Transcript Highlights:

• It's just fees. So, don't get capital. It's just fees.
• We do have some fees.
• We do have some fees. or Glen Cliff. We do have some fees.
• certain water fees and testing. certain water fees and testing.
• fees.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a fee increase to the East Baton Rouge Parish Juvenile Court, which has not had a fee increase
• It simply would say that the fee could, currently, not exceed $15.
• So we've essentially operated on the same fee structure since the court was started in 1994, which amazingly
• Obviously, if you're pauper status, you do not have to pay those fees.
• Essentially, the only things that we collect fees on, these filing fees on, would be voluntary transfer

Summary: The Senate Judiciary A Committee met on May 5, 2026, with five members present and adopted the April 28 minutes. The committee then heard and favorably reported several measures, including HCR 31, which asks the Louisiana Law Institute to study replacing or clarifying the term “foreign” in state law; HB 263, allowing the 14th JDC magistrate judge to handle certain specialty court felony matters; HB 299, clarifying paper filing rules for jury bonds and related payment issues; HB 535, simplifying hospital-based acknowledgments of paternity by removing the two-witness requirement while keeping notarization; HB 571, codifying the 19th JDC’s complex litigation section program; and HB 538, increasing the East Baton Rouge Parish Juvenile Court fee cap from $15 to $75 to help offset court costs. The committee also reported HB 215, raising the small succession affidavit threshold from $125,000 to $200,000, and HB 226, adding a 10.1 conference requirement before requests for admissions are deemed admitted, with discussion about discovery fairness and default judgment exceptions. The committee also took up HB 324, which makes judicial stipend increases permanent and adds a 2.7% salary increase for judges effective July 1, 2027; an amendment restoring the second year of the COLA was adopted, and the bill was reported with amendments. HB 1043, raising the jurisdictional amount in Jefferson Parish first and second parish courts, was amended to increase the amount from $35,000 to $50,000 and then reported with amendments. HCR 6, directing the Law Institute to study forced heirship and disinherison issues, was amended to add reporting language and related Civil Code references and then reported with amendments. HB 1006, changing summary judgment deadlines to give opponents more time to respond, was amended and reported by a 3-2 vote after roll call. Two more substantive bills drew extended debate. HB 1239 would strengthen the presumption that parents share physical custody equally unless a court finds that arrangement infeasible or not in the child’s best interest; supporters framed it as a parental-rights measure, while an attorney in opposition warned it would increase litigation, reduce stability for children, and be used as leverage in child support disputes. Despite the opposition, the committee reported the bill favorably. HB 190, as amended, would create a duty of reasonable care for certain software/app providers toward minors and require expert testimony, while excluding manufacturers; supporters said it was aimed at protecting children from harmful platform design, but opponents argued the proposal was unnecessary because existing tort law already covers negligence and warned it could create new causes of action and uncertainty over whether software is a “product.” The committee heard testimony from the Louisiana State Law Institute, the sponsor, and outside witnesses, but the transcript ends before final action on HB 190 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The rules also revise the committee structure.
• And they're telling us minor facility renovations, not adding a $50 million structure to an existing
• So the department and any of the sub-awardees are allowed a 10% administrative fee collection as well
• are already included in the grant application, or they had the ability to work within the existing structure
• are already included in the grant application, or they had the ability to work within the existing structure

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: Legislative Management met with a quorum, approved the July 11, 2025 minutes, and then considered recommendations from the Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee. Beth Dittes explained proposed special session rule changes, which largely mirror prior special session rules and are intended to speed floor action. The changes would allow faster second readings and transmission between chambers, replace regular standing committees with two joint committees for the special session—Joint Appropriations and Joint Policy—and limit bill introduction methods. The package also included delayed-effective-date changes for the next regular session, such as moving the agency and Supreme Court prefile deadline earlier and advancing several resolution deadlines. Liz Fordall then reviewed revisions to the legislative workplace harassment policy, including clarified definitions, longer intake and review deadlines, an option for informal resolution before a review panel, and clearer disclosure rules. The committee adopted the report and forwarded the rules and policy changes. The committee also approved tentative first-day special session agendas for both chambers, with a Speaker-requested revision to allow time to swear in new House members. Megan Gordon outlined the schedule: early Rules Committee meetings, morning floor sessions, a joint session for the governor’s State of the State, then meetings of the joint appropriations and policy committees, with optional later floor and committee time. Members discussed how the joint committees would handle bills and confirmed the process would mirror the prior special session. The agendas were adopted. Chairman Bekkedahl then reported for the Rural Health Transformation Committee, which had completed its work and recommended five bill drafts for the special session: a Presidential Physical Fitness Test requirement for schools, a nutrition component for physician continuing education, joining a physician assistant licensure compact, expanding pharmacist scope for lab testing and prescribing, and a two-year appropriations bill to cover the program through the next regular session. He explained the federal rural health transformation grant, the state’s application, funding restrictions, and the need to keep the bills aligned with CMS requirements to avoid funding reductions or clawbacks. DHS officials said the department would measure outcomes through required metrics, use templates for awards, and set up an Office of Health Transformation to track long-term impacts. The committee adopted the rural health report and forwarded the bills. Finally, members discussed special-session logistics. Legislative staff said employment committees would approve a limited number of staff, Legislative Management would serve as the delayed-bills committee, and a letter would be sent to legislators explaining the process and a suggested Friday noon drafting deadline for bills to be considered at the January 20 meeting. The committee also discussed how many bills might be introduced and how to assign the rural health bills to the House or Senate for origin. No formal vote was taken on those logistics, and the meeting adjourned with plans to reconvene on January 20.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was unlike the previous structure of PSPRS, but it's certainly contemplated and embedded in the
• on cities and counties, all fees and taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, you name it, for four years
• They're not going to be raising fees, so I appreciate the amendment. We did that amendment.
• or felony conviction, $500 if it's a DCC charge, and then other smaller fees.
• felony conviction, 500 if it's D-CAC charge, and then other smaller fees.

Bills: SB1041, SB1050, SB1131, SB1138, SB1249, SB1267, SB1272, SB1317, SB1461, SB1488, SB1504, SB1517, SB1523, SB1580, SB1582, SB1584, SB1585, SB1602, SB1630, SB1654, SB1672, SB1673, SB1718, SB1761, SB1819, SB1826, SB1827

Keywords: electronic monitoring, nursing care, assisted living, resident rights, privacy, consent, surveillance, veterans, lifetime pass, state parks, Arizona, access, disabled veterans, cardiac arrest, defibrillators, school safety, emergency response, CPR training, Arizona education funding, automated license plate readers

Transcript Highlights:

• It concentrates or changes the molecular structure.
• , and $20,000 for annual fees.
• These fees are the norm in both blue and red cannabis legal states, except those state fees are actually
• The taxpayers will even cover the legal fees. How is that responsible.
• They collect fees, and in that process, they do have contract lobbyists.

Bills: SB5, SB11, SB12, SB 5, SB 11, SB 12

Keywords: hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes, election law enforcement, criminal prosecution, Election Code, Government Code Chapter 402, local prosecutors, county attorney, district attorney, grand jury, probable cause reports, state election offenses, voter fraud, election integrity

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1760 by Zaffirini relating to guardianships for persons who are incapacitated, changing a fee.
• Court to another to be sure that all of the papers are transferred to the new court and that the fees
• SB 1055 by Nichols, relating to the permit fees for groundwater wells imposed by the Southeast Texas
• Senate amendments were at the request of the Comptroller to clean up how we will collect the fee from
• Senate amendments were at the request of the Comptroller to clean up how we will collect the fee from

Bills: SB15, SB646, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1610, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB2972, SB973, SB865, SB506, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB974, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB857, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB1302, SB519, SB2807, SB13, SB7, SB1718, SB1567, SB1233, SB413, SB2177, SB30, SB2024, SJR1, SCR27, SB2018, SB1580, SB2121, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1596, SB2753, SB2221, SB1719, SCR9, SB204, SB437, SB568, SB612, SB672, SB710, SB823, SB876, SB904, SB905, SB968, SB1084, SB1207, SB1230, SB1313, SB1504, SB1790, SB2232, SB2366, SB2367, SB2398, SB2515, SB2520, SB2589, SB2786, SB2790, SB3048, SB3050, SB3052, SB3053, SB3056, SB3029, SCR3, SCR18, SCR30, HCR146, HCR148, HCR149, HCR153, HCR155, HCR157, HB5560, HB762, HB1584, HB 107, HB 114, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323, HB4341, HB6, HB2712, HB171, HB3153, HB143, HB2688, HB3464, HB449, HB3486, HB4263, HB2, HB1522, HB24, HB 1237, HB2637, HB3126, HB3233, HB4310, HB3487, HCR9, HB5331, HB1397, HB163, HB3250, HB3071, HB3463, HB5033, HB35, HB3824, HB216, HB4226, HB3512, HB18, HB5154, HB 103, HB851, HB647, HB4520, HB3016, HB2313, HB2818, HB2851, HB4486, HB4264, HB1500, HB5081, HB2974, HB2080, HB4384, HB5659, HB493, HB4903, HB2516, HB4488, HB4530, HB3689, HB145, HB43, HB5247, HB2221, HB5671, HB700, HB3711, HB 120, SB17, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB21, SB2778, SB379

Keywords: SB 15, Texas Local Government Code, zoning preemption, housing affordability, small lots, lot size, lot density, single-family zoning, residential subdivision, municipal land use, local control, state preemption, parking requirements, setbacks, infill development, missing middle housing, lot width, lot depth, homebuilders, housing supply

Transcript Highlights:

• , but what he's relayed to me is one of our biggest concerns with how the original contract was structured
• is Navitus keeps 20%... ...concerns with how the original contract was structured is Navitus keeps 20%
• And so if we take this away in some way, I mean, I think it's really important that you structure the
• wording so that it needs to be structured, because I don't want to take away your ability to negotiate
• It is on a contingency fee structure of 20% of any claim recovery obtained pre-suit, and 25% of any recovery

Summary: The State Insurance Programs Oversight Subcommittee met on June 17 and reviewed a series of Employee Benefits Division and Office of Property Risk items. The committee approved formulary changes for March and April that favored lower-cost generics, removed some new-to-market drugs from coverage pending more evidence, and made maintenance changes to migraine and diabetes medications. Members also approved a cell and gene therapy policy that would route those therapies through prior authorization rather than automatic coverage; officials said the process should not delay urgent cases and that no current members would be affected. The committee then reviewed a UAMS pharmacy benefit consultant contract amendment, but after extended discussion about the written scope and dollar amounts, the motion was approved with the understanding that any use of optional services would return to the committee for further review. The committee also reviewed the U.S. Able Mutual/Blue Advantage third-party administration contract and the CompSack employee assistance program contract, which officials said would reduce per-member costs and add services. The subcommittee approved proposed 2027 rates for state employees and public employees, with a 9.8% increase for state employees and a 4.9% increase for public school employees. Officials also reported that the UnitedHealthcare rebid was in its final negotiation stage and would return in August, with medical and pharmacy coverage split as previously recommended. In response to questions, the director said the division was considering broader preventive-care offerings, including weight-loss drug coverage, but would proceed cautiously and with strong utilization controls and holistic support if such a program were adopted. On the property risk side, the committee reviewed permanent rules making prior temporary rules permanent, a contingency-fee subrogation contract, and renewals for claims management, actuarial services, and investment management. Members raised concerns about Sedgwick’s claim-adjustment timeliness and communication with school districts after severe weather events; officials said performance guarantees and communication expectations had been strengthened, but the renewal was kept at three years for continuity. Finally, the committee approved 2026-27 captive insurance program rates, which included no change to minimum deductibles, a 10% overall rate reduction, and bucketed rate changes by entity type. Officials said the captive program was working as intended, with improved actuarial support and claims experience, and the meeting adjourned after the approvals.

Transcript Highlights:

• These structures, some of them have been sitting there for years, and we don't really know where they
• Most of these structures aren't necessarily livable. They aren't habitable.
• In fact, within probably five blocks of my own house, there's a structure at the corner of Collinsworth
• found out from the city is they told me that they go by and have somebody take a picture of the structure
• Well, anything that will help us get rid of it. ...These structures, that's my only concern.

Bills: HB293, HB 1173, HB3753, HB4999, HB5696, SB2145, HB5689, HB5690, HB5694, HB5698, HB293

Keywords: HB 293, Texas housing tax credits, low-income housing, affordable housing, private activity bonds, PAB, qualified allocation plan, TDHCA, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, state representative objection, housing development approval, municipal notice, county commissioners court, extraterritorial jurisdiction, LIHTC, bond-financed housing, homelessness, housing services, Texas Department of Housing, municipal programs

Transcript Highlights:

• I said that because if I read this definition, the processing fee is a fee that's charged by the seller
• to be labeled as a processing fee.
• That bill really addressed two fees, the driver's license reinstatement fee and the installment fee directly
• , and then other fees indirectly.
• Just to be clear, the installment fee, if a person can't pay 100% of their fines, fees, and restitution

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from and uh it uh criminal history data from and uh it was<00:17:42.440> a<00:17:42.559> fee
• 44.280> and<00:17:44.919> uh<00:17:45.160> while<00:17:45.520> it was a fee
• based thing and uh while it was a fee based thing and uh while it was<00:17:45.880> better<00
• National experts and redistricting who've kind of seen what sorts of processes, structures, criteria
• sorts of uh processes structures sorts of uh processes structures criteria<01:26:08.920> in

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• One, it adjusts cost reporting structure from reports that are 3 to 4 years prior to 1 to 2 years prior
• 00:02:30.319> uh<00:02:30.400> cost<00:02:30.800> reporting<00:02:31.280> structure
• cost report uh cost reporting structure cost report uh cost reporting structure from<00:02:32.319
• So while we're talking about this, I think it's worth looking at how other states structure insurer fees
• Um, a lot of this with an insure fee.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is regarding really the improvement of any public facility or structure.
• So the structure you guys are already past the structure, so what this is saying is let's follow that
• Are you, Don, are you still looking at 30% for administrative fees then?
• So we're still going to have to look at what structure CMS has provided.
• And if we're going to do it, we'll fit that structure.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Appropriations Division met in a work session on the draft Rural Health Transformation appropriations bill, 25.1392.01000, with no public testimony taken. Legislative Council and the Department of Health and Human Services walked through the bill, which would appropriate about $397.8 million in federal grant funds over two federal fiscal years, provide transfer authority, allow certain federal funds to be used for salaries and wages without counting against existing transfer limits, and authorize OMB to adjust other agencies’ spending authority if they receive grant awards through HHS. The bill also includes several temporary statutory exemptions to help implement the program, plus recipient acknowledgement/reporting requirements, periodic reports to Legislative Management, and an immediate effective date upon filing. Committee discussion focused heavily on how the federal rural health transformation money can be used and administered. Department officials explained that CMS will review projects for allowability and sustainability, that the state has flexibility to move funds among categories, and that the grant is limited to 10% administrative costs. Members asked about whether the funding could support renovations, equipment, ambulances, bulk purchasing, food distribution, and other rural health ideas, and were told many details will depend on CMS approval and the eventual applications. Questions also addressed cash flow, timing of obligations and reimbursements, FTE funding, and whether grant recipients should be told the program will not continue beyond the federal period; officials said the language is meant to prevent expectations of automatic continuation, not to bar future legislative action. The committee also discussed the bill’s use of a two-year appropriation amount, with staff explaining that the state must appropriate enough authority to cover the federal grant cycle and that unused authority would lapse if the full amount is not received or spent. Members raised concerns about whether the bill’s language could limit creativity or future program design, but department officials and several members emphasized the need for flexibility because CMS may reject overly specific directives. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the bill draft to the full committee; the motion carried on a roll call vote, and the chair said the full Joint Appropriations Committee would take up the bill at the special session next week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Across the state, cities and towns are dealing with heavy rains, aging culverts, and structures that
• I would encourage you to look at an act to create fees for single-use beverage containers, and an act
• to create fees for single-use disposable food containers.
• Those are new bills this session, basically asking for fees on disposable items.
• We must strengthen this bill both structurally and financially to meet this moment.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, though, it appears all HFCs and PFCs are structured where the owner pays no property taxes
• They say there's no revenue impact with this HFC. structure, and they even have a chart saying, "Here's
• So there are, as I mentioned, a couple of different ways that the deals can be structured.
• Secondly, getting some structure for local permission to then do the deal would be very helpful.
• There weren't going to be a big set of fees and what have you.

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223, HB323, HB524, HB530, HB636, HB762, HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, housing assistance, financial assistance, low income housing, community support, affordability, veterans housing, community involvement, air conditioning, tenant support, healthcare, elderly, taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• I mentioned recurring funding structure.
• On January 1st, we implemented a revised fee schedule.
• Our fees had not changed for boat registrations.
• We increased our basic schedule of fees, and even after that raise, our fees were some of the cheapest
• So it was a reasonable and modest approach to a fee increase.

Transcript Highlights:

• It gets real brittle, and when you put it on a peat bog, it doesn't like the structural soil.
• So, it might sound uh structural soil.
• that uh is generated based on adult fees that uh is generated based on adult fees that<00:21:01.520
• Our last priority is the demolition of crisis condition structure.
• These structures pose active safety and security risks.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There are other ways to structure this.
• There are other ways to structure this.
• So even if we were to see a change in the refinery structure in the state, that...
• And we just don't see that built into this structure.
• curve, but we don't feel like as structured this way it would.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a structurally unsound health insurance trust fund.
• You'll also maybe chase people with higher fees back to illegal gaming, and not to mention as well...
• There is the one-cent per gallon tax, and taxes probably— is it a tax, is it a fee?
• and increase those fees in order to take the DIFI general fund budget off the general fund.
• And I think that is another, this is just a larger structural concern that we have with their budget,

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe right now if it's under 2,500 pounds it's just a fee of $3.
• And so you take that fee that we reduced it.
• Then you started the $25 off-road vehicle fee. So then now we could channel that.
• becomes a $10 fee or $11 fee or $5 — whatever that number is.
• Right now we have 115,084 that are primarily off-highway — that's the $3 fee.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , standardizing application fees, capping tenant screening fees at $50, and regulating late fees.
• fees are non-refundable, so folks are paying those fees over and over again.
• This is in addition to sometimes a $100 admin fee or $200 holding fee, sometimes in conjunction with
• all of those fees that are non-refundable.
• We are not asking to regulate those types of fees, just the fees associated with processing an application