Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, yes, I hear that this is a structure that is one off, but how many other structures are in that
• c> many other structures are in that many other structures are in that particular<00:36:36.880> scenario
• So, this structure under shoreland.
• expand a non-conforming structure expand a non-conforming structure provided<00:38:35.119> it's
• Because as these structures make structural changes, if it involves code enforcement officers or code

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began with introductions and a description of the day’s process: a full committee work session on four bills, with no public testimony, followed by caucus and then executive action. The first bill discussed was HB 113, concerning OHRV operation on certain highways in Windsor. Representative Nab presented an amendment that would require a public hearing and Department of Transportation approval, modeled on procedures used in Coös and Grafton counties. Members discussed whether Windsor had already held a local vote or hearing, whether minutes from a town meeting existed, and whether the amendment truly preserved local control. A Windsor resident testified informally that the town had not taken a final vote and that the matter had been left to the state. Committee members also raised concerns about noise, dust, public safety, and the fact that the road in question would connect OHRVs on a state road rather than a trail system. The chair closed the work session on HB 113 and said the committee would return after caucus to vote on the bill and amendment. The committee then took up HB 595FN, relative to coastal resilience zones. Representative Nat said the bill addressed flooding concerns in both coastal and inland New Hampshire, but that the sponsor viewed it as too complex and had recommended breaking the issue into separate parts in future legislation. On that basis, Nat said it was appropriate to ITL the bill, and noted that the sponsor supported that course. No further discussion followed, and the work session was closed. Next was HB 629FN, funding the operation, maintenance, and repair of state dams. Representative Darby explained that the original bill had proposed both a waterfront frontage tax and a $5 charge tied to boat registration, but that the amendment would replace the bill by removing the frontage tax, moving the $5 dam-maintenance fee to the boat decal section of statute, and changing the effective date to January 1, 2027. Darby said the larger fee had raised concerns about impacts on current-use property and enforcement, while the revised $5 fee would raise roughly $500,000 to $600,000 annually. Representative Dunn thanked Darby and said the Marine Trades Association supported the revised approach. A question was raised about whether the original prime sponsors supported the amendment; the chair said they were on board, and Darby added that the proposal reflected recommendations from a prior study committee. The committee then closed HB 629FN and opened SB 27FN, relative to dwellings over water. On SB 27FN, Representative Derby said he opposed the bill because it would take away public access rights and amounted to a one-off legislative solution for a private concern. Representative Donnelly asked how many similar structures might be affected and whether the Department of Environmental Services knew of other cases; DES responded that there was one other related case under settlement compliance and no other active cases with the same issue. In follow-up discussion, DES clarified that the proposal was not a shoreland 50-foot setback issue, but rather involved structures extending over public water. The discussion remained focused on the scope of the bill and its potential precedent-setting effect, with no vote taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• current structure in 1986.
• All fees, mileage, and commission are collected.
• The fee for a nonresident motor vehicle permit would be two times the resident fee.
• The fee for a temporary nonresident motor vehicle permit would be two times the fee for a resident motor
• permit, and the convenience fee.

Bills: LB737, LB753, LB788, LB913, LB1055, LB1195, LB1216, LB1256, LB429, LB721, LB722, LB727, LB743, LB745, LB749, LB778, LB787, LB365A, LB823, LB900, LB903, LB940, LB954, LB1127, LB1127A, LB1205, LB1240, LR293, LR296, LR422, LR505, LR507

Keywords: LB737, Olmstead, developmental disabilities, disability services, community-based services, integrated settings, DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services, stakeholder advisory committee, independent consultant, public hearing, legislative oversight, disability rights, community integration, housing, employment, education, transportation, community supports, self-advocacy

Transcript Highlights:

• fees by 50%, and alteration of terrain fees are going up 100%.
• as the fees go um they would these fee as the fees go um they would these fee increases<00:36:07.800
• I can't speak to the fees. We haven't raised those fees in some time.
• I think already, with having the PBN fee structure the way it is, we have that type of two-tier approach
• They wanted to do a 10% fee increase, and this is currently a 50% fee increase.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the Department of Environmental Services on proposed changes in House Bill 2 and related technical changes in House Bill 1 tied to the governor’s permitting realignment initiative. The proposal would move environmental review staff from Fish and Game and DNCR to DES to create a more centralized “one-stop shop” for applicants needing DES permits, especially for wildlife and natural heritage reviews. DES said the goal is to speed permitting, support a 60-day review clock, and improve coordination among agencies while keeping the substantive review work in place. Members asked about staffing impacts, the scope of the transferred duties, and whether the change would create redundancy or weaken the other agencies. DES said most of the affected staff work primarily on these reviews, though Fish and Game staff also handle other state and federal reviews, which is why the proposal was adjusted to keep one of the four Fish and Game positions there and move three to DES, along with two positions from DNCR. DES also described a new supervisory position in HB 2 to manage the transferred staff within its land resources bureau. Officials said the reviews would still be done by specialists, but under DES supervision, and that the agencies would continue to coordinate recommendations on species impacts and mitigation. The committee also discussed fee increases intended to offset costs, including a 50% increase in wetlands fees and a 100% increase in alteration-of-terrain fees, with the department saying the changes would cover the new positions. Members raised concerns about impacts on private homeowners, possible incentives to work without permits, and whether fines should be used more as a revenue source or for mitigation. DES said wetlands permits are roughly split between homeowner-related and commercial projects, that permit-by-notification already creates a two-tier structure for smaller projects, and that enforcement relies partly on public complaints and online permitting systems. The department also said most fines currently go to the general fund and vary widely year to year, with about $75,000 budgeted, and that the proposal would also create permit-by-notification authority for alteration-of-terrain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet, mirroring language in Senate Bill 110. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• a two-tiered federal debit card fee structure here in the U.S.
• A significant part of that is how these fees are structured.
• Bring transparency and balance to the fee structure.
• and other layering of payment fees and structures between point of sales, fees and other layering of
• So as we discuss credit card fees and the seeming economic rent of these fee structures, the complexity

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met for its second hearing to study the future of credit card payments and sales transactions and their impacts on small businesses. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurants, and payment-industry representatives on interchange fees, processing fees, fraud, chargebacks, rewards programs, and the ability of businesses to pass fees on to customers. Several witnesses argued that swipe fees have risen sharply, are especially burdensome for restaurants and other small businesses, and are charged on taxes and tips that are merely pass-through amounts. They urged state action to prohibit fees on tax and tip portions, improve transparency, and allow surcharging or convenience fees, while opponents warned that state regulation could reduce fraud protections, increase compliance costs, and threaten consumer rewards programs. Business owners and trade groups described thin margins, rising costs, and the difficulty of understanding merchant statements or negotiating with processors. Restaurant witnesses said card-not-present and online transactions create the greatest fraud and chargeback risk, with money often removed immediately from merchants’ accounts and disputes rarely resolved in their favor. Retail witnesses gave examples of rising effective rates, higher fees on rewards cards, and the burden of processing fees on low-value transactions. A representative from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and others said restaurants are effectively paying fees on meals tax and gratuities, which they argued should not be subject to interchange charges. On the other side, the Cooperative Credit Union Association said interchange revenue helps credit unions fund fraud prevention, rapid card replacement, and member protections, and warned that state limits on interchange could weaken those safeguards and lead to higher consumer costs or reduced services. Airlines for America testified that airline credit card rewards are popular, support travel and jobs in Massachusetts, and could be harmed by interchange reform. The National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that interchange fees are set by card networks rather than competitive markets, that banks remain highly profitable even with rewards, and that states can act after recent court decisions. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questions from commissioners.

Transcript Highlights:

• occupying previously lawful structures occupying previously lawful structures and<00:16:53.519><
• Nonconforming also, if lawful means permit structure and nonconforming structure, always lawfully, you
• That's an original way we put two terms: permit structure and a nonconforming structure, but finally
• say lawfully constructed structure.
• <00:45:33.440> So<00:45:33.599> the fees. So it it's very dependent. So the fees.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. SB 1296 HD1, relating to disaster recovery, would exempt reconstruction of lawfully constructed structures damaged or destroyed in a declared disaster from special management area permits under certain conditions. OPSD, DLNR, the County of Maui, Front Street Recovery, and the Grassroot Institute supported the bill, saying it would speed rebuilding after disasters like the Maui fires; one witness noted the bill would not cover shoreline parcels unless amended, and members asked about the five-year rebuild window, the meaning of “lawfully constructed,” and whether unlawful structures were excluded. Testimony was also heard on SB 1413, which would allow the Hawaii Public Housing Authority to dispose of abandoned property in federal public housing projects after notice and within five days; HPHA said the bill would help address illegal dumping and clarify procedures. SB 31 HD1, concerning discriminatory restrictive covenants, was briefly described and had support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and comments from the Uniform Law Commission, with no in-person testimony. The committee then heard SB 1341, which would add HEMA and the Office of Homeland Security to agencies allowed to review energy industry information and would expand the program’s emergency-management purpose. The Hawaii State Energy Office supported the measure, saying the data is important for emergency response and fuel-supply planning. SB 10008 HD1 would authorize counties to adopt ordinances enforcing accessible parking space requirements and clarify county enforcement of EV-related parking provisions; the Disability and Communication Access Board strongly supported the accessible-parking provisions, saying current enforcement is weak, while noting section three on EV spaces is already largely in statute and could be struck if the committee preferred. Tina Yamaki of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii testified in opposition. Finally, the committee heard SB 1028 SD1 HD1, which would eliminate fees, fines, and court costs for offenses committed by minors, discharge existing related debt, limit community service for minors to 72 hours, and repeal certain penalties tied to minors and their parents or guardians. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council, Community Alliance on Prisons, and DebtFree Justice Hawaii supported the bill, arguing that youth fines burden families, worsen poverty, and disproportionately affect Native Hawaiian youth. The Department of the Attorney General offered comments, raising possible constitutional title issues because the current draft incorporates material from HB 129 and includes sections that may relate more to restitution or curfew than to fines and fees; supporters responded that the title is sufficient and cited case law. No votes or final actions were taken on the measures in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The alternative would be for the utility to simply take the same rates, fees, and charges that it is
• The bill does include provisions that could allow a utility to require connection fees, impact fees,
• could allow a utility to require connection fees, impact fees, and other rates and charges, including
• The second issue addressed in the strike-all concerns an emerging fee structure imposed by developers
• more than doubled your fees in just the last few years.

Bills: S0936, S1724, S1014, S1498

Keywords: temporary door locking device, emergency safety, building code, training programs, fire exit security, utility services, municipal agreements, public meetings, rates and fees, public service commission, municipal utility, water service, wastewater service, property owners, annexation, civil action, community associations, condominium, homeowners associations, structural integrity

Summary: The Committee on Regulated Industries met with a quorum and took up four bills. First, it considered SB 1724 on municipal utility services. Senator Martin offered a late-filed delete-everything amendment that would require annual customer meetings for extraterritorial utility customers, cap use of gross utility revenues for general government at 10%, eliminate a 25% surcharge on customers outside city limits, reduce the rate differential cap from 50% to 25%, remove municipal natural gas utilities from the bill, and preserve certain existing bond-related surcharges until debt is retired or refinanced. The League of Cities raised implementation concerns about the July 1, 2026 effective date and the need for rate studies and budget adjustments. The amendment was adopted and the committee reported CS/SB 1724 favorably. The committee then heard SB 936 on temporary door locking devices from Senator McLean. The bill would define temporary door locking devices, allow them to be installed at any height, require the Florida Building Commission to add standards to the Florida Building Code, and require their use to be incorporated into safety plans, drills, and training. With no opposition or amendments, SB 936 was reported favorably. Next, the committee considered SB 1014 by Senator Mayfield, which would prohibit municipalities from refusing water or wastewater service solely because a property owner will not annex, and would require service expansion when a property is near a municipal main line, not served by another utility, and the utility has capacity. A committee amendment narrowed the bill to properties near a main line and reduced the distance threshold from 2,000 meters to one-half mile. The Florida League of Cities opposed the bill as amended, citing concerns about property size, annexation conflicts, enclave creation, and possible revenue impacts, but the bill was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard SB 1498 on community associations from Chair Bradley. A strike-all amendment revised technical provisions on video conference recordings, turnover inspection reports, SIRS references, and electronic voting, and added two major policy changes: requiring associations to provide records to law enforcement and prosecutors and creating a second-degree misdemeanor for willful refusal, and prohibiting mandatory club or amenity fee schemes controlled by developers or third parties that generate profit beyond proportional expenses. Testimony in support described homeowner disputes involving concentrated board control, lack of transparency, and mandatory fees in communities such as Rosedale. The amendment was adopted and CS/SB 1498 was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, Senator Bracey Davis asked to be recorded voting in the affirmative on tabs 1, 2, and 3, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial branch collects: civil filing fees, master commissioner fees.
• Court technology fees, criminal background checks, expungement fees. There's a range of them.
• These are the SaaS fees.
• These are the SaaS fees.
• These are the SaaS fees.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Justice and Judiciary met without a quorum and heard an update from the Administrative Office of the Courts on the judicial branch budget. AOC Director Zach Ramsey and budget director Carol Henderson outlined the branch’s current funding structure, noting that fiscal year 2026 general fund support is about 2.77% of the state general fund, below the National Center for State Courts’ typical 2% to 4% range. They emphasized Kentucky’s unusual responsibility for courthouse facilities, with the judicial branch directly involved in construction, maintenance, and operations across 229 facilities in all 120 counties. AOC said nearly 91% of its general fund is spent on personnel and other non-discretionary costs, and that the branch has long relied on agency revenue, restricted fund carryforwards, and vacancy credits to balance court operations. Members were told that Senate Bill 25 required a $34.5 million transfer into a reserve account, part of which was used to purchase the Chamberlain Avenue building in Frankfort. AOC reported that only $11.9 million remains in restricted funds, while it projects needing about $13.5 million to cover fiscal year 2026 obligations, not including roughly $9 million in flood-related remediation costs for Hardin and Franklin counties, much of which it expects to recover through insurance and FEMA. Looking ahead to the next biennium, AOC said it will seek full funding of court operations at $341 million annually, a $13.5 million increase to bring current services into the base appropriation rather than relying on reserves. It also previewed additional requests, including a 15% across-the-board pay parity plan for Kentucky Court of Justice personnel, replacement of declining master commissioner fee revenue tied to 141 deputy circuit court clerk positions, funding for technology subscription and case management system costs, JAV audiovisual system upgrades, AEDs and medical kits for courthouses, and other staffing and operational needs. Senator Funky Frommeyer asked whether the 15% salary proposal was included in the $13.5 million increase; AOC said it was not, and that it would be an additional request. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill does include provisions that could allow a utility to require connection fees, impact fees,
• Could allow a utility to require connection fees, impact fees, and other rates and charges, including
• The second issue addressed in the strike-all concerns an emerging fee structure imposed by developers
• more than doubled your fees in just the last few years.
• You've raised your fees more than doubled your fees in just the last few years.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Regulated Industries met with a quorum and considered four bills. First, the committee took up SB 1724 on municipal utility services. A late-filed strike-all amendment by Senator Martin was adopted after he explained it would require annual customer meetings for certain extraterritorial utility customers, cap the use of utility revenues for general government purposes, eliminate a 25% surcharge and reduce the rate differential cap, remove municipal natural gas utilities from the bill, and preserve certain surcharges only as needed to satisfy existing bond covenants. The Florida League of Cities raised implementation concerns about the July 1, 2026 effective date and the time needed for rate studies and budget adjustments, but the bill as amended was reported favorably. The committee then heard SB 936 on temporary door locking devices by Senator McLean. The bill would define temporary door locking devices, authorize their installation at any height, require the Florida Building Commission to add standards to the Florida Building Code, and require their use to be incorporated into safety plans, drills, and training. With no opposition or debate, SB 936 was reported favorably. Next, the committee considered SB 1014 by Senator Mayfield, which would prohibit municipalities from refusing water and wastewater service solely because a property owner declines annexation, if the property is near a municipal main line, not served by another utility, and the utility has capacity. An amendment narrowed the bill by defining “main line” and reducing the distance threshold from 2,000 meters to one-half mile. The Florida League of Cities opposed the bill as amended, citing concerns about large users, possible conflict with annexation law, potential enclave creation, and revenue impacts, but Senator Mayfield said he would continue working on the issues. The committee reported the bill favorably. Finally, Chair Bradley presented SB 1498 on community associations. A strike-all amendment was adopted that made technical changes to video conference recording, turnover inspection reports, and electronic voting, and added provisions requiring associations to provide records to law enforcement and prosecutors, creating a second-degree misdemeanor for willful refusal. It also targeted mandatory club or amenity fee structures controlled by developers or third parties, declaring such provisions against public policy, limiting assessments to proportional expenses, and allowing suits and conveyance of common areas after turnover. Testimony from homeowners described alleged governance abuses and opaque, profit-driven mandatory fees in their communities, while the Community Associations Institute supported the amendment. The committee reported CS for SB 1498 favorably. Members then recorded additional votes for the record, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, FEMA, for example, will, as I understand it, fund the rebuilding of existing structures or structures
• or structures that were lost.
• But in this case, rebuilding of existing structures or structures that were lost.
• It replaced, in essence, and streamlined four different fees into one fee that charges hazardous waste
• raise the fee rate.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Transcript Highlights:

• illegally solicited and do not enter formal contracts, they can be misled into paying outstanding legal fees
• Through this study, we can evaluate how establishing a telecom service fee or other funding mechanism
• This unique structure empowers our state to craft energy policies and responses that are tailored to
• bill touches on many key functions of the Commission, including the responsibility and governance structure
• amendments change the language with regards to the Secretary of State being able to charge a reasonable fee

Bills: SJR60, SB203, SB317, SB397, SB511, SB524, SB731, SB781, SB801, SB867, SB1071, SB1232, SB1319, SB1444, SB1483, SB1633, SB1798, SB1944, SB1978, SB2082, SB2233, SB2363, SB2603, SB2607, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2919, SB2928, SB2969, SB3038, SB3063, HB102, HB107, HB130, HB132, HB148, HB647, HB668, HB677, HB694, HB748, HB754, HB923, HB1193, HB1240, HB1318, HB1397, HB1584, HB1639, HB1875, HB1893, HB1922, HB2071, HB2187, HB2254, HB2350, HB2510, HB2513, HB2516, HB2522, HB2559, HB2712, HB2713, HB2733, HB2775, HB2788, HB2789, HB2894, HB2960, HB3033, HB3126, HB3211, HB3370, HB3376, HB3751, HB3805, HB3810, HB4187, HB4219, HB4238, HB4273, HB4325, HB4344, HB4384, HB4506, HB4529, HB4643, HB4753, HB4783, HB4850, HB4885, HB5342, HB5424, HB5560, HCR90, HCR98, SJR5, SJR34, SB9, SB27, SB40, SB458, SB482, SB493, SB529, SB541, SB693, SB841, SB843, SB912, SB963, SB1173, SB1241, SB1350, SB1383, SB1388, SB1559, SB1646, SB1734, SB1789, SB1833, SB1883, SB1951, SB1968, SB2143, SB2544, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2308, HB2525, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR60, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB511, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2233, SB2683, SB1319, SB1978, SB3038, SB3045, SB1633, SB1538, SB719, SB3071, SB3065, HJR34, HB1393, HB26, HB3810, HB388, HB2712, HB1633, HB685, HB4753, HB762, HB2286, HB1606, HB132, HB1458, HB1240, HB2788, HB2791, HB3146, HB1893, HB4850, HB4187, HB1397, HB3751, HB2061, HB647, HB2522, HB4738, HB3033, HB2563, HB128, HB581, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB793, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3104, HB5180, HB1584, HB4219, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB2254, HB4643, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB4205, HB5652, HB3687, HB5424, HB4506, HB3370, HB2025, HB4273, HB3395, HB3376, HB2733, HB2495, HB4325, HB2071, HB2510, HB138, HB18, HB107, HB694, HB923, HB1639, HB1700, HB2187, HB3211, HB4529, HB4655, HB5342, HB2516, HB4783, HB1894, HB1965, HB102, HB300, HB1875, HB2513, HB2713, HB39, HB114, HB24, HB3088, HB4163, HB3479, HB2842, HB519, HB609, HB1275, HB1592, HB3348, HB120, HB6, HB247, HB1533, HB2421, HB2273, HB2464, HB2011, HB3575, HB3788, HB4370, HB4809, HB5057, HB5084, HB5534, HB5668, HB3424, HB2715, HB2564, HB2760, HB2765, HB2898, HB3260, HB3800, HB4396, HB5195, HB4341, HB43, HB5686, HCR90, HCR98, SJR60, SB1633, SB2233, HB102, HB107, HB132, HB694, HB923, HB1639, HB1875, HB1893, HB2071, HB2187, HB2510, HB2513, HB2522, HB2733, HB2788, HB3033, HB3211, HB3370, HB3376, HB3751, HB3810, HB4187, HB4219, HB4273, HB4325, HB4506, HB4529, HB4643, HB4753, HB4783, HB4850, HB5342, HB5424, SB511, SB1978, SR533, SR554, HCR90, HCR98, HCR144, SJR34, SB529, SB541, SB693, SB1173, SB1646, SB1734, SB1833, SB3074, HB1233, HB1285, HB1828, HB1876, HB2091, HB2301, HB2725, HB3063, HB3177, HB3483, HB4662, HB5606, HCR9, HCR10, HCR40, HCR76, HCR118, HCR127, HCR135, HCR141, SB3074, HB1233, HB1285, HB1828, HB1876, HB2091, HB2301, HB2725, HB3063, HB3177, HB3483, HB4662, HB5606, HCR9, HCR10, HCR40, HCR76, HCR118, HCR127, HCR135, HCR141

Keywords: SJR 60, Texas constitutional amendment, property tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, rainwater harvesting, graywater system, water conservation, water reuse, residential tax incentive, local government finance, county commissioners court, appraisal value, environmental incentive, November 2025 ballot, Article VIII, tax relief, student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs

Transcript Highlights:

• All fees, percentages, commissions, and fees, percentages, commissions, and fees, percentages, commissions
• levied on the other taxes or fees levied on the other taxes or fees levied on the products.
• levied on the other taxes or fees levied on the other taxes or fees levied on the products.
• The director fees, or interest payments. The director fees, or interest payments.
• Four, whether penalties or fees will be whether penalties or fees will be whether penalties or fees will

Bills: HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 26, HB 30, HB 37, HB 116, HB 630, HB 879, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1318, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 2703, HB 2809, HB 2890, HB 2970, HB 3307, HB 3526, HB 5092, SB 128, SB 203, SB 317, SB 393, SB 397, SB 644, SB 731, SB 801, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1073, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1232, SB 1250, SB 1262, SB 1285, SB 1310, SB 1359, SB 1444, SB 1483, SB 1705, SB 1782, SB 1861, SB 1897, SB 1944, SB 2023, SB 2043, SB 2082, SB 2133, SB 2215, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2309, SB 2532, SB 2549, SB 2566, SB 2617, SB 2619, SB 2639, SB 2688, SB 2696, SB 2717, SB 2790, SB 2841, SB 2847, SB 2850, SB 2857, SB 2891, SB 2919, SB 2928, SB 2972, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 1, SB 260, SB 1506, SB 1637, HB 37, HB 109, HB 334, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2081, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 644, SB 1086, SB 1230, SB 1310, SB 1361, SB 1553, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2344, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2600, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2785, SB 2790, SB 3047, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HJR 1, HB 1130, HB 1689, HB 2884, HB 1393, HB 2559, HB 26, HB 3012, HB 1327, HB 109, HB 1238, HB 2890, HB 9, HB 4215, HB 2970, HB 37, HB 1899, HB 1593, HB 2607, HB 3526, HB 3810, HB 5092, HB 388, HB 2809, HB 1151, HB 913, HB 3307, HB 879, HB 116, HB 12, HB 2703, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 30, HB 21, HB 2712, HB 2692, HB 1633, HB 1318, HB 685, HB 630, HB 4753, HB 2742, HB 303, HB 198, HB 1535, HB 762, HB 148, HB 1520, HB 5061, HB 2286, HB 1606, HB 1041, HB 132, HB 11, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 2023, SB 1310, SB 2972, SB 1073, SB 2847, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 507, SB 1434, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1122, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 1085, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 1200, SB 1845, SB 2458, SB 801, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 2797, SB 2076, SB 2876, SB 1640, SB 1449, SB 1181, SB 1359, SB 1234, SB 2926, SB 2841, SB 1528, SB 2891, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 1285, SB 1237, SB 2819, SB 629, SB 2608, SB 1602, SB 2009, SB 2460, SB 867, SB 640, SB 1698, SB 2680, SB 2994, SB 2747, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1483, SB 1444, SB 1553, SB 1556, SB 1703, SB 2133, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2622, SB 2955, SB 2334, SB 1861, SB 2043, SB 1367, SB 2857, SB 128, SB 3058, SB 2044, SB 2363, SB 2565, SB 1888, SB 3048, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3036, SB 3057, SB 3056, SB 3043, SB 3050, SB 3063, SB 3035, SB 1790, SB 1778, SB 203, SB 3061, SB 2799, SB 2790, SB 2688, SB 2515, SB 1230, SB 2522, SB 2639, SB 2459, SB 3051, SB 2655, SB 2251, SB 1884, SB 2617, SB 2751, SB 2928, SB 2566, SB 1897, SB 1749, SB 1361, SB 2549, SB 2553, SB 2919, SB 1782, SB 1705, SB 2696, SB 1944, SB 2215, SB 644, SB 1232, SB 2850, HB 45, HB 48, HB 1261, HB 1465, HB 1778, HB 2596, HB 5238, HB 33, HB 1188, HB 210, HB 1022, HB 1458, HB 5560, HB 1240, HB 1950, HB 2027, HB 2768, HB 2788, HB 2791, HB 3146, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 1893, HB 3700, HB 4850, HB 4187, HB 1397, HB 4885, HB 4804, HB 3751, HB 3611, HB 2775, HB 2061, HB 2003, HB 1729, HB 1242, HB 791, HB 2029, HB 647, HB 2522, HB 4738, HB 3033, HB 3594, HB 3474, HB 2563, HB 2802, HCR 90, SJR 87, SB 2969, SB 3073, SB 2497, SB 1798, SB 2603, SB 2607, SB 781, SJR 34, SB 17, SB 314, SB 455, SB 509, SB 529, SB 541, SB 693, SB 761, SB 963, SB 1023, SB 1968, SB 2122, SB 2308, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 2544, SJR 87, SB 1285, SB 1359, SB 2857, SB 3073, HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 116, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1899, HB 2970, HB 3307, SB 1073, SB 1310, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 2847, SB 2972, SB 128, SB 2043, SR 393, SR 511, SR 518, SR 520, SB 314, SB 455, SB 761, SB 1023, SB 2122, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 17, SB 509, SB 644, SB 1230, SB 1361, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2790, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HB 37, HB 109, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 1086, SB 1553, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294

Keywords: constitutional amendment, property tax, ad valorem tax, tax exemption, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property, equipment exemption, machinery, local government finance, school district revenue, county taxes, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax relief, commercial property, appraisal district, chief appraiser, rendition statement, property tax relief

Transcript Highlights:

• fee structure.
• In the mid to long term, the board is mandated to conduct an analysis of the fee structure and present
• But that said, we do have ongoing concerns about the fee structure as constituted today.
• They're not only paying fees for the facility fee as required under the new structure fees under SB 158
• structure, that the existing fee payers don't have to take on the burden of those fees, because that's

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on DTSC’s implementation of SB 158 reforms, including enforcement, community engagement, fee stability, the hazardous waste management plan, permitting backlogs, and the Safer Consumer Products program. Senators and Assembly members emphasized protecting overburdened communities and asked how DTSC and the Board of Environmental Safety are using their authority to improve accountability, reduce delays, and address hazardous waste facilities and consumer product chemicals. The hearing also included discussion of extended producer responsibility programs and whether DTSC can support them more efficiently, including through coordination with CalRecycle. DTSC Director Katie Butler said the department is now more transparent, accountable, and fiscally stable, citing stronger enforcement actions, an interactive inspections map, expanded community outreach, and emergency response work on the Los Angeles wildfire cleanup. She said DTSC has made progress on fee reform, the hazardous waste management plan, cleanup grants, permit renewals, and safer consumer products rulemaking, including adding microplastics to the candidate chemical list. Board Chair Andrew Rakestraw said the board has held multiple public meetings and hearings, is working on fee rates and performance metrics, and is revising the hazardous waste management plan after public comment, including removing a proposal to send certain contaminated soil to municipal landfills. He also noted remaining concerns about fee structure, permit delays, and the pace of the safer consumer products program. Public witnesses offered sharply different views. A representative of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance said SB 158 reforms have improved permitting and transparency, but urged more attention to risk-based decision-making, reduced duplication, and possible General Fund support for plan implementation rather than relying only on fees. Earthjustice argued DTSC remains too slow and that communities continue to suffer from long-delayed permits and weak protections, urging the Legislature to take a more active role and to prioritize eliminating hazardous substances rather than minimizing costs. Committee members pressed the witnesses on permit renewals, community impacts, and the pace of the safer consumer products program, while DTSC defended its progress and said further legislative collaboration may be needed on hazardous waste management and emerging waste streams.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then there is a percentage fee that, say— Across it, and then there is a percentage fee that, say
• Counties and cities could decide what that fee could be. I mean, it could be a fee on haircuts.
• Counties and cities could decide what that fee could be. I mean, it could be a fee on haircuts.
• fee, and then they put a system fee on top that they kind of glean off of that.
• We had a disposal fee and then we worked within that disposal fee to pay for contracts for operation,

Summary: The task force met to focus on funding systems and incentive structures for a proposed regional waste infrastructure effort, including how a future WIPA framework might support solid waste planning in the Willamette Valley. Staff and members heard presentations from DEQ on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, from Business Oregon on the Special Public Works Fund, and from Oregon State Treasury on state bonding capacity and the bond issuance process. Presenters explained how their programs are structured, how projects are scored or approved, what kinds of public entities and projects are eligible, and how interagency coordination and co-funding can work. DEQ emphasized that its revolving loan fund is driven by water-quality benefits and public-health criteria, while Business Oregon described a broader infrastructure loan program for public entities with no scoring system, and Treasury outlined the state’s debt-capacity process and the differences between general obligation and lottery bonds. Members used the presentations to discuss whether similar funding tools could support solid waste infrastructure, especially for transfer stations, regional hubs, and related facilities that may need to be built before Coffin Butte reaches the end of its lifespan. Several questions centered on whether public-private partnerships could qualify, whether equipment inside facilities could be financed, how repayment would work, and whether planning costs could be covered. DEQ and Business Oregon both said they could potentially collaborate on scoring or co-funding, but noted eligibility limits and the need for public ownership in many cases. Treasury said bond capacity is limited and competitive, especially for lottery bonds, and that project authorization generally runs on a two-year cycle, though unused authority can sometimes be reauthorized. In task force discussion, members debated whether the group should pursue a dedicated funding lane for the seven-county region rather than having local governments compete with other statewide needs. Some members stressed the importance of criteria to avoid stranded assets and to ensure funding is available when projects are ready, while others raised concerns about how cities and counties would generate revenue to repay debt during construction and early operations. The group also discussed flow control, system fees, and the need for regional collaboration among counties, cities, and haulers to create enough waste volume to support new infrastructure. Staff noted that pre-session filing materials for the legislature are due September 11, and the chair said the August meeting will focus on organizational structure and identifying partners. During public comment, Representative Kevin Mannix submitted written testimony supporting the WIPA concept and urging the task force to endorse it. Commissioner Bubba King of Yamhill County urged the task force to compare alternatives objectively and warned against adding bureaucracy before evaluating existing infrastructure and costs. Commissioners Kevin Cameron and Roger Nyquist of Marion and Linn counties described regional hub-and-spoke concepts, transfer stations, and intermodal options, emphasizing the need for planning, strategic siting, and collaboration with haulers and local governments.

Transcript Highlights:

• fall fees, charging people fees for falling.
• fall fees, charging people fees for falling.
• fall fees, charging people fees for falling.
• fall fees, charging people fees for falling.
• fall fees, charging people fees for falling.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• fee upon their With us before will pay an investigation fee and a license fee upon their first time applying
• We do have the 52 fee types. The fees are set in Century Code.
• The fee varies based upon that. We do have fees.
• fees.
• But we believe that the fee structure reflects the regulatory responsibilities being carried out by our

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We understand that nobody likes paying impact fees.
• After 20 years of not raising an impact fee, when that impact fee does finally get adjusted for growth
• You know, this isn't about not paying impact fees.
• Every person I talk to is willing to pay impact fees.
• And so I think it's not about not paying impact fees.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and heard a series of bills, mostly local claims and growth-management or permitting measures. SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24 were uncontested claims bills providing relief for injuries or damages involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County; each was described as settled or favorably reported by a special master, and each was reported favorably without debate. SB 288, a negotiated bill on rural electric cooperatives, was presented as a clarification to protect co-op authority over generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections; it drew support from industry stakeholders and was reported favorably. SB 830 created a public-records exemption for certain local administrators and their families’ personal information, citing threats against city managers, and it also passed favorably. The committee also considered several land-use and permitting bills. SB 1138 would create a registry of qualified professionals to conduct pre-application review for plats and development, aiming to reduce delays and backlogs; local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, but the bill passed favorably with one no vote. SB 168 expanded public nuisance law to include gambling houses, increased penalties, and authorized attorney’s fees and foreclosure of unpaid fees; it was reported favorably. SB 686 revised the agricultural enclave statute to create a public-hearing process for certain residential projects in urban service areas, with a sunset date later amended to June 30, 2026; conservation and planning groups raised concerns about local planning authority and public participation, but the bill passed favorably. SB 548, a growth-management and impact-fee cleanup bill, clarified plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for impact fees. Local government and development stakeholders testified that it would improve predictability while preserving flexibility, though some sought further refinement on fee increases and refunds; the bill was amended and then reported favorably. SB 1234 addressed building permits and inspections, including permit validity, small-project exemptions, temporary hurricane protection, standardized permit forms, and expanded use of private providers; county officials objected to reduced oversight, while builders and private-provider advocates supported the measure. After testimony and debate, the bill was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, Senator Jones requested to be recorded on several votes, and the committee adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• the fee.
• The local government imposing the fee has to show that the person who pays the fee gets a benefit from
• The payer of the fee has to get value out of paying the fee.
• The local government imposing the fee has to show that the person who pays the fee gets a benefit from
• Just curious about the sidewalk utility fee. I'm curious about the sidewalk utility fee.

Summary: The committee began with member introductions, then heard a presentation on a draft final report studying alternative funding mechanisms for sidewalks and related pedestrian infrastructure. Consultants said current local funding sources are insufficient, with most jurisdictions unable to complete planned sidewalk networks within 50 years. They evaluated four options: a sidewalk utility fee, a modified transportation benefit district sales tax, a new real estate excise tax option, and expanded stormwater fee use for ADA sidewalk ramps. The consultants recommended authorizing the modified TBD sales tax and new REET option, considering a sidewalk utility despite legal uncertainty, broadening any authorization to all pedestrian improvements, and not pursuing the stormwater fee option. Members asked about legal authority, fairness, revenue adequacy, and whether jurisdictions had been consulted; the presenters said state enabling legislation would likely be needed for a sidewalk utility and that fairness could be defined either by direct benefit or by need. The committee then received an update on the 2025 assessment of city transportation funding needs. The consultants reported that city transportation revenues have grown in some local and federal categories since 2019, but state revenues have remained relatively flat and smaller cities are especially affected by declining fuel tax revenues and limited tax bases. They estimated annual city transportation needs at $4.25 billion, average annual spending at $1.89 billion, and a funding gap of $2.37 billion, larger than in the prior study because of updated data, inclusion of system improvements, and higher preservation costs. Draft recommendations focused on reducing costs and improving efficiency, preserving and increasing state support, and expanding local funding options, including preservation-first spending, a permanent federal fund exchange program, streamlined review processes, better coordination with WSDOT, possible property tax flexibility, and exploration of new local tools. Members raised questions about design standards, the role of density and transit, federal compliance, and whether the report would identify specific consolidation or process changes. The committee also heard a project update on evaluating zero-emission vehicle and electrification programs funded by the Climate Commitment Act. Consultants said they had reviewed roughly 23 programs and projects across seven agencies and were now evaluating options to improve delivery, including process improvements, reorganizing programs, or consolidating governance and administrative functions. Early findings highlighted staffing shortages, duplication and variation across agencies, differing levels of risk, and the challenge of coordinating climate priorities across agencies with other core missions. Members asked about program outcomes, administrative costs, whether some programs should have exit strategies, and how to strengthen the EV Coordinating Council. Finally, WSDOT provided an implementation update on its new public-private partnership authority under SB 5801, saying work is underway to prepare governance, legal, policy, and organizational structures ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have the 52 fee types. The fees are set in Century Code.
• We do have the 52 fee types. The fees are set in Century Code.
• The fee varies based upon that. We do have fees.
• fees.
• But we believe that the fee structure reflects the regulatory responsibilities being carried out by our

Summary: The committee began with roll call, introductions of a new fiscal analyst and a new member, and approval of the March 19 minutes. The first major presentation was from the Office of Management and Budget on the state’s general fund and special fund status through May. OMB reported general fund revenues were running below the legislative forecast by about $76 million, driven largely by weaker individual income tax and sales tax collections, though the projected ending balance remained positive and above the budgeted level. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap and would transfer excess earnings to the general fund, and the legacy fund balance continued to grow. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing revenue variability. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analyses, followed by discussion of a bill draft for the fixed-route city transportation network study. The draft would create a $15 million general fund grant program with a formula-based distribution to eligible fixed-route transit cities, intended to support operating and capital needs and help match federal transit funds. Transit officials from Minot and Fargo testified in support, explaining local fare and match structures and the difficulty of replacing aging buses and securing federal matching dollars. Several members questioned whether the program should be limited to the current four cities or broadened to future eligible urban areas, and whether local funding sources should be explored further. The committee did not finalize the bill draft at that point and planned to continue discussion at a later meeting. The committee also approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to approval of a bi-state authority with South Dakota, after staff explained that no agreements had ever been implemented and the provision appeared outdated. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried. Later, the Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site presented updates on uncrewed aircraft systems initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and efforts to build a revenue model for Vantis. Test site officials said FAA approval had been secured for the radar data program, replacement of noncompliant drones was underway, and future revenue could come from state and external users once pricing and intellectual property arrangements are finalized. Members asked about Chinese-made drones, supply chain issues, automation, and how the system would manage beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation then presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and a reentry housing study. Officials said the proposed facility would relocate the minimum-security prison to the penitentiary campus, reduce costs from an earlier estimate, and provide more beds and programming space, with construction potentially beginning in 2027 and opening around 2031. They also described staffing needs, the planned move of women to the New England facility, and possible expansion of men’s housing there. The parole and probation chief described a reentry housing task force studying housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with a goal of developing data-driven recommendations for subsidies and support services; a representative from Protection and Advocacy closed by expressing general support for fixed-route and paratransit funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• And, Madam Chair, facility fees are fees that we're seeing increasingly on consumer health care bills
• We also know that these fees don’t... ...facility fees make it more confusing and expensive.
• So if you go in and they say the facility fee is twice what the fee is, you can say not today and they
• So these are fees that these hospitals are claiming for overhead fees.
• Representative Lord asked whether the facilities cannot charge the fee or must let the fee be known.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, those 18 counties are just fee-for-service.
• So, those 18 counties are just fee-for-service.
• fee-for-service population, and then fee-for-service population, and then there's<00:30:53.920><
• I think we actually incentive structure?
• they respond to the incentive structures they respond to the incentive structures we<01:10:27.560

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met on March 2 and approved the February 23 minutes after a quorum was reached. The main presentation was from the Department of Human Services on non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT), a federally required Medicaid benefit that helps Minnesota Health Care Program enrollees get to medically necessary appointments. DHS said the program served more than 250,000 people in 2025 at a cost of $127 million, with participation up about 14% over five years, and described the seven transportation modes, provider enrollment requirements, STS certification, background checks, prior authorization rules, and planned transitions to a single administrator for parts of the program in 2026 and 2027. DHS officials emphasized fraud prevention efforts, saying NEMT is one of the agency’s high-risk Medicaid services. They described enhanced prepayment review, provider revalidation and site visits, removal of inactive providers, and a provider moratorium in metro counties. Inspector General James Clark said the governor’s anti-fraud proposal would add pre-enrollment risk assessments, more staffing and technology, and electronic visit verification. He also noted that about 80% of NEMT spending is in managed care and that managed care organizations have their own compliance and special investigations units. Committee members raised concerns about fraud, oversight, and privatization. Chair Robbins questioned DHS about the absence of the commissioner and the program’s use of brokers, citing past concerns and asking about the vendor MTM’s history; DHS said the RFP for the new broker had closed and the vendor selection was still underway. Representative Pinto questioned why oversight is outsourced to managed care organizations and suggested bringing more oversight back in house. MTM representative Phil Stahlberger defended the company’s record, said the Missouri dispute was about contract terms from about 15 years ago, and said MTM currently works in Minnesota counties and many other states, with on-site reviews, trip verification, and complaint review processes. No further votes or final actions on the NEMT policy were taken in the portion provided.