Transcript Highlights:

• and tournament fees.
• or fees and equipment costs that are divided between the state and the county. fees or fees and equipment
• that you waive the fees?
• is a larger fee.
• , the administration fee?

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and tournament fees.
• fees, fee revenues generate by almost a million dollars.
• that you waive the fees?
• is a larger fee.
• the administration fee?

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• the most are not review fees, but project impact fees.
• Things like parkland dedication fees, affordable housing fees, drainage fees, fees for gray water use
• fees, from a percentage on new development, civil inspection fees, plan review fees, from a percentage
• , park dedication, park improvement, reforestation fees, inspection fee, final plat fees, $10,000 plus
• fees.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Summary: The committee met to monitor implementation of several housing-related bills from the 89th session, with the chair emphasizing Texas’s housing shortage and the need to review land-use laws. For House Bill 24, witnesses from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Reason Foundation, a church-affordable housing project, Habitat for Humanity, developers, and housing advocates said the bill’s higher protest threshold and simpler council override had reduced procedural barriers to rezoning, helped projects move forward, and supported lower rents and more multifamily development. Public testimony largely praised HB 24 as working as intended, and the chair noted it had passed the committee 6-1, the House 83-56, and the Senate unanimously. The committee then heard testimony on Senate Bill 1567, which preempted certain municipal occupancy limits based on unrelated-adult restrictions. Supporters, including Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Realtors, Texans for Housing, and Texas A&M student leaders, said the law improved clarity, reduced arbitrary local limits, and helped students and property owners use existing housing more efficiently. Opponents from College Station and Bryan-College Station neighborhood groups argued the law has encouraged investor purchases, tear-downs, and “stealth dorms,” displaced working-class residents, and harmed family homeownership. The chair noted SB 1567 had passed the committee 5-1, the House 101-19, and the Senate 30-1. The committee also reviewed Senate Bill 15, which reduced minimum lot sizes in covered jurisdictions. Ed Pinto of AEI said the law had already led to thousands of new small lots and lower-cost starter homes, while recommending expansion to more counties and broader application to attached housing. Other witnesses from builders, Pew, and housing advocates said smaller lots can increase affordability, but some cities, such as College Station and Grand Prairie, were adding local standards that could blunt the bill’s effect. City representatives from El Paso described how they implemented the law by reducing lot sizes and widths, while urging broader applicability to more of the city. The chair said SB 15 had passed the committee 7-0, the House 86-43, and the Senate 24-7. Finally, the committee began hearing testimony on Senate Bill 840, a by-right multifamily redevelopment measure. City officials from Garland and Plano described how they had updated local standards to comply while preserving design and setback rules, and said the bill could help redevelop built-out commercial corridors and add housing without expanding city footprints. The transcript ended as the committee continued taking testimony on SB 840.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• that the fees utilities to demonstrate that the fees are<00:02:13.360> just,<00:02:14.000>
• would eliminate most reconnection fees. would eliminate most reconnection fees.
• Reconnection fees for non-payment. Reconnection fees for non-payment.
• program is funded by late fees. program is funded by late fees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 3912, as amended, and the author moved that the bill be laid over for consideration in a future omnibus bill. The amendment was adopted without objection. Representative Holland described the bill as an energy affordability measure that would bar utilities from charging certain fees during the cold weather rule for customers above 50% of state median income, prohibit reconnection fees after shutoff for nonpayment, and create a framework for regulating late fees. He argued that late fees are often high, compound monthly, and disproportionately burden low-income households, citing utility debt and disconnection figures and noting that the need for relief is concentrated in greater Minnesota. Annie Levenson Faulk of the Citizens Utility Board supported the bill, saying reconnection fees and late fees fall on households already struggling to pay for essential service. She said reconnection fees should be treated as part of the cost of doing business and that late fees should be limited to a reasonable approximation of actual carrying costs, with protections for low-income customers. She also said the issue is already being considered in utility rate cases before the Public Utilities Commission, but that legislative action is still appropriate. Nick Martin of Xcel Energy and Katherine O'Donnell of CenterPoint Energy opposed the bill in its current form while emphasizing their companies’ commitment to affordability and customer assistance. Xcel said the bill would shift reconnection costs to other customers and could undermine a proposed arrears management program funded by late payment charges; Xcel also noted that the PUC is already reviewing these issues in its rate case. CenterPoint said it already offers extensive outreach, payment plans, and assistance programs, does not charge late fees once a customer is on a payment plan, and that its reconnection fee does not fully cover costs. After testimony and brief discussion, the chair noted the helpful information from utilities, the author said he was open to further work on the bill, and the bill was laid over.

Transcript Highlights:

• that section is— all the fees within this subdivision, every fee?
• within this subdivision, every fee?
• 2.28 um the very first examination fees 2.28 um the very first examination fees um<00:14:49.079>
• keep this fee long term.
• no-show fee or on the no- show fee no-show fee or on the no- show fee altogether<00:26:17.720>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Even with this fee increase in the proposed fee increase in the trailer bill language.
• So, again, the intent is for those fees... ...for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• example of fees to businesses.
• To propose a fee that...
• Another example of a state agency raising fees and then rounding those fees up.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Governor’s housing reorganization proposal and trailer bill language that would consolidate several affordable housing finance programs under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC). Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplication, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits so projects can move from award to construction more quickly. The proposal would also shift some positions and reallocate portions of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program and other housing funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the concept has merit but raised concerns about the proposed bond set-aside floor and recommended more flexibility and earlier reallocation of unused bonds. Several senators questioned the structure and, especially, the proposed changes to the climate-related ASIC program, arguing that it could weaken the program’s original transportation-and-housing integration and that the budget lacks enough direct funding for core housing production programs. The item was held open. The committee then received an update from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal tax credit changes and state housing finance tools. Staff explained that federal H.R. 1 increased the 9% low-income housing tax credit allocation and reduced the bond-financing threshold for the 4% credit from 50% to 25%, allowing California to finance many more projects. They reported that emergency regulations were adopted quickly to implement the new federal rules, resulting in awards for 195 projects and more than 25,000 units in the 4% program, while the 9% program funded 58 projects and nearly 3,000 units. Members discussed the importance of state enhanced low-income housing tax credits, with committee questions focused on how much additional leverage state credits provide and how they help fill remaining financing gaps. The final portion of the hearing focused on the Civil Rights Department’s response to federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing the end of limited-term funding: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal civil rights enforcement has been weakened by closed offices, shuttered programs, and reduced support for fair housing organizations, while CRD’s open caseload has grown from about 8,700 to more than 12,000 matters. He said the department is using overtime, triage, and process reengineering to manage the surge and to direct people to the right services. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern that California is being asked to do more with less as federal protections erode. No votes were taken on the informational items, and the committee discussed the vote-only budget requests for CRD separately.

Transcript Highlights:

• Even with this fee increase in the proposed fee increase in the trailer bill language.
• And we don't want to be dealing with partial increments for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• So again, the intent is for those fees... ...for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• example of fees to businesses.
• To propose a fee that...

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extensive presentation on the administration’s housing reorganization proposal, which would centralize multifamily affordable housing finance under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC) and align it with the Governor’s trailer bill language. Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplicative timelines and costs, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits more efficiently. They also described proposed changes to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, including shifting a larger share of funding toward housing-related awards while preserving a portion for sustainable communities investments. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported the streamlining concept but recommended changes to the proposed bond set-aside timing and urged flexibility for integrated applications and future reporting on demand. Senators, especially Senator Cabaldon, raised concerns that the proposal could weaken the original climate-and-transportation purpose of the sustainable communities program and that the reorganization would be undercut by the lack of new housing production funding in the budget. The item was held open without a vote. The committee then received a report from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal and state housing tax credits. Staff explained that the federal H.R. 1 change lowering the bond-financing threshold from 50% to 25% greatly expanded the number of projects able to use the 4% federal tax credit, allowing California to fund many more projects and units. They also described the state low-income housing tax credit as an important gap-filling tool for projects that still need additional subsidy, and noted existing set-asides for rural, homeless, at-risk, and extremely low-income projects. Members discussed rehabilitation as well as new construction, and the item was informational only. Finally, the Civil Rights Department reported on the effects of federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing expiration: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal cuts and policy shifts have reduced support for fair housing and other civil rights functions, while CRD’s caseload has grown from about 8,700 open matters a year ago to more than 12,000, with a six-month wait for interviews despite overtime triage efforts. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern about the broader federal rollback of civil rights enforcement. The department said it is using overtime, intake triage, and outreach partnerships to manage the workload and direct Californians to appropriate state, local, and nonprofit resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• The inspection, reinspection flat fee would be a cost per trip, and then the fees established by the
• , and it is a fee-for-service.
• It is a fee-for-service.
• , fees, fees.
• Permit fees were within 10 or 15%. I.E., a $200,000 building, the permit fee was really close.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Labor Committee heard Senate File 560, a bill to require the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to establish a cost-per-square-foot valuation for residential building permits. Senator Dornink said the measure is intended to make permit fees more fair, reasonable, transparent, and predictable, and to reduce housing costs by limiting large differences in permit fees between municipalities. He said the bill would be sent to the Housing Committee without recommendation, and members discussed but did not act on a related amendment that would have shifted plan review and inspection fees to hourly and trip-based charges and made fee information publicly available. Testimony from Housing First Minnesota supported the bill’s goal, arguing that Minnesota’s housing shortage and high new-home prices make it important to reduce inefficiencies in the permitting system. The witness said permit valuations are often increased by cities, leading to higher costs for homebuyers, and cited examples of large fee differences between municipalities and claims of overcollection. He said some other states, including Texas and Wisconsin communities, use square-footage-based approaches. A League of Minnesota Cities representative opposed the amendment language and cautioned that trip charges and hourly billing would make fees less certain, could raise costs, and would be especially burdensome in Greater Minnesota; he said current valuation-based fees better reflect the actual cost and complexity of service and can be appealed if disputed. A representative of the Association of Minnesota Building Officials also raised concerns about the amendment, saying building departments provide consultations, inspections, plan review, and other services beyond a single trip, and that trip charges would not fit a responsive fee-for-service model. He said the current valuation system helps cover the full range of permitting work, though he acknowledged that a consistent square-foot valuation standard could improve transparency and reduce disputes over project value. Committee members asked about other states’ approaches and the scope of the bill, and the discussion emphasized that the proposal applies to one- and two-family dwellings.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a real hodgepodge of structures, but most do require entrance fees; 83% require entrance fees.
• and monthly fees.
• deals with entrance fees.
• With regard to monthly care fees, this is really the number one source of stress for residents: the fees
• So, the fees and fee increases will fluctuate.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission’s fifth meeting focused on consumer protections and resident rights in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a presentation by Yvonne Choyah of UC Law San Francisco. She described California’s CCRC framework, including entrance fee structures, monthly fee increases, contract types (A, B, and C), disclosure requirements, and regulatory oversight. A major theme was that residents often do not understand the contracts they sign, while providers retain broad discretion over fees, transfers, terminations, and changes to the physical plant. She also emphasized that California’s regulator is understaffed and not well suited to oversee the complex financial and insurance-like aspects of CCRCs, and that resident complaints and litigation can be slow and difficult. Choyah and commission members discussed several consumer-protection issues, including refundable versus repayable-on-resale entrance fees, rising monthly care fees, the decline of life care contracts, and the need for clearer disclosures and better comparative data for prospective residents. She noted that California requires annual disclosure statements, resident bill of rights materials, and some fee-related reporting, but that enforcement and accessibility remain weak. Members raised questions about resident board representation, accreditation, refund requirements, and whether state agencies or resident associations could help explain contracts to consumers before admission. Choyah suggested stronger oversight, more financial expertise in regulation, and better transparency about ownership and fee-setting. The meeting ended with discussion of the commission’s next steps toward its August report. Staff said a draft report would be prepared from the commission’s discussions and circulated for comment before final revisions. The chair also announced staff transitions: Jennifer would be leaving the State House role, and Juliana Fernandez and Vicky Halal would be the main contacts going forward. The commission adjourned after thanking Choyah for her presentation and answering member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd have the fee in place.
• Legally, the board approves the fee. Is the fee a legal fee at that moment?” “Yes, it is.”
• So you have a legal fee.
• It is a fee.” “It is legally a fee at that point in time.
• It is not a fee unto itself.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the Mitigation Fee Act.
• and prohibiting impact fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller, and requiring that fees for
• Because many times they're avoiding impact fees, school fees, and they're already having to pay.
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right? Yes.
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right?

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills. SB 457 would direct HCD to develop statistical formulas based on historical development data to help cities complete housing element site inventories, with the author and supporters arguing it would make RHNA compliance more realistic and less costly; the California Building Industry Association opposed, and the bill was later approved on a 7-1 vote. SB 904 would codify and expand wildfire-rebuilding coordination and reporting practices used after recent fires, with supporters saying it would speed recovery and opponents questioning the need for additional reporting; it passed 11-1. The committee also took up SB 1091, which would create a state acquisition-and-preservation program for unsubsidized affordable housing to prevent displacement; it drew broad support from housing and tenant groups and passed 9-1, with members emphasizing preservation as a key housing strategy. Members also considered SB 1267, which would require EV charger installers in common-interest developments to indemnify associations during installation and make homeowners responsible for costs arising from use of privately owned chargers. The bill was presented as a follow-up to prior HOA-related EV charging legislation, with support from HOA, EV, and climate groups and opposition from the California Association of Realtors pending amendments; it passed 10-0. SB 1117 would clarify that ADU impact fees above the 750-square-foot exemption are charged only on the portion above that threshold, not the entire unit, and supporters said it would remove a fee cliff that discourages slightly larger ADUs. Cities, special districts, and fire agencies opposed or opposed unless amended, citing infrastructure funding concerns, but the bill passed 10-0 after extensive debate. The committee also heard SB 1361, which would prevent local governments from taking actions to avoid SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Supporters from L.A. Metro, labor, and housing groups said it would protect transit investments and jobs, while the City of Burbank opposed; the bill passed 9-0. Two consent items, SB 722 and SB 1426, were approved without discussion. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly stressed the goals of streamlining housing production, preserving existing affordable homes, and reducing barriers to rebuilding and transit-oriented development.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd have the fee in place.
• Legally, the board approves the fee. Is the fee a legal fee at that moment? Yes. All right, it is.
• So you have a legal fee.
• It is a fee. It's legally a fee. That's correct. At that point in time.
• of their fees.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees
• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees
• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees
• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees
• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: Legislators and reporters discussed the final contours of a Minnesota bonding and tax package centered on a $1.2 billion capital investment bill. Supporters said the bill would fund state and local infrastructure projects, maintain state assets, and include anti-fraud measures such as electronic verification for service providers and a 100% excess tax on fraud proceeds to prevent offenders from profiting. They also said the package would backfill road-and-bridge funding so the fee reduction would not reduce transportation dollars. A major point of emphasis was a temporary reduction in tab fees, described as a $254 million savings for taxpayers in 2027. Republicans said the reduction was a top priority and that it was secured through negotiations, though they acknowledged it is only a one-year reprieve unless changed in a future session. They estimated the average savings at about $145 on a $50,000 vehicle, with larger savings for households with multiple vehicles. They also noted that the first proposal had included both a depreciation change and a rate change, but only the rate cut remained in the final compromise. In response to questions, lawmakers said the tab fee cut was driven by constituent complaints and that they would try to extend it next year. They also discussed related transportation issues, including accelerating collection of an auto parts sales tax and concerns about greenhouse gas-related costs for roads and bridges. On other topics, one lawmaker said gun control proposals in the House were not part of these negotiations and urged continued movement on the broader package. No formal vote was taken in the exchange, but participants expressed confidence that the bonding portion of the deal was largely settled, while some details of the full package still needed to be finalized.

Transcript Highlights:

• that you would have a fee that you would have a fee increase,<00:16:04.240> right?
• Witness: So they do get fees.
• So they do get fees. So death. Yeah. So they do get fees.
• How are these fees set? maintenance. How are these fees set?
• no revenue then there's no fee. Correct. no revenue then there's no fee. Correct.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds met to review the House budget provision that would impose a 5% administrative charge on a broad list of dedicated funds, with some exemptions. Members discussed the House approach versus the Senate’s more general approach of leaving the governor discretion over which funds could be charged. The chair explained the committee was hearing from agencies about any legal, contractual, or practical reasons their funds should be exempt, and the agenda was expanded to include several departments and written submissions from others. The Department of Education testified first, identifying several funds it said should be exempt: a printing revolving fund that is funded by transfers rather than fees; teacher certification, which is self-funded by educator licensing fees and would require an immediate fee increase if charged; a vending stand set-aside tied to the federal Randolph-Sheppard program and subject to federal approval and vendor committee procedures; and a public school infrastructure/safety account, where most revenue is transferred from the education trust fund or general fund rather than generated by fees. Members questioned the department about the effect on school safety projects and whether the fee would simply reduce the number of projects completed each year. The Veterans Home asked for exemptions for three funds: a donation benefit account used for recreational activities and quality-of-life expenses for residents, a small memorial trust fund whose interest supports veteran activities, and a resident member account that holds veterans’ personal income such as Social Security and pensions. The department argued the charge would reduce donations, cut services, and effectively function like an income tax on vulnerable veterans. The Banking Department also requested exemption for its consumer credit administration license fund, saying it is used to keep exam fees low and is expressly intended by statute to reduce costs on regulated businesses; it said the 5% charge would undermine that framework and could eventually force higher fees. The Department of Justice began testimony on its dedicated funds, starting with the medical legal investigative fund, which pays for death investigations and related services under statute and without general fund support. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee mainly heard testimony and asked questions about the practical and legal effects of applying the administrative charge.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have some convenience fees, some matters to take up.
• Once again, is this fee optional?
• fee.
• ACH does not have that extra fee.
• That fee is approved.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 28, 2026, approved the May 19 minutes, and then considered three third-party convenience fee schedules for online payments. The first was for the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, presented by Rebecca Dupree with Louisiana Interactive; members confirmed the online payment option would be voluntary and approved the fee schedule without objection. The second was for the Department of Health’s Safe Drinking Water Program, presented by Karen Benjamin, and generated extended discussion about a $2.50 flat fee plus a 2.5% card-processing charge, especially whether that charge would violate recently passed Senate Bill 254 regarding debit card surcharges. Senators Mizell, Lambert, and Luneau questioned the structure, and department representatives said they believed the fee was not a surcharge and that ACH payments would avoid the percentage charge; the committee approved the fee schedule but urged the department to review it for compliance with SB 254. The third fee schedule was for the Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal, presented by Lindsay Savoy and Garrett Lee, covering online payments for the conveyance program and the Fire Emergency Training Academy. Senators again raised concerns about the 2.5% card charge in light of SB 254, and the presenters said they intended to comply with the new law and would discuss the issue further. The committee approved this fee schedule as well, with a similar reminder to consider the bill’s impact going forward. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The application review<00:07:22.880> fee<00:07:23.280> and<00:07:23.520> fee<00:
• and fee for taking the jurist review fee and fee for taking the jurist prudence<00:07:25.520> and
• review fee from $100 to $150. review fee from $100 to $150.
• The late renewal fee from $75 to $100. The late renewal fee from $75 to $100.
• The reinstatement fee from $100 to $300. The reinstatement fee from $100 to $300.

Keywords: 0:00– Meeting start/roll call 0:39 – Approval of minutes 1:11 – Council on Postsecondary Education 3:06 - State Board of Elections 5:33 - Office of the Attorney General; Office of Regulatory Relief 7:02 - Board of Examiners of Psychology 16:38 - Energy and Environment Cabinet; Department for Environmental Protection 17:37 - Education and Labor Cabinet - Department of Education 19:14 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee met for its January meeting, approved the minutes from the prior meeting, and welcomed the new regulations compiler. The first item was a repealer from the Council on Postsecondary Education, 13 KAR 2:111, which was explained as necessary because Senate Bill 77 from the 2025 session removed the regulatory authority for advanced practice doctoral degree programs at comprehensive universities. No questions were raised, and the repealer moved forward without objection. The subcommittee then reviewed a large package of State Board of Elections regulations with staff-suggested amendments. The package would update definitions and election procedures, require e-poll books to be ready before polls open, change the standard and timeline for removing an election officer, add oversight by a State Board appointee on election days, recognize the Kentucky party, require voter registration records to be added to electronic voter records, require ballots to fit all races and questions on a single sheet, adjust precinct consolidation petition deadlines, and update incorporated forms and identification references. The package was approved without objection. The Office of the Attorney General’s Office of Regulatory Relief also presented multiple regulations with staff amendments, covering funeral planning declarations, cemetery companies, pre-need cemetery merchandise and funeral/burial contract sellers, and crematory contract sellers. These changes were described as adding specificity, streamlining forms and reporting, and bringing the regulations into compliance with KRS Chapter 13A; they were approved without objection. The Board of Examiners of Psychology presented several regulations, including compact rules, grace-period extensions, and significant fee increases for applications, renewals, reinstatements, exam retakes, and reciprocity. Board representatives said the increases were needed because many fees had not been raised since 2002, the board was operating at a deficit, and legal and administrative costs had risen sharply after the termination of state legal services. Members expressed concern about the size of the increases, but the chair said he would not hold the matter up and would raise the issue with the committee of jurisdiction. The subcommittee also approved staff amendments for the Energy and Environment Cabinet’s air quality regulations and the Education and Labor Cabinet’s education regulations, which updated nontraditional instruction procedures, waiver requests, instruction topics, superintendent assessment requirements, and academic standards. The meeting ended with the next meeting scheduled for February 9 at 1 p.m., and the agenda was adjourned without further objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Once again, is this fee optional?
• fee.
• ACH does not have that extra fee.
• The fee, the safe drinking water fee, is actually collected by the water system from customers, which
• That fee is approved.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Witness: Generally, in a lot of these attorneys’ fees-type cases where there’s a fee-shifting provision
• fees and costs, would that be fair?
• <00:31:07.039> uh determine a proper um attorne fees uh determine a proper um attorne fees
• never ever ex um took an application fee never ever ex um took an application fee because<00:48:
• <01:09:47.920> uh<01:09:48.040> chair's attorney's fees uh chair's attorney's fees

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on February 5, 2025, and heard testimony on several bills. HB 918, relating to labeling, drew support from the Department of Health, INDA (the nonwoven fabrics industry), and Hawaii Realtors. INDA said the bill aligns with do-not-flush labeling laws in other states but raised a concern about the six-month compliance deadline tied to FIFRA approval. In response to committee questions, witnesses explained that the bill is aimed mainly at disinfecting wipes, that most products are already labeled nationally, and that the proposed timing issue could be addressed by using Oregon’s approach. No vote was taken on the measure during the portion shown. The committee also heard HB 1482, relating to controlled substances. HPD supported the bill, and Aloha Green Holdings and the Department of Health both said they supported the intent but recommended technical amendments. Their testimony focused on clarifying the treatment of Delta-8 THC, distinguishing synthetic or artificially derived cannabinoids from naturally occurring forms, and avoiding confusion in the hemp law. Members asked whether Delta-8 would show up on drug tests; witnesses said it would test positive for THC and would not be distinguished from Delta-9. The bill was then set aside as the committee moved on. HB 981, relating to attorney’s fees, drew opposition from a law firm representing homeowners and associations, which argued the bill would limit access to legal services, favor developers and contractors, and make settlement harder. The witness suggested instead using existing consumer-protection fee-shifting concepts, and committee members explored whether a capped fee award or a broader attorney-fee rule would be more appropriate. The committee then took up HB 807 and HB 336, both relating to condominiums. HB 807 received support from the Green Infrastructure Authority and the Hawaii Bankers Association, while one testifier urged deferral over unresolved questions about commercial PACE financing; the bank association asked for more time to work with HGIA, and the chair indicated decision-making could be deferred to allow that discussion. On HB 336, the Community Associations Institute opposed the bill as removing checks and balances, while the Hawaii Workers Center and others supported it as a step toward clearer enforcement of health and safety issues in condominiums and rental housing.

Transcript Highlights:

• fee upon their With us before will pay an investigation fee and a license fee upon their first time applying
• We do have the 52 fee types. The fees are set in Century Code.
• The fee varies based upon that. We do have fees.
• hair removal fees.
• fees.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• .<00:09:21.320> Now, fee.
• Now, fee.
• their convenience fee, which is an arbitrary fee that they could charge or they could not charge.
• their convenience fee, which is an arbitrary fee that they could charge or they could not charge.
• fee you mentioned?

Bills: SB59, SB221

Keywords: military families, immunization, education, public health, school enrollment, Mobile County, judge of probate, compensation, salary, expense allowance, 1136, house, all