Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 908, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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:

• So we have a few counties left. We have Yavapai County, La Paz County, Hila County.
• Pima County is not included. Coconino County is not included. Mohave County...
• Any questions for La Paz County? Hila. I'm sorry, Hila County. My apologies. For La Paz County?
• We have Mojave County, I forgot—Mojave County, Pinal County, and Santa Cruz County, so next.
• I forgot Mojave County Pinell County and Santa Cruz County so next hello my name is Nikala Carlson Public

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee opened with remarks about moving JLAC to a more frequent monthly schedule and spending more time on each audit. Members also recognized Melanie Chesney of the Auditor General’s office for 32 years of service, with several members praising her work and her role in school safety and other audits. The meeting then turned to the JLAC-directed Arizona School Safety Special Audit on interoperable communication systems, with the Auditor General’s office presenting the December 2025 report. The audit found that the state had allocated nearly $26 million to interoperable communication efforts, but implementation varied widely. Auditors said all 14 law enforcement agencies used the money for interoperable systems, yet four agencies allowed private or tribal schools to participate contrary to statute, and several agencies failed to submit required expenditure reports. The report also found procurement problems: nine of 14 agencies did not follow procurement requirements or lacked documentation, many contracts lacked accountability provisions, and some agencies had not planned for ongoing costs. The audit estimated ongoing annual costs for an average rural county could range from about $16,000 to $382,000, and recommended that agencies document costs, follow procurement rules, monitor vendors, and plan for future funding. It also recommended the legislature clarify whether non-public schools may participate and revisit statutory system requirements that were vague or inconsistently interpreted. Members questioned the Auditor General about vendor licensing, whether systems could be built in-house, why some functions were not configured, and whether the systems were truly usable in emergencies. The presentation explained that some systems met requirements only in part, that Mutualink had a per-user licensing model affecting access to secure text and file sharing, and that some schools were unwilling or unable to install apps or keep devices logged in. The committee also discussed the difference between the separate school safety grant program administered by ADE and this interoperability fund, and several members expressed frustration with sole-source contracting and weak documentation. In the final portion of the presentation, auditors said only two of eight observed systems demonstrated all five critical emergency functions, while four agency systems could not be tested because they were reportedly not functioning. The committee then began hearing responses from county sheriffs, starting with the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association president, who emphasized county commitment to school safety and noted that some counties had implemented systems across multiple districts, including tribal and rural schools. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion provided.

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.