Rodger Reedy — Said bills with unrefereed amendments will raise concerns in the Senate and urged caution.
Rodger Reedy — Returned to the theme of avoiding unvetted amendments and introduced a new topic on real estate new construction.
Rodger Reedy — Asked where the committee stood on real estate new construction and noted a prior bill on personal property increases.
Rodger Reedy — Said excluding real estate new construction could help support the committee's work and introduced examples from Boonville.
Rodger Reedy — His earlier point about committee process is being referenced indirectly in the surrounding discussion.
Rodger Reedy — His point is cited that additions to bills should come to committee.
Rodger Reedy — The chair recognizes him to join the conversation on rebuilding and new construction.
Rodger Reedy — Explains that remodeling or minor updates are not usually treated as new construction, unlike building new or adding on.
Rodger Reedy — His example is used to distinguish new construction from remodeling.
Rodger Reedy — His new subdivision example is referenced as part of the new-construction discussion.
Rodger Reedy — Representative Reedy is referenced as part of the speaker’s explanation for why other bills should not be rolled into the current measure, with the same rationale repeated across both mentions.
Kathy Steinhoff — Was called during roll and answered present.
Kathy Steinhoff — Representative Steinhoff questions the proposed language affecting school districts, asking whether Clayton is one of the districts below the threshold and expressing concern that the language may not apply to the small rural communities she initially assumed it targeted. She asks for clarification on what the new language would do, says she wants to investigate the issue further, and notes that the clarification does not change her overall concern. Later references from another speaker point back to her earlier point that districts at the bottom level are not providing taxpayer relief.
Kathy Steinhoff — Kathy Steinhoff is referenced as a co-sponsor and prior discussion partner on the bill/topic, and then she is recognized to speak. In her remarks, she pivots into the property tax discussion, mentioning Murphy's fix to Hancock as part of the same policy conversation.
Mark Boyko — Was called during roll and answered present.
Mark Boyko — Representative Boyko is recognized to speak following an explanation about the 275 base and possible exceptions, then asks whether he can be heard and continues the discussion by referencing districts at 275, which he notes are typically rural districts receiving the full adequacy target, and poses a question to the Chair.
Mark Boyko — Representative Boyko was called on to speak and then argued that he fundamentally disagreed with Representative Keathley over the levy/tax issue, especially over who should bear the cost. He continued the same line of argument by saying they had a fundamental disagreement about cost responsibility, and the discussion was later summarized as his point that making one tax decision in one year should not necessarily be discounted by a different decision the next year.
Mark Boyko — The chair calls on Representative Boyko next.
Mark Boyko — Asks about Hancock limits, school board service, and voluntary rollbacks tied to new construction and revenue growth.
Mark Boyko — Referenced as having made a similar point about the complexity of new construction.
Mark Boyko — Referenced as someone who 'seems to have found' how much is enough at one point.
Tricia Byrnes — Likely the member called as 'Burns' during roll call; presence was recorded.
Tricia Byrnes — The chair calls on Representative Byrnes to speak next.
Darin Chappell — Likely the member called as 'Chapel' during roll call; no response is captured in this section.
Darin Chappell — Representative Chappell delivers a continuous floor speech defending a mathematically sensible, bipartisan approach to the issue. He notes that he values good ideas regardless of party, admits he previously voted against an amendment because he misread it, and uses a blunt anecdote to criticize territorial or dismissive behavior. He then urges Republicans and Democrats to encourage colleagues, argues the bill is complex and should be treated carefully, thanks the chair and members for their work, opposes adding provisions from outside bills, and closes by insisting that the math should be followed and thanking the chair.
David Dolan — Was called during roll and answered present.
David Dolan — Representative Dolan says several school districts are reacting to the legislation with concerns that it will reduce funding or have a larger-than-expected fiscal impact, and he notes that he has been relaying the Chair’s explanation to his districts. He asks for clearer information to be shared so superintendents and districts understand the proposal and its effects.
Ron Fowler — Was called during roll and answered present.
Ron Fowler — Was addressed by the chair and indicated he had a question.
Ron Fowler — Representative Ron Fowler is first identified as the next speaker on the list, and then is directly referenced in a hypothetical example about TIFing a property, with the same illustrative point repeated for emphasis.
Ron Fowler — Representative Fowler explains the difference between an H.J.R. and a referendum for placing measures in the Constitution or statute.
Ron Fowler — Representative Ron Fowler is called on to speak, and his earlier question is later referenced in the ongoing discussion about fire department impacts.
Jeff Hales — Was called during roll and answered present.
Tony Harbison — Was called during roll and answered present.
Tony Harbison — During open discussion, Representative Harbison is invited to speak, and the chair apologizes for the informal open-mic format. Harbison then responds by saying he is still confused about the discussion of schools below the 275 threshold and asks whether the rate for every district is known.
Tony Harbison — Representative Tony Harbison is called on and then asks whether an H.J.R. would be appropriate for a multifaceted proposal, continuing the same legislative discussion.
Will Jobe — Was called during roll; the transcript appears to misrecognize the name as 'Jove.'
Will Jobe — Likely the 'Representative Joe' referenced in the discussion.
Will Jobe — Referenced as the sponsor of a taxpayer appeal protection provision.
Will Jobe — Will Jobe first responds to a question by identifying the proposal as a referendum clause that can be attached to any bill and would require approval by the voters before becoming law. He notes he is still learning the process as a freshman. He then adds that if the group wants a fiscal note or further analysis, the matter should be referred to committee so legislative research can handle it.
Will Jobe — Will Jobe is referenced in support of the argument that a Democrat bill should be heard in committee, with both mentions reinforcing the same point about giving the bill a hearing.
Will Jobe — Called on next in the discussion after the fund balance and payroll comments.
Ben Keathley — Was called during roll and answered present; later addressed as 'Rep. Keithley.'
Ben Keathley — Name appears again in the roll call list as 'Heathley,' likely a transcription error.
Ben Keathley — Is invited to interject first in the discussion.
Ben Keathley — Asks whether provisions omitted from the chair's bill would overlap with his own bill, referred to as 'the 68 one.'
Ben Keathley — Was recognized and began explaining the language related to abatements and reporting.
Ben Keathley — Was asked to address a text message while still at the microphone.
Ben Keathley — Was asked to explain what his bill would include, and confirmed he wants the November portion and ballot transparency provisions in the bill.
Ben Keathley — Continued describing the ballot transparency provisions and the $100,000 tax impact definition.