Bills: SB15, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB413, SB427, SB499, SB583, SB621, SB673, SB840, SB850, SB854, SB974, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1106, SB 15

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:

• Lastly, expenses would include land acquisition, planning and design costs, impact fees, permitting fees
• This does not mandate the new cap for all ESDs, and... Cap of $50,000.
• This does not mandate the new cap for all ESDs.
• This would be about a $10,000 cap now, roughly.
• And so if there's not an ability to charge the fee at the beginning, we have no fee revenue for the inspectors

Bills: SB208, SB628, SB777, SB1042, SB2354, SB2477, SB2521, SB2523, SB2608, SB2703, SB2778, SB2835, SB2965, SB2367, SB3044

Keywords: workforce housing, capital investment fund, affordable housing, housing development, Texas housing laws, loan programs, community development, Texas housing, zero-interest loans, low-income housing, nonprofit organizations, construction, economic stability, housing affordability, capital investment, Texas housing policy, county fire code, fire marshal, local government code, interlocal agreement

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government met with a quorum at the start, adopted a two-minute limit for public testimony, and heard a series of housing, local government, fire code, and district-governance bills. Several measures were laid out with committee substitutes, including SB 628 on county fire code administration through interlocal agreements with emergency service districts; SB 208 creating a Workforce Housing Capital Investment Fund for zero-interest loans to nonprofit builders; SB 2835 allowing cities to opt into single-stair apartment buildings; and SB 2477 easing office-to-residential conversions in certain cities. Other bills addressed ESD spending thresholds (SB 2778), hospital district updates (SB 1042), subdivision/platting issues (SB 1708), public housing tax credit eligibility (SB 2608), groundwater district representation for Marfa and Presidio (SB 3044), park board authority in Waller County (SB 2367), ETJ removal procedures (SB 2523), and reporting death certificates to appraisal districts to help address squatting and homestead issues (SB 2521). Testimony was largely supportive on the housing bills. Supporters of SB 208, including Habitat for Humanity affiliates, a Brownsville nonprofit developer, Texans for Housing, and an educator, said the revolving fund would help nonprofit builders finance land, infrastructure, and development costs for affordable homes, especially for families earning 30% to 80% of area median income. SB 2835 drew support from architects, planners, and housing advocates who argued that single-stair buildings can be safe, more efficient, and better suited to missing-middle housing, though the Texas APA registered qualified opposition, saying the proposal bypasses the usual code-development process and may not be sufficiently studied. SB 2477 also received broad support from housing groups and policy organizations, who said office conversions could help address vacancy and housing shortages, though Corpus Christi raised a concern about fee recovery and local cost reimbursement. The committee also heard support for SB 628 from a county fire marshal and an ESD representative, who said the bill would reduce duplicate fire-code enforcement and costs. SB 2778 was backed by a Bexar County ESD fire chief, who said the current $2,000 expenditure approval threshold is outdated and slows emergency purchases and repairs. SB 2608 was supported by the El Paso housing authority, which said adding certain Section 8 projects to the at-risk LIHTC set-aside would help renovate aging subsidized housing. SB 3044 was presented as a way to give Marfa and Presidio representation on the groundwater district board while preserving permitting authority. Each bill heard public testimony was left pending subject to the call of the chair, and the committee recessed to reconvene after the Senate adjourns.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the Mitigation Fee Act.
• and prohibiting impact fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller, and requiring that fees for
• Because many times they're avoiding impact fees, school fees, and they're already having to pay.
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right? Yes.
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right?

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills. SB 457 would direct HCD to develop statistical formulas based on historical development data to help cities complete housing element site inventories, with the author and supporters arguing it would make RHNA compliance more realistic and less costly; the California Building Industry Association opposed, and the bill was later approved on a 7-1 vote. SB 904 would codify and expand wildfire-rebuilding coordination and reporting practices used after recent fires, with supporters saying it would speed recovery and opponents questioning the need for additional reporting; it passed 11-1. The committee also took up SB 1091, which would create a state acquisition-and-preservation program for unsubsidized affordable housing to prevent displacement; it drew broad support from housing and tenant groups and passed 9-1, with members emphasizing preservation as a key housing strategy. Members also considered SB 1267, which would require EV charger installers in common-interest developments to indemnify associations during installation and make homeowners responsible for costs arising from use of privately owned chargers. The bill was presented as a follow-up to prior HOA-related EV charging legislation, with support from HOA, EV, and climate groups and opposition from the California Association of Realtors pending amendments; it passed 10-0. SB 1117 would clarify that ADU impact fees above the 750-square-foot exemption are charged only on the portion above that threshold, not the entire unit, and supporters said it would remove a fee cliff that discourages slightly larger ADUs. Cities, special districts, and fire agencies opposed or opposed unless amended, citing infrastructure funding concerns, but the bill passed 10-0 after extensive debate. The committee also heard SB 1361, which would prevent local governments from taking actions to avoid SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Supporters from L.A. Metro, labor, and housing groups said it would protect transit investments and jobs, while the City of Burbank opposed; the bill passed 9-0. Two consent items, SB 722 and SB 1426, were approved without discussion. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly stressed the goals of streamlining housing production, preserving existing affordable homes, and reducing barriers to rebuilding and transit-oriented development.

Transcript Highlights:

• The current claim caps would be $2 million.
• It's a cap that automatically escalates. And it's a cap that gets stacked on top of tort caps.
• Act cap and a $750,000 per-occurrence cap, while also prohibiting punitive damages and judgment interest
• But under the current law, the attorney fee, however that looks, is included within the cap.
• Senator, Madam Chair, remember it is no longer a $2 million cap because every year the cap increases

Bills: SB246, SB146, SB300, SB301, SB309, SM17

Keywords: massage therapy, licensure, health and safety standards, continuing education, establishment licensing, civil rights, sovereign immunity, damages, public body, lawsuit limitations, legal notice, child welfare, computing infrastructure, data management, Department of Health, appropriation, foster care, Indian children, cultural competency, training services

Transcript Highlights:

• First, it caps the municipal franchise fee. It sets it currently at 2%.
• But we do need to have some kind of cap on this.
• And by capping the franchise fees and opening up options for waste management providers, this bill will
• So maybe I need to increase this up to a little bit higher fee, but we do need to have some kind of cap
• And by capping the franchise fees and opening up options for waste management providers, this bill will

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 1904, which would classify intentionally released helium balloons as litter and create criminal penalties for balloon releases. The author and supportive witnesses argued that balloon releases harm wildlife, livestock, waterways, and infrastructure, and that the bill would close a loophole in current litter law. Several members questioned whether criminal penalties were appropriate, and the author said he was willing to work toward civil penalties and fines instead. No vote was taken, and HB 1904 was left pending. The committee then took up several pending bills and reported them favorably to the full House, including HB 3249, HB 3866, HB 4112, HB 1768, HB 1499, HB 573, and HB 464. These measures dealt with topics such as TCEQ contested-case procedures, outdoor storage containers, high-level radioactive waste, concrete plant permitting and grants, unannounced concrete batch plant inspections, and a scrap tire grant program. Most were adopted with substitutes and passed on recorded votes, generally with unanimous or near-unanimous support. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 3997, which would create expedited permitting timelines for LNG facilities and related wastewater permits. Industry witnesses said the bill would provide certainty for multibillion-dollar projects without eliminating public participation, while environmental groups opposed parts of the bill that they said could limit contested-case participation and be unrealistic for SOAH timelines. TCEQ staff described the current wastewater permitting process and said some of the bill’s timing provisions could be workable, especially with an expedited fee. The bill was left pending after the author said he would continue working on committee substitute language. The committee also heard HB 1237 on extending the renewal window for expired TCEQ occupational water licenses, and HB 4519, a TERP consolidation bill that would combine several clean transportation grant programs into fewer programs. HB 1237 was left pending without testimony, while HB 4519 drew broad support from environmental and industry witnesses who favored simplifying the program, though some asked for stronger emphasis on particulate matter and hydrogen funding. The committee withdrew the substitute on HB 4519 and left it pending. Finally, HB 5033, which would eliminate the motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program if federal authority changes, drew opposition from environmental and inspection-industry witnesses who warned it would weaken air-quality protections and could remove an important enforcement tool. The author said the bill was intended as a trigger mechanism and would be refined, and HB 5033 was left pending. The committee also heard HB 1227 on municipal solid-waste franchise fees and private-provider access; the author said he would bring a substitute after hearing concerns from cities, and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mentioned the federal cap grants.
• 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.

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:

• to be a shift from that cap rate to an AHCCCS-like cap rate, which is higher.
• The delta between the RBHA cap and this new AHCCCS-like cap. Madam Chair, please.
• A pilot and a cap.
• And if we need to pay a higher fee, we're happy to pay a higher fee.
• Um, you pay licensing fees.

Bills: SB1052, SB1115, SB1118, SB1120, SB1121, SB1124, SB1171, SB1172, SB1174, SB1175, SB1214, SB1233, SB1235, SB1316, SB1345, SB1372, SB1399, SB1458, SB1494, SB1496, SB1564, SB1602, SB1621, SB1628, SB1630, SB1631, SB1668, SB1672, SB1814, SB1821

Keywords: assisted living, health care, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, physician orders, informed consent, AHCCCS, remote work, state agency, employment, public health, housing, zoning, middle housing, urban development, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, historic preservation, radiation protection

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 1121, which would prohibit hospitals from requiring lead aprons for cardiac catheterization staff when a radiation protection system is in place, while still allowing hospitals to require aprons outside the designated safety zone or when exposure levels warrant additional protection. An amendment added flexibility for radiation safety officers to require lead or other PPE if exposures approach occupational limits and removed expedited rulemaking language. Supporters, including the sponsor and interventional cardiologists, argued the devices reduce radiation and orthopedic injuries and improve recruitment and retention; hospital groups shifted to neutral after the amendment. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1121 on a 9-2 vote. The committee then considered Senate Bill 1120, which would require hospitals performing cardiac catheterization procedures to equip at least 50% of those rooms with radiation protection systems by 2027. Supporters said the systems protect clinicians from radiation and long-term injury, while opponents, including hospital and radiology groups, argued the bill was overly prescriptive, could create a captive market, and might not fit all rooms or procedures. After adopting a children’s hospital exemption amendment, the committee passed SB 1120 on a 6-6 vote, with the chair breaking the tie in favor of the bill. Senate Bill 1118, an appropriation measure tied to the radiation protection system proposal, was also advanced after brief discussion, passing 6-5. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1214, which would create guardrails for non-FDA-approved stem cell and regenerative therapies, including provider standards, informed consent, advertising limits, reporting requirements, and a private right of action for violations. Supporters described it as a patient-protection and access bill, while testimony emphasized concerns about unregulated “bad actors” and patients traveling out of state for treatment. The committee adopted an amendment removing a reference to the National Law and passed SB 1214 on a 9-3 vote. The transcript then began discussion of SB 1630, which would create a Medicaid-funded home and community-based service benefit for adults with serious mental illness, with AHCCCS taking a neutral position and estimating a significant fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, sir, Senator, so that they can cut down these trees without fees, without a fee, essentially.
• Secretary, read the cap.
• How does capping medical damages at 300% of the Medicare fee schedule ensure that Planned Parenthood.
• This doesn't cap the award.
• Secretary, read the cap.

Bills: SCR37, SB60, SB226, SB231, SB264, SB387, SB570, SB596, SB651, SB769, SB855, SB863, SB991, SB1079, SB1085, SB1151, SB1191, SB1214, SB1243, SB1247, SB1314, SB1364, SB1372, SB1401, SB1409, SB1504, SB1522, SB1625, SB1662, SB1663, SB1728, SB1759, SB1762, SB1804, SB1818, SB1838, SB1839, SB1851, SB1855, SB1872, SB1873, SB1874, SB1877, SB1879, SB1901, SB1919, SB1921, SB1923, SB1936, SB1937, SB1968, SB1977, SB2034, SB2053, SB2066, SB2077, SB2124, SB2143, SB2166, SB2180, SB2204, SB2231, SB2237, SB2243, SB2321, SB2569, SJR39, SJR68, SCR29, SCR42, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB37, SB75, SB217, SB240, SB331, SB393, SB505, SB530, SB546, SB552, SB584, SB586, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB762, SB769, SB825, SB844, SB870, SB884, SB926, SB964, SB1080, SB1099, SB1150, SB1177, SB1184, SB1261, SB1262, SB1314, SB1325, SB1364, SB1398, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1577, SB1596, SB1620, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1760, SB1789, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1851, SB1868, SB1870, SB1901, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2010, SB2023, SB2024, SB2037, SB2051, SB2052, SB2056, SB2066, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2226, SB2252, SB2323, SB2361, SB2368, SB2405, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SB2949, SB1, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB1596, SB33, SB505, SB37, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB2420, SB1860, SB1314, SB1398, SB855, SB2425, SB2037, SB1759, SB1924, SB1818, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, HJR4, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601

Keywords: SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes, supply chain resilience, global commerce, exports, LNG, liquefied natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum, agriculture, manufacturing, economic development, trade policy, foreign policy, diplomatic engagement

Transcript Highlights:

• payers fee schedule.
• That's a small mailer fee program. And this proposal has no impact on those existing fees.
• Again, it's the application and site readiness review fees, which are one-time fees, and then a fee associated
• fees.
• So the 1% is truly a cap, and we would be setting a fee that would only cover our operating costs.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also implemented a fee cap of no more than five times the amount of the veterans' increase in benefits
• cap, whichever is lower, that's a cap.
• So the only thing ...$12,500 fee cap, whichever is lower, that's a cap.
• It is a contingent fee, but that five times or that $12,500 limit is a cap.
• A member asked whether, for appeals, the fee cap is 20% of past-due benefits. Mr.

Bills: SB1003, SB1060, SB1134, SB1275, SB1327, SB1429, SB1618, SB1634, SB1654, SB1803, SCR1002, SCR1005, SCR1023, SCR1027

Keywords: election, canvass, certification, ballot tabulation, write-in candidates, registration, voting procedures, voter registration, temporary absence, absentee voting, residency, military voters, overseas voters, election law, Arizona Revised Statutes, political signs, campaign materials, public safety, municipal regulation, veterans

Summary: The committee first heard a lengthy presentation and discussion focused on Arizona State University’s foreign research ties, especially collaborations and funding connected to China and Chinese military-affiliated institutions. The presenter argued that ASU and the Arizona Board of Regents had not been transparent about foreign gifts, contracts, and research partnerships, citing federal reporting forms, the Wolf Amendment, export-control concerns, and alleged links to dual-use technologies such as quantum systems, AI, robotics, microelectronics, and biosecurity. A witness from American Global Strategies testified in support, saying the bill would help protect U.S. research security and national security by imposing state-level guardrails on sensitive collaborations. After questions, the committee considered a strike-everything amendment to SB 1060 that would bar public universities from entering into or continuing certain loans, gifts, contracts, research partnerships, or sponsored projects involving the PRC, the CCP, and listed Chinese military-linked universities, require ABOR review and approval, and impose reporting and budget penalties. The amendment was withdrawn, and the committee instead took up SB 1327, which directs ABOR to require university research security policies and to report annually on those policies and on foreign contributions over $250,000; SB 1327 received a 4-2 do-pass recommendation, with Del Santos, Hernandez, and Márquez voting no and Kolodin, Powell, Keshel, and Gillette voting yes. The committee then heard SB 1803, a veterans bill regulating unrecognized persons who assist with VA disability claims. The sponsor and industry witnesses said the bill would protect veterans from bad actors by requiring disclosures, capping fees, banning certain practices, and filing service agreements with the Attorney General, while opponents argued it could restrict consumer choice, resemble a price ceiling, and still allow non-attorneys to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. After extensive debate over contingent fees, legal ethics, and whether the bill was too favorable to one company, the committee continued the hearing with additional testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• There’s a specific fee on facilities in that area.
• There's a specific fee on facilities in that area.
• The fee-for-service coordination services that you talk about that would be available under the fee-for-service
• We also oppose the proposal to enact a fee cap and a tax levy on CalPACE providers.
• We also oppose the proposal to enact a fee cap and a tax levy on CalPACE providers.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health heard presentations on several May Revision proposals, beginning with an overview from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance on the state’s budget condition and the administration’s efforts to reduce out-year deficits through a mix of revenue measures, fund shifts, and program reductions. The chair expressed support for some administration proposals, such as added health IT funding, county administration support, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some immigrants, and additional Covered California subsidy backfill, but also criticized proposed Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other cuts affecting counties, workforce, and rural access. The LAO said the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing and urged more reserves and caution on new commitments. The Department of State Hospitals presented several proposals, including reduced county bed billing authority, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of unspent prior-year funds, additional lease revenue authority for the Metro Central Utility Plant replacement, funding for electronic health record implementation, and a shift of workforce development costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds. The department also described savings and realignments in its IST and CONREP programs, including making the Independent Placement Panel permanent and adjusting funding for jail-based competency treatment and conditional release services. Members questioned the BHSA workforce funding swap, and the administration said it was part of a broader General Fund offset strategy. The Emergency Medical Services Authority requested funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for continued operation of its enterprise systems, and the Department of Managed Health Care sought funds to modernize its complaint system and claims settlement data systems. The largest debate centered on the administration’s proposed use of Behavioral Health Services Act revenues to offset General Fund spending and fund state-directed behavioral health programs. The Department of Finance said the proposal would support population-based prevention, workforce programs, mobile crisis services, and other state-directed uses, while the LAO said it was still reviewing whether the uses comply with Proposition 1 and whether the non-supplement and eligible-use requirements are met. The Commission for Behavioral Health strongly opposed proposed cuts to its Innovation Partnership Fund and community advocacy grants, arguing that both programs are central to community voice, culturally responsive services, and statewide innovation. Commissioners and many public commenters said the cuts would reduce grants to community-based organizations, tribal groups, veterans, LGBTQ communities, youth, and other underserved populations, and that the advocacy program helps communities participate in local planning and access services. The Department of Finance defended the reductions as a way to prioritize direct services and said the programs fit within Proposition 1, but members criticized the proposal as a midstream shift that would weaken community engagement and redirect funds away from prevention and advocacy.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the European Union, they have imposed caps on the interchange fees that can be set by these networks
• So, the UK and Australia have capped interchange fees.
• In Australia, the federal government conducted a study once they capped interchange fees, and not only
• fees.
• fees?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the key fee is capped at $500.
• while the key fee is capped at $500 while the key fee is capped at $500 we're<00:31:14.600> not
• capped the fees at $500 in those cases.
• capped the fees at $500 in those cases.
• capped the fees at $500 in those cases.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss the guardian ad litem system, including appointment qualifications, training, payment, and whether any changes are needed. Roll was called, the February 25, 2025 minutes were approved, and the chair emphasized that the meeting was informational only and no vote would be taken. Representatives from the Court of Justice, including Chief Justice Deborah Henry Lambert and several family and district judges, testified about how the system has evolved since concerns raised in 2019 about overappointment and fees. Court witnesses said the judiciary responded to earlier concerns by requiring open appointment lists of trained and qualified attorneys, improving training, and increasing oversight of fee orders. They reported that statewide GAL fees have fallen from a little over $14 million in 2019 to about $12 million, even as caseloads have grown, and said the average payment works out to about $650 per case, with the statutory cap for trial-level GAL fees still set at $500 since 1986. They argued that the current local appointment model works well, especially in rural areas, and warned that moving to a DPA-style regional model would create serious scheduling and conflict problems because of overlapping dockets and related criminal cases. Judges from rural districts described shortages of available attorneys, high burnout, travel burdens, and the difficulty of finding enough counsel in smaller counties. They also said the Court of Justice cannot seek certain federal Title IV-E reimbursements, but urged the legislature to encourage the Finance and Administration Cabinet and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to pursue that funding through an MOU. One judge noted that some appointed attorneys are effectively underpaid relative to private rates and that better compensation would help attract and retain lawyers. The discussion also covered training standards adopted after the 2019 audit. Witnesses said Rule 37 now requires initial training and four hours of multidisciplinary continuing training every two years, with topics including child development, trauma-informed care, substance use, child welfare, forensics, ethics, and communication with clients. They said the Court of Justice has offered in-person regional trainings and remote options, and that the goal is to keep qualified attorneys on the appointment lists while improving representation for children and parents in dependency, neglect, abuse, and termination-of-parental-rights cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• doing cap-and-invest next.
• That's going to capped industries. Those folks already have to comply with the cap.
• The program will reach its emissions goals if the cap is maintained.
• How many staff work on the cap-and-invest program at CARB?
• They both identified one of those issues as the cap-and-trade system.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the Department of Finance’s May Revision overview and the LAO’s budget assessment, then questioned administration officials on several natural resources and transportation proposals. Finance described the state’s improved near-term fiscal picture, but also highlighted continued budget balancing measures, including use of the temporary surplus holding account, climate bond spending, transportation and DMV/CHP augmentations, and changes affecting CEQA filing systems, water programs, CalRecycle, and food and agriculture. The LAO argued the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing, recommended rejecting or delaying many new discretionary proposals, and urged caution about ongoing costs and future-year impacts, especially for the General Fund, Motor Vehicle Account, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance officials said the $25 million request would support early implementation of an enforceable program combining environmental flows, habitat restoration, and scientific monitoring, with the State Water Board retaining regulatory authority. The LAO said the proposal was premature because the updated Bay-Delta plan had not yet been adopted and asked for more clarity on the state’s existing commitments and future funding expectations. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce long-running conflict over water policy, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat restoration. State agencies said the project had a completed appraisal, was moving through a rolling grant process, and would leverage philanthropic and local funding, while members questioned why it was being elevated ahead of other park and conservation requests and whether it was the best use of limited bond dollars. The hearing then turned to transportation items, including $40 million for Clean California litter abatement, $6.2 million for Caltrans homeless coordinators, $73.4 million in DMV/Motor Vehicle Account requests, and funding for the 2028 Games route network. The LAO generally recommended rejecting or delaying the Clean California and homeless coordinator proposals pending more information, while members debated the need to preserve essential CHP and DMV operations despite the Motor Vehicle Account’s structural imbalance.

Transcript Highlights:

• shoreline fee. shoreline fee.
• So, one of those fees is the $5 fee.
• fee of a dollar, a mil foil fee of $450, and a lake fund fee of $5.
• So approximately 25% increase. 27% increase with the... fee of a dollar, a mil foil fee of $450, fee
• fee for the dams? fee for the dams?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 1042, which would increase the BFA contingent credit limit. State Treasurer Monica Misipelli explained that under RSA 66, state debt capacity is tied to unrestricted revenue and that guaranteed debt counts in the calculation even though it is contingent rather than direct debt. She said the state currently has about 4.2% to 4.3% debt-to-revenue ratio, about $120 million in additional capacity, and that approving the bill’s proposed increase would reduce available capacity for future state borrowing, including capital budgets. She noted the BFA has a long history of using guarantees without a state payout, but said the legislature should consider whether the full additional $250 million is needed and whether unused guarantee authorizations, such as one for the Pease Development Authority, should be reviewed in the future. Committee members asked whether guarantees have the same effect as actual debt for bonding capacity, and the treasurer confirmed that they do for purposes of the formula. Members also asked about the usual level of debt relative to the statutory 10% cap, and she said the state generally stays well below that limit. BFA Executive Director James Key Wallace then testified that the request was driven by rising project costs, inflation, and the need for more runway so the agency does not have to return to the legislature in an emergency. He said the BFA is self-supported, has never had a guarantee paid out by the state, requires collateral and reserves, and believes the appropriate range is closer to $400 million to $450 million; he also said a Senate bill would raise the limit to $400 million. He added that the BFA’s pipeline includes projects from about $15 million to $100 million and that housing availability is an important factor in business location decisions. After closing the work session on House Bill 1042, the committee opened House Bill 241, a bill on health insurance coverage for pain management services for chronic pain. Representative Dave Nagel, the prime sponsor, gave extensive background on his long career in pain medicine and said the bill is intended to improve access to non-opioid therapies and evidence-based pain management. He described the broad population affected by chronic pain and opioid use disorder, and said the proposal has long had bipartisan and stakeholder support. No vote or final action was taken on House Bill 241 in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the fee appears twice as a wholesale fee in section two and again as a retail fee in section three
• versus regulatory license fee tax. versus regulatory license fee tax.
• We are capping that now as going to be 5% local regulatory fee.
• Hopefully that will reduce that fee. Hopefully that will reduce that fee.
• have caps on, um, premium cigar tax. have caps on, um, premium cigar tax.

Keywords: An issue was found with the live stream of this meeting. This version was uploaded as a complete version and should contain the entirety of the meeting. Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:15 HB 647 Discussion 00:02:00 HB 647 Vote 00:05:47 HB 501 Discussion 00:07:40 HB 501 Vote 00:09:53 HB 502 Discussion 00:11:20 HB 502 Vote 00:14:48 HJR 75 Discussion 00:16:53 HJR 75 Vote 00:17:35 HJR 76 Discussion 00:19:00 HJR 76 Vote 00:19:43 HB 869 Discussion 00:21:22 HB 869 Vote 00:30:00 HB 619 Discussion 00:31:39 HB 619 Vote 00:34:33 HB 356 Discussion 00:36:22 HB 356 Vote 00:40:19 HB 900 Discussion 00:43:17 HB 900 Vote 00:46:21 HB 816 Discussion 00:48:02 HB 816 Vote 00:53:47 HB 9 Discussion 00:55:05 HB 9 Vote 01:18:25 HB 757 Discussion 01:21:04 HB 757 Vote 01:35:55, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, my name is Cap Oor.
• <00:37:34.000> at fee they aren't collecting that fee at fee they aren't collecting that fee
• One of the things, too, when we put these fees in, when we put the gas fees, we put the delivery fee
• <00:56:16.559> in the gas fees we put the delivery fee in the gas fees we put the delivery
• fee on that so fee on or 3% credit card fee on that so it's<00:56:39.319> just<00:56:39.559><

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 5 was heard in the Transportation Committee and moved by the author, Representative Jim Joy, to be referred to the Tax Committee. Joy described the bill as a package to make Minnesota more affordable by fully eliminating the Social Security tax subtraction, ending the motor fuels tax indexing, repealing the retail delivery fee, and studying vehicle registration/license taxes compared with neighboring states. Committee fiscal staff explained the bill’s fiscal effects across the general fund, highway user tax distribution fund, transportation advancement account, and metro county sales tax allocations, including that the delivery fee repeal would reduce Transportation Advancement Account revenue and that the bill would shift some revenue sources to offset losses. Several stakeholders testified. The Minnesota Grocers Association strongly supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it is costly and complex for retailers to administer, especially small businesses, and that the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. The Minnesota Propane Association also supported repeal, saying the fee is burdensome for propane businesses, that only a small share of deliveries are actually subject to it, and that compliance costs can exceed the fee revenue collected. Fiscal staff noted that delivery fee revenue forecasts have fallen below earlier projections, and explained that the fee is imposed on sellers with several exemptions, including a $100 transaction threshold and exemptions for some sales such as bars, restaurants, nonprofits, and certain small businesses. Opposition came from local government groups. The League of Minnesota Cities said it supported the Transportation Advancement Account and its 2023 funding sources, including the delivery fee and motor vehicle parts sales tax, and warned that the bill would prematurely alter a funding structure that cities rely on for predictable transportation revenue. The Minnesota Association of Small Cities said small cities had long lacked dedicated transportation funding and wanted a stable, ongoing revenue stream, but were neutral on the exact source as long as it was reliable. Metro Cities echoed support for stable, predictable transportation funding for metro-area cities. The committee took testimony and discussion only; no final vote was recorded in the excerpt beyond the motion to refer the bill to the Tax Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you'll all recall that for independent providers, the cap is about a million dollars, and the cap
• There were some other things, California caps and attorney's fees.
• half times the monetary cap.
• The cap was 600,000.
• We have taken away the tool that exists to change behavior when we've capped those fees.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill's $5 to $750 cap on expedite fees is meaningless when tips, subscription fees, and other costs
• With this use case in mind, the fee caps in this legislation are too high.
• It creates mandatory disclosures around optional fees. It caps transactional fees.
• It caps<01:31:17.280> transactional<01:31:17.840> fees.
• It requires all caps transactional fees.

Bills: HF2400, HF1724, HF3437, HF4333, HF2874, HF4052

Keywords: real estate, appraisers, disciplinary actions, sanction matrix, Minnesota Statutes, direct primary care, healthcare agreements, medical services, patient care, health insurance, mortgage fees, residential loans, commercial loans, finance regulations, investment properties, insurance, supplemental health insurance, short-term care, home health care, nursing care

Transcript Highlights:

• cap as well as the non-homestead cap.
• When we talk about increasing user fees, user fees are capped to a certain amount because of Medicare
• 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.