Transcript Highlights:

• It clarifies that, in order not to have fees accrued and to be deemed void for a committee that received
• heard, and this took a couple aspects of that bill, limiting it to $5,000 total and then also for fees
• for one report, and then also... ...then also for fees for one report, and then also creating a list
• real-time accounting and knowing, you know, something that happened 10 years ago that continues to accrue fees

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House and Senate conference committees met on April 16, 2026, to reconcile differences on HB 2874, which deals with campaign finance termination statements and penalties for committees that had no contributions or expenditures. Staff explained that the Senate version retroactively voided certain penalties for late campaign finance reports if a committee certifies no activity, and the conference amendment further refined the bill by requiring public posting of committees that owe late-filing penalties, clarifying termination-statement requirements, extending the no-penalty provisions to some committees that had received contributions, and capping penalties at $5,000 per late report beginning July 1. The amendment also moved the retroactivity date, added a session-law provision, and included an emergency clause. Members discussed whether suspended accounts with no activity would be covered, and staff indicated that while not expressly named, they would likely fall within the bill’s criteria. Supporters said the measure would help clear old compliance issues from the books, improve transparency, and provide relief to smaller candidates and local officeholders who may not have the resources to manage complex campaign finance requirements. One member noted the bill would create a practical safe harbor for inactive campaigns and reduce penalties that continue to accrue on closed or empty campaign accounts. A motion was made and adopted to approve the five-page conference amendment dated April 16, 2026, at 9:03 a.m., to the Senate engrossed version of HB 2874, with authorization for technical and conforming changes recommended by the rules attorney. The motion passed by voice vote, and both the House and Senate conference committees adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The only question I have is this: how are you thinking that increased registration fees are going to
• Instead of having to pay a high registration fee, you're paying much lower, to make sure you have more
• 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.
• The bill is supposed to bring money back into the people's pockets with lower registration fees.

Summary: The Arkansas Boys State House convened with a quorum, heard opening remarks from legislative leaders and guests, and then considered a series of bills focused on rural services, education, taxes, and zoning. House Bill 1001 would have increased rural health care funding through a 10% tax on individuals earning at least $300,000; supporters argued it would improve access and quality in rural areas, while opponents raised concerns about fairness, long-term funding, and whether it would drive away doctors and taxpayers. The bill failed by a vote of 24 yeas, 51 nays, and 1 present. House Bill 1002 would have limited the number of subjects rural teachers could be assigned and offered sign-on bonuses to recruit more teachers; supporters said it would reduce burnout and improve specialization, while opponents questioned funding and whether it would worsen inequities. After immediate consideration, it passed narrowly, 38 yeas, 36 nays, and 2 present. The House then debated House Bill 1003, which would regulate AI data centers through county zoning authority and a 10% tax on corporations to fund conservation efforts. Supporters said counties should be able to decide whether data centers fit local needs, while opponents warned about lost jobs, higher costs, and federal-state jurisdiction issues. The bill passed 62 yeas, 7 nays, and 3 present. House Bill 1004 would have reduced motor vehicle registration fees to offset high fuel costs, but critics argued it would reduce highway and road funding and strain the state budget; it failed 20 yeas, 46 nays, and 4 present. The chamber then took up Senate bills. Senate Bill 1 proposed incentives tied to SNAP benefits to encourage healthier food purchases and address food insecurity and obesity; supporters framed it as a way to improve access to healthy food, while opponents objected to taxing junk food and burdening SNAP users. It passed 43 yeas and 27 nays. Senate Bill 2 would require reading tests in middle school and state tutoring for students who fail; supporters said it would address literacy problems early, while opponents wanted clearer provisions for older students and implementation. It passed 67 yeas, 6 nays, and 1 present. Senate Bill 3 would cut individual and corporate income taxes to promote economic growth and ease cost-of-living pressures; supporters cited prior tax cuts and business attraction, while opponents said the benefits would mostly go to wealthy corporations and CEOs. It passed 53 yeas, 15 nays, and 16 present. Senate Bill 4 created a mixed-use zoning grant program funded by a 1% hotel tourism tax to encourage affordable housing and downtown redevelopment; it passed 51 yeas, 7 nays, and 13 present. The session ended with a motion to adjourn, which carried.

Transcript Highlights:

• sides in areas such as the timing of class size minimums, schools potentially charging tuitions or fees
• 29.560> or schools potentially charging tuitions or schools potentially charging tuitions or fees
• once the foundation formula is in, fees once the foundation formula is in, details<00:02:33.400>
• <00:12:46.880> where<00:12:46.960> the for a for free or for a fee where the for a
• for free or for a fee where the consumer<00:12:47.440> has<00:12:48.360> maintained<00:

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first took up House Bill 955, relating to next steps in transforming Vermont’s education system. The chamber suspended rules to consider the Senate proposal of amendment immediately, and the House Education Committee reported that while it appreciated the Senate’s work, differences remained on issues including the timing of class size minimums, possible tuition or fees under the foundation formula, school construction details, and merger committee groupings. The committee voted 11-0-0 to refuse concurrence and request a committee of conference. After a brief correction on the committee straw poll, the House voted to refuse concurrence in the Senate amendment and appointed Representatives Conlin, Kornheiser, and Quimby as the House conferees. The House then suspended rules to message its action to the Senate forthwith. The House next took up Senate Bill 71, the consumer data privacy and online surveillance bill. The Commerce and Economic Development Committee recommended amendment, and the floor report described the bill as creating a comprehensive Vermont data privacy law effective January 1, 2028. The report outlined consumer rights to know, access, correct, delete, and port personal data, and to opt out of targeted advertising and sale of data; duties for controllers and processors; limits on sensitive data use; special protections for minors and health-related geofencing; Attorney General enforcement; and an 18-month cure period. The committee heard extensive testimony from a broad range of advocates, industry representatives, privacy experts, and other stakeholders, and it reported the bill out favorably with amendment on a vote of 11-0-0 before the House recessed for dinner.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, the fees are not... Dwindling down in funding.
• I mean, the fees are not sufficient to maintain the process as it currently exists.
• You know, that one fee, we've gotten more efficient on emissions.
• Do not have any desire to raise fees.
• Some that are collected, we want to keep in there and make sure... ...have any desire to raise fees.

Summary: The House first established a quorum after a brief call of the board and then moved through messages from the Senate and committee reports. The chamber received a Senate refusal to concur on House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 994 and later voted to send the bill to conference. Members also reconsidered earlier actions on Senate Bill 1019, then adopted a substitute amendment that narrowed the bill to a smaller set of provisions, including a health-related addition on Lyme disease and alpha-gal, before third reading and passage by a vote of 105-32. The House then took up House Bill 1740, known as Melanie’s Law, a drunk-driving prevention measure. Supporters described the bill as a long-negotiated effort to strengthen penalties and ignition interlock requirements while preserving affordability protections for low-income drivers. Family members of Melanie Wonkham were recognized, and several members spoke in favor of the bill as a response to impaired-driving fatalities. The Senate substitute was adopted 143-2, and the bill was finally passed 144-2. Members also passed Senate Bill 1033, which combined Department of Natural Resources funding language with agriculture-related changes, including exemptions for certain farm trucks and cotton gin permitting and air-dispersion modeling requirements. Supporters said it would help keep state environmental programs solvent and better align Missouri rules with neighboring states, while some members raised concerns about future budget pressure and environmental impacts. The Senate substitute passed 134-9. The House then passed Senate Bill 916, which limits when contractors can be required to indemnify the state before or after work on public projects, with supporters saying it protects contractors from premature lawsuits while preserving liability for negligence; it passed 133-1. Finally, the House adopted and finally passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, which promotes Missouri participation in America 250 celebrations in 2026, and then adopted a conference committee report and finally passed Senate Bill 975 after brief debate. The chamber also announced upcoming committee meetings and then recessed, with plans to return later for additional Senate bills and conference reports.

Transcript Highlights:

• to strip out the pay raises, and then we're going to, we've got $300,000 in cybersecurity and bank fees
• And then we're going to, we've got $300,000 in cybersecurity and bank fees, and we'll come back at a
• There are other institutions in the state that charge some type of an athletic fee.
• Special revenue to general revenue off of license fees and stuff like that for the state police.
• This is the one-time fees right here. Thank you. This is the one-time fees right here.

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, established a quorum, granted several leaves, and received gubernatorial approval notices for multiple fiscal-session measures. The chamber then referred House Bill 1034 back to the Joint Budget Committee so pay raises could be stripped out and cybersecurity/bank-fee funding handled later. House Bill 1103, increasing the homestead property tax credit by $75, passed 94-0. Members then considered several budget amendments and appropriations. Amendments to House Bills 1007, 1022, 1036, and 1064 were adopted, and Senate Bill 76, a $2 million appropriation for county extension office capital improvements, passed 87-7. A batch of appropriation bills passed, but several individual bills failed, including House Bills 1023, 1035, 1053, and 1066. House Bills 1089 and 1090, supplemental appropriations for pregnancy crisis centers and waste tire cleanup, both passed. House Bill 1093, a corrections reappropriation bill that excluded use of funds in Franklin County, also passed 94-0. The most extensive debate centered on House Bill 1100 Amendment 1, which set out the RSA and one-time funding package. Supporters described major allocations for corrections, state police, LEARNS Freedom Accounts, Medicaid, vehicle purchases, and a proposed $300 million economic-development site-preparation and road package tied to a confidential project. Opponents criticized the secrecy, size, and policy approach of the incentive, while supporters argued it could bring jobs and broader economic benefits. The amendment passed 54-36-3. The House also passed Senate Bills 8, 16, 30, 63, 67, and 73, while Senate Bills 41 and 59 failed, and Senate Bill 10 passed after being briefly set aside for clarification. The chamber adjourned to 1 p.m. the next day, with committee meetings announced for budget and house management.

Transcript Highlights:

• reduces barriers to getting on interlock by not requiring payment of a significant license reinstatement fee
• And so we're glad to see that we can pay the reinstatement fee over time, but that doesn't change the
• fact that people are paying for installation, monthly fees, downloads, calibrations, and to double their
• have a quick question, which is how much does the interlock program cost after you get through the fees
• And we incorporate costs for security into parade fees and those types of fees, button sales. beverage

Bills: HF1354, HF1901, HF2124, HF2130, HF2260, HF2099, HF104, HF134, HF1769

Keywords: public safety, school safety, active shooter, active shooter drill, violence prevention, threat reporting, anonymous tip line, See It, Say It, Send It, Minnesota Fusion Center, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, BCA, officer-involved death, missing person, endangered missing person, criminal background check, national background check, FBI fingerprint check, adult entertainment license, massage license, correctional facilities

Transcript Highlights:

• How do we make sure they can afford the monthly fee and what service do they get for that fee?
• How do we make sure they can afford the monthly fee and what service do they get for that fee?
• How do we make sure they can afford the monthly fee and what service do they get for that fee?
• How do we make sure they can afford the monthly fee and what service do they get for that fee?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• With independent pharmacists across the state, I question whether they should even have to pay the fee
• , which is a $100 fee, because independent pharmacists have such low reimbursements, and we're trying
• The second change is that it has somewhat of a fee increase across the board for occupational therapy
• And out of that, one of the outcomes was they were asking for an increase in the fee schedule.
• Out of that, one of the outcomes was that they were asking for an increase in the fee schedule for fees

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Welfare met on May 20, 2026, with eight members present and approved the prior meeting minutes. The committee first advanced SB 1224, which requires DCFS to look into cases where a child under 17 is involved in a pregnancy, with added oversight for children under 12; it was reported favorably. The committee also favorably reported SB 1100, described as repealing an outdated statute. White Coat Day remarks welcomed physicians to the Capitol and thanked them for their service, including efforts to improve Medicaid reimbursement. Several health-related bills were then heard and advanced. HB 1220, a continuation of prior work to codify provisions related to the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners and physician licensure, was reported favorably. HB 1231 clarified that Medicaid coverage for continuous glucose monitoring applies to insulin-dependent patients, including those with gestational diabetes, and was also reported favorably. HB 198, which sets reimbursement rates for ambulatory surgery centers for certain Medicaid procedures such as colonoscopies, eye, ENT, and gastroenterology services, passed favorably. HB 1160, creating a streamlined restricted license pathway for qualified international medical graduates, prompted a lengthy exchange about delayed rulemaking and whether the board had added requirements beyond statute; despite concerns, it was reported favorably. The committee also advanced several resolutions and oversight measures. HCR 67, prompted by a personal family experience with a special-needs child’s acute care needs, creates a task force to study gaps in acute care for special-needs adults and children; it was amended and reported favorably. HCR 27, calling for a statewide evaluation of autism services by LDH and the Department of Education, was reported favorably. HB 223, which recreates DCFS, was amended to shorten the sunset date and require law enforcement reporting through a secure web platform, then reported favorably. HCR 28, creating a task force on school nurse orientation and training for new graduates, was reported favorably after testimony from school nurses about the lack of standardized orientation and the risks of placing inexperienced nurses alone in schools. The committee also took up HB 469, which would allow pharmacy license renewal applicants to designate a portion of fees to eligible schools including Xavier University’s College of Pharmacy; after opposition from Senator Cloud and a roll call, the bill was deferred. HB 1182, a cleanup bill changing the occupational therapy certifying entity and adjusting fees, and HB 1076, eliminating one of two sunset provisions for the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board, were both reported favorably. HB 1216, a major rewrite of clinical laboratory personnel rules, was deferred after concerns that it would restrict existing phlebotomy and lab functions in ways that could conflict with recent law. Finally, HB 457 and HB 616, both by Representative Knox and focused on homelessness, drew extensive testimony: HB 457 established minimum standards for shelters and similar facilities and was reported favorably as amended, while HB 616 would allow audits of homelessness-related funding and databases; after debate over privacy, federal funding oversight, and accountability, the committee adopted an amendment changing enforcement language from "may" to "shall" and continued hearing testimony from opponents and supporters.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the salary savings from that, and then more cars purchased, which meant more fees paid through DMV
• Chair, that you mentioned tying fees to inflation.
• There are a number of fees that DMV collects, as they noted earlier.
• The main fee, the registration fee, and the CHP fee, those are tied to inflation.
• As they noted earlier, the main fee, the registration fee, and the CHP fee, those are tied to inflation

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , um the reasonableness attorney's fees, um the reasonableness of<00:10:33.240> provider<00:10
• <00:20:52.320> for<00:20:53.280> um that higher rate fee for um that higher rate fee
• <00:21:05.400> Because happen, but with a lower fee.
• Because happen, but with a lower fee.
• <00:21:10.680> and won't be able to collect that fee and won't be able to collect that fee

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum to consider the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 2, a major Medicaid bill. Members first adopted the substitute and then adopted Amendment 9770. The bill was described as a lengthy rewrite aimed at aligning Kentucky Medicaid policy with federal requirements under HR 1, while also preserving program integrity and addressing due process concerns. Senators and staff repeatedly emphasized that the measure was the product of extensive meetings with providers, associations, and work groups. The sponsor’s section-by-section summary highlighted several key changes: delaying and reducing cost-sharing requirements; pushing eligibility redetermination deadlines to the federal date; restoring some flexibility for hardship waivers; allowing self-attestation as a last resort; modifying MCO audit provisions; clarifying non-emergency medical transport GPS costs; expanding waiver attestation authority to nurse practitioners and licensed psychologists; adding qualified aliens to waiver eligibility to comply with federal law; requiring Medicaid data sharing with the oversight board; limiting changes to Medicaid benefits without General Assembly authorization; narrowing the prescription drug exclusion to drugs prescribed primarily for weight loss; and delaying the dental ASO transition until 2029. The substitute also deleted a proposed auditor review requirement and retained an emergency clause. Committee discussion focused heavily on the policy and fiscal implications of the cost-sharing and recertification provisions. Senators raised concerns about whether the co-pays would be effective or simply shift costs to providers, whether the recertification process would burden the Cabinet and cause eligible people to lose coverage, and how the bill would affect people transitioning from Medicaid into work. Supporters said the lower cost-sharing amounts were intended to encourage appropriate use of care, protect providers, and comply with federal law, and they noted that the Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board would help shape future changes. A public witness, Maggie Chisholm, gave emotional testimony about her daughter’s experience with a Medicaid waiver and argued that policy delays and administrative disconnects can harm vulnerable families. No final vote on the bill itself was recorded in the excerpt, but the substitute and amendment were adopted and testimony continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• :18.959> adjust<00:09:19.360> the<00:09:19.920> registration<00:09:20.480> fees
• you just adjust the registration fees you just adjust the registration fees and<00:09:20.880>
• that you would add when you get your fee that you would add when you get your vehicle<00:09:56.320><
• ,<00:11:06.720> the<00:11:06.880> fee<00:11:07.200> structure.
• uh you know the fees, the fee structure. uh you know the fees, the fee structure.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered SB 2120, which would allow certain state and county employees rehired within one year to transfer accrued vacation and sick leave and extend the break-in-service period for health benefits. Testimony was split: the Department of Human Resources explained current leave payout and pension credit rules and raised concerns about the long transfer window, while labor representatives supported the measure. During decision-making, both committees recommended passage with amendments. The amendments narrowed the bill by changing the break-in-service period to 180 days for leave beginning on or after July 1, 2026, making the benefit transfer voluntary with a 90-day notice deadline, and changing the effective date to January 1, 2077. The recommendations were adopted by vote. The committees also heard SB 2523, an appropriation for the City and County of Honolulu Department of Information Technology to modernize the driver’s license and motor vehicle system. DIT described the current COBOL-based mainframe as decades old, said the project would use a code-share arrangement with Arizona, and estimated a $10 million, two-year conversion and rollout. Members questioned the cost, the city-state funding arrangement, and the feasibility of the project, including whether it would move to a cloud-based system. After testimony, both committees deferred the measure. In the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs portion, SB 2032 on consumer protection for solar sales drew broad support from the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, the Office of Consumer Protection, the Hawaii Solar Energy Association, and others. Testifiers said the bill was needed in response to misleading solar door-to-door sales and urged amendments to clarify “contractual affiliation,” exclude balcony/portable solar devices, and require disclosure of cash and financed prices. The committee then moved on to SB 2079 on vehicle titles, which had one supporter and one opponent but no testimony in person or online, and SB 2241 on zero-emission vehicles, for which the Hawaii State Energy Office submitted written support. The hearing also began discussion of SB 2579 on water-related grants, where agencies said any program would need clearer statutory standards and likely a feasibility study before implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the commission, who's going to be paying, I guess, the fees and stuff?
• Is there fees that's going to be associated with this?
• So are there a lot of administrative fees? You've got a three-million-dollar budget of some sort.
• What are the administrative fees? So, you know, I don't have that, but I believe Joan does.
• As far as the fees or administration, there are no fees or administrative fees being charged against

Bills: HB2180, HB2184, HB2188, HB2194, HB2206, HB2321, HB2322, HB2438, HB2442, HB2448, HB2727, HB2797

Keywords: appropriation, funding, University of Arizona, education, state budget, fetal death, funeral homes, informed consent, abortion, women's rights, medical assistance, emotional support, language acquisition, early intervention, hearing impairment, grant program, deaf education, health care, insurance claims, prior authorization

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to the registration fees, the registrant shall pay all registration permit fees and municipal
• fees for each registration year.
• /c><00:20:23.520> registrant the registration fees, the registrant the registration fees, the
• shall pay all registration permit fees shall pay all registration permit fees and<00:20:26.480><
• fe municipal fees for each registration<00:20:29.760> year.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This eliminated family fees, making child care free for families below 75% of the state median income
• and capped fees at 1% for those between 75% and 85% of the state median income.
• So as it is now under the family fee schedule, the fees are limited to 1% of a family's monthly income
• And there's no fee assessment for families whose incomes are below 75% of the state median income.
• We talked about family fees and slots being reimbursement.

Summary: The California State Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its first hearing to examine the state of child care access, affordability, and provider compensation. Chair Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and other members described child care as essential infrastructure for working families and the economy, noting that costs are unaffordable for many households and that providers are underpaid. Early testimony came from a San Francisco parent, Quinn Chung, who described the difficulty of finding safe care and the financial and career sacrifices caused by lack of child care, and from Tuolumne County provider Anita Viscini, who detailed her monthly costs, low margins, and the need to work weekends and teach CPR classes to make ends meet. Assemblymembers also emphasized the crisis in rural communities and the need for a long-term strategy. The first policy panel featured Jennifer Troia of the California Department of Social Services, Laura Pryor of the California Budget and Policy Center, and Alexa Frankenberg of Child Care Providers United. Troia said the state has nearly doubled child care funding in five years, expanded subsidy slots, and reached a new tentative three-year agreement with providers that includes cost-of-living adjustments, stabilization payments, and continued work on an alternative rate methodology and single rate structure. Pryor argued that despite funding gains, child care remains too expensive, only a fraction of eligible children receive subsidies, and provider wages remain far below comparable jobs, worsening racial and gender inequities. Frankenberg said the tentative agreement is progress but not enough, calling for a true cost-of-care system, fair wages, paid time off, better support for emergency and nontraditional care, and stronger integration of family child care into the mixed-delivery system. Members asked about why the crisis persists, how the alternative methodology will work, how family fees and sliding-scale help are being used, and why middle-income families still struggle. The panel said the problem reflects long-term underinvestment, a broken market, and a system that still leaves many families without access. The committee also heard an economic panel from Ashley Hoffman of the California Chamber of Commerce and Sarah Bone of the Public Policy Institute of California. Hoffman described employer child care benefits and public-private partnership models in other states, including shared-cost programs and local chamber efforts. Bone said child care costs reduce family financial security and labor force participation, especially for mothers of young children, and estimated that if mothers of young children worked at the same rate as mothers of older children, more than 80,000 additional women could be in the workforce each year. In the final panel, parent and provider advocates, including Jennifer Greppie and Black Californians United for Early Care and Education co-founder Keisha Doyle, argued for fully funding child care, ending waiting lists, protecting culturally affirming care, and addressing racial inequities and private equity’s role in the sector.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and defines extraordinary impact fee language and processes.
• , and defines extraordinary impact fee language and processes.
• Amendment 109-660 deletes the provisions relating to impact fees from the bill.
• It's not clear if impact fees could be applied in this circumstance.
• It's not clear if impact fees could be applied in this circumstance.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a series of member introductions recognizing interns, pages, volunteers, and the retirement of Pastor Gary Austin from the sergeant’s office. Leadership also announced that budget talks with the House were continuing and that senators would not need to plan on being in next week, suggesting progress toward a budget framework. After routine floor business, the chamber took up a major third-reading measure on citizen initiatives and several education bills, followed later by returning messages from the House on health and school-safety measures. The most extensive debate centered on the citizen initiative bill, which sponsors said was intended to protect the constitutional amendment process from fraud and abuse based on election-crime investigations and a large state report on petition fraud. Supporters argued the bill would add reasonable guardrails, prevent misuse of public funds, and preserve integrity while still allowing grassroots participation. Opponents from both parties argued it would make citizen-led amendments much harder by adding costs, deadlines, criminal penalties, and administrative burdens that would chill participation and favor wealthy or corporate interests. After lengthy debate, the Senate voted 28-10 to pass the bill. The chamber then passed several education measures with little or no opposition, including bills tied to Bright Futures, dual enrollment, Florida ABLE, teacher preparation, and other education policy updates, all by 38-0. Later, the Senate concurred in House amendments on a stem cell therapy bill, an EKG requirement for student athletes, and a cardiac emergency bill, each passing 37-0. The House also sent back a school safety bill with amendments affecting child care facility partnerships with law enforcement, temporary door locks during active assailant incidents, supervision windows, and funding for panic alarm systems; the transcript ends as that bill is being explained.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'll go to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Credit.
• So we'll go to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Appreciate it. Thank you.
• Brad Miller with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
• It was for some specific fire prevention activities, and so I wouldn't think of this fee as a fee that
• But we passed some of those costs on when we instituted this fee.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not a tax; it's a fee. Yeah. The fee is a tax; the tax is a fee, but you have to pay it.
• But you've got a tax per fee tag per bag, right? Yes, sir. How much is that?
• Never, ever, because one is lease fee and one is fee simple. They ask for financing documents. Why?
• and return that fee back to their city or their county.
• In the earlier theme, taxes are fees, and fees are taxes, and some taxes are user fees. and in water

Bills: SB467, SB325, SB867, SB994, SB1052, SB1237, SB1449, SB1531, SB2063, SB2172, SB2173, SB2520, SB2529, SB2538, SB2541, SJR46, SJR84

Keywords: SB 467, Texas property tax, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, fire damage, house fire, destroyed home, temporary tax relief, appraisal district, chief appraiser, local taxing unit, tax rollback, tax refund, Tax Code Chapter 11, prorated exemption, homestead improvement, disaster relief, property tax exemption, residential property

Transcript Highlights:

• , but they don't have a fiscal agent fee.
• They're unable to collect a fiscal agent fee in order to hire an auditor.
• There's no fiscal agent fee allowed on severance tax.
• So I'm Assuming if we are assessed fees, Mr.
• , and we have a strict cap on how those fees are paid.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:17:47.840> fee timeline with scope and fees fee timeline with scope and fees fee negotiations
• The registration fee has been stable, or has it increased over the last few years?
• <00:39:36.680> has of course uh the registration fee has of course uh the registration fee
• There was a logic to it, to a number of fees that could be implemented, and we talked about the fees.
• The Bureau of Trails is entirely funded by motorized registration fees, so OHRVs and snowmobiles.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Other states leverage a combination of taxes, fees, and assessments, or other sources of income, to pay
• This includes things like interest income, exchange user fees, and personal responsibility fines.
• on insurance companies which fee on insurance companies which includes<00:09:52.880> large<00
• Then the only question I have is how often can you raise the fee?
• Then the only question I have is how often can you raise the fee?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.