Jeff Coleman — Addressed as the chair who could share the information with the committee.
Jeff Coleman — The chair thanked the sponsor and moved to public testimony.
John Simmons — Named during the roll call as Vice Chair; transcription says 'Vice Sir Simmons.'
John Simmons — Arrived late, apologized, and asked whether the bill was limited to catastrophic-event damage.
John Simmons — Asked whether the bill was limited to catastrophic-event damage and clarified the scope.
John Simmons — Summarized the purpose of the bill and asked about disqualifying conditions.
John Simmons — Asked what qualifies as an improvement and what documentation is required.
John Simmons — Continued asking about documentation timing and permit requirements.
John Simmons — Raised the issue of whether people who completed improvements before enactment could receive the benefit.
John Simmons — Acknowledged the start-date limitation and then indicated the hearing would pause for executive session.
John Simmons — Asked why the exemption lasts up to four years and whether anyone would decline the full term.
John Simmons — Asked how the $75,000 cap works if a homeowner spends more than that amount.
John Simmons — Requests a brief summary of the substitute amendment and asks the representative to explain the changes.
John Simmons — The representative explains changes to the bill, including broadening retail-establishment language and removing banks and credit unions.
John Simmons — Asks whether the penalties could be lowered and notes other states may not have similar penalties.
John Simmons — Responds that he would be open to lowering the penalties and that it would need to be done on the floor.
John Simmons — Asks about lowering penalties and receives agreement that it could be done on the floor.
John Simmons — A floor amendment is suggested as an option, and prior research from the representative is referenced.
John Simmons — The speaker appears to be addressing Representative Simmons while asking about carve-outs and other states' laws.
John Simmons — Vice Chair Simmons votes aye.
John Simmons — Not mentioned in text.
John Simmons — Representative Simmons asked a sequence of related questions about the proposed fund’s distribution mechanics and adequacy: whether annual payouts could create a yo-yo effect if market returns fluctuate, whether the fund should accumulate multiple years of tax liability before distributions begin, where the bill specifies the 3% cap, and whether that 3% distribution would need to cover the full replacement liability.
Kemp Strickler — Named during roll call as present.
Kemp Strickler — Representative Strickler's concern about the bill's penalties is referenced, noting that the measure includes penalties beyond just a fine. Later, Ranking Member Strickler votes no on the committee substitute.
Kemp Strickler — Asked Preston Smith to elaborate on the parts of the bill he still had questions about.
Kemp Strickler — Kemp Strickler engages in a sustained discussion of the proposal, saying he understands the concept and goal but is unsure about the appropriation mechanism. He asks how much would need to be appropriated each year for the fund to be meaningful, requests more detail on the scale, timing, and assumptions behind the proposal, and raises concern that replacing federal dollars could redirect federal money to other states. The exchange ends with a brief acknowledgment from the chair/other speaker.
Steve Butz — Named during roll call.
Steve Butz — The chair called for further questions and appears to have misrecognized the name as Butz.
Brad Christ — Named during roll call as present; transcription says 'Chris.'
Mike Costlow — Named during roll call; transcription says 'Koslow.'
Mike Costlow — A member says he still has concerns about the criminal provisions in the bill.
Mike Costlow — Representative Koslow asks whether state law already allows public funds to be invested in index funds and whether any laws would need to be repealed to permit such investments. He expresses support for investing in stable index funds like the S&P 500. The bill sponsor responds by addressing concerns raised in the House about what would happen if the fund crashed, explaining that the amendment includes a safeguard allowing the state to reimpose lawful taxes if necessary to meet obligations. He adds that if the broader market were to collapse, the state would face larger problems than the endowment fund alone, and explains that the amendment caps distributions at 3% so the principal remains intact and the fund can continue growing.
Will Jobe — Named during roll call; transcription says 'Job.'
Will Jobe — The chair then appears to have misrecognized another member name as Vanderson before yielding the floor.
Ben Keathley — Named during roll call; transcription says 'Keithley.'
Sean Pouche — Named during roll call; transcription says 'Pusha.'
Christopher Warwick — Named during roll call.
Christopher Warwick — Referenced as someone who likes the idea of doing a similar approach at the county level.
Preston Smith — Preston Smith is introduced as the person who helped develop the bill and is expected to testify later.
Preston Smith — Preston Smith, a Jackson County taxpayer, testified in favor of the bill and explained that it has two main purposes: helping homeowners recover from catastrophic loss and preventing tax policy from discouraging home improvements. He described how the bill exempts qualifying improvement value from property taxation for four years, with caps for catastrophic rebuilds, and said it is intended to protect homeowners from excessive assessments after rebuilding. He also argued that current assessment practices in Jackson County discourage improvements, especially for seniors who fear losing tax credits, and said the bill includes safeguards such as placing the burden of proof for denial on the assessor and preventing qualifying improvements from being treated as new construction for senior programs. He further suggested that routine maintenance should be treated as an eligible expenditure, criticized assessor discretion, and raised a concern about language allowing up to four dwellings on a homestead property.
two phenomenal witnesses — The chair indicates there are witnesses the committee will want to hear.
Sean Smith — Sean Smith, a Jackson County legislator, testified in support of House Bill 2923. He explained that field data collectors and homeowners often experience friction because homeowners understand the visits as related to property valuation, and he said this friction has led to injury and violence in Jackson County. He stated that he supports the bill for these reasons, offered to remain for questions, and when asked about cap amounts, said that question would be better directed to the bill sponsor before thanking the committee for the opportunity to testify.
Sean Smith — Referenced as having raised the same question about the line between routine maintenance and improvement.
SB190 — The speaker suggests SB 190 may need to be revisited in light of the fairness concerns discussed.
Lisa Panette, Armour Vine — Testified in support of the bill, saying it is honest and straightforward and contrasting it with other income tax bills she считает deceptive.
Jeff Coleman — Jeff Coleman opened the meeting by calling the committee to order and was subsequently addressed as Mr. Chair during discussion, including questions and remarks related to the fiscal note.
Jeff Coleman — As chair, Jeff Coleman manages the hearing proceedings by announcing that the hearing will pause and move into executive session, then calling the representative forward to explain the changes.
Jeff Coleman — Chairman Coleman votes aye.
Jeff Coleman — Addressed as Mr. Chair while the sponsor explains the proposal.
Jeff Coleman — Addressed as Mr. Chair while the sponsor opens the floor for questions.