Video & Transcript Research : 'interchange fees'
Page 151 of 442
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Housing Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm
Joint Committee on Housing
Transcript Highlights:
- We are still very supportive of local options for transfer fees.
- If we had the transfer fee, our housing budget would double.
- This can be achieved in multiple ways, through enabling a local option luxury transfer fee, through a
- modest increase to the state's uncompetitively low luxury transfer fee, through a modest increase to
- the state's uncompetitively low deeds excise fee, or some combination of the two.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Housing opened its second hearing of the session with remarks from Chairs Haggerty and Cyr emphasizing that the hearing was a broad look at Massachusetts’ housing crisis rather than a single bill. They highlighted topics including zoning, permitting, rental assistance, public housing, homelessness prevention, and housing production. The first witness, Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Augustus, reviewed implementation of the Affordable Homes Act and the state’s new housing plan, citing a 1.6% vacancy rate, a projected need for 222,000 new homes over 10 years, and ongoing efforts such as ADUs by right, fair housing enforcement, eviction record sealing, seasonal communities planning, and new funding for affordable housing, public housing, and the Momentum Fund. He also discussed infrastructure support for municipalities, technical assistance for ADUs, and concerns about possible federal funding cuts.
Committee members questioned the secretary about ADU financing and technical assistance, the likely unit yield from the Affordable Homes Act, infrastructure barriers in suburban and rural communities, public housing waitlist management, supportive housing, and federal budget risks. MassNAHRO then testified that public housing authorities are facing rising operating and capital costs, a statewide waitlist nearing 300,000, and uncertainty over federal Section 8 and HUD funding. Witnesses described recent state support for operating subsidies, capital improvements, vacancy turnover teams, and resident service coordinators, while warning that proposed federal cuts could sharply affect voucher issuance and agency operations.
CDAC’s executive director Roger Herzog described the agency’s role as a quasi-public source of early-stage financing and technical assistance for nonprofit housing developers, noting its loan capital, supportive housing bond programs, home modification loans, and preservation work under Chapter 40T. He said CDAC has helped produce or preserve more than 55,000 units and stressed the importance of patient capital and preservation tools. CHAPA CEO Rachel Heller urged the committee to focus on production, preservation, planning, and political will, supporting goals for affordability, supportive housing, and homeownership, and endorsing policy changes such as YIGBY, clearer site plan review rules, stronger fair housing funding, and more support for vouchers and public housing. MassHousing then outlined its financing role, including mortgage lending, down payment assistance, the Community Climate Bank, and the Momentum Fund, while noting that permitting delays, capital gaps, and possible federal changes could affect production. Members also asked about transparency, prevailing wage compliance, and a recent internal restructuring related to diversity and business engagement.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Higher Education Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm
Joint Committee on Higher Education
Transcript Highlights:
- Do you think this will help, if we pass this, hold the line on tuition and fees or cost, because the
- But when you can't find the resources, you end up tacking on student fees to pay for facility upgrades
- I'm sure the campuses are going to want to talk... ...on tuition and fees over time.
- And the last thing I will say that was brought up as well: the pressure on fees.
- He's trying very hard not to raise fees. There's a different model.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its second public hearing of the 194th General Court on capital investments in higher education, focusing primarily on H.54, the Bright Act, along with H.1426/S.949 on green and healthy public colleges and universities and deferred maintenance, and H.1424 on capital investment in Gateway Cities. Chairs and administration officials framed the hearing as a response to aging campus infrastructure, climate goals, workforce needs, and federal pressures on higher education, and explained that testimony would be taken from pre-registered speakers in person and virtually.
University of Massachusetts leaders strongly supported the Bright Act, describing large deferred maintenance backlogs, aging buildings, and the need to decarbonize campuses while modernizing research and teaching facilities. UMass officials said the bill would help keep tuition and fees lower by reducing the need for campuses to finance capital work themselves, and argued that the investments would improve competitiveness, support research, and create construction jobs. Governor Healey, Lieutenant Governor Driscoll, Secretary of Education Tuttweiler, and Secretary of Administration and Finance Gorzkowicz also backed the bill, saying it would leverage Fair Share surtax revenues for a proposed $2.5 billion in campus investments plus additional targeted grants, and that it would support affordability, economic growth, and climate resilience.
Committee members asked about the balance between deferred maintenance and decarbonization, the role of grant programs versus direct spending, the impact on tuition and fees, and how the plan would help campuses respond to federal cuts such as NIH and NSF funding. Administration officials said the proposal was designed to be phased in quickly, with some projects ready to start immediately and others taking longer, and that the grant programs would be structured to include all campuses equitably. They also said the plan would build on an existing financing model similar to the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and could help campuses avoid future tuition increases tied to capital costs.
Additional testimony came from MassBay Community College, where President David Podell and recent nursing graduate Deanna Cavazos described the benefits of a new Framingham campus building and said community colleges need modern labs, better planning capacity, and deferred maintenance support to serve the enrollment growth from MassReconnect and MassEducate. State university leaders, including President Mary Grant, President Linda Thompson, and President John Keenan, said their campuses face outdated classrooms, insufficient electrical capacity, and aging facilities, and urged passage of the Bright Act as a long-overdue investment in student success and workforce preparation.
VT
Vermont 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Session - 2026-05-01 - 11:30AM
Vermont Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- from a registration fee to a licensing fee.
- Does not increase the fee. It just changes the name of it.
- and changes the fee from a registration<01:17:38.200>
fee <01:17:38.680>to <01:17:38.920 - registration fee to a licensing fee. registration fee to a licensing fee.
- It just Does not increase the fee.
AZ
Arizona 2026 Regular Session
04/28/2026 - Joint Appropriations
Transcript Highlights:
- So we're raising utility fees because..." "But that also raises utility fees.
- So we're raising utility fees and preventing... This budget does not raise utility fees."
- The bills require the director of ADEQ to maintain vehicle emission fees in Area A so that fees collected
- The bills require the director of ADEQ to maintain vehicle emission fees in Area A so that fees collected
- in the emissions fees as of June 30, 2025.
Summary:
The joint appropriations committee met on April 28 to review the FY 2027 budget package, including the general appropriations feed bills (HB 4138 and SB 1831) and related budget reconciliation measures. Staff described the budget as including about $17.96 billion in general fund appropriations, a one-time transfer of state monies to increase revenues, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general fund budgets, and several one-time restorations or continuations for items such as school facilities, child care, child safety, corrections stipends, and public safety operating costs. Members spent much of the meeting debating how the across-the-board cuts would be implemented, which programs might be affected, and how fund sweeps from prior-year appropriations and special funds would work, including questions about universities, public safety, rural hospitals, transportation grants, the Corporation Commission, and health insurance costs for state employees and troopers.
A major point of discussion was the impact on universities and higher education. Arizona Board of Regents representatives said the proposed reductions and fund sweeps would affect already obligated dollars, research, staffing, and student aid programs, and could force difficult decisions about programs such as the Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and other pass-through funds. Committee members also raised concerns about whether the cuts could lead to tuition increases or reductions in services, while majority members emphasized that agencies and the executive branch should decide how to absorb the reductions. Another major topic was health care and the state employee health plan: staff explained that the budget includes a $228 million general fund infusion to stabilize the plan, while a separate reconciliation bill would raise employee premiums over three years. Members also discussed whether the budget’s changes to AHCCCS/Access and hospital eligibility rules could increase costs for hospitals and reduce coverage.
Public testimony largely opposed the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, and local governments argued that the proposal would shift costs onto working families, reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care, and rural infrastructure, and protect tax benefits for data centers and higher-income taxpayers. A mayor from Globe asked for state help after severe flooding damaged roads, water lines, and homes, while a motorcycle safety advocate asked the committee to review a DPS motorcycle safety fund appropriation. Committee members and staff repeatedly clarified that some items discussed were one-time appropriations not continued into FY 2027, that some fund sweeps were from unspent or unencumbered balances, and that the committee planned to take a mass roll-call vote on the budget bills at the end of the meeting.
CO
Colorado 2026 Regular Session
Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 120 May 14th, 2026
Colorado Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- President again I'd like to know what the fee amount would like to know what the fee amount would be
- When I park, there are often fees or taxes there, too.
- I'm paying the delivery fee and everything to come this morning.
- Show me where in the bill raised his fees.
- Raising fees.
AL
Transcript Highlights:
- card fees. card fees.
- c><04:16:48.640>
not <04:16:48.880>mean <04:16:49.040>that fees, how does that fee - not mean that fees, how does that fee not mean that they'll<04:16:49.520>
have <04:16:49.600>< - If ABC is not allowed to collect the credit card fees, those fees have to come from somewhere because
- If ABC is not allowed to collect the credit card fees, those fees have to come from somewhere because
CA
Transcript Highlights:
- Individuals must pay thousands of dollars in fees, reinstatement fees, interlock fees, and mandatory
- These fees are not punishment for an offense.
- Because I had fees on me.
- In addition to eliminating these poverty fees, this bill also eliminates redundant fees, many of which
- charged these fees are indigent.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- there's a worker impact fee required. there's a worker impact fee required.
- <00:16:04.160>
There's <00:16:04.360>some uh requirements and fees. - There's some uh requirements and fees.
- <00:19:53.080>
So, licensing fee and things like that. - So, licensing fee and things like that.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- Self-sustaining through fee revenue as well as the Minnesota SELF Loan, which is also self-funded, not
- :18.360>
through mentioned uh self- sustaining through mentioned uh self- sustaining through fee - Revenue as well as U the Minnesota fee Revenue as well as U the Minnesota self<00:10:21.680>
loan - The North Star Promise program is a last-dollar program that covers tuition and fees.
- they did not have uh tuition and fees they did not have uh tuition and fees that<00:37:50.960>
WY
Transcript Highlights:
- They're not charging guardianship fees.
- They're not charging guardianship fees.
- charging guardianship fees. charging guardianship fees.
- those ongoing fees for that guardian.
- If Family Services for those legal fees.
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
Agriculture Apr 28th, 2026
Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources
Transcript Highlights:
- I mean, does the person, the farmer that produces it, do they pay a fee?
- or so that's going to go to the voters that would also, those sort of things may be subject to use fee
- I mean, does the person, the farmer that produces it, do they pay a fee?
- or so that's going to go to the voters that would also, those sort of things may be subject to use fee
- I just didn't know if you knew that or not or use fee or whatever.
Summary:
The committee first met in executive session and approved Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 913 on a roll call vote of 16 ayes and 3 noes. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 1033, presented by Senator Jason Bean. He said the bill would exempt certain older covered farm vehicles used in local farming operations from emissions inspection requirements, and would also ease permitting requirements for cotton gins by removing the need for air dispersion modeling in obtaining construction permits. He also noted the bill incorporated language from Senate Bill 953 to create an alternative funding stream for the state air pollution control program.
Witnesses in support included representatives of Missouri cotton producers, Missouri Farm Bureau, Infra, the Missouri Mining Association, the Missouri Concrete Association, the American Council of Engineering Companies, Missouri Forest Products, the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, the Missouri Soybean Association, Associated Industries of Missouri, and the Missouri Corn Growers Association. Supporters generally argued that the farm vehicle exemption would reduce costly regulatory burdens on low-use farm vehicles, and that the cotton gin permitting changes would help Missouri cotton remain competitive with neighboring states and encourage in-state gin construction and expansion. Several witnesses also backed the air pollution control funding language, saying the program is important to permit holders and could become insolvent in fiscal year 2028.
Committee members asked questions about cotton gin services, the number of affected cotton farmers, and the details and fiscal impact of the proposed funding stream for the air pollution control program. A Department of Natural Resources representative confirmed the program is projected to become insolvent in FY 2028 and said she would follow up on some details. No witnesses appeared in opposition, and the hearing on Senate Bill 1033 was concluded without further action.
AR
Transcript Highlights:
- CFO of the state the ability to waive the 3% state central services and constitutional officer fund fee
- So this is actually then going to allow those promotion boards to— we're just going to waive that fee
- was one of the things that we identified where we could take that kind of administrative collective fee
- Can you tell me if we've always collected a fee on these monies that go to these promotion boards, even
- hasn't, at least in my knowledge and our records, you know, as long as we could go back and look, that fee
OK
Transcript Highlights:
- We're going to meet with the scrap dealers to see if they can talk about adjusting their licensing fees
- Department of Agriculture runs it for about $20,000 dollars, and they pull in about $16,000 in licensing fees
- So, we're working through those as we you know, and seeing what we can do on licensing fees and how to
- So They would increase their licensing fees. Is that correct? Potentially, potentially, yeah.
- Do we think that by increasing the licensing fees, that may make some of these dealers likely not to
Keywords:
poultry waste, nutrient management, environmental regulations, agriculture, water quality, pollution prevention, best management practices, noxious weeds, poison hemlock, kudzu, landowner responsibilities, environmental control, public nuisance, eradication, burn bans, fire danger, drought conditions, emergency declaration, scrap metal, regulation
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee 2/20/25
Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- It was, I think, birthed from a number of requests over the years to uh talk about license fees for those
- 00:02:18.519>
talk <00:02:18.879>about <00:02:19.480>license <00:02:19.959>fees - <00:02:20.920>
for years to uh talk about license fees for years to uh talk about license - fees for those<00:02:21.640>
buying <00:02:22.080>a <00:02:22.239>fishing <00:02: - <00:10:38.160>
I provide the service uh with the fees I provide the service uh with the fees
Keywords:
human services, Medical Assistance, Medicaid, long-term services and supports, LTSS, public assistance, application process, eligibility determination, customer service survey, wait times, form complexity, lead agencies, Department of Human Services, Department of Children Youth and Families, streamlining, administrative reform, case management, reassessment, intake system, adaptive eligibility form
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- The kiosk operators dropped their fees to a flat $3 to $10.
- Now they're dropping their fees to $3 to $10.
- They essentially make the same profit, but now only have to refund three... fee.
- the fee structure, yes, the kiosk operators were refunding.
- So I wouldn't be at this point overly concerned with the transaction fee.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- This one is to reflect the required eligibility changes in H.R. 1. per fee and and that's an increase
- that per fee and and that's an increase that we<00:12:45.320>
were <00:12:45.480>able < - This is the governor's proposal to establish a fee schedule for the all-payer claims database.
- This is the governor's proposal to establish a fee schedule for the all-payer claims database.
- that would be revenue fund for the fees that would be paid. paid. paid.
MS
Mississippi 2026 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 2:00 P.M.
Judiciary, Division A
Transcript Highlights:
- It pays for attorney's fees, medical or attorney's fees, deposition costs, things along those.
- pays for attorney's fees, medical or attorney's<00:24:46.799>
fees, <00:24:47.520>deposition - <00:24:48.080>
costs, attorney's fees, deposition costs, attorney's fees, deposition costs - 30:46.240>
they're <00:30:46.480>not paying expert fees and they're not paying expert fees - And the fees that we're talking about.
Summary:
The committee first took up Senate Bill 2893, a municipalities bill on zoning notice requirements. The committee substitute would require notice of proposed zoning changes to be posted on Facebook, Instagram, and X 30 and 15 days before the hearing, while also continuing newspaper publication, posting on a local website if available, making the proposal available at a government office or library, and extending the appeal period for landowners from 10 to 20 days. Members raised concerns about relying on social media for accurate notice and whether local governments would need accounts on those platforms, but the sponsor said the bill was meant to supplement, not replace, newspaper notice. The bill was described as supported by municipal interests, and the committee adopted a motion for a title sufficient, due pass committee substitute.
The committee then considered Senate Bill 2027, which creates a rebuttable presumption that joint physical custody is in the best interest of a child. The sponsor and other senators said the bill is intended to add a tool to existing custody law, not replace the Albright factors or other custody standards, and would apply even where the parents were never married. Questions focused on paternity, how the presumption could be rebutted, and whether distance between parents would defeat equal time; the sponsors said paternity rules would remain unchanged and courts could deviate when joint custody is not feasible, such as when parents live far apart. Senators also asked about chancellors’ reactions, and the sponsor said he had discussed the measure with many of them and had revised the bill in response to prior concerns. The committee then passed the bill on a motion for title sufficient, due pass.
Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 2747, a consumer legal funding bill. The sponsor and a representative of the industry described the measure as regulating consumer legal funding, which provides small advances to injured plaintiffs for household expenses while litigation is pending, and distinguishing it from litigation financing, which pays litigation costs. They said the bill would impose consumer protections, require attorney review, prohibit quid pro quo arrangements between funders and law firms, bar law firms from operating side funding businesses, and block foreign money from entering the market. The discussion was informational at this stage, with the witness explaining that the bill is intended to regulate an existing practice and protect consumers and the legal system.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Judiciary (09/30/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- So even in your... you know, assessor one, um, for waiver of a fee.
- So, I want a waiver of a fee and the body wants to go into a non-public session.
- for waiver of a fee. for waiver of a fee.
- I want a waiver of a fee I want a waiver of a fee and and and the<00:30:00.399>
body <00:30 - I don't mind that for a waiver of a fee.
Summary:
The subcommittee held a work session on HB 313, a bill dealing with non-public sessions and when a person discussed in such a session should be notified or allowed to request that the meeting be open. The chair opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and invited public comment before committee discussion. The main public testimony came from Phil Jaru, who described a personal dispute with local officials and said the bill should ensure people are notified when they are being discussed in closed session and can request an open meeting. He also argued for limits on non-public sessions, saying they should not be used for matters outside the board’s authority or for what he characterized as gossip, while also trying to avoid interfering with investigations.
Committee members focused on the practical and legal problems with the proposal. Several members questioned whether a person should have a right to attend, to demand an open meeting, or simply to receive notice, and whether that right should apply before the meeting or only once the discussion begins. Members raised concerns about situations involving multiple people, children, victims, or other confidentiality interests, and whether a request to open the meeting could conflict when one person wants openness and another wants privacy. One member suggested the bill may be too broad and proposed narrowing it to simple advance notification, possibly by email, rather than an automatic right to open the meeting.
The discussion also touched on existing law governing non-public sessions, including the narrow “reputation” exception and Supreme Court cases interpreting it. Members noted that the current statute already limits non-public discussion to the matters stated in the motion, and some suggested that if the concern is boards using non-public sessions for unrelated discussion, that issue may be better addressed by clarifying the existing statute rather than expanding the bill. No vote or final action was taken; the committee appeared to continue working through possible amendments and whether the bill should be narrowed to notification or a right to attend rather than a right to force the meeting open.
HI
Hawaii 2025 Regular Session
WTL-HWN DEFER, WTL-PSM, WTL Public Hearings 02-03-2025
Transcript Highlights:
- The fees collected shall be deposited into a special account of the OHA special fund, and disbursements
- The fees collected shall be deposited into a special account of the OHA special fund, and disbursements
- The fees collected shall be deposited into a special account of the OHA special fund, and disbursements
- may be construed as a tax we request fee may be construed as a tax we request that<00:10:06.240>
- fee should be established<00:10:36.839>
in established in established in statute<00:10:39.000
Summary:
The committee first took up SB 534, a measure concerning development in Kakaʻako Makai involving the Hawaii Community Development Authority and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The chairs explained that the hearing was decision-making only and no testimony would be accepted, though members could ask clarifying questions. The chair outlined amendments to clarify HCDA’s approval process, require an environmental impact statement before residential development proposals are submitted, require Department of Health documentation on hazardous substances, and specify that only OHA-owned parcels would be eligible for certain residential development with a 400-foot height limit and maximum floor area ratio of 10.0. The amendments also addressed affordability, owner-occupancy, association fees, and a special fund, while noting Attorney General concerns that the fee could be construed as a tax and suggesting further review by Judiciary and Ways and Means.
Members discussed the affordability threshold, with one senator suggesting 160% AMI instead of 140% due to high housing costs and concern that essential workers could be priced out. Others raised concerns about Native Hawaiian affordability, the long-term effect of perpetuity restrictions, and whether the process would protect OHA’s interests. An HCDA representative said 140% AMI was used in existing reserve housing rules and that lower thresholds could make development economically infeasible. OHA and other supporters said the proposal was still early in planning and emphasized the need for public hearings, community input, and compliance with environmental and remediation standards. The committees voted to pass SB 534 with amendments: Water and Land approved it 4-1, and Hawaiian Affairs also adopted the chair’s recommendation, with one member excused and one voting no.
The meeting then moved to SB 3, relating to water resource management. The bill would authorize the Commission on Water Resource Management to retain independent legal counsel, create an executive director position, allow challenges to emergency orders under certain conditions, establish fines for water use offenses, and revise emergency and shortage declaration procedures; Red Hill-related provisions were noted as removed from this version. Testimony was largely supportive, including from DLNR, the Board of Water Supply, OHA, and Sierra Club, with OHA stressing the measure’s importance to Native Hawaiian water rights and past litigation. A Department of Hawaiian Home Lands representative supported the bill with amendments and recommended explicit language directing the commission chair or designee to advocate for water rights and reservations for homelands. The chair indicated the committees would use the prior Senate-passed version as the basis for further action, and the discussion then moved on to SB 130, a search-and-rescue reimbursement bill.
FL
Transcript Highlights:
- I will,... ...local government's ability to impose any sort of special assessment or fee.
- It does not promise that fees won't increase. It does not promise that renters won't pay more.
- That's where the raising taxes and fees on everything will come into play.
- Will local governments be forced to raise fees? Will sales tax increase? Will...
- Will local governments be forced to raise fees? Will sales tax increase?
Summary:
The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment on property tax reform. The measure would increase the homestead exemption in stages, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses such as public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee benefits, and certain administrative costs. Supporters, led by Senator Avila, argued the proposal would provide meaningful property tax relief and push local governments to rein in spending, while opponents warned it would shift costs to fees, reduce local flexibility, and threaten funding for core services.
Several amendments were offered and rejected. Senator Sharief proposed an income-based circuit breaker for property tax relief; Senator Smith offered a sunset clause; and Senator Berman proposed revising the ballot statement to better match the amended proposal and remove outdated references. Each amendment failed on recorded votes. During questioning and debate, senators pressed Avila on the ballot language, the effect on local services, whether the legislature could later restrict local spending by statute, and whether renters would benefit. Avila said the ballot language was not his and repeatedly stated he was presenting the governor’s proposal, while also saying local governments would need to prioritize budgets and that future legislatures could address implementation details.
After the amendment votes, the joint resolution was read a third time and moved into final debate. Supporters said the proposal would give homeowners relief and force fiscal discipline at the local level. Opponents, including Senators Nathan, Bracey Davis, Smith, Polsky, and Errington, argued the measure was rushed, lacked a completed fiscal analysis or replacement revenue, and could harm police, fire, libraries, parks, housing, and other local services. They also criticized the ballot summary as misleading, especially regarding the staged homestead exemption increase. The transcript ends during debate, before any final vote on the joint resolution itself.