Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

• counties, so instead of treating the state as one large county, if we look at individual counties and
• urban counties?
• counties.
• Then I want to move over to Holmes County, directly adjacent to that county.
• Move to Holmes County.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for a listening session focused on a presentation by Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research on local government revenues and expenditures. Baker reviewed statewide financial data for counties, municipalities, and independent special districts, using 2018-19 as a baseline year because it was stable and pre-COVID. She explained that counties rely heavily on taxes, with ad valorem taxes making up about 73% of county tax revenue and about 24% of total county revenues statewide, while municipalities rely more on charges for services and have a lower statewide ad valorem share of about 14.7%. She also noted wide variation across local governments, with some counties and cities highly dependent on property taxes and others using them minimally or not at all. Special districts were shown to be very different from counties and cities, with hospital-related revenues and expenditures dominating many of them, while water management districts were more reliant on ad valorem taxes and focused expenditures on the physical environment. Baker also summarized expenditure patterns: counties spent the largest share on public safety, while municipalities spent the largest share on general government services, followed by physical environment and public safety. She emphasized that local government structures vary widely and that the committee should study what characteristics are associated with greater property tax reliance. She said the next research steps would be to extend the analysis through later years, including the COVID and inflation period, and to examine institutional and legal factors that shape local fiscal structures. Members asked about unfunded mandates, fuel taxes, reserves, school taxes, millage rates, and how property taxes relate to specific services such as police and fire. Baker said the current analysis did not yet account for mandates or school taxes and that further work could examine links between revenues and expenditures, commercial versus residential tax burdens, and other factors. After the presentation, members reported back on local meetings with counties and municipalities. Several described large differences in millage rates, revenue mixes, and the impact of any property tax changes on fiscally constrained counties versus larger, wealthier ones. Concerns were raised about how local governments would replace lost revenue, especially for public safety and emergency response, and members discussed the need to consider both revenue replacement and ways to rein in spending. The co-chairs said the committee would continue gathering information, send members follow-up homework and requests for panel suggestions, and invite additional input from constituents, stakeholders, and local governments. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions beyond adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• of county government.
• The Department of Revenue provides guidance to county assessors and county auditors, but counties are
• County Assessors and County guidance to County Assessors and County Auditors<00:07:05.039> but
• county right the county collects county right the county collects property<00:08:17.960> taxes
• Fillmore County, Mr. Chair, I rushed to get you your example too for your county.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Bruce Messelt, and I serve as the County Administrator in Sherburn County.
• My name is Tom Barry, and I’m the County Administrator for Beltrami County.
• our county land is taxable.
• our county land is taxable.
• our county land is taxable.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Charles County and around Jefferson County.
• county plan that Jefferson County and the county commissioners in that area worked on. ...that this
• county plan that Jefferson County and the county commissioners in that area worked on.
• county plan that Jefferson County and the county commissioners in that area worked on.
• And those counties are fourth-class counties that are going to be switched to third-class counties.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have seven municipalities in my county, former county commissioner for eight years.
• of Alachua County.
• The Board of County Commissioners of a non-charter county may enact county ordinances not inconsistent
• to county.
• County as much.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee held its first meeting of the 2025 session and focused on an overview of county and municipal home rule powers and state preemption. After roll call and member introductions, Chair Alex Rizzo and Vice Chair Griff Griffiths explained the constitutional and statutory basis for local self-government, the distinction between charter and non-charter counties, and how express and implied preemption limit local authority. Griffiths emphasized that home rule gives local governments broad power to address community needs, but the Legislature can override that authority through clear preemption, with courts ultimately deciding disputes. Representatives Holcomb and LaMarca added that local issues should generally be addressed locally first, but statewide standards can be appropriate when uniformity is needed or local action is ineffective. The committee then heard from a panel representing counties, cities, business, and construction interests: Ginger Delegal of the Florida Association of Counties, Carolyn Johnson of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Rebecca O'Hara of the Florida League of Cities, and Carol Bowen of Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida. Delegal and O'Hara argued that home rule is rooted in local autonomy, policy experimentation, and accountability to voters, and warned against broad or “vacuum” preemptions that remove local authority without replacing it with state regulation. Johnson and Bowen supported preemption when local rules create a patchwork that hurts statewide competitiveness, raises costs, or complicates business operations, citing examples such as labor rules, heat safety, permitting, and procurement preferences. The panel also discussed the 2023 local ordinances law, which requires business impact estimates and provides attorney’s fees in certain challenges, as a mechanism to resolve disputes locally before resorting to preemption. Members questioned the panel about the 2024 heat-safety preemption and how to protect workers in the absence of local ordinances. Business representatives said existing OSHA duties and industry best practices already require employers to provide safe conditions, while local governments and the state should avoid inconsistent standards across jurisdictions. Another discussion centered on construction permitting, licensing, and local boards that may slow projects and increase costs; Bowen suggested eliminating redundant local fees and barriers while preserving statewide licensing and enforcement against bad actors. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with the chair inviting continued discussion on when preemption is appropriate versus when local governments should retain authority.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't have a list of which counties received the fake voter registration forms other than Carver County
• By inference, you would imagine Carver County was one of the ten or more counties involved.
• of the County Auditor.
• the card to another Minnesota county to update the record if the voter has moved to another county in
• Carver County.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have partnerships with county behavioral health programs, private providers, and county sheriffs
• practices at county option.
• This would be at county option. The TBL also would enable us, This would be at county option.
• Decisions should counties decide not to cover this at county option.
• It is optional for counties.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on budget proposals and implementation updates. DSH outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget, including funding for patient operating expenses, IST solutions savings, conditional release program costs, LPS bed allocation changes, electrical infrastructure projects at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and expanded dental services at Metropolitan and Patton. DSH also reported that it has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks in the Stiavedi v. Clinton case, with average time to initiate treatment down to about five days and pending placements reduced to roughly 250, while noting that Proposition 36 could increase referrals and SB 1323 may divert some individuals earlier into community-based treatment. Members asked about rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, the timing and structure of capital projects, and whether IST solution funds are being fully used; DSH said the savings reflect slower-than-expected ramp-up of community programs and that the Central California FACT replacement program is still on track for January 2027 activation. The Commission for Behavioral Health described its role under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including data, evaluation, grantmaking, technical assistance, and transparency work. It highlighted the new statewide Innovation Partnership Fund, a five-year, $20 million-per-year program with small and large grant categories; the first RFA drew strong interest, with more than 400 questions and over 1,000 bidders’ conference participants. The Commission also discussed a proposed extension to spend down about $4.1 million remaining for the Alcove Youth Drop-in Center grants so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation. Members asked about grant duration, whether projects can be renewed, what qualifies as innovation, and whether the fund could support service delivery rather than awareness campaigns or training; the Commission said awards are expected to be three-year contracts and that proposals must be new or meaningfully expanded approaches that support BHSA priority populations. DHCS reviewed major behavioral health changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, updated specialty mental health access criteria, and new substance use treatment standards based on ASAM’s fourth edition. DHCS reported strong contingency management results, with more than 13,000 members served and 95% testing negative for stimulant use during treatment, and said 21 Indian health care providers have been approved to offer traditional health care practices. It also described BH Connect initiatives such as the $1.9 billion access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation by four counties, and transitional rent services. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking individual county contract cuts but is monitoring county plans and statewide outcomes, while stakeholders raised concerns about local prevention and service gaps. DHCS also outlined its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, exemptions for disabled, substance use, and medically frail individuals, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding; it said it has not yet produced a focused estimate of H.R. 1 impacts on behavioral health populations. The discussion ended with DHCS noting that B-CHIP bond funding has supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have partnerships with county behavioral health programs, private providers, and county sheriffs
• Overall, we've received a lot of positive feedback from the counties transitioning to the county bed
• practices at county option.
• This would be at county option. The TBL also would enable us This would be at county option.
• It is optional for counties.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard updates from the Department of State Hospitals on its proposed 2026-27 budget, including a $3.2 billion total budget, patient-driven operating cost increases, savings in the IST solutions program, and progress in meeting the Stiavedi court-ordered 28-day treatment standard. DSH reported it has met court benchmarks, reduced the IST pending placement list from a pandemic high of 1,953 to about 250, and is now averaging about five days to initiate treatment. Members asked about the effects of Proposition 36 and SB 1323 on referrals, outside hospitalization costs, Medicare coverage, and whether IST solution funds were being overbudgeted; DSH said referrals are slightly down overall, outside medical costs are rising due to inflation and an aging population, and the IST savings reflect slower-than-expected activation of community programs rather than a service gap. The department also outlined proposed funding for electrical infrastructure upgrades at Napa and Patton, a feasibility study under SB 380 for transitional housing for the CONREP SVP program, and a dental services expansion at Metropolitan and Patton. The committee held those DSH items open after discussion. The Commission for Behavioral Health presented its role in overseeing the transition from MHSA to BHSA, including data, evaluation, transparency, grantmaking, and technical assistance. It described the new Innovation Partnership Fund, a statewide innovation grant program funded at up to $20 million annually for five years, with small and large grants, and said it had received strong interest ahead of the May 8 application deadline. Members asked about what qualifies as innovation, whether grants could be renewed, and how the state would ensure the program supports service delivery rather than general outreach or training. The commission also sought a liquidation deadline extension for up to $4.062 million in remaining Alcove Youth Drop-in Center funds so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation; that item was also held open. DHCS provided an overview of behavioral health policy changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, the access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation, transitional rent, and upcoming youth-focused guidance such as high-fidelity wraparound and activity funds. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking specific local program cuts, but is monitoring county plans and outcomes while noting that counties must still preserve Medi-Cal specialty mental health and DMC-ODS services. The department also discussed its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, ex parte exemptions, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding to reduce Medi-Cal coverage loss, especially for people with behavioral health needs. In response to questions, DHCS said it has not produced a specific H.R. 1 impact estimate for county behavioral health populations, and later explained that counties can still use BHSA and other funding streams for prevention and early intervention while the state tracks impacts through integrated plans and new performance measures. The department also reported on BH-CHIP bond spending, saying it has awarded $5.8 billion for 437 infrastructure projects creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,553 residential beds, with tribal set-asides exceeding the original allotment.

Transcript Highlights:

• County.
• Those larger counties... ...Day County owns the airport.
• There's no law or standard, say, for county managers or county attorneys.
• And it may differ county by county.
• You know, Nassau County is doing a fantastic job. And the county.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes heard first from city representatives through the Florida League of Cities, who argued that property taxes are a stable local revenue source that funds core services such as police, fire, parks, public works, and stormwater work. Casey Cook emphasized that cities are optional governments with widely different tax bases and service levels, that exemptions shift the burden to fewer taxpayers, and that transparency already exists through TRIM notices, public budgets, and local hearings. Sarah Campbell of Fernandina Beach, T. Michael Stavris of Winter Haven, and Stephen O’Kee of Port St. Lucie described their budget processes, the share of general-fund revenue coming from property taxes, reserve policies, debt and capital planning, and the impact of inflation, minimum wage increases, and personnel costs. They all said local governments need predictable revenue and that any property tax changes would require careful consideration of replacement funding or service reductions. Members questioned the city panel about whether homebuyers are clearly informed about city versus county taxes and services, the role of HOAs, how many lobbyists cities employ, reserve levels, average salaries, and whether utility revenues are used only for utility purposes. The panel said TRIM notices, realtor listings, and city websites provide tax information; HOAs generally do not provide emergency services; lobbyists help local governments track Tallahassee legislation; reserves vary by city and fund; and utility revenues are generally restricted, though some cities use limited transfers. Members also asked about revenue replacement if ad valorem taxes were reduced or eliminated, and the panel said options would likely include user fees, service cuts, or other local revenue shifts. The chair also asked about public safety consolidation, and the response was that such decisions are local and may shift costs rather than create true savings. The committee then heard from county representatives after an overview by the Florida Association of Counties’ Davin Suggs, who framed counties as shared partners with the state and emphasized the gap between rising market values and the shrinking share of taxable value after exemptions and assessment limits. He said counties face a mismatch between revenue based on taxable value and expenses driven by real-world costs, and noted that most counties either held millage steady or lowered it without reaching rollback rates. He also highlighted that property taxes are only one part of county revenue, with charges for services and intergovernmental revenue often larger in some counties, and that public safety at the county level includes more than law enforcement, such as EMS, emergency management, inspections, and corrections. Deborah Manzo of Okeechobee County described a fiscally constrained rural county with limited staff, a county-supported airport, heavy reliance on property taxes for the general fund, and major cost pressures from inflation, insurance, retirement, and state and federal mandates. She said the county lowered millage slightly over recent years but still depends on multiple revenue sources and special assessments, and she flagged Medicaid, medical examiner costs, and possible firefighter workweek changes as significant concerns. Bay County Administrator Mark McQueen said his county’s budget is shaped by Hurricane Michael recovery, non-discretionary obligations, and rapid growth; he described ongoing FEMA reimbursement delays, substantial borrowing to cover disaster costs, and continuing interest expenses while the county waits for reimbursement. The county panel was still in progress when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm happy to report Orange County has submitted a report, but why are I'm happy to report Orange County
• Sonoma County.
• Rick Valero, Tulare County, I oppose AB 928. Bill of Casares, Tulare County, I oppose AB 928.
• Stephen Wayne, Yuba County, I oppose AB 928. Emmanuel Salazar, Alameda County, and I oppose AB 928.
• I oppose San Chris County.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on April 30, 2025, for a regular order hearing on a large slate of bills. After opening remarks and quorum, the committee approved a consent calendar in two motions: one for bills eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar and another for unanimous bills not eligible for floor consent. The committee also deemed the suspense calendar approved without further discussion. Several housing and shelter-related bills were presented. AB 1061 by Quirk-Silva would allow SB 9 duplex and lot-split provisions to apply in historic districts, with limits to protect individually listed historic sites and maintain street-facing appearances; California YIMBY supported the measure. AB 750 by Quirk-Silva would strengthen oversight of homeless shelters by requiring posted resident-rights information, standardized reporting, and penalties for noncompliance, including possible withholding of state funding. AB 712 by another member would increase penalties for public agencies that violate state housing law and bar indemnification demands against applicants when agencies break those laws; it was described as part of a fast-track housing package. The committee then took public comment, dominated by extensive opposition to AB 928. Dozens of individuals, many identifying with poultry, feed, gamefowl, agricultural, or related organizations, testified against the bill, saying it would harm their livelihoods, culture, religious practices, or constitutional rights and could kill birds. A few speakers also testified on other bills, including support for AB 1337 and AB 804 and opposition to AB 1337. After public comment concluded, the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the county and district clerk from Sherman County.
• that county.
• county has four county commissioners' precincts.
• This is Hays County, Tarrant County, Harris County.
• I'm the County and District Clerk in Sherman County, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the County

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 3709, which would change the partial manual audit process so early voting could be audited by voting location rather than by randomly selected precincts. The author and several supporters said the current precinct-based process is antiquated, labor-intensive, and especially difficult in countywide voting systems and large counties. Opponents and some neutral witnesses raised concerns about whether the change would still allow an apples-to-apples audit against official precinct results, whether random selection procedures should be more clearly defined, and how ballot secrecy and mail ballots would be handled. The Secretary of State’s office said counties already use random selection methods and that the bill would largely standardize early voting audits with election-day procedures, while also noting ballot privacy issues can arise in public records requests. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee then took up House Bill 766, as substituted, which would require precinct chair applicants to provide an email address, phone number, or both, while making that contact information confidential. Supporters said the change would help parties and local officials contact applicants more efficiently. Opponents argued it could expose personal contact information to public records requests and harassment, and some suggested the information should instead be handled through party rules. The bill was left pending after the committee substitute was withdrawn. House Bill 3775 followed and would set clearer timelines for when early voting ballot boards may begin opening carrier envelopes, with different start times based on county size. Supporters said the bill would address counties opening ballots too early and improve ballot security, while opponents warned it could delay defect notices and cure opportunities for mail voters and create problems in large counties that process high volumes of ballots. Testimony also focused on whether the bill referred to carrier envelopes or secrecy envelopes and on how counties like Harris County currently image and secure ballot materials. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 4275, which would require countywide polling systems to have polling places in each election precinct, intended to address uneven distribution of polling locations across county commissioner precincts. Supporters said the bill would make polling place distribution fairer and more consistent, especially in Harris County, while opponents said it would undermine countywide voting, increase costs, require more equipment and staff, and reduce local flexibility. Several witnesses also raised concerns about ballot secrecy and the practical burden on large and rural counties. The bill remained under discussion as testimony continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• And remind me real quick, what county is that? Austin County. Austin County.
• I'm talking county-wise.
• the county.
• You know, we have very small counties, and then we have really big counties like Collin County and Dallas
• County.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• northeast along County Road 124 to the intersection of County Road 124 and County Road 413.
• of County Road 134 and Mississippi Highway 41 in Chasaw County.
• , County Road 124 in Chasaw County, County Road 124 in Chasaw County, traveling<00:03:56.560>
• County Road 124 and County Road 413. County Road 124 and County Road 413.
• County. County.

Keywords: Highways and Transportation - Room 216, 25 February, 2026; 2:00 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee took up several Mississippi highway designation bills. House Bill 223 would name a one-mile segment of Mississippi Highway 537 in Jones County the Sergeant John Howard Tanner Memorial Highway, effective July 1, 2026. House Bill 342 would designate two segments in Edwa County: Highway 370 as the Roger Campbell Memorial Highway and Highway 363 as the Jacob Edward Kent Memorial Highway, also effective July 1, 2026. House Bill 655 would create the Davis Lake Road Scenic Byway in Chickasaw County, covering about 12.32 miles along County Roads 124, 413, and 134 to Mississippi Highway 41. House Bill 1402 would name about one mile of Highway 49 North in Yazoo County the Colonel Donald Barry Memorial Highway, effective July 1, 2026. Members asked whether the affected senators were in favor of the bills, and the chair responded that the senators were not in the districts involved or had not objected. Senator Barrett said he had no objections to the measures but asked for clarification on the mileage and route descriptions, particularly for House Bills 342 and 655. The chair and staff confirmed the routes and noted that the scenic byway bill covered 12.32 miles. After discussion, a motion was made that the title was sufficient and the bills should do pass. The committee approved the motion, and the measures were recorded for the rise report.

Transcript Highlights:

• Evangelist Christian School in Shelby Evangelist Christian School in Shelby County. County. County.
• Houston County. I think Houston County.
• Clair County, Jefferson County, So, St.
• county commission is the county county commission is the county commission.<01:31:21.440> They
• What we're doing... >> County property. >> County property? Any county or just in your county?

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it attaches that part of Orange County and Osceola County with some of its southern, more rural counties
• So it attaches Okeechobee County with part of southern Polk County, Highlands County, and Glades County
• Johns County is the fastest growing county. Let's name them.
• Johns County is the fastest growing county. Let's name them.
• Johns County.

Keywords: 999, senate, all