Transcript Highlights:

• Traditional lenders are hesitant, and many promising companies leave the state to find investors elsewhere
• It carefully caps and it carefully is capped and fiscally responsible, equipped with multiple safeguards
• The annual statewide cap of $6 million is in the first two years.
• Per investor, that is $75,000 with a $300,000 total cap.
• Developers, lenders, insurers, employers, and residents invest when they believe a market's trajectory

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• Over the course of their time, they have a cap, too.
• Connecticut had installed a cap that said we're looking at the square footage of how much concrete, and
• But they do have a cap, and as Senator said, because of so many homes in Connecticut, that cap keeps
• As no lender would accept our home in its current condition as adequate collateral.
• Connecticut, the cap is $205,000, I believe, now. Yeah. And we just have nothing at the moment.

Bills: S3091 , H5477

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a public hearing on two late-file matters, centered on S. 3091, a bill to create relief for homeowners affected by the crumbling concrete/pyrrhotite crisis. Senator Peter Durant presented the bill as a way to establish a crumbling concrete assistance fund, administered by CEDAC, to help replace failing foundations and reimburse homeowners who already paid out of pocket. He said the proposal follows recommendations from a state commission and would be funded by a $6 fee on homeowner/condo insurance policies and a $6-per-cubic-yard surcharge on concrete, with the goal of spreading costs broadly rather than placing them on homeowners alone. Several affected homeowners testified about severe financial and emotional harm, including expensive foundation replacements, lost equity, inability to sell or refinance, and long delays in getting help. Homeowners Karen Riani, Michelle Iglesi, Karen Bellotti, and Russell Dupierre described living with homes that became unsellable or unaffordable to repair, and urged the committee to move the bill forward. Committee members asked about inspection practices, whether pyrrhotite can be detected during home sales, whether the bill would ban pyrrhotite, and how much funding the program would need. Witnesses said the problem is broader than originally understood, affecting at least 52 municipalities, and that the only fix is full foundation replacement. They also said the bill includes training and education for inspectors, but does not ban pyrrhotite outright because the issue is now being addressed through quarry testing and material controls. Representatives of the concrete industry, including Craig Dauphinay, Karen Marshall, and Guy Glottis, said they support homeowner relief and the creation of a fund, but strongly opposed the concrete surcharge. They argued the industry has already taken significant steps, including supporting state testing and regulation of aggregate sources, and said the surcharge would unfairly assign blame, raise costs for residential, municipal, and infrastructure projects, and create cross-border competitiveness issues with neighboring states. They favored a Connecticut-style model funded primarily through insurance assessments, noting that Connecticut’s program has been successful and that Massachusetts could adopt a similar approach. No vote was taken at the hearing.

Bills: SJR39 , SJR47 , SB227 , SB1942 , SB1627 , SB625 , SB1716 , SB1303 , SB2180 , SB504 , SB1209 , SB1448 , SB1597 , SB1679 , SB2182 , SB2112 , SB2170 , SB2084 , SB1496 , SB1595 , SB1655 , SB1876 , SB1621 , SB1944 , SB1266 , SB2072 , SB2104 , SB1769 , SB1827

Keywords: property valuation, tax limit, homestead, income threshold, elderly, constitutional amendment, voter ID, elections, Oklahoma, proof of identity, gross production tax, ad valorem tax, property exemption, Oklahoma Tax Commission, oil and gas production, regulatory impact, economic implications, dental insurance, health care, medical necessity

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a cap on EFAs right now.
• We have a cap on EFAS right now. But it. We have a cap on EFAS right now.
• And the loans lender per year.
• </c><04:10:51.600><c> and</c> carry a higher risk for lenders and carry a higher risk for lenders and
• </c> federal regulations requiring the lender federal regulations requiring the lender to<04:11:25.840

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason that [snorts] CAP Association came to us with that request is they're having trouble getting
• </c><01:17:23.720><c> It</c> such as a lender or mortgage license.
• It such as a lender or mortgage license.
• </c><01:25:08.520><c> may</c> mortgages since non-bank lenders may mortgages since non-bank lenders may
• </c> Prior to that, we had no cap, but the 50% is what is the federal guidance.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's a de facto cap on administrative costs for insurance companies.
• This bill removes the caps, prepayment penalties, as well as financing closing costs or lender fees for
• The first restriction the bill addresses is the 5% limit on finance lender fees.
• Under current Minnesota law, lenders are not allowed to include a lender fee in the principal amount
• </c><01:19:05.160><c> fees,</c> closing costs, including lender fees, closing costs, including lender

Bills: HF3766 , HF3972 , HF3437 , HF4118

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Keywords: travel insurance, regulation, insurance licensing, consumer protection, travel assistance, short-term rental, vacation rental, home sharing, rental marketplace, online platform, property damage guarantee, damage waiver, reimbursement insurance, insurance regulation, commerce department, platform user, Airbnb, Vrbo, host protection, rental home marketplace

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, the cap was 180. This will allow us... ...increase in units. Again, the cap was 180.
• Creation of an ADU trust fund from a group of participating private lenders.
• So lenders also often view ADUs as unconventional and risky.
• So a lot of the time that a lender would consider, let's say, the resources and the income for taking
• It raises the age cap, and it improves payment standards, all of which make the program more flexible

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, when you get approved at the Finance Authority, you're approved with an interest rate cap.
• there was a community up in the Gallup McKinley Public schools 2 years ago where that interest rate cap
• They were capped previously at 20 and 30 years depending on the, the, um, underlying wealth of the community
• They're now capped at 30 and 40 years consistent with federal government.
• So rather than having a commercial lender and um a local government lender, we have lenders generally

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Jessica Jensen of Cap City, senior attorney with Cap City Law in Olympia, and also president-elect
• I'm Jessica Jensen of Cap City, Senior Attorney with Cap City Law in Olympia, and also President-elect
• Lender requirements. This increased the cost of LECs.
• But isn’t the state’s cap—there’s still…” “But isn’t the state’s cap?
• There’s still, yeah, there’s still subject to the cap.

Summary: The committee first suspended the five-day notice rule and then heard House Bill 2521 on firearm background check fees. Staff explained that the bill would remove the $18 fee cap and allow Washington State Patrol to set fees based on actual program costs, which could be about $33 to $35 per check. Supporters said the change was needed to keep the background check system operating and avoid delays and layoffs; opponents argued it would burden lawful gun owners and amount to an unconstitutional tax or barrier to a constitutional right. No vote was taken in the hearing. Members then heard Substitute House Bill 2475 on language-accessible public programs, which would direct the Office of Equity to develop uniform language-access guidelines, address interpreter and translator shortages, and require agency implementation reporting. Testimony was strongly supportive, emphasizing the need for consistent access for limited-English-proficient residents and the benefits for schools, families, and state services. The committee also heard Second Substitute House Bill 2479 on wage recovery, which would create a wage recovery fund to provide partial advance payments to low-wage workers with meritorious unpaid wage claims and adjust wage penalty provisions. Employers, labor advocates, and legal services representatives largely supported the bill as a bipartisan, worker-protection measure funded by penalties rather than the general fund. The committee next took up Engrossed Third Substitute House Bill 1960 on renewable energy tax incentives, which would replace existing property tax and excise tax provisions with a new state and local renewable energy excise tax structure and related grant programs for local governments and tribes. Counties, utilities, developers, and tribal representatives generally supported the bill’s goal of stabilizing tax treatment for renewable projects, though several witnesses said they wanted amendments to address rates, timing, and late-stage project impacts. The committee also heard Substitute Senate Bill 5932 on alternative jet fuel incentives, which would change the timing and duration of existing tax preferences; supporters said it would provide certainty for emerging sustainable aviation fuel projects, while one refinery sought clarification and a broader county threshold. Later, the committee heard Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2238 on statewide food security, directing the Department of Agriculture to monitor food system performance and develop a statewide food security strategy. Agricultural groups, grocers, anti-hunger advocates, and farmers supported the bill as a coordination effort to improve food access, affordability, and supply chain resilience. The committee then heard Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1903, which would create a statewide low-income energy assistance program through the Department of Commerce; supporters said it would address growing unmet need and complement existing utility programs, while opponents said it did not address the root causes of rising energy costs. Finally, the committee heard Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2416 on waste-to-energy facilities under the Climate Commitment Act and Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2515 on large energy-use facilities (data centers), both of which drew mixed testimony centered on balancing emissions, ratepayer impacts, reliability, and environmental or tribal concerns. No final votes were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• and encourage greater Risk to lenders and encourage greater investment<00:56:26.359><c> projects</c>
• She explained that the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund is a nonprofit lender that provides loans to
• </c><01:01:46.000><c> will</c> us back but those lenders will us back but those lenders will appreciate
• </c><01:04:35.240><c> but</c> Community Loan Fund uh as a lender but Community Loan Fund uh as a lender
• Our members include developers, lenders, property managers, homeless shelters, and more.

Committee: Senate Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• This account is capped in how much it can hold. It can hold 8% of recurring spending.
• If more money is coming into this account because of excess revenue, then that cap allows that excess
• aren't capped.
• No, Madam Chair, there's no cap or statutory requirement.
• The finance authority is a lender and oversees grants.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• largest CDFI lenders in the state of California, top 25 in the nation.
• And there's a cap. Is there a cap to when the 3% applies? There wouldn't be a cap, per se.
• There wouldn't be a cap, per se.
• Harrison Lender with LeadingAge California.
• Harrison Lender with LeadingAge California.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so if this is not filed, it's going to be a potential for a very big conflict by that other lender
• Investments must be made through federally regulated products, limited to qualifying large market cap
• assets, and capped at 5% of any retirement account.
• If you mean digital assets, the limit is $500 billion in market cap.
• Last year, a senator brought this and had no caps. And I appreciate how...

Bills: SB1302 , SB1389 , SB1401 , SB1776 , SB1809 , SB1858 , SB1985 , SB2053 , SB2148

Committee: Senate Revenue and Taxation

Summary: The Revenue and Taxation Committee met and considered several bills. Senate Bill 1776, by Senator Pugh, would create a $10,000 refundable tax credit for teachers with seven consecutive years of service, as part of a teacher retention strategy; after questions about the seven-year threshold, it passed 8-3. Senate Bill 1858, by Senator Frix, would create a new TIF district financing option allowing developers, rather than cities or counties, to borrow against projected TIF revenues; the committee adopted an amendment changing a filing provision from “may” to “shall,” and the bill passed 7-4. Senate Bill 1985, by Senator Guthrie, would let state retirement systems consider limited investments in regulated digital assets, capped at 5% and narrowed to large-market-cap assets; the committee added an amendment inserting “in” to clarify the language, and the bill passed 9-2. The committee then rejected Senate Bill 1302, by Senator Kirt, which would repeal the “path to zero” trigger tied to future income tax cuts; it failed 2-9 after debate over fiscal stability and tax relief. Senate Bill 1809, by Senator Hamilton, would raise the homestead exemption from $1,000 to $5,000; members debated its impact on local governments and school funding, but it passed 9-2. Senate Bill 1401, by Senator Rader, was amended to adjust the insurance premium tax rate from 1.96% to 2.16% and eliminate the home office premium tax credit; the bill was laid over after concerns about its fiscal impact. Finally, Senate Bill 2053, also by Senator Rader, would allow cities and counties to impose up to a 10% excise tax on medical marijuana dispensaries by local vote, with OTC handling collections and enforcement; supporters framed it as local control and a way to offset public safety costs, while opponents argued it unfairly targeted dispensaries and consumers. The bill passed 7-3. The committee then adjourned and announced it would meet again the following Monday after floor activity.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those provisions make some changes to the qualified small business stock program, increasing the cap
• So if the first 25% of that interest income to the lender would be deductible.
• </c> the lender would be deductible. the lender would be deductible.
• Chair, I believe you're referring to the SALT cap provision. >> Mr. Clayman. >> Uh, yes.
• to the salt cap provision, to the salt cap provision, &gt;&gt; Mr.<00:40:33.200><c> Clayman.

Bills: HR1 , HF387

Committee: House Taxes

Keywords: January 6 insurrection, pardon, law enforcement, violent crimes, public safety, justice system, political accountability, Blaine, local sales tax, special tax, restaurant tax, lodging tax, admissions tax, amusement tax, hotel tax, redevelopment, capital improvements, municipal finance, bonding authority, tourism tax

Transcript Highlights:

• mentioned, that resident refunds are, I would say, they're considered unsecured creditors, whereas the lenders
• Most interests are aligned because ultimately if a lender is going, or their asset is, or their security
• Generally, it's more of a contractual issue between the borrower and the lenders to work out what the
• It can be capped at 100%, 90%, 80%, 50%, or allowed to fully decline.

Summary: The commission met at Brookhaven at Lexington to continue discussing continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a focus on financial viability, entrance fees, refund policies, and how the industry is evolving. Speakers explained that nonprofit CCRCs have shifted away from building entirely new campuses since the 2008 financial crisis, and now more often grow through expansions, affiliations, mergers, or added home- and community-based services. They also noted that many newer CCRCs, especially nationwide, are being built without on-campus skilled nursing, relying instead on assisted living, memory care, or off-site arrangements, and that zoning and local approval can affect expansion plans. A substantial portion of the discussion centered on financial health and consumer protection. Panelists said the most important indicators of a strong CCRC are high occupancy, strong liquidity, and reinvestment in the property, with low occupancy and declining days cash on hand cited as warning signs. They described how actuarial reviews are used to estimate health care utilization and set pricing, and said staffing shortages are often a bigger financial pressure than resident care utilization itself. On refunds, speakers said entrance-fee refunds are generally paid when a unit is resold and the new entrance fee is received, and that resident refunds are usually protected even in bankruptcy, though residents are unsecured creditors. Massachusetts examples such as Reed’s Landing and the Groves were cited as cases where residents remained in place and refunds were ultimately protected. The group also discussed a pending disclosure bill on Beacon Hill related to entrance fees and refund transparency. LeadingAge Massachusetts said it supports clearer disclosure so residents understand refund provisions, and reported that among surveyed member CCRCs, the average time to provide an entrance-fee refund over the past two years was about 117 days. Participants emphasized the need to balance consumer protection with preserving the financial stability of the communities. The commission also reviewed upcoming dates: a virtual public hearing/listening session on June 16, the next commission meeting on June 23, and a later discussion planned on consumer rights, protections, and advertising practices. The meeting concluded with introductions of commission members and an invitation for attendees to tour the Brookhaven campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I send it to the lenders, and they are able to provide the proposals to the condominium associations
• One is, again, these are private lenders, just like our banks and credit unions, and some of them don't
• So I send it to the lenders, and they are able to provide the proposals to the condominium associations
• the carry forward a Sunset and capping the carry forward provision<01:12:00.719><c> we'll</c><01:12:
• is a safer insurer's bank and the lender is a safer and<01:22:01.840><c> faster</c><01:22:02.239><c>

Summary: The committee opened by outlining hearing procedures, including a two-minute limit for live testimony, a request not to repeat written testimony, and a reminder about decorum. The first bill heard was SB 697, which would create a nonrefundable individual income tax credit for expenses to retrofit residences with wind-resistive devices. The Insurance Division said it supported the concept but noted it may need an appropriation or outside expertise to develop certification standards, while the Department of Taxation said the bill should retain a third-party certification requirement if the Insurance Division cannot administer the credit. The Hawaii Insurers Council supported the bill, and the Tax Foundation suggested a subsidy-style program would be more efficient than a tax credit and criticized the bill’s 100% credit structure. A testifier in support argued the measure would help homeowners fortify houses against hurricanes and reduce shelter demand; written testimony from several others, including HIEMA, was noted as supportive. The committee then moved through SB 76, which would require the Hawaii Property Insurance Association to provide commercial property coverage after two private-market denials, and SB 83, which would require insurers to give advance written premium-change notices and explanations to common-interest community policyholders and the insurance commissioner, along with a report on premium increases. For SB 76, the State Insurance Division stood on its written comments, and testimony in support came from Michael Honda, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and Jessica Herzog. SB 83 drew more extensive discussion: the Insurance Division supported the need for better transparency, while the Hawaii Insurers Council opposed the bill, arguing that agents—not insurers—typically communicate with AOAO boards and that the measure could worsen an already difficult market. Insurance Division staff acknowledged widespread complaints from condo associations about lack of transparency and said the division had received many calls about premium increases and nonrenewals. The discussion on SB 83 expanded into broader concerns about condo insurance, nonrenewals, surplus lines, and the difficulty of getting timely explanations for large premium increases. Committee members and testifiers described older buildings struggling to fund repairs and upgrades while facing steep insurance costs, and some urged the committee to craft baseline statutory protections for unit owners. The Insurance Division said surplus lines serve a critical gap-filling role and warned against regulating that market in a way that could slow access to coverage. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, under the current medical policy, acupuncture is limited to a shared cap of just two visits
• To comply with AB 2746, lenders would need access to sensitive medical data like diagnosis, procedures
• Giving lenders this kind of access would mark a major, unprecedented shift in medical privacy laws.
• The CFPB found that debts to third-party lenders can't reliably be identified as medical debt, since
• in a checkout aisle, you have to put it on the end cap.

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills. AB 1825 by Krell would clarify California’s offenders with mental health disorders program by tightening the standard for determining “substantial danger of physical harm,” improving exit planning, and expanding Medi-Cal access for people released after a successful challenge. Supporters, including psychiatrists, prosecutors, and medical groups, said the bill would close gaps in care and protect public safety; county behavioral health directors and Disability Rights California registered concerns. AB 1696 by Stephanie would state that nurse midwives do not need physician supervision when providing care within their existing scope, including EMTALA-related evaluation in labor and delivery settings. Nurse midwives and nursing groups supported the bill, while emergency physicians opposed it unless amended, arguing emergency department screening should remain under physician supervision; the author said she would keep working on the issue. AB 1949 by Lee would make acupuncture a separate Medi-Cal benefit and allow up to 24 visits per year. The author and supporters from acupuncture, health access, and integrative medicine groups said the current monthly cap is too restrictive and that acupuncture is an effective, cost-saving alternative for pain management and other conditions. There was no opposition. AB 2330 by Patterson would create a distinct regulatory category for cold spas, with standards for construction, operation, and disinfection. Fitness and wellness groups supported the bill, environmental health administrators had no formal position but thanked the author for amendments, and a committee member raised concerns about local officials interpreting the bill to require separate enclosures from saunas; the author said she would continue working on the language. AB 2000 by Aguirre-Curry would limit mid-year changes to prescription drug formularies and add notice, exceptions, reporting, and enforcement provisions. Family physicians, chronic care advocates, nurses, pharmacists, and patient groups supported the bill, citing non-medical switching and treatment disruptions; health plans and insurers opposed it, warning of higher costs, reduced flexibility, and premium increases. AB 1929 by Ortega would require health plans to disclose investments, including in private prisons and immigrant detention centers. Supporters framed it as a transparency measure tied to patient premiums and public values, while opponents argued the bill was duplicative, burdensome, and potentially harmful to investment confidentiality. AB 2746 by Schiavo would classify medical credit card debt as medical debt so it would not appear on credit reports. Consumer advocates and legal aid groups supported the bill, describing abusive marketing and housing harms; banks, debt collectors, and industry groups opposed it as unworkable and privacy-invasive. The committee took roll on AB 2746 and passed it on a due pass motion to Banking and Finance, with several members voting aye and a few no votes recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, under the current medical policy, acupuncture is limited to a shared cap of just two visits
• To comply with AB 2746, lenders would need access to sensitive medical data like diagnosis, procedures
• Giving lenders this kind of access would mark a major, unprecedented shift in medical privacy laws.
• The CFPB found that debts to third-party lenders can't reliably be identified as medical debt, since
• in a checkout aisle, you have to put it in the checkout aisle, you have to put it on the end cap.

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• Vice Chair, what's your tax cap?
• , willingness of residents to raise the tax cap, population... ...about the tax cap, willingness of residents
• Again, we are at the tax cap already.
• City, The senior debt lenders.
• They're partnering with the lender.

Committee: Senate Government Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Raising the cap from 3% to 10% Raising the cap from 3% to 10% turns what is supposed to be a consumer
• And dealing with lenders is, uh, um...
• The 5% increase cap, the 5% rent cap being requested in AB 1157 is a necessary step to providing the
• I support the existing cap that's there. I think we need to have a cap.
• I hope that you'll continue working on a cap. But I do think this needs to know. to have a cap.

Committee: House Judiciary