Transcript Highlights:

• per-page fee from 67 cents to 70 cents.
• But they could go back on the developer. And my understanding is those things take time.
• The House took the fees, raising the fees from 1 to 2 cents. Hicksory, recognized for a follow-up.
• that without the fee...
• Program is being subsidized by fees coming in from the poultry inspection. Senator Hall presiding.

Bills: HJR1088, HJR1090, HJR1091, HB1370, SB2154, HJR1092, HJR1093, HJR1095, HJR1099, HJR1100, HB3021, SB893, SB206, SB248, SB259, SB423, SB563, SB604, SB633, HJR1077, SB667, SB1224, SB1257, SB1264, SB1319, SB1360, SB1437, SB1531, SB1543, SB1806, HB3004, SB1572, HB4342, SB1618, SB2, SB237, SB1632, SB1687, SB1726, SB1859, SB1894, SB1461, HB4432, SB1948, SB1589, SJR52, SR46, HCR1030, SB2071, SB2182, SB1451, HJR1088, HJR1090, HJR1091, HJR1092, HJR1093, HJR1095, HJR1096, HJR1099, HJR1100, SB2185, SB893, HB3021, SR46, SB206, SB237, SB248, SB259, SB423, SB563, SB604, SB625, SB633, SB667, SB1224, SB1257, SB1264, SB1319, SB1360, SB1378, SB1437, SB1531, SB1543, SB1572, SB1618, SB1632, SB1687, SB1726, SB1806, SB1859, SB1894, SB1948, SB2071, SJR52, HB1370, HJR1077, SB2, SB1451, SB2182, HCR1030

Keywords: education rules, administrative rules, joint resolution, Oklahoma State Department of Education, higher education, State Regents for Higher Education, Teachers' Retirement System, charter schools, Statewide Charter School Board, career and technology education, CTE, OEQA, rule approval, legislative oversight, permanent rules, school governance, teacher retirement, education agencies, Oklahoma Register, Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry

Transcript Highlights:

• The House amendments to Senate Bill 423 increased the third-party request fee from $23 to $25 and the
• per-page fee from 67 cents to 70 cents.
• Somebody could go back on, but they could go back on the developer.
• Yes, the House took the fees, raising the fees from one to two cents out.
• that without the fee increase, ...presentation explaining that without the fee increase, they would

Bills: HJR1088, HJR1090, HJR1091, HB1370, SB2154, HJR1092, HJR1093, HJR1095, HJR1099, HJR1100, HB3021, SB893, SB206, SB248, SB259, SB423, SB563, SB604, SB633, HJR1077, SB667, SB1224, SB1257, SB1264, SB1319, SB1360, SB1437, SB1531, SB1543, SB1806, HB3004, SB1572, HB4342, SB1618, SB2, SB237, SB1632, SB1687, SB1726, SB1859, SB1894, SB1461, HB4432, SB1948, SB1589, SJR52, SR46, HCR1030, SB2071, SB2182, SB1451

Keywords: education rules, administrative rules, joint resolution, Oklahoma State Department of Education, higher education, State Regents for Higher Education, Teachers' Retirement System, charter schools, Statewide Charter School Board, career and technology education, CTE, OEQA, rule approval, legislative oversight, permanent rules, school governance, teacher retirement, education agencies, Oklahoma Register, Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry

Summary: The Senate met with a quorum, prayer, pledges, and recognition of two student pages before taking up a long agenda of House joint resolutions and bills, mostly related to administrative rules and agency approvals. The chamber advanced and passed H.J.R. 1088, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1095, 1099, and 1100, which approved permanent rules for education, energy and agriculture, business and commerce, building code, health-related agencies, general government agencies, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, and OMES. Several senators criticized the process for moving rule resolutions quickly and without committee vetting, while supporters said the calendar delays required direct consideration. The Senate also adopted conference committee reports and passed SB 206, SB 248, and HB 3021, with HB 3021 making small changes to graduation requirements, including science/math course language, Oklahoma history flexibility for some military families, and personal financial literacy counting toward math in some cases. A major portion of the meeting focused on House Bill 1370, which was described by its author as repealing an automatic state trigger that would replace any federal gasoline tax if the federal government suspended it. Supporters argued the bill would prevent Oklahoma drivers from paying more if the federal gas tax were repealed and framed it as tax relief; opponents argued it could reduce highway and bridge funding and create a budget hole. The Senate suspended several rules to bring the bill up, but rejected a motion to suspend the fiscal-impact rule for a proposed amendment. After debate, the chamber passed the measure 41-7 and then approved it as an emergency measure. The Senate also took up Senate Bill 893, a conference report dealing with foreign ownership near critical infrastructure and agricultural land. The bill would restrict certain foreign adversary ownership or leasing within 10 miles of critical infrastructure, add training zones and other protected areas, delay implementation until July 1, 2027, and create an enforcement process involving Attorney General review and whistleblower-style reporting. Senators raised concerns about enforcement, possible misuse, and profiling, while the author said the bill was aimed at national security and infrastructure protection. The conference report was adopted and the bill passed. Later, the Senate received notice that the House was ready to convene in joint session, and the chamber briefly stood at ease before returning to continue its work.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the black belt where we development in the black belt where we development in the black belt where
• one over in that area because I develop one over in that area because I develop one over in that area
• professionally develop them to develop professionally develop them to develop professionally develop
• Number of workforce development initiatives, career track development initiatives, career track development
• that you're not because some of the fees that you're not because some of the fees that you you spend

Bills: HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 796, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 589, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 1360, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 2337, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2391, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 1749, HB 3109, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2001, HB 2798, HB 107, HCR 29, SB 5, SB 262, HB 11, HJR 72, HB 106, HB 18, HB 48, HB 27, HB 37, HB 1481, HB 581, HB 1696, HB 2216, HB 1035, HB 1633, HB 742, HB 754, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 2669, HB 391, HB 517, HB 1024, HB 1607, HB 252, HB 1716, HB 1562, HB 4116, HB 1866, HB 1741, HB 2103, HB 2637, HB 2884, HB 503, HB 1089, HB 2986, HB 972, HB 502, HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 796, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 589, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 1360, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 2337, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2391, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 1749, HB 3109, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2001, HB 2798, HB 107, HCR 29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• Of human development.
• WHY ARE WE TRYING TO NOT ALLOW OUR CHILDREN THE SAME TYPE OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT?
• In 2023, they had more than 1.2 million visitors, and it is continuing to develop.
• AGENCIES WOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP RULES BASED ON THE STATUTE ONCE IT IS PASSED.
• It develops the feasibility study subject to the specific appropriation.

Bills: HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 796, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 589, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 1360, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 2337, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2391, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 1749, HB 3109, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2001, HB 2798, HB 107, HCR 29, SB 5, SB 262, HB 11, HJR 72, HB 106, HB 18, HB 48, HB 27, HB 37, HB 1481, HB 581, HB 1696, HB 2216, HB 1035, HB 1633, HB 742, HB 754, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 2669, HB 391, HB 517, HB 1024, HB 1607, HB 252, HB 1716, HB 1562, HB 4116, HB 1866, HB 1741, HB 2103, HB 2637, HB 2884, HB 503, HB 1089, HB 2986, HB 972, HB 502, HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 796, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 589, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 1360, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 2337, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2391, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 1749, HB 3109, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2001, HB 2798, HB 107, HCR 29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Summary: The Florida House of Representatives conducted legislative business including prayer, pledge, and voting on multiple bills. Key legislation included HB 1105 expanding Florida Bright Futures Scholarship eligibility, HB 443 on charter school regulations (passed 83-23), and HB 1539 on materials harmful to minors (passed 81-29) after extensive debate about book challenges in schools. Other bills addressed education funding, law enforcement benefits, parole guidelines, and various local issues. The Speaker announced budget negotiations with the Senate have stalled, with disagreements over spending levels and tax cuts. The House will not meet this weekend as originally planned. Session adjourned until tomorrow at 10 AM.

Transcript Highlights:

• Whether through the development of new industries or the preservation of cherished traditions.
• Beyond learning and accounting skills, these students are also developing. customer service, problem
• plates and license plate windshield insignia issued for and displayed. on a vehicle, authorizing a fee
• Authorizing a fee the chair recognizes mr.. Day y'all to explain the bill Thank You mr.
• to disclosures and other requirements concerning virtual currency kiosk transactions. authorizing a fee

Bills: HB29, HB 125, HB145, HB171, HB255, HB50, HB796, HB363, HB 116, HB491, HB589, HB1495, HB368, HB 1285, HB1905, HB1360, HB2002, HB917, HB2723, HB2067, HB 1238, HB2337, HB745, HB 1188, HB1606, HB2003, HB2147, HB2391, HB2355, HB2546, HB2495, HB2818, HB2249, HB1749, HB3109, HB3228, HB3240, HB1507, HB658, HB1748, HB1851, HB1922, HB2001, HB2798, HB 107, HCR29, SB5, SB262, HB 11, HJR72, HB 106, HB18, HB48, HB27, HB37, HB1481, HB581, HB1696, HB2216, HB 1035, HB1633, HB742, HB754, HB1689, HB1690, HB2669, HB391, HB517, HB 1024, HB1607, HB252, HB1716, HB1562, HB4116, HB1866, HB1741, HB2103, HB2637, HB2884, HB503, HB 1089, HB2986, HB972, HB502, HB29, HB 125, HB145, HB171, HB255, HB50, HB796, HB363, HB 116, HB491, HB589, HB1495, HB368, HB 1285, HB1905, HB1360, HB2002, HB917, HB2723, HB2067, HB 1238, HB2337, HB745, HB 1188, HB1606, HB2003, HB2147, HB2391, HB2355, HB2546, HB2495, HB2818, HB2249, HB1749, HB3109, HB3228, HB3240, HB1507, HB658, HB1748, HB1851, HB1922, HB2001, HB2798, HB 107, HCR29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Bills: HB 2242, HB 2446, HB 2799, HB 4502, HB 2920, HB 2790, HB 5620, HB 5060, HB 5076, HB 5080, HB 5081, HB 5128, HB 5130, HB 3847, HB 5116, HB 2969, HB 4546, HB 4202, HB 5624, HB 3964, HB 4803, HB 872, HB 4775, HB 4777, HB 4961, HB 5570, HB 2988, HB 4260, HB 1375, HB 5009, HB 5411, HB 5134, HB 4388, HB 3095, HB 1387

Keywords: constables, civil rights, local government, law enforcement, policy-making authority, affidavit, medical bills, civil actions, reasonable charges, healthcare services, judicial statistics, court performance, family law, civil cases, efficiency reporting, court security, emergency management, harassment penalties, judicial safety, court committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Fees.
• He paid a flat fee.
• Instead of replacing the current attorney's fees section, awarding fees...
• fees for a frivolous motion.
• I'm just trying to say, basically, judges will let the lawyer collect the fee from the fee for whoever

Bills: HB2242, HB2446, HB2799, HB4502, HB2920, HB2790, HB5620, HB5060, HB5076, HB5080, HB5081, HB5128, HB5130, HB3847, HB5116, HB2969, HB4546, HB4202, HB5624, HB3964, HB4803, HB872, HB4775, HB4777, HB4961, HB5570, HB2988, HB4260, HB1375, HB5009, HB5411, HB5134, HB4388, HB3095, HB1387

Keywords: constables, civil rights, local government, law enforcement, policy-making authority, affidavit, medical bills, civil actions, reasonable charges, healthcare services, judicial statistics, court performance, family law, civil cases, efficiency reporting, court security, emergency management, harassment penalties, judicial safety, court committee

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 4961, which would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages after a collision. The author said the bill is intended to create incentives to maintain insurance and to address what he described as an unfair system for insured drivers. Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texas Eagle Forum testified in support, while the Texas Trial Lawyers Association opposed it, warning the bill could also affect pedestrians, passengers, children, and others who did not choose whether a vehicle was insured. The bill author clarified that passengers would be included in the bill’s coverage. No vote was taken and the bill was left pending. House Bill 5570 would extend a legislative attorney CLE exemption to attorneys appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate to boards or commissions. The author said the measure is meant to ease time burdens and encourage service, and a witness supported it as a modest incentive for public service. A committee member noted a discrepancy in the number of affected attorneys, and the author agreed to verify the correct figure. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 2969, which would restrict the State Bar from adopting rules or penalties that unreasonably burden attorneys’ religious exercise or free speech based on sincerely held beliefs. The author and several witnesses from Texas Values, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Cecilia Wood argued the bill protects lawyers of faith from an ABA model rule they described as a speech code. No one testified against the bill, and it was left pending. House Bill 4260, which would prohibit county judges and county commissioners from practicing law in courts over which they have jurisdiction, drew opposition from the County Judges and Commissioners Association, which argued existing ethics rules already address conflicts and that the bill would burden rural officials. The author said the bill was prompted by concerns about judges using their office to pressure others. The bill was left pending. House Bill 5134 would limit Rule 202 pre-suit depositions to people who have suffered or reasonably expect actual damages and would allow attorney’s fees against abusive petitioners. The author said the bill is aimed at preventing harassment and fishing expeditions, especially in family-law disputes. Questions focused on how the standard would work and how it differs from current law; the author said the main change is fee-shifting and a clearer legislative directive. The bill was left pending. House Bill 3095, a committee substitute version of a similar uninsured-motorist bill, would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages and limit economic recovery, with several exceptions. Trial lawyers argued it was unconstitutional because it capped economic damages and could unfairly affect innocent drivers, pedestrians, and older people who no longer drive. The author acknowledged constitutional concerns and said the bill would need further work; the committee withdrew the substitute and left the bill pending. Finally, House Bill 4388 would require all judges, including county judges who perform administrative duties, to remain subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct. Supporters said some elected judges avoid accountability by relinquishing judicial functions, while opponents argued the bill is too rigid and unnecessary because existing remedies already exist. House Bill 3964 would limit public nuisance claims to their historical role and bar such claims against lawful conduct, conduct already covered by other remedies, and products. The author and supporters said the bill is meant to prevent courts from using public nuisance to make policy, while opponents argued it would eliminate useful remedies and could affect local actions against environmental or product-related harms. The author said the bill would not affect statutory nuisance claims, private nuisance claims, or other causes of action, and would be amended to clarify some provisions. The bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fees.
• He paid a flat fee.
• in connection with the motion, but having to pay the plaintiff's fees. ...fees in connection with the
• fees for a frivolous motion.
• fees for a frivolous motion.

Bills: HB2242, HB2446, HB2799, HB4502, HB2920, HB2790, HB5620, HB5060, HB5076, HB5080, HB5081, HB5128, HB5130, HB3847, HB5116, HB2969, HB4546, HB4202, HB5624, HB3964, HB4803, HB872, HB4775, HB4777, HB4961, HB5570, HB2988, HB4260, HB1375, HB5009, HB5411, HB5134, HB4388, HB3095, HB1387

Keywords: constables, civil rights, local government, law enforcement, policy-making authority, affidavit, medical bills, civil actions, reasonable charges, healthcare services, judicial statistics, court performance, family law, civil cases, efficiency reporting, court security, emergency management, harassment penalties, judicial safety, court committee

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills affecting civil practice, judicial conduct, and attorney regulation. HB 4961 and the similar HB 3095 would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages after a collision, with HB 3095 also addressing certain exceptions and limiting economic damages in some cases. Supporters said the measures would encourage insurance coverage and fairness for insured drivers, while opponents argued they would unfairly punish injured people who were not responsible for the lack of insurance, including pedestrians, passengers, children, and others. HB 3095 drew constitutional concerns from witnesses, and the committee later withdrew the committee substitute and left the bill pending; HB 4961 was also left pending after questions about its scope, including passengers. HB 5570 would expand a continuing legal education exemption to attorneys appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate who serve on boards or commissions. The author and witness said the bill would free up time for public service while still requiring ethics training. A committee member raised a discrepancy in the number of attorneys covered, and the bill was left pending. HB 2969 would prohibit the State Bar from adopting rules or penalties that unreasonably burden attorneys’ religious exercise or free speech, especially in relation to sincerely held religious beliefs. Supporters framed it as a protection for lawyers of faith against an ABA-style speech code, while no one testified in opposition; the bill was left pending. HB 4260 would prohibit county judges and county commissioners from practicing law in courts over which they have jurisdiction. The author described it as an ethics measure to avoid conflicts of interest, but county officials and the County Judges and Commissioners Association opposed it, saying existing ethics rules already address conflicts and that the bill would impose hardships, especially in rural counties. The bill was left pending. HB 4388 would require all judges, including those who serve only in administrative roles, to remain subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct; supporters said some judges avoid discipline by relinquishing judicial functions, while opponents said the bill was unnecessary and could burden county judges who serve as administrators. It was also left pending. The committee also heard HB 5134, which would limit Rule 202 pre-suit depositions to people who have suffered or reasonably expect to suffer actual damages and allow attorney’s fees against abusive petitioners. The author said the bill would curb harassment and fishing expeditions, but members questioned how the standard would work in practice; the bill was left pending. Finally, HB 3964 would narrow common-law public nuisance claims by barring suits over lawful conduct, conduct already addressed by other remedies, and products, while preserving other causes of action. Supporters said the bill would prevent regulation through litigation and protect legislative authority; opponents said it would eliminate important remedies and that no Texas abuse had been shown. The author indicated he would revise the bill, and it was left pending.

Bills: HB2242, HB2446, HB2799, HB4502, HB2920, HB2790, HB5620, HB5060, HB5076, HB5080, HB5081, HB5128, HB5130, HB3847, HB5116, HB2969, HB4546, HB4202, HB5624, HB3964, HB4803, HB872, HB4775, HB4777, HB4961, HB5570, HB2988, HB4260, HB1375, HB5009, HB5411, HB5134, HB4388, HB3095, HB1387

Keywords: constables, civil rights, local government, law enforcement, policy-making authority, affidavit, medical bills, civil actions, reasonable charges, healthcare services, judicial statistics, court performance, family law, civil cases, efficiency reporting, court security, emergency management, harassment penalties, judicial safety, court committee

Transcript Highlights:

• It does not create liability but does allow parties to seek attorney's fees and costs in some instances
• Motocross tracks play a vital role in supporting youth development, tourism, and rural economies across
• The development of helmets has made them much lighter and much safer than they were.
• That was one of the arrangements we discussed; it was in exchange for the filing fee.
• I had no problem with adding a fee to allow J.P.s more resources to deal with receiverships.

Bills: HB2242, HB2446, HB2799, HB4502, HB2920, HB2790, HB5620, HB5060, HB5076, HB5080, HB5081, HB5128, HB5130, HB3847, HB5116, HB2969, HB4546, HB4202, HB5624, HB3964, HB4803, HB872, HB4775, HB4777, HB4961, HB5570, HB2988, HB4260, HB1375, HB5009, HB5411, HB5134, HB4388, HB3095, HB1387

Keywords: constables, civil rights, local government, law enforcement, policy-making authority, affidavit, medical bills, civil actions, reasonable charges, healthcare services, judicial statistics, court performance, family law, civil cases, efficiency reporting, court security, emergency management, harassment penalties, judicial safety, court committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Impact fees are a type of regulatory fee that may be imposed by local governments against new developments
• Impact fees are a type of regulatory fee that may be imposed by local governments against new developments
• that fee payer, that builder, that developer.
• So if there's a development going in Zone A, that impact fee money.
• Developers, Costco at IGP and I-95, paid $0 in impact fees. That is correct.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• fee statute was developed. >> Um, that took some effort to develop that statute.
• fee statute was developed. >> Um, that took some effort to develop that statute.
• fee statute was developed. >> Um, that took some effort to develop that statute.
• fee statute was developed. >> Um, that took some effort to develop that statute.
• Um the impact fee developments happen.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• developed by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands from school impact fees.
• And we did attempt to quantify what those school impact fees would be for those housing developments
• And we did attempt to quantify what those school impact fees would be for those housing developments
• So isn't the nexus for the impact fee any development that would generate so many families with children
• would be for those school impact fees would be for those housing<00:25:03.200> developments<00

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Joint Senate Committee on Education, Hawaiian Affairs, and Housing heard House Bill 1088 HD1, which would exempt housing developed by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) from school impact fees. The Department of Education said it was open to working with DHHL and the Legislature, including possibly eliminating the construction-cost portion of the fee for DHHL and other government affordable housing projects, but it wanted to retain the land-dedication requirement for future school sites where growth would exceed existing school capacity. The School Facilities Authority supported the bill, and DHHL strongly supported it, noting that its testimony referenced an earlier emergency proclamation but that the exemption remains in the current proclamation. DHHL also said it had no objection to a proposed amendment from the Wahiawa Hawaiian Homestead Association. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii testified in opposition to the broader school impact fee program, arguing that the fund has accumulated about $29 million that has not been spent and citing concerns raised in State Auditor Report 19-13, including administrative and constitutional issues. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the fee system is being applied fairly, especially to smaller projects and homeowners, and whether the districts and calculations used to assess fees have been updated. Members questioned the DOE and SFA about the distinction between land and construction costs, the use of fees in areas like Kīhei, Kalihi, Ala Moana, and Ewa, and whether the department had revisited district calculations as recommended in the audit. DOE said it had collected about $500,000 in construction money and $2.8 million in land contributions for Kalihi-related areas, and said it would follow up on questions about land conveyances and district updates. After discussion, the chair called for a vote. The Education committee recommended passing HB 1088 HD1 as is, with Senator San Buenaventura voting with reservation and Senators Ihara and Kole voting aye. The recommendation was adopted. The Housing committee then also deferred the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the Mitigation Fee Act.
• Local governments are barred from imposing impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has interior
• Local governments are barred from imposing impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has interior
• 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:

• It costs developers.
• 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...

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:

• It costs developers.
• 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.
• 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:

• These are impact fees on new development. So... Current existing homes. It's not a tax.
• These are impact fees on new development.
• fees under 278B. 278B is impact fees for new development, and now you just say impact fees.
• So it would be impact fees for new development or for a single development or anything else.
• So is that now impact fees are, because we just had a whole conversation on impact fees and new development

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 457 directs HCD to develop statistical formulas grounded in historical development data that cities
• with the Mitigation Fee Act.
• Local governments are barred from imposing impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has interior
• and develop and property tax, as well as, ...to impact fees and development and property tax, as well
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right? Yes.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills, with most of the discussion focused on streamlining housing production, preserving affordable housing, and reducing barriers to ADUs and EV charging in HOAs. SB 457 would direct HCD to develop statistical formulas based on historical development data to help cities complete housing element site inventories; supporters said it would replace costly parcel-by-parcel analysis with a more realistic, data-driven approach, while the California Building Industry Association raised concerns. SB 1091 would create a Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program to help acquire and preserve unsubsidized affordable rental housing; it drew broad support from housing nonprofits, local governments, and committee members who emphasized prevention and preservation, and it was advanced with a motion and second. SB 1117 would clarify that ADU impact fees above 750 square feet are charged only on the portion above that threshold; supporters said current practice creates a fee cliff that discourages ADUs, while cities, counties, special districts, and fire groups opposed it over infrastructure and service funding concerns. The committee members were split, but the bill ultimately advanced on a 10-0 vote with two not voting. The committee also considered SB 904, which would codify and expand reporting and coordination practices used after wildfire disasters to speed rebuilding and identify permitting or code barriers. The author and supporters argued that future wildfire recoveries should not depend on ad hoc executive orders, while some members questioned whether the bill was duplicative of existing streamlining laws; it passed on a roll call after discussion. SB 1267 would require EV charger installers in HOAs to indemnify associations during installation and make homeowners liable for costs arising from use of a privately owned charger; HOA representatives and EV advocates supported it, the California Association of Realtors said it would remove opposition once amendments were in print, and the bill advanced unanimously. SB 1361 would prevent local governments from taking actions to avoid SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements at existing or planned transit stops; L.A. Metro, labor groups, and housing advocates supported it as protecting transit investments and jobs, while the City of Burbank opposed it, and it was approved on a 9-0 vote. The committee also took up consent items SB 722 and SB 1426, which were approved without controversy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now this proposal aims to reduce local development impact fees on state-funded affordable housing projects
• Now this proposal aims to reduce local development impact fees on state-funded affordable housing projects
• First, this would prohibit local governments from charging development impact fees on affordable housing
• Secondly, it also incentivizes local governments to voluntarily reduce or waive development impact fees
• fee reductions or waivers in the development of competitive state multifamily housing funding program

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals focused on housing, homelessness, and related administrative changes, and took no votes, holding items open for later action. Item 1 would realign staff positions and resources as part of the Governor’s housing and homelessness reorganization, including shifting two Cal ICH positions to HCD, moving one Cal ICH position for communications/external affairs, and authorizing a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. Administration witnesses said the changes were technical and net zero-cost, while the LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would weaken Cal ICH’s homelessness work and whether adding communications capacity was appropriate without new housing funding. Item 2 proposed creating a $100 million Disaster Rebuilding Fund at CalHFA, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to support disaster-impacted homeowners through tools such as loan loss guarantees and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help homeowners bridge the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives in the proposal, the broad discretion left to CalHFA in program design, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on eligibility, equity safeguards, lender oversight, and how many homeowners would actually benefit, with some warning the proposal was too open-ended and could miss the most vulnerable households. Item 3 addressed trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including a proposed $500 million General Fund allocation tied to new accountability measures, pro-housing designation requirements for 14 large cities and 11 counties, local match requirements, streamlined system performance metrics, and recapture/reallocation of unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would avoid a new application process by treating Round 7 as additional disbursements of Round 6 and would provide technical assistance to jurisdictions. The LAO and several senators questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation and local match requirements, the vagueness of some standards, and whether the proposal would delay rather than speed up funding. Members also debated whether the trailer bill preserved or weakened existing homelessness accountability metrics and whether the approach was too complicated given local budget pressures and ongoing homelessness needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Transfer fees. Transfer fees are part of the solution.
• linkage fees.
• Racehorse Development Fund.
• The transfer fee is not a fee.
• CDCs are nonprofit developers.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on a series of bills focused largely on local-option real estate transfer fees and housing funding tools for communities facing severe affordability pressures. Testimony strongly favored bills for Somerville, Concord, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, Chatham, and a statewide local-option transfer fee, with speakers arguing that high-end real estate transactions should help fund affordable housing, anti-displacement efforts, workforce housing, and related capital improvements. Elected officials and local housing leaders described rising rents and home prices, investor activity, shrinking year-round housing stock, and difficulty recruiting or retaining teachers, police, health care workers, and other essential employees. Several witnesses emphasized that the proposals would be optional for municipalities, could include exemptions for first-time homebuyers or seniors, and would direct revenue into local affordable housing trust funds or housing banks. Committee members asked questions about who would pay the fee and whether it could make housing less affordable, and supporters responded that the fees would be targeted at higher-value transactions and designed with local flexibility. For Somerville, the delegation and Mayor Katjana Ballantyne backed both a local home rule petition and statewide enabling legislation, saying the city has already used zoning reform, inclusionary zoning, and local housing funds but still needs a new revenue source to address displacement and investor-driven purchases. For Concord, Representative Carmine Gentile and Concord housing advocates supported a home rule petition and the statewide bill, arguing that a modest fee on sales above $1 million could generate predictable revenue for affordable housing production and preservation. One committee exchange focused on whether the fee would affect most Concord sales and whether it would be passed on to buyers; supporters said the policy was intended to shift costs toward higher-value properties and help leverage other funding sources. The committee also heard testimony on House 4105, which would redirect a casino-related revenue stream to the Healthy Incentives Program. Farmers, advocates, and residents said the current funding was originally intended to support horse racing but has not met that goal, and that the money would be better used to support Massachusetts farmers and food-insecure residents through HIP. In a separate bill, Senator Becca Rausch testified in support of Senate 268, which would create a state-level hostile learning environment complaint process for higher education institutions and potentially strip tax exemptions from colleges or universities found to have such environments; she cited anti-Semitic and transphobic incidents on campuses and argued that existing federal protections should be mirrored in state law. The hearing also included testimony on college tuition debt reduction legislation from Senator Michael Moore, who said the bill would allow a deduction for tuition and fees paid to Massachusetts public colleges and universities to ease student debt and support the state’s workforce. A major portion of the hearing focused on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket housing bank proposals. Hospital, school, housing, planning, and municipal officials from Martha’s Vineyard said the island’s year-round housing shortage is harming health care, schools, and the local workforce, and urged approval of a housing bank funded by a local-option transfer fee. Nantucket witnesses made similar arguments, pointing to a very high median home price, a large seasonal housing stock, and the need for a dedicated revenue stream to preserve and create year-round housing. Supporters repeatedly cited the long-running success of the islands’ land banks as evidence that transfer fees can work without harming real estate markets. Senator Julian Cyr and Representative Thomas Moakley Luddy also backed the Cape and Islands transfer-fee bills, saying the region needs bold action and a sustainable local funding source to address its housing crisis.