Transcript Highlights:

• It simply says zero tax liability should not trigger a late filing fee.
• There's an additional fee, an additional fee, an additional fee, an additional fee.
• I do remember a few years ago the objection was that if there's no fees, then there's no money going
• They have paid their eviction fees. They have paid up.
• Fees, $26,000. They want to charge the legislature for us obtaining information.

Summary: The House convened, approved the prior journal, received gubernatorial communications, and then moved into an additional Committee of the Whole to consider Senate bills on two calendars. In that committee, members adopted floor and committee amendments and reported SB 1100, SB 1160, and SB 1178 out as amended. On the second calendar, the committee considered SB 1200, SB 1560, SB 1627, and SB 1723, adopting amendments on SB 1200, SB 1627, and SB 1723 and reporting all four measures out, while SB 1725 was retained on the calendar. The House then adopted the committee reports and sent the amended bills to engrossing or third reading as appropriate. The chamber then took up a long series of third-reading votes. Several bills passed with recorded votes and some member explanations focused on public safety, parental rights, school safety, health care, local control, property rights, and wildlife management. Among the measures that passed were SB 1013, SB 1015, SB 1046, SB 1094, SB 1095, SB 1124, SB 1186, SB 1214, SB 1275, SB 1280, SB 1315, SB 1318, SB 1205 on reconsideration, SB 1327, SB 1416, SB 1418, SB 1582, SB 1613, SB 1662, SB 1664, SB 1670, SB 1711, SB 1741, SB 1821, and several concurrent memorials. A number of bills failed, including SB 1052, SB 1170, SB 1457, SB 1074, SB 1540, SB 1649, and SB 1663. Debate on several bills drew pointed partisan and policy disagreements. Members opposing health-related bills argued they targeted LGBTQ people or medical decision-making, while supporters framed them as protecting children or bodily autonomy. On SB 1170, members said the bill contained a drafting error that would create extreme penalties and strain prison capacity. On SB 1280, supporters and opponents split over Mexican gray wolf management and federal conservation efforts. On SB 1199, the Salt River horse herd bill, members discussed herd management, heritage, property impacts, and a required emergency clause; it passed with the needed two-thirds majority. The House also adopted a group concurrence motion on numerous House bills and passed several House bills on final reading, including HB 2013, HB 2016, HB 2028, HB 2086, HB 2118, HB 2140, HB 2170, HB 2226, HB 2244, HB 2248, HB 2249, HB 2327, HB 2379, HB 2380, and others, forwarding them to the Governor.

Transcript Highlights:

• 'Oh my gosh, now I got—if I challenge them, I have to pay for their court costs and their attorney fees
• Because of the fee. So just keep that in mind. We're going to need everyone's help on that.
• Because of the fees. Because of the fee. So just keep that in mind.
• This is not a new program, fees, or a change to the bonding. This is just a...
• Fees are changed, the bonding.

Summary: The House Natural Resources Committee met on April 29, 2026, with a quorum present and took up several bills related to property rights, expropriation, renewable energy recycling, and local permitting. Representative Domangue first presented HCR 80 on private property rights, using it to highlight the 2025 landman code of conduct and the need for stronger guardrails in expropriation negotiations. She then deferred the resolution in order to allow Chairman Geymann to present HB 841, which was described as establishing a code of conduct for landmen and expropriation-related negotiations. The committee heard testimony and watched video examples from landowners describing intimidation, inadequate compensation offers, and the need for fair treatment. Amendments were adopted to broaden the bill to all certificate holders, prohibit threats about court costs and attorney fees, shorten response times, and add graduated fines and public posting for violations. HB 841 was reported favorably as amended, with no opposition cards recorded. The committee then considered HB 621 by Representative Coates, which would require recycling of decommissioned renewable energy infrastructure to the extent practical. After discussion with DEQ, the bill was amended to clarify that existing universal waste rules apply and to remove language that would have required the renewable facility owner to pay decommissioning costs in that section; the effective date was set for January 1, 2027. Testimony from renewable energy industry representatives supported the measure and explained that solar panels and related components can be recycled at high rates, with established markets for recovered materials. The committee adopted the amendments and reported HB 621 favorably. Next, Representative Jacob Landry presented HB 595, aimed at preventing local governments from unreasonably delaying or impeding energy projects through permit requirements, especially road permits affecting Haynesville Shale operations. After amendment, the bill required timely action on local road permits and deemed them approved if not acted on within 30 days. Supporters emphasized the economic importance of the Haynesville and the need for predictable permitting, while opponents argued the bill could further erode local authority, particularly regarding carbon capture and sequestration. The committee reported HB 595 favorably. Landry then presented HB 1191, creating a certificate of compliance process for oilfield and exploration and production sites to provide a cleaner path for cleanup, finality, and future investment. The bill drew technical and substantive amendments, including changes to definitions, confidentiality, and the role of DEQ; discussion continued over whether the bill should be deferred to allow more time to work through the remaining issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• The question of investment management fees is questionable.
• Campus, and renegotiate the fees on funds received through state appropriations.
• And there could be. fees on that. Okay. So essentially the foundation is charging fees to invest.
• But even for UNM, it was 1.9 million. in administrative fees.
• There will be, you know, the fees are already baked in.

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to that, we've layered in things like impact fee waivers.
• all the permit fees.
• They were able to get all of those permit fees.
• What you will find at the state level are things around development fees.
• So you're seeing really that top line is going to be permits and fees.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those fees will need to be increased to support the infrastructure costs of a new agency.
• Yes, we do not—we recognize how onerous these fees are for our licensees and want to make sure that we
• And so we do not anticipate any of our departments raising fees. And effectiveness.
• And so we do not anticipate any of our departments raising fees as a result of this reorganization.
• There will be no increases in fees to our stakeholders across the state.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on the Governor’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Administration officials said the change would give each side more focused leadership, improve consumer protection and regulatory oversight, and better align housing and homelessness policy with the state’s broader housing goals. Leaders from the Department of Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Financial Protection and Innovation all voiced support for the business-side reorganization, while housing officials emphasized that the new housing agency would help streamline funding, compliance, and coordination across programs. Members raised concerns about timing, budget impacts, office space, and whether the split would actually reduce bureaucracy. The administration said the plan would be included in the May Revision, was intended to be cost-neutral, and would not require fee increases for licensees or additional office space. On the housing side, officials said the new Housing Development and Finance Committee would work toward a single application and more coordinated award process for affordable housing funding, while preserving CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence. They also said the reorganization would improve compliance monitoring, data collection, and coordination with local governments, including Los Angeles homelessness programs. Public testimony was largely supportive. Industry groups representing beverage distributors, craft brewers, wine, mortgage lenders, and housing organizations backed the business-side split, and housing advocates such as Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the housing agency concept and the proposed one-stop-shop approach. Several witnesses urged that tax credits, bonds, and other funding sources be better coordinated, and some said the plan should be paired with additional state investment and implementation resources. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, we would note that most of the general fund costs statutorily. by the regulatory fees deposited
• in the future, particularly what portion of workload is supported by those special fund regulatory fees
• So through 2018-19, the Bureau of Firearms Workload has been funded through through the regulatory fees
• But since that point, despite a fee increase, a pretty sizable fee increase in 2019, solvency concerns
• we would also be remiss if we didn't mention that the legal landscape for what level of regulatory fee

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment also says that the fee applies only until the appropriate local agency has inspected to
• Have you considered as far as the arbitrary three-times fee of maybe looking at the same entity that
• So right now, the bill talks about up to three times the daily administrative fee that can be charged
• We would like to see it the way it is right now in current law, that the counties establish a fee and
• We would like to see it the way it is right now in current law that the counties establish a fee and

Summary: The committee heard and advanced a wide range of bills, with several focused on water safety, utilities, and local government transparency. CS/SB 848 on stormwater treatment was explained as clarifying water quality credits and water quality enhancement areas, and it was reported favorably after one support appearance. SB 28, a claim bill for Reginald Jackson against the City of Lakeland arising from injuries caused by a police shooting, was also reported favorably. CS/CS/SB 658 on water safety requirements for rental properties drew extensive testimony in support from child advocacy and drowning prevention advocates, who cited Florida’s high child drowning rates and the disproportionate impact on children with autism; the bill was amended to require front-end certification and remove local add-on authority, then passed favorably. CS/SB 18, a claim bill involving the estate of a deceased minor and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, was reported favorably after questions about the verdict, settlement posture, and who would receive the funds. SB 934 on areas of critical state concern was amended to remove a provision viewed as conflicting with the Live Local Act and then passed favorably. SB 1622, which creates a one-time waiver for certain late-filed financial disclosure fines, also passed favorably with support from an appearance form. SB 1264 on private schools and zoning was reported favorably after members noted ongoing concerns and planned further discussion. CS/CS/SB 260 on electric vehicle storage in towing yards was amended to narrow the bill to storage issues and cap the fee period until inspection; it drew both support and opposition from insurers, fire officials, and vehicle industry representatives, and was reported favorably. CS/CS/SB 1014, dealing with municipal utility service to properties outside city limits, was amended to limit it to residential development and clarify capacity standards, then passed favorably. CS/SB 1102 expanded the local infrastructure surtax to include body camera programs and was reported favorably after an amendment requiring voter approval. Finally, CS/SB 1724 and SB 1566, both on local government utility and budget transparency, were amended and reported favorably despite concerns from cities and counties about implementation costs and burdens.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have fixed percentage-based costs where we have to pay our fund managers a percentage fee of all of
• So it is a very small fee, but it is something that we have to pay.
• We have signed contracts where we have these fixed percentage cost basis fees.
• We have signed contracts where we have these fixed percentage cost basis fees.
• If you want to get rid of that and just leave it at fund manager fees, I'm okay with that.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our legal fees have also been reduced over the past few years.
• out of the registration fees through users of the Guardian.
• Now, again, I've referenced the cost of restoring, which we are absorbing through registration fees.
• It includes project management fees and BI.
• We're actually having to spend fees from the Department of Transportation Turnpike Authority.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The agency is fully funded through administrative fees assessed on plans and does not receive any general
• The reduction in our budget: our investment staff has been diligent at looking at our fee structure.
• That's resulted in the fee savings, as Director Salih stated.
• These are the fees they pay to go to space, essentially.
• That assessment fee is split.

Transcript Highlights:

• Current law is silent as to where penalty fees garnered by local attorneys go when pursuing violations
• Where do they typically go, those fines, fees, or penalties? It's silent. It's silent.
• may offer their own various payment method options, including options that may be accompanied by a fee
• the borrower to make a payment by method of. other than an electronic payment that does not incur a fee
• Instead of us, as their lender, being able to charge a significantly lesser fee to collect the payment

Bills: HB111

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At our district, for example, they charge us, our partner, they charge us a student activity fee.
• Our students never touch their campus, and they charge us a student activity fee.
• , that extra student fee.
• Fees at the school, like Peter said, that extra student fee, and anything else that we have to add in
• Like, we pay 100% of the fees for our students to go through the program.

Summary: The Careers and Workforce Subcommittee met to discuss apprenticeship education and workforce development, with panelists from Santa Fe College, the Florida Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, ABC East Coast/ABC Institute, and Piper Fire Protection. Members heard that apprenticeships are growing in Florida, with panelists emphasizing that these programs offer paid, tuition-free training, progressive wage increases, and strong job placement in high-demand fields such as HVAC, electrical, fire protection, and construction. Panelists also described efforts to expand into new areas like accounting, cybersecurity, network infrastructure, and surgical technology, while stressing the importance of aligning programs with employer demand. A major topic was funding and reimbursement. Panelists said the current model is complicated and often leaves providers with only a portion of the funds appropriated for apprentices, with one provider saying reimbursement can be as low as 44% and others describing caps, contract delays, and inconsistent CareerSource support. They argued that more of the money should reach training providers, that small businesses need more support to participate, and that transparency and contract reform could help expand enrollment and improve program quality. Several also raised barriers such as instructor approval rules, paperwork, and facility costs. Members asked about admission criteria, program costs, employer incentives, outreach to high school students, and whether apprenticeships should have greater access to other funding sources. Panelists said the main requirements are being employed and willing to work and learn, and that outreach through schools, career fairs, community partnerships, and public awareness campaigns is essential. They also discussed articulation agreements that can provide college credit for apprenticeship training and suggested statewide credit recognition and possible direct funding to providers as policy improvements. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with the subcommittee adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there anything being done to address the costs, the court costs, and the fees?
• Additional fees.
• Which would institute a similar reimbursement and dispensing fee requirement.
• Transparency so that employers, taxpayers, and health plans are charged appropriate fees.
• They are the ones who choose where the dispensing fee goes.

Bills: SB65, SB248, SB330, SB378, SB844, SB1330, SB1410, SB1475, SB1476, SB1565, SB1618, SB1623, SJR39, SJR47, SB2084, SB1655, SB1679, SB2174, SB1775, SB1873, SB1204, SB1884, SB1916, SB1937, SB1447, SB1500, SB2007, SB2074, SB1944, SB2018, SB1984, SB2026, SB2045, SB2049, SB2062, SB2112, SB2118, SB2127, SB2134, SB2135, SB2139, SB2154, SB1195

Keywords: SB65, naloxone, Narcan, opioid overdose, overdose reversal, opioid antagonist, emergency opioid antagonist, substance abuse services, harm reduction, public health, overdose prevention, good samaritan, civil immunity, criminal immunity, controlled substances, addiction treatment, fentanyl, opioid crisis, school overdose response, first aid

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes an inspection and supervision fee, as well as application fees.
• Currently, utility fees go into the general fund.
• And right now you said that the fees that you are.
• So under the previous fee, it was roughly 16 million.
• The fees would go into the fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• evidence that current fees are insufficient or that fee revenue is even used appropriately for oversight
• Increasing these fees will only exacerbate that problem.
• Increasing administrative fees without accountability or data is not a solution.
• Increasing these fees will only exacerbate that problem.
• about half a million dollars more in authorization oversight fees.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee heard AB 84, a charter school accountability measure focused on non-classroom-based charter schools and fraud prevention. The author and supporters said the bill was intended to respond to the A3 charter fraud case and related scandals by strengthening audits, transparency, authorizer oversight, and funding determination rules, while ensuring public education dollars are used for public education. Supporters included FCMAT, CSEA, CTA, and CSBA, who argued the bill would improve oversight and protect taxpayers. Opponents, including the California Charter Schools Association, Green Dot, many charter parents, educators, and charter operators, said the bill was too broad, would impose major new costs and bureaucracy on all charter schools, and could reduce options for families, especially those using flexible, homeschool, or special-needs charter programs. After extensive testimony and committee discussion, the bill passed on a 5-1 vote and was sent to Appropriations, with the item left open for additional votes. The committee then approved a consent calendar of 11 education bills, including AB 542, AB 563, AB 731, AB 753, AB 784, AB 964, AB 988, AB 1034, AB 1233, AB 1255, and AB 1381, all moving to Appropriations. The consent calendar passed unanimously. Later, the committee heard AB 1454, a literacy and reading instruction bill authored by Assembly Members Rubio and Revis. The bill would require the state to create professional development resources for evidence-based literacy instruction, update English language arts and English language development instructional materials, and revise administrator preparation standards to include literacy training. The authors and a broad coalition of supporters, including CTA, EdVoice, Families in Schools, Decoding Dyslexia, school administrators, and parent advocates, described the measure as a compromise aimed at improving reading outcomes and addressing California’s literacy crisis. There was no opposition testimony at the hearing, and members voiced strong support for the bill and its collaborative approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:48:25.520> for the out ofstate uh application fee for the out ofstate uh application fee
• fee [clears throat] controversial fee [clears throat] part<00:52:43.760> is<00:52:44.000>
• be improved by a higher fee. be improved by a higher fee.
• Senator Marty: Madam Chair, again, if they want the fee or don't want the fee, that's fine.
• Senator Marty: Madam Chair, again, if they want the fee or don't want the fee, that's fine.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The only question I have is this: How are you thinking that increased registration fees are going to
• That increased registration fees are going to help reduce the fuel price because if EV owners, when they
• Instead of having to pay a high registration fee, you're putting in much lower fees to make sure you
• We can't directly control the gas prices, but we can reduce other transportation fees. Thank you.
• The bill is supposed to bring money back into the people's pockets with lower registration fees.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The meeting was an Arkansas Boy State House session that began with welcoming remarks, introductions of legislators and guests, a quorum call, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The chamber then considered several bills, with members using questions, pro and con speeches, and repeated motions for immediate consideration to end debate. The first House bill, on increasing funding for rural health care through a 10% tax on individuals earning at least $300,000, drew concerns about fairness, long-term funding, and whether it would improve quality of care; it failed 24-51. House Bill 1002, which would fund more teachers for rural schools and limit how many subjects they teach, also drew debate over funding sources and teacher burnout; it failed 38-36. House Bill 1003, creating the Arkansas Act of 26 to regulate AI data centers through local zoning and a 10% tax for conservation, passed after debate over local control, jobs, and federal versus state authority. House Bill 1004, which would reduce vehicle registration fees and shift transportation funding, failed 20-46 amid concerns about road funding and budget impacts. The chamber then moved to Senate bills. Senate Bill 1, aimed at fighting food insecurity by incentivizing healthier SNAP purchases through a Double Bucks-style program, passed 43-27. Senate Bill 2, requiring reading tests in earlier middle school grades and state tutoring for students who fail, passed overwhelmingly 67-6. Senate Bill 3, reducing the individual and corporate income tax rate from 3.7% to 3% to address cost of living and attract business, passed 53-15. Senate Bill 4, creating a mixed-use zoning grant program funded by a 1% hotel tourism tax to support affordable housing and downtown development, passed 51-7. The session ended with a motion to adjourn, which was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• a county and a solid waste management district to offer a designation, or out-of-county designation fee
• The generating county asserted that the designation fee was intended to offset the cost of roads and
• a county and a solid waste management district to offer a designation, or out-of-county designation fee
• The generating county asserted that the designation fee was intended to offset the cost of roads and
• This administrative fee is a part of the payment and not an extra fee.

Keywords: Consideration of SB 70 00:03:41 Consideration of SB 85 00:13:04 Consideration of SB 29 00:16:56 Consideration of SB 226 00:23:09, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't add to the credit for a family, but right now it is Tuition fees or the credit, whichever
• getting to the cost in this legislation, it says that the state board of education shall establish a fee
• The question centers as it says that the state department of Education would establish that fee schedule
• So, have you thought about putting a cap on what he can make off the perpetual fees once his initial
• You look at that You see what it is, just like you do with HOA fees and other associated fees.

Bills: SB683, SB1579, SB1389, SB1387, SB1390, SB1391, SB2063, SB1829, SB2060, SB1842, SB1398, SB1212, SB2158, SB102

Keywords: education, tax credit, student support, private school, Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit, financial assistance, homeschooling, qualified expenses, property tax, valuation increase, taxpayer rights, homestead, protest process, school choice, tuition assistance, income limits, parental choice, accreditation, sales tax, motor vehicles

Transcript Highlights:

• So we could centrally centralize the town fees associated with this and then distribute them back out
• the reason we want to do this, or we think this is a good idea, is this would allow us to collect fees
• the reason we want to do this, or we think this is a good idea, is this would allow us to collect fees
• 11:27.600> um centrally centralize the um centrally centralize the um town<00:11:29.839> fees
• from out of allow us to collect fees from out of state<00:11:42.720> truckers<00:11:43.279>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all