Transcript Highlights:

• Exempt the following new and existing developments from school impact fees: government projects; developments
• Uh, because we know that counties make their own arrangement in development fees with regards to developments
• projects developments by fees government projects developments by the<00:02:31.400> department
• in development fees with regards<00:05:09.039> to<00:05:09.320> developments<00:05:10.120
• Um, okay, because when the counties approved development fees and it has to do with development fees

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 422, relating to school impact fees. The Education Committee recommended passage with amendments, and Ways and Means concurred. The amendments would repeal the construction fee component of the school impact fee while retaining the land impact fee and in-lieu fee requirements, remove related statutory language, exempt certain developments from school impact fees, raise the unit threshold for satisfying the land component to 100 units, require the School Facilities Authority to adopt rules and policies, and require a report to the Legislature on the effect of repealing the construction portion of the fee. The measure was also given a sunset date of June 30, 2029, with the committee report to note that the changes are intended to test the efficiency and efficacy of the fee structure and could be made permanent if the report supports that outcome. The committees adopted the recommendation, with one senator initially voting no and then changing to yes after the amendments were explained. The meeting also included a separate hearing on House Bill 1155, concerning procurement for Department of Transportation projects and construction manager/general contractor procurement. DOT testified that it supported the concept but wanted to narrow the bill, saying the current language was too broad and that the goal was to allow more innovative procurement while preserving selection safeguards. The State Procurement Office said it supported the bill’s language but was willing to work with DOT on alternative wording. Several construction-related organizations, including subcontractors, iron workers, elevator constructors, and building trades representatives, opposed the bill, arguing that exemptions from the procurement code would weaken protections such as retainage, equality, and prompt payment and could invite favoritism or corruption. In response to those concerns, the chair proposed amendments limiting the exemption to DOT, narrowing the qualifying contracts, adding a two-year sunset, requiring a report after the first year, and clarifying that project management could not be procured under the section. The amended recommendation passed, though several members voted with reservations. A separate item, House Bill 476, was briefly called up at the end of the agenda, with a recommendation to pass with amendments to increase a rate from 7.25% to 8%, but discussion was not completed in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• When you say prove a fee, if they have a fee, then they can disclose the fee.
• I'm looking here at page fee. Let's just call it the fee.
• this new fee that they have to pay. this new fee that they have to pay.
• , say prove a fee, if they have a fee, say prove a fee, if they have a fee, then<00:17:26.720>
• that fee might be for.

Keywords: House streaming session for Thursday, March 5, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with 127 members present, heard a prayer, and then recognized 2025 Maryland Blue Ribbon Schools and the Maryland Municipal League on its 90th anniversary. The Blue Ribbon resolution named Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, Diamond Elementary School, Little Flower School, Meyersville Elementary School, St. Louis School, Stoneleigh Elementary School, and Wilson Whims Elementary School, with principals introduced from the gallery. The MML resolution honored the league’s service to Maryland’s cities and towns and invited members to meet municipal officials after the floor session. The clerk also noted a second printing of the 2026 rule book due to a table-of-contents error. The chamber then took up House Bill 80, the Residential Leases Fee Disclosures bill. Floor debate focused on what fees must be disclosed, what counts as a utility versus a fee, whether the bill applies to oral leases, and how the measure applies to landlords with four or more units. Supporters said the bill is intended to ensure tenants know all upfront fees before signing and to create a clear enforcement pathway; opponents raised concerns about penalties, affordability, and the burden on landlords. The bill passed on third reading by a vote of 95-34. The House next considered House Bill 153, which requires air conditioning in newly constructed residential rental units and units undergoing specified substantial renovations, with the standard that habitable spaces be kept at 80 degrees or lower. Members asked whether window units would satisfy the requirement, how the bill interacts with older buildings and ongoing renovations, whether it applies retroactively, how enforcement would work, and whether it references federal refrigerant rules; the sponsor said it does not require central air and is prospective only. Supporters argued it reflects existing practice in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties and clarifies habitability standards, while opponents cited costs and concerns about older homes. The transcript ends during debate on this bill, before a final vote is recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Consortium of uh Community developers Consortium of uh Community developers thank<00:04:41.160><
• Fee-based lending is something that the nonprofit economic development organizations are starting to
• or an interest rate um addition of a fee or an interest rate um fee<00:10:16.519> based<00:10
• <00:10:19.120> economic<00:10:19.480> development the nonprofit economic development
• Um, does that also—I'm assuming the loan origination fee is in addition, is separate from the fee or

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of Skills Development.
• So when I read that, the fees are based the fees jumped up. So that's what we're at right now.
• So when you negotiated that, we had the COVID fees, they based the fee or the COVID money, they based
• the professional fees.
• It is a $12,000 transfer from operating expenses to professional fees to pay invoices for legal fees.

Summary: The committee reviewed a large slate of appropriation, transfer, and continuation requests across multiple sections. In Section B, members considered temporary FY27 appropriations for agencies including Health, DHS, Education, Treasury, Public Safety, State Police, Emergency Management, Aeronautics, Military, Economic Development, Game and Fish, and others, covering items such as maternal health outreach, LIHEAP overpayment returns, Wynne High School tornado rebuilding, senior food services, cybersecurity, crime victim claims, airport grants, conservation incentives, and emergency tower maintenance. Questions focused on the DHS senior services carry-forward and Treasury custodial banking fees tied to lower balances after COVID funds were spent down. All Section B items were approved. The committee then approved continuation requests, ARPA reallocations, and federal grant-related items in Sections B2, C1A, D1, D2, D3, E1, E2, E3, F1A, G1, H1A, I1A, J1/J2, K1/K2/K3, L1/L2, M1/M2, N1/N2, O1A, and P1A. These included university nursing and workforce programs, environmental and recycling grants, highway safety and emergency management grants, a transfer to the Merit Teacher Incentive Program, restricted reserve transfers for military, agriculture, UAPB, Game and Fish, and AETN, and various cash-fund and budget classification transfers. Several members asked for more detail on the State Police highway safety grant, VOCA victim compensation funding, the NSGP nonprofit security grant, and the Office of State Technology’s E-Rate-related transfer; agency officials explained the uses and noted that some funding levels depend on federal awards and collections. A notable discussion occurred on the Department of Commerce reallocation, which shifts 68 positions and $3 million among divisions to support an organizational realignment and avoid shortfalls. The committee also reviewed a state central services deduction request to keep the rate at 2%, a DHS overtime request for child protection caseloads, and a year-end adjustments request authorizing up to $1 million in temporary actions to close FY26 books without disrupting payroll or vendor payments. Most items were approved or, in some sections, simply reviewed without objection. The meeting adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• We collect over 125 fees.
• fees on this list.
• However, it didn't make this fee report because we weren't charging the fee yet.
• The fee on the blackout plate is an additional $25 on top of the registration fee.
• One is for data processing fees. The other is for telecommunication fees.

Summary: The Government Finance Committee met with new leadership, approved the December 11 minutes, and received a series of informational updates on the state’s finances and related policy issues. The Office of Management and Budget reported the general fund is tracking very close to forecast, with revenues about $2 million above forecast and an estimated ending balance of about $397 million, higher than previously expected. OMB also reviewed balances in major funds, including the budget stabilization fund, legacy fund, foundation aid stabilization fund, social services fund, and strategic investment and improvements fund, and answered questions about oil tax revenues and fund management. The Tax Department provided updates on taxable sales and purchases by county and industry, noting Cass County as the largest county by taxable sales and that retail trade remains the largest industry sector. Tax Commissioner Brian Kroshus also discussed the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its estimated effects on North Dakota income tax collections, explaining that the projected revenue impacts are measured against a 2025 baseline and that some provisions are temporary while others are permanent. He also reported that primary residence tax credit applications were running ahead of last year, with more than 154,000 received so far and an expectation of roughly 160,000-plus applications. The committee also heard fee-study presentations from the Department of Transportation and the Information Technology Department. DOT explained that driver’s license fees cover only about half of program costs and that the shortfall is subsidized by the highway fund, while also noting recent changes such as the blackout plate and motor vehicle excise tax distribution changes. NDIT described its internal service fund model, current billing structure, and possible future changes to simplify invoices and billing frequency. Legislative staff also updated the committee on office space needs in Bismarck-Mandan and on legislative branch space planning, and subcommittees reported progress on fixed-route transit funding and regional jail capacity, including a visit to the Burleigh-Morton detention facility and discussion of future prison bed needs. No formal votes or legislative actions beyond approving the minutes were taken, and the committee adjourned with its next meeting set for June 25.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the same bill as last time, but there is a fee on this.
• Louisiana Economic Development. through voting?
• Louisiana Economic Development.
• Relative to fees and costs assessed by Louisiana Economic Development, House Bill 618.
• fees, and all... ...would allow Louisiana Economic Development to be more competitive with the application

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They get to rack up fees. They get to rack up charges, those sorts of things.
• This continues our work on hidden fees.
• vehicle license recovery fee, and other government-imposed taxes or fees. ...law under additional mandatory
• recovery fee, and other government-imposed taxes or fees.
• And by the way, would have been charged a cancellation fee at that point.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard several bills on AI, social media, rental cars, and account deletion. AB 316 by Assemblymember Krell would bar defendants from avoiding liability by claiming an AI system autonomously caused harm. Supporters argued it would preserve accountability as AI grows more powerful, especially in cases involving children, while opponents said existing tort law already covers these issues and warned the bill could create uncertainty and overbroad liability. The bill passed the committee 8-1. AB 656 by Assemblymember Schiavo, sponsored by Consumer Federation of California, would make it easier for users to delete social media accounts and personal information, with amendments shifting the deletion prompt into settings rather than on every screen. Supporters said platforms use dark patterns and make deletion unnecessarily difficult; opponents raised concerns about unintended deletions and possible conflicts with existing privacy law, though the author said the bill was being aligned with CCPA. The bill passed 9-0. The committee also approved the consent calendar. AB 1197 by Assemblymember Calderon would address rental car theft and misuse by allowing limited geofencing in specific situations and revising rules around renter liability when keys are returned and a police report is filed. Rental car companies and other supporters said the bill would help recover stolen or abandoned vehicles, while an opponent warned about privacy and possible consumer harms in edge cases. The bill passed 11-0. AB 1374 by Assemblymember Berman would require more upfront disclosure of the total price of rental cars, including mandatory fees, to curb hidden charges; supporters said consumers still face surprise costs, while opponents argued current law already requires disclosure and that the bill’s new wording could invite litigation. It passed 13-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees in lieu, impact fees, and the transportation benefit district sales tax.
• the fee.
• The local government imposing the fee has to show that the person who pays the fee gets a benefit from
• The payer of the fee has to get value out of paying the fee.
• Just curious about the sidewalk utility fee. I'm curious about the sidewalk utility fee.

Summary: The committee began with member introductions, then heard a presentation on a draft final report studying alternative funding mechanisms for sidewalks and related pedestrian infrastructure. Consultants said current local funding sources are insufficient, with most jurisdictions unable to complete planned sidewalk networks within 50 years. They evaluated four options: a sidewalk utility fee, a modified transportation benefit district sales tax, a new real estate excise tax option, and expanded stormwater fee use for ADA sidewalk ramps. The consultants recommended authorizing the modified TBD sales tax and new REET option, considering a sidewalk utility despite legal uncertainty, broadening any authorization to all pedestrian improvements, and not pursuing the stormwater fee option. Members asked about legal authority, fairness, revenue adequacy, and whether jurisdictions had been consulted; the presenters said state enabling legislation would likely be needed for a sidewalk utility and that fairness could be defined either by direct benefit or by need. The committee then received an update on the 2025 assessment of city transportation funding needs. The consultants reported that city transportation revenues have grown in some local and federal categories since 2019, but state revenues have remained relatively flat and smaller cities are especially affected by declining fuel tax revenues and limited tax bases. They estimated annual city transportation needs at $4.25 billion, average annual spending at $1.89 billion, and a funding gap of $2.37 billion, larger than in the prior study because of updated data, inclusion of system improvements, and higher preservation costs. Draft recommendations focused on reducing costs and improving efficiency, preserving and increasing state support, and expanding local funding options, including preservation-first spending, a permanent federal fund exchange program, streamlined review processes, better coordination with WSDOT, possible property tax flexibility, and exploration of new local tools. Members raised questions about design standards, the role of density and transit, federal compliance, and whether the report would identify specific consolidation or process changes. The committee also heard a project update on evaluating zero-emission vehicle and electrification programs funded by the Climate Commitment Act. Consultants said they had reviewed roughly 23 programs and projects across seven agencies and were now evaluating options to improve delivery, including process improvements, reorganizing programs, or consolidating governance and administrative functions. Early findings highlighted staffing shortages, duplication and variation across agencies, differing levels of risk, and the challenge of coordinating climate priorities across agencies with other core missions. Members asked about program outcomes, administrative costs, whether some programs should have exit strategies, and how to strengthen the EV Coordinating Council. Finally, WSDOT provided an implementation update on its new public-private partnership authority under SB 5801, saying work is underway to prepare governance, legal, policy, and organizational structures ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• This may include raising fees on development. And I say that it's not discouraged, members.
• development projects might be CEQA exempt.
• impacts to development.
• The way you develop a city and the way you develop an unincorporated county is very different.
• We do charge a fee for cities like ours. You don't want that fee to be excessive, as was mentioned.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• operators and more than $1 million in privilege fees from fantasy sports contest operators.
• The operator may have underpaid its privilege fees.
• of its horse racing license and permit fees.
• and permit fees, nor has it regularly assessed the cost of its regulatory activities.
• Finding one and the recommendations are related to the concession and events fees.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House Commerce Committee of Reference heard sunset reviews and a performance audit presentation for the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Racing Commission, the Boxing and MMA Commission, and later the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The Auditor General reported that the Department of Gaming and the commissions generally met some statutory duties, but identified several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audits for event wagering and fantasy sports operators; the department and commissions had gaps in conflict-of-interest disclosures; the department and Boxing and MMA Commission lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes; the department was late distributing some compact trust fund payments; and there were additional issues involving IT security, horse-racing license checks, fee reviews, public records practices, and licensing compliance. The Auditor General said the department agreed to implement all 36 recommendations, the Racing Commission agreed to six recommendations, and the Boxing and MMA Commission agreed to 13 recommendations. The department director said many fixes were already underway, including updated guidance, complaint tracking improvements, and a historical look-back on operator reporting, and she also discussed efforts to combat illegal gambling and educate minors and families about gambling risks. Committee members questioned the department about third-party audits, penalties for underpayments, public records handling, conflict-of-interest screening, and the department’s position on prediction markets and suitability standards for licensees. The director said the department would review past reports, could assess fines if violations were found, and would generally wait for final adjudication or final action in other jurisdictions before taking Arizona licensing action. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the Department of Gaming be continued for two years until July 1, 2028, the Racing Commission for six years until July 1, 2032, and the Boxing and MMA Commission for six years until July 1, 2032. The Department of Gaming motion passed 7-4, the Racing Commission motion passed 10-1, and the Boxing and MMA Commission motion passed unanimously. The committee then heard the Auditor General’s report on the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found the board timely processed many licenses and complaints and had adopted curriculum rules, but it inconsistently applied its disciplinary guidelines, sometimes issuing different sanctions for similar violations without documenting the reasons for deviation. The report also found problems with reciprocity education requirements, application review controls, inspections, and compliance with open meeting, public records, and conflict-of-interest requirements, and it suggested possible statutory changes on aesthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and training standards for I-LEST technicians. The board agreed with the findings and said it had already updated disciplinary parameters and documentation policies, with more recommendations in progress; committee members asked about discretion in discipline, audit funding, and service efficiency, and the board highlighted its licensing volume, call response, inspections, and complaint handling performance.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll hear House Bill 665 by Representative Steele, Local Government Impact Fees, and Development Permits
• on developers, We get that right so that whenever we are charging and levying these impact fees on developers
• murals on new development that's providing for our housing needs.
• of the fee.
• So essentially you're looking at a month and it changes the building permit fee to the address fee, which

Summary: The Housing, Agriculture and Tourism Subcommittee heard and advanced several bills. HB 615, allowing landlords to send required notices electronically with tenant written consent, was amended to allow either landlords or tenants to send messages electronically and passed favorably after testimony from legal aid and tenant advocates urging stronger opt-in, opt-out, and notice protections. HB 665, dealing with local government impact fees and development permits, would limit certain art-related impact fees, define “extraordinary circumstances,” and require more public process before fee increases; it passed after local government and industry testimony focused on refining the extraordinary-circumstances definition and concerns about public art funding. HB 365, a tenant protection bill for affordable housing units receiving public incentives, was amended to apply only to leases of 13 months or less and to take effect in July 2026; it passed with support from housing advocates and AARP and was described as preventing mid-lease rent increases while preserving renewal-time adjustments. HB 381, requiring issuance of addresses and parcel identification numbers within a set timeframe, was amended to extend the deadline to 20 business days and shift the fee consequence to the address fee rather than the building permit fee; it passed after discussion about delays affecting developers and local government responsibility.

Transcript Highlights:

• development organizations and higher ed. development organizations and higher ed.
• Modifies and development program.
• Section 62 modifies inspection fees for grain buyers. Section 63 modifies grain storage fees.
• fee for grain storage, and then the exam fee scales up based on your capacity.
• This is a huge to license fees.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So when I read that, the fees are based... ...the fees jumped up.
• So when you negotiated that, we had the COVID fees, they based the fee or the COVID money, they based
• It's a $12,000 transfer from operating expenses to professional fees to pay invoices for legal fees.
• We notice that this is for legal fees. Yes, ma'am. Why would we have outside legal fees?
• The first item A is from the Economic Development Commission.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• then miscellaneous fees.
• It is not part of the licensing fee; it's a separate inspection fee.
• The filing fees were based on how many owners. Then it went to a $40 fee in 1992.
• <04:24:33.319> are The fee is $250—the filing fee is $250.
• but our fee is $250.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed House Bill 1, focusing on the legislative branch budget, especially the Senate and House lines. Members discussed that the Senate’s fiscal year 2025 adjusted authorized amount was higher than 2024 actual spending, largely due to personnel, benefits, and travel, and one member proposed a $500,000 annual cut. Staff explained that any reduction would need to be allocated across specific line items such as personnel, benefits, and travel, and noted that the Senate budget is entirely General Funds. After discussion of how the adjusted authorized figures were calculated and why the branch no longer staffs some joint committees as it once did, the committee moved on without taking a vote on that section. The committee then heard a detailed presentation from the New Hampshire Retirement System. NHRS officials described their statutory administrative budget, which is funded through the retirement trust rather than the General Fund, and said the FY 2026-2027 increase is driven by IT modernization, cybersecurity, a new strategic plan, and additional staff positions. They also reviewed the system’s funding progress, clean audit opinions, investment performance, and changes to asset allocation, while noting that several recent pension-related laws required major database changes. Members questioned the large increase in salaries and benefits, the need for new employees versus contractors, the purpose of training costs, and the source of the Group Two benefit funding. NHRS said the governor’s budget includes General Funds for Group Two benefit changes, with $5 million in FY 2026 and $27.9 million in FY 2027, and that the figures reflect the governor’s recommendation and related HB 2 provisions. Committee members also asked about employer and employee contribution rates for Group Two police and fire members, which NHRS said were not included in the budget document but were about 31.2% for police and 30.35% for fire, with employee shares around 11.55% and 11.8%. The committee did not make a decision on the NHRS budget during this exchange and indicated it would review the details further before returning to it later. The committee then heard from the Community Development Finance Authority on the State Treasury Department budget line for the required state match to administer the federal Community Development Block Grant program. CDFA explained that its $280,000 annual request for FY 2026 and FY 2027, totaling $560,000, supports administration, technical assistance, contracting, and monitoring of roughly $19 million in annual federal CDBG funds. Members asked about the leverage of the state match, oversight of projects, staffing, and grant prioritization. CDFA said it has 18 employees, uses public hearings and a scoring system to prioritize awards, and conducts both desk and on-site monitoring, with annual audits to ensure compliance. No vote was taken on the CDFA item in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• examination fees are.
• examination fees are.
• examination fee is in addition to the licensing fee.
• capacity must be charged a 350 exam fee. capacity must be charged a 350 exam fee.
• fee is in addition to the licensing fee. fee is in addition to the licensing fee.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We even defer most of our developer fee; we defer it and just take it from cash flow.
• Charge no origination fees, late fees, or interest.
• DailyPay's instant fee is $3.
• There's no cap on fees.
• These fees have gone up. Some didn't charge membership fees; now they do.

Bills: HB1453, HB1718, HB2043, HB2207, HB2798

Keywords: local governments, anticipation notes, certificates of obligation, public works, flood control, financial management, local government, municipal financing, private activity bonds, closing definition, real estate finance, bond issuance, government regulation, bond election, general obligation bonds, GO bonds, political subdivision, city bonds, county bonds, school district bonds

Transcript Highlights:

• , fees related to administering trusts, fees related to safe deposit boxes being exempt.
• to brokerage fees um fees related to brokerage fees um fees related to administering<01:03:41.839
• Like those of us who don't see fees, there's a reason why we don't see fees.
• Like those of us who don't see fees, there's a reason why we don't see fees.
• Like those of us who don't see fees, there's a reason why we don't see fees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , and taxes for the Committee on Trade Workforce Economic Development.
• for the Committee of Trade Workforce and Economic Development.
• The Committee on Trade, Workforce and Economic Development.
• of Trade Workforce and Economic Development.
• of those funds for authorizing fees for the Committee on Trade, Workforce and Economic Development.

Transcript Highlights:

• So in the time that you were waiving impact fees, you also say that you never increased your fee, you
• never increased your fees.
• It will be the developers. Mr.
• That was a separate fee waiver that existed in an area that actually has not had much, if any, new development
• They were using the general government impact fees. Their general government impact fee fund.

Summary: The committee first took up a long-running audit finding involving the City of Daytona Beach’s unexpended building permit fund balance, which has exceeded the statutory cap for several years and was reported at $10.8 million in the latest audit. Mayor Derek Henry and city staff said the city had analyzed the fund, adopted a corrective action plan, waived more than $5.5 million in permit and inspection fees, used some excess funds for a training facility rehabilitation, and is pursuing a $9.4 million City Hall expansion that they say is allowed under a November 2024 Attorney General opinion permitting construction of a building to house the building code enforcement function. Committee members repeatedly questioned whether the city was simply trying to spend down the money, whether the proposed uses were truly lawful, why the balance kept growing despite fee waivers, and where the interest earnings were going. The mayor and deputy city manager said the city’s growth and staffing needs justified the plan, but several members expressed frustration and skepticism. A public commenter also urged accountability and raised concerns about the city’s spending plans and the size of the remaining balance. The committee then received an Auditor General presentation on the Town of Greenville, which found 31 operational audit findings and described pervasive control failures, possible fraud, waste, and abuse. The findings included election paperwork problems that left a council seat vacant, conflicts of interest, late financial disclosure filings, related-party transactions, inadequate meeting notices and minutes, quorum and voting documentation problems, council members’ involvement in day-to-day operations, missing ethics training, budget adoption and monitoring deficiencies, inaccurate accounting records and bank reconciliations, utility billing and rate issues, grant compliance problems tied to an unfinished grocery store project, weak personnel and contracting controls, improper severance and compensation issues, late vendor payments, weak procurement and P-card controls, vehicle-use and property-control weaknesses, poor public records access, and IT access and fraud-policy gaps. Greenville’s mayor and staff said the audit largely reflected the prior administration and that the current council and staff are taking corrective action. They said the town terminated the former manager, adopted seven new policies since the audit began, and is working with the Auditor General to improve procurement, financial controls, inventory management, grant oversight, and ethics compliance. The town attorney said he had alerted federal authorities earlier about concerns, and committee members noted that FDLE has received a criminal referral and is investigating. Several members praised the new leadership’s cooperation but also suggested the town consider consolidation or dissolution if problems persist.

Transcript Highlights:

• impact fees is there a reservoir of fees impact fees is there a reservoir of fees that<00:45:24.839
• to impact fee law, those fees are supposed to be updated every three years, which they just haven't
• fee law those fees according to impact fee law those fees are<00:50:10.359> supposed<00:50:10.640
• It triggers the impact fee, and then the developer comes in and talks about their project, and then we
• and then the it triggers the impact fee and then the developer<00:56:51.200> comes<00:56:51.400

Keywords: 910, house, all