December start for the block boundary process based on the 2020 cycle. He stressed that local officials, clerks, building inspectors, housing authorities, and GIS staff should be engaged early, especially to capture new development and conversions created under the state’s housing policies. Susan Strait of UMass Donahue explained that LUCA allows local governments to compare their address lists with the Census Bureau’s master address file, and that Massachusetts had very high participation in 2020; she cited examples where local review added hidden or newly built housing units and noted that Boston later corrected a group-quarters undercount of about 6,000 students through a post-census review program. In response to questions, she clarified that those corrections affected annual estimates and funding formulas, but not the 2020 apportionment count. Watertown City Manager George Proakis described how local address review is complicated by accessory dwelling units, single-family to two-family conversions, and large multifamily projects, and urged continued state support for local governments doing this work. Dan Marrier of MassGIS then outlined the Massachusetts Master Address Database, explaining that it combines multiple sources, including E911, assessor, voter, and municipal data, to create a standardized residential address repository used for census preparation and other state functions. He said the database has helped improve census accuracy, including by updating more than one million Census Bureau address-point locations before 2020, and noted that local municipalities remain the final authority on addresses even as MassGIS standardizes and reconciles variants across the Commonwealth.

Transcript Highlights:

• is uh with transit oriented development is uh with transit oriented development we<00:01:55.680>
• simplifying permitting for enhanced economic<00:03:42.640> development<00:03:43.440> to
• on DNR stuff, permitting on other stuff.
• on DNR stuff, permitting on other stuff.
• task force focused on speedy permitting task force focused on speedy permitting and<00:11:02.480

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs heard two concurrent resolutions. HCR 33 proposed asking the U.S. Postmaster General to relocate the Pearl City Post Office from Kamehameha Highway and Acacia Road to Navy property on the Pearl City Peninsula. Testifiers, including Pearl City Neighborhood Board chair Larry Verrett and resident Lena Ala Baiton, supported the move, citing severe congestion, narrow access, safety concerns, and the potential to improve traffic flow and support transit-oriented development. Members noted a similar Senate measure had already passed, and HCR 33 was recommended to pass unamended. The committee then considered HCR 157, which would establish a task force to simplify permitting for enhanced economic development and coordinate state and intergovernmental permitting processes. Testimony in support was submitted by representatives connected to DBED/HHFDC and others. In discussion, members questioned whether such a task force was necessary, what projects it would address, how often it would meet, whether it could include housing and local-level projects, and what the cost might be; the response was that the resolution would provide more structure, no similar project had been executed before, and costs were not yet known but could be addressed later. The committee ultimately recommended HCR 157 pass unamended, and the recommendation was adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• The idea here is for when developers have a project and they need DES permits.
• any developments that need Dees permits any developments that need Dees permits um<00:31:15.200>
• That was part of a lot of projects, and developers also needed driveway permits, so they were roping
• are doing the environmental reviews when a developer gets a driveway permit.
• “A permit by notification is when a developer or applicant submits a proposal to us, and the plans in

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the Department of Environmental Services on proposed changes in House Bill 2 and related technical changes in House Bill 1 tied to the governor’s permitting realignment initiative. The proposal would move environmental review staff from Fish and Game and DNCR to DES to create a more centralized “one-stop shop” for applicants needing DES permits, especially for wildlife and natural heritage reviews. DES said the goal is to speed permitting, support a 60-day review clock, and improve coordination among agencies while keeping the substantive review work in place. Members asked about staffing impacts, the scope of the transferred duties, and whether the change would create redundancy or weaken the other agencies. DES said most of the affected staff work primarily on these reviews, though Fish and Game staff also handle other state and federal reviews, which is why the proposal was adjusted to keep one of the four Fish and Game positions there and move three to DES, along with two positions from DNCR. DES also described a new supervisory position in HB 2 to manage the transferred staff within its land resources bureau. Officials said the reviews would still be done by specialists, but under DES supervision, and that the agencies would continue to coordinate recommendations on species impacts and mitigation. The committee also discussed fee increases intended to offset costs, including a 50% increase in wetlands fees and a 100% increase in alteration-of-terrain fees, with the department saying the changes would cover the new positions. Members raised concerns about impacts on private homeowners, possible incentives to work without permits, and whether fines should be used more as a revenue source or for mitigation. DES said wetlands permits are roughly split between homeowner-related and commercial projects, that permit-by-notification already creates a two-tier structure for smaller projects, and that enforcement relies partly on public complaints and online permitting systems. The department also said most fines currently go to the general fund and vary widely year to year, with about $75,000 budgeted, and that the proposal would also create permit-by-notification authority for alteration-of-terrain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet, mirroring language in Senate Bill 110. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're not seeing the permits put forth for this.
• the species and development and management within the state.
• Permitting guidelines provide the details and procedures for permitting the take of tortoises and were
• developed with extensive input from the development community.
• Conservation permitting for developing lands, when lands are being developed and there's not suitable

Summary: The committee first heard SB 200, which would implement recommendations from DEP’s 2020 Recycling Goal Final Report by creating a technical assistance group to develop a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan by 2026. The bill focuses on recycling education and outreach, evaluating the former recycling grant program, and developing markets for recyclable materials. Supporters from the waste and recycling industry and counties said the bill would finally create a real plan to help Florida move toward its recycling goals. The bill was reported favorably. The committee then considered SB 50 on nature-based coastal resilience, which would promote green, gray, and hybrid infrastructure, direct USF’s Flood Hub to develop guidelines, require DEP rulemaking on erosion and mangrove protection, and study whether nature-based flood reduction could help lower insurance costs. Supporters appeared in favor, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee also passed SB 7000 as a committee bill to continue a public records exemption protecting site-specific location information for threatened and endangered species. Members next took up SB 56 on weather modification activities. The bill would prohibit the release of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere to affect weather or sunlight, define geoengineering, increase penalties through an amendment, and create a DEP reporting hotline with possible referral to DOH or emergency management. The sponsor and several supporters argued the bill was needed to address public concerns and lack of oversight, while several senators questioned the evidence, the role of state agencies, and whether the bill was ready for passage. Despite opposition from some members, the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably. The committee also approved CS for SB 62 creating a resilient building tax credit program, after amending it to shift agency references from DEP to DBPR and add university advisory members, and CS for SB 80 to clarify state park management as conservation-based, require public notice and advisory input for plan changes, and improve reporting on park repairs; both bills were reported favorably after testimony from supporters and conservation groups who sought tighter language to prevent incompatible uses. Finally, the committee received presentations from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on gopher tortoise relocation, wildlife disease surveillance, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. FWC described tortoise relocation and recipient-site programs, ongoing monitoring of wildlife diseases such as chronic wasting disease and feline leukomyelopathy, and efforts to address fish die-offs and update sanctuary agreements amid state-federal jurisdiction issues. No votes were taken on the presentations.