Video & Transcript Research : 'fee structure'
Page 34 of 500
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
Committee on Environment, Climate and Legacy - 02/06/25
Environment, Climate, and Legacy
Transcript Highlights:
structural <00:05:28.759>engineer <00:05:29.160>report the stru the structural- the likelihood of it structurally the likelihood of it structurally failing<00:32:14.639>
uh< - The permitting of full structure.
- Are there any ongoing fees? Annual fees as well from the DNR?
- Chair and Senator Green, yes, on the $50,000 application fee and then there's an annual permit fee of
Summary:
The committee heard several Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund requests and laid them over for possible inclusion. Senate File 673 sought $795,000 to help replace or refurbish the structurally unsound Marshall bandshell. Senator Gary Dames, Marshall Mayor Bob Burns, and Parks and Recreation Superintendent Preston Stenard described the bandshell as an iconic community venue used for concerts and arts events, noting prior repairs in 2004, a 2001 structural report, and the need for full replacement due to settlement and deterioration near the Redwood River. They said the project has local support and a local funding commitment for the remaining costs.
Senate File 627 requested $850,000 for the Olmsted County Historical Society to continue rehabilitation of the George Stoppel Farmstead. Senator Liz Balden, Dr. Mark Warner, and Commissioner Sanum said the site includes three National Register buildings and preserves immigration and agricultural history in southeast Minnesota. They reported that $1.1 million had already been raised and that prior Legacy funding helped stabilize one structure, but additional work is needed on the bank barn and Stoppel house to complete restoration and improve accessibility.
Senate File 822 proposed $65,000 in fiscal year 2026 for the Minnesota State Band to provide free public performances across Minnesota. Testifier Craig Allen said the volunteer band, formed in 1898, uses the funding to travel to small towns and schools, including outreach to students and veterans. Conductor Keith Leuty emphasized the educational value of school visits and upcoming concerts in Moose Lake, Grand Rapids, and Cloquet, including a performance at Fond du Lac Ojibwe School. Members expressed support, and the bill was also laid over.
The committee then began hearing Senate File 575, which would appropriate $3.8 million for the Grand Rapids Old Central School renovation. Senator Iorn, city councilor Rick Blake, and City Administrator Tom Pagel described the 1895 building as a historic and arts-centered community landmark with artist residencies, galleries, concerts, and other public uses. They said the building needs major repairs, including a new roof, structural truss work, HVAC replacement, and ADA and elevator upgrades, and they were in the middle of detailing those needs when the transcript ended.
TX
Texas 89th Regular
Trade, Workforce & Economic Development Apr 23rd, 2025
Trade, Workforce & Economic Development
Transcript Highlights:
- House Bill 4518 allows Texas to do the same while adding thoughtful oversight and structure.
- and paying taxes. and doing a lot of the things in conjunction with entity structure.
- The prices are higher, the fees are hidden, and the tickets take forever.
- Eliminate hidden fees, and then also open up and offer more choice for customers.
- And then also, there are the fees on top of it.
Bills:
HB2226, HB2269, HB2343, HB2760, HB3621, HB4079, HB4204, HB4518, HB4531, HB4555, HB4850, HB4876, HB4903, HB4996, HB5122
Keywords:
construction trust funds, Property Code, Chapter 162, construction payments, mechanics lien, contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material suppliers, materialmen, real property improvement, assignment of payment rights, unpaid trust funds, trust fund beneficiaries, construction industry, payment protection, Texas construction law, property owners association, landscaping, grass maintenance
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- structure, and that was negotiated, as Senator King pointed out, that you do pay for the fee for that
- While I understand there are fees and that I have to pay fees, the duplicate fees are a issue in this
- Lower fees.
- Or is this just fee on top of fee on top of fee that goes to the general fund that just... you know,
- We need to have less fees. What would I do if I had less fees?
Bills:
SB264, SB542, SB924, SB1008, SB1029, SB1036, SB1057, SB1058, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1376, SB1569, SB1664, SB1697, SJR50
Keywords:
SB 264, Texas Workers' Compensation Act, group self-insurance, self-insured groups, workers' compensation, Texas Department of Insurance, commissioner of insurance, certificate of approval, guaranty fund, trust fund, wind down, dissolution, labor code, insurance regulation, employer coverage, risk pool, business and commerce, trade workforce economic development, property owners' association, water conservation
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
IC - New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Aug 11th, 2025
New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee
Transcript Highlights:
- So that process is, you know, the structure. Structuring is part of it.
- Okay, so with the various bond types that you have, who sets the fee structures?
- Madam Chair, the fee structure for our loans for our Public Project Revolving Fund loans: we eliminated
- our fees for that program in 2020.
- And an ongoing administration fee, and we cut all of those fees. May I ask why?
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Balancing the Budget / Sovereignty Day at the Capitol / Promoting Animal Welfare Mar 23rd, 2025
Minnesota Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- In addition to the state's structural imbalance, factors outside Minnesota's borders are also impacting
- Senator, have we faced a structural imbalance like this before, and if so, how did we counter that?
- sure well first of all structural sure well first of all structural imbalance<00:03:54.360>
which - drivers of our of our uh structural drivers of our of our uh structural deficit<00:15:25.880>
- We need to solve the structural imbalance another way. What are your thoughts on that?
KY
Kentucky 2026 Regular Session
Senate Standing Committee on Licensing and Occupations. (3-17-26)
Licensing & Occupations
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:13:20.079>
And <00:13:20.240>so <00:13:20.480>I fees, and they were all - And so I fees, and they were all for it.
- anywhere from just from the renewal fees anywhere from just from the renewal fees um<00:15:13.360
- House Bill 254, an act relating to temporary structures. Thank you.
- It allows for temporary structures, such as showers and toilets, to not be under the USC code.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation Mar 12th, 2025
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:10:33.360>
Is fee will have to happen more often. - Is fee will have to happen more often.
- Uh, and as fees and certain penalties.
- , even though maybe your best judgment says that you've been assessing fair fees?
- , executing some of those higher fees, executing some of those higher fees, even<00:28:31.600>
FL
Transcript Highlights:
- The amendment would further authorize local governments to structure such fees or assessments on a sliding
- It could cost them even more in fees and losses. It could cost them even more in fees and losses.
- Fees for everything. Will go up. Sales taxes, fees for everything, rents.
- The Children's Services Council can't assess fees. Who are you going to assess your fee on?
- The Children's Services Council can't assess fees. Who are you going to assess your fee on?
Summary:
The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance Mar 17th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- The campuses have developed structural deficits across the UC system.
- Yes, for the budget, excluding the pass-throughs and fee-for-service funding.
- structure and increase revenues for those same increasing costs.
- The current university policy does not permit differential fees on our campuses.
- So we are until 2032 going to raise those fees up to 5% annually.
Summary:
The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Alvarez, held a hearing focused on University of California budget issues. The committee reviewed UC core operations funding, enrollment trends, federal funding threats, Title IX implementation, and basic needs support. Major themes included the end of the Governor’s multi-year UC compact, the state’s fiscal outlook, UC’s enrollment growth, and the potential impacts of federal policy changes on research, health care, and student aid.
On core funding, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to continue compact-related support, defer some payments, and authorize a cash-flow loan. The LAO recommended a smaller or no base increase, earmarking some funds for capital renewal, retiring deferrals when possible, avoiding new compact commitments, and funding UC annually rather than through compacts. UC argued that the compact has supported enrollment growth, student services, and operating costs, but said campuses face rising expenses, structural deficits, and limited reserves. Members questioned the effects of deferrals on students and discussed the need to prioritize less harmful reductions if cuts become necessary.
The enrollment panel focused on UC’s growth in California resident enrollment and the nonresident replacement plan at Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The LAO recommended maintaining the current enrollment target, funding enrollment separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident replacement plan, and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. UC said it has already met compact enrollment goals, grown California undergraduate enrollment by about 18,800 students, and that further growth depends on ongoing state support. The committee also discussed the cost of enrollment growth, possible differential nonresident tuition, and a reporting request for UC to analyze the nonresident replacement approach; the motion to adopt supplemental reporting language passed.
The hearing also covered federal funding risks, with the LAO and UC warning that federal changes could affect research grants, medical center reimbursement, and student financial aid. UC said research cancellations and suspensions are disrupting labs and graduate student support, while federal health policy changes could increase uncompensated care at UC hospitals. In the Title IX update, UC described its systemwide civil rights structure, annual student training, and campus support offices, and members praised the work while asking about ongoing concerns and intersegmental collaboration. The final basic-needs item began with Finance stating the Governor’s budget does not change ongoing support, but the transcript cuts off before further discussion or action.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Minnesota House higher education committee approves omnibus bill 4/16/26
Transcript Highlights:
- equal to the average tuition and fees equal to the average tuition and fees charged<00:03:23.440
- We that we have a structural deficit.
- Um, above tuition, above fees, more.
- So any room and board, any and fees.
- <01:37:17.679>
imbalance the structural imbalance the structural imbalance now<01:37:20.320
Summary:
The committee took up House File 4252 and first heard a walkthrough of a DE2 amendment that largely incorporated Office of Higher Education technical and statutory cleanup items, including reporting consolidations, updates to postsecondary registration and licensing statutes, and an anti-fraud provision. New provisions in the DE2 would require public postsecondary institutions to explain developmental courses before enrollment and obtain a written acknowledgement, revise the state grant tuition cap, add a $1.5 million ongoing appropriation in FY 2027 for an identity verification system to combat enrollment fraud, and provide $5,000 one-time funding for reforestation at Bemidji State University. Fiscal staff also noted additional special revenue fund revenue and expenditures tied to licensing and registration litigation response.
The main debate centered on the A8 amendment offered by Representative Rarick, which would require the governor to appoint University of Minnesota regents only from candidates recommended by the joint legislative committee if the legislature fails to elect regents. Rarick argued the amendment was needed to address what he described as conflicts of interest and pay-to-play concerns in recent gubernatorial appointments. Several members questioned whether the language was constitutional, whether it actually addressed conflicts of interest, and whether it should instead refer to ARCAC-screened or ARCAC-recommended candidates. Nonpartisan staff said the governor’s appointment power is addressed in the university charter, not directly in the constitution, but could not definitively assess constitutionality if challenged.
Members were divided: some supported the goal of cleaner governance but said the amendment was not ready or did not match the problem being described; others argued the legislature had failed to complete its own regent appointments and that the amendment was a response to that failure. No vote on the A8 amendment or the bill was reached in the portion provided, though a roll call was requested on the amendment and the chair indicated the bill would continue through amendment consideration before final discussion and vote.
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
Committee of Conference on HB 155, HB 1102, HB 1109, HB 1356, HB 1469, HB 1323, HB 1376 (05/26/2026)
Transcript Highlights:
- The bill as amended does not require a separate parking fee or other fees, camping fees, facility rental
- The bill as amended does not require a separate parking fee or other fees, camping fees, facility rental
- It only says entrance fees. It's entry fees.
- It only says entrance fees. It's entry fees.
- this is a fee much like the all the fees this is a fee much like the all the fees that<04:06:53.359
Summary:
The committee first adopted amendment 2026-2021S to correct a drafting issue in the budget language so that the $2.5 million appropriation for Medicaid per diem rate stabilization at county nursing homes can be spent during the biennium rather than lapsing at the end of the fiscal year. Senator Lang explained that the funds are matched with federal dollars for a total of $5 million and are intended to prevent rate reductions that could shift costs to county property taxpayers. The amendment was adopted unanimously by both chambers, and the committee proceeded on the bill as amended by the Senate.
The main discussion then focused on HB 155 and a proposed amendment to the business enterprise tax. The House proposal would lower the BET rate in stages when combined business tax revenues exceed certain thresholds, while the Senate opposed an immediate rate reduction and argued that tax changes should be handled in a budget year. Senators emphasized that raising the filing threshold to $375,000 had already removed about 3,500 small businesses from filing requirements, and they preferred further relief through threshold changes rather than rate cuts. House members argued that the trigger-based reduction was a reasonable, tested mechanism and would provide future tax relief without taking effect unless revenues rose enough.
Members debated whether the trigger could be distorted by one-time revenue spikes, such as the recent tax amnesty receipts and prior federal repatriation-related revenue, and Representative Sweeney said he was willing to adjust the effective date or carve out amnesty revenue. The committee did not reach agreement on the BET reduction, and the chair called a break and then continued the meeting later with a new proposal to delay the trigger’s effective date to January 1, 2028. Senator Lang rejected that version but offered a counterproposal to raise the filing threshold to $400,000, and the parties ultimately agreed to continue discussions and reconvene later.
The meeting also took up HB 1102, concerning the research and development tax credit and state park fees. The House position was to support the R&D tax credit but remove the park-fee provisions, citing testimony from the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources that it did not need the increase and concerns about discouraging tourism, especially at border parks. Supporters of the park-fee language argued that the department had not raised rates in years, could set its own rates, and should be able to charge nonresidents more while keeping New Hampshire residents’ fees lower. The discussion remained unresolved, with members debating the likely effect on tourism and fairness to residents versus the need for additional revenue.
FL
Transcript Highlights:
- The amendment would further authorize local governments to structure such fees or assessments on a sliding
- Or establish fees?
- When we talk about increasing user fees, user fees are capped to a certain amount because of Medicare
- The Children's Services Council can't assess fees. Who are you going to assess your fee on?
- The Children's Services Council can't assess fees. Who are you going to assess your fee on?
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- There's no limit on the fees.
- What's the structure? We, we are, our unit is. Fee-based.
- So we operate on, uh, fee-based programming, uh, but, uh, say much of it will depend on the structure
- Fee.
- However, if you're looking at something that's online, uh, that, that fee structure would be a bit different
Keywords:
HB 148, Texas Education Code, Texas Education Agency, TEA, artificial intelligence, AI, machine learning, automated scoring, constructed response, open-ended answers, student assessments, state testing, standardized tests, public schools, education policy, assessment instruments, school accountability, test scoring, 2026-2027 school year, ad valorem tax
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
IC - Courts, Corrections and Justice Nov 6th, 2025
Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee
Transcript Highlights:
- Which is attorney's fees.
- structures look like.
- Was formed, and this is the fee structure in which the party that loses the lawsuit pays the opposing
- fees in some cases.
- We are looking into that as to the structure.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Why are we, why are we imposing a fee and giving a grant?
- And the second fee was to incentivize the producer.
- , the fees in the bill or what their recommendations were.
- No, and, and, uh, many of these structures are dams that.
- Can we, what is an acre fee?
Bills:
HB294
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- component of the school impact fee, but retain the land impact fee requirement and the in-lieu fee requirement
- component of the school construction fee component of the school impact<00:02:00.119>
fee <00: - requirement and the inl fee contribution requirement and the inl fee remove<00:02:06.200>
all - construction cost component impact fee construction cost component impact fee and<00:02:09.800><
- Um, okay, because when the counties approved development fees and it has to do with development fees
Summary:
The committee took up House Bill 422, relating to school impact fees. The Education Committee recommended passage with amendments, and Ways and Means concurred. The amendments would repeal the construction fee component of the school impact fee while retaining the land impact fee and in-lieu fee requirements, remove related statutory language, exempt certain developments from school impact fees, raise the unit threshold for satisfying the land component to 100 units, require the School Facilities Authority to adopt rules and policies, and require a report to the Legislature on the effect of repealing the construction portion of the fee. The measure was also given a sunset date of June 30, 2029, with the committee report to note that the changes are intended to test the efficiency and efficacy of the fee structure and could be made permanent if the report supports that outcome. The committees adopted the recommendation, with one senator initially voting no and then changing to yes after the amendments were explained.
The meeting also included a separate hearing on House Bill 1155, concerning procurement for Department of Transportation projects and construction manager/general contractor procurement. DOT testified that it supported the concept but wanted to narrow the bill, saying the current language was too broad and that the goal was to allow more innovative procurement while preserving selection safeguards. The State Procurement Office said it supported the bill’s language but was willing to work with DOT on alternative wording. Several construction-related organizations, including subcontractors, iron workers, elevator constructors, and building trades representatives, opposed the bill, arguing that exemptions from the procurement code would weaken protections such as retainage, equality, and prompt payment and could invite favoritism or corruption. In response to those concerns, the chair proposed amendments limiting the exemption to DOT, narrowing the qualifying contracts, adding a two-year sunset, requiring a report after the first year, and clarifying that project management could not be procured under the section. The amended recommendation passed, though several members voted with reservations.
A separate item, House Bill 476, was briefly called up at the end of the agenda, with a recommendation to pass with amendments to increase a rate from 7.25% to 8%, but discussion was not completed in the portion of the transcript provided.
OK
Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session
Senate Legislative Session Apr 21st, 2026 at 01:30 pm
Oklahoma Senate Floor Meeting
Bills:
HB1937, HB2153, HB3674, HB2978, HB3885, HB3671, HB3261, HB3021, HB3029, HB4274, HB3701, HB3076, HB2299, HB3852, HB3244, HB3345, HB3114, HB3764, HB4144, HB3304, HB2939, HB4227, HB3262, HB2941, HB3498, HB4343, HB4425, HB3386, HB3087, HB3062, HB3431, HB4141, HB3581, HB4237, HB2960, HB3645, HB3648, HB3974, HB3045, SCR18, HCR1024, SJR39, SJR49, HB4486, SB1130, SB1131, SB1132, SB1133, SB1134, SB1142, HB1823, HB4476, HB3378, HB3880, HB3031, HB3369, HB3429, HB3657, HB4215, HB3624, HB1170
Keywords:
HB1937, Oklahoma schools, student communications, electronic communication, digital communication, parent notification, legal guardian, school personnel, teachers, coaches, administrators, charter schools, public schools, administrative leave, corroborated report, investigation, employee file, discipline, termination, school board
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- It brings fairness to the system, adding balance to a legal structure. structure where only one side
- currently has the ability to recover legal fees.
- It would be reasonable attorney's fees.
- So those tax consultants would be at risk for those attorney's fees.
- And many of those tax consultants also work on a contingency fee basis.
Keywords:
county appraisal district, board of directors, governance, taxing units, public representation, penalty, property report, taxation, timely filing, chief appraiser, appraisal district, ad valorem tax, property appraisal, tax protests, unequal appraisal, property rights, property tax, public employees, protest leave, appraisal review board
FL
Florida 2026 5th Special Session
Appropriations Jun 1st, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- The amendment would further authorize local governments to structure such fees or assessments on a sliding
- Or establish fees?
- When we talk about increasing user fees, user fees are capped to a certain amount because of Medicare
- Sales taxes, fees for everything... ...will go up. Sales taxes, fees for everything, rents.
- The Children's Services Council can't assess fees. Who are you going to assess your fee on?
Summary:
The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes.
Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account.
Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.