Transcript Highlights:

• Just simple as that. And so... ...must be true to each other, just simple as that.
• should be assessed on, how to calculate the fee amount, the process for collecting the fee, and where
• The report outlines a range of options associated with the fee.
• And then we also plan that if there was a fee, any fee collected would be distributed as grants.
• It says that the fee may not have a direct nexus between the fee and the service received in each system

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So yeah, we would like to have a $1,000 daily limit, and then also a fee limit of $5 or $5.
• So they actually charged about a 30% kind of transaction fee in effect.
• There's also a $3 service charge, but the bulk of the fees come in that differential between what the
• But the bulk of the fees come in that differential between what the market prices of the Bitcoin and
• So the CHISA company will give this person $100,000, minus fees and origination costs.

Summary: The committee first heard a work session on cryptocurrency kiosks from the Department of Financial Institutions and Spokane City Councilmember Paul Dillon. DFI described crypto kiosks as licensed money transmission terminals that allow cash purchases of virtual currency, and said the main concern is fraud: scammers often pressure victims, especially older adults, to deposit cash into kiosks and send it to wallets controlled by organized crime. DFI cited a sharp increase in kiosk volume, nationwide fraud complaints and losses, and said Washington currently has licensing and disclosure rules but lacks transaction and fee limits. The department said it is seeking stronger disclosures, a $1,000 daily transaction limit, and a fee cap. Spokane described its unanimous ordinance banning new kiosks and removing existing ones after local scam reports, and members asked about how the machines work, whether the fraud is in the hardware or the transaction, and whether stronger warnings or screening could help. The committee then reviewed home equity sharing agreements, or CHISAs, based on a report by Mariana Amaram and testimony from DFI and industry representatives. The report found that CHISAs provide homeowners a lump sum in exchange for a share of future home value or appreciation, with no monthly payments, but that consumers often struggle to understand the products and settlement calculations. The report said the market has grown quickly in Washington, that costs can be hard to predict, and that early uncapped contracts could produce very high settlement amounts, especially during periods of rising home prices. DFI said it views these products as mortgage loans and is moving forward with rulemaking, including counseling and clearer disclosures, while industry witnesses said the products are equity-based rather than debt-based and asked for tailored regulation. Members discussed the need for better consumer education, clearer payoff schedules, and whether the products should be treated as mortgages or a separate category. The final panel focused on Washington’s space economy, with presentations from Amazon Leo, Blue Origin, Stoke Space, Space Northwest, and Green River College. Speakers highlighted major in-state investments in satellite manufacturing, launch systems, and workforce training, including Amazon Leo’s Redmond and Kirkland facilities, Blue Origin’s Kent headquarters, and Stoke Space’s Kent manufacturing and Moses Lake test site. Space Northwest presented data showing the sector’s growing economic footprint, high-wage jobs, and regional clusters in Kent and Redmond, and urged more workforce programs, incentives, infrastructure support, and a state space commission. The companies emphasized local hiring, apprenticeship and certification programs, and the role of Washington’s aerospace supply chain in supporting the broader space industry. No votes were taken during the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• white dot to provide the the fee white dot to provide the the fee structure<00:10:30.720> for
• <00:13:55.519> Other have a small convenience fee. Other have a small convenience fee.
• fees and sales<00:47:04.800> tax.
• Um the bill is not transaction fees.
• > vehicle<00:49:01.119> fees<00:49:01.920> in ...alongside other motor vehicle fees

Bills: SF0058, SF0061, SF0095, SF0107

Keywords: Indian child welfare, tribal relations, sunset repeal, Wyoming law, child custody, sales tax, motor vehicle, family transfer, tax exemption, Wyoming legislation, driver's license, motor vehicle services, third-party providers, Wyoming, regulatory compliance, registration, license plate, electronic system, State Department of Transportation, county treasurers

Transcript Highlights:

• An impact fee, instead, if it follows the dual rational nexus test, is a fee, and that fee is going to
• So $10,000 impact fee. What's a $10,000 impact fee?
• Well, that's a lot of money. $10,000 impact fee. What's a $10,000 impact fee?
• That's the simple.
• on fees on fees very often, and they have some of the highest fees in the state.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 2 is simple.
• This bill is simple.
• Interchange fees, the so-called swipe fees targeted by this bill, help cover the real necessary cost
• The fees are too high.
• So, and then someone mentioned, when was the last time this fee, interchange fee, was increased?

Summary: The committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 2, which would create enhanced civil penalties for large social media companies when negligence proven in court causes harm to children and teens. The author and supporters argued the bill is needed to address addictive algorithms and harmful content, while opponents warned it was vague, could chill speech, and might be preempted by federal law. Members largely focused on whether the bill changed the standard of care or burden of proof; the bill passed out of committee on a roll call vote, with some members noting concerns but supporting it to continue the discussion. AB 282, dealing with housing vouchers and source-of-income discrimination, would clarify that housing providers may prioritize applicants who qualify for rental assistance without violating fair housing law. Supporters from housing authorities, local governments, and advocacy groups said it would help voucher holders find units and improve use of housing funds. There was no opposition, and the bill passed to Appropriations on a roll call vote, with two no votes. The committee also considered AB 882 on court reporter availability and electronic recording in certain cases when a court reporter is unavailable. Supporters said the bill is a temporary, narrowly tailored response to a shortage of reporters and would preserve access to accurate records, while opponents argued it was too narrow, raised access-to-justice concerns, and should be broadened. Members from both sides emphasized the importance of court reporters and electronic recording as a backup; the bill passed with an urgency clause and was sent to Appropriations. The committee then heard AB 325 on algorithmic price fixing, AB 935 on civil rights data clarity, AB 1414 on tenant choice of internet service provider, and AB 67 on Attorney General enforcement of the Reproductive Privacy Act; each drew support from sponsors and advocacy groups, opposition centered on overbreadth or policy concerns, and each advanced on committee votes, with several members requesting further amendments or clarification.

Transcript Highlights:

• use your impact fee we need this much. use your impact fee we need this much.
• That's pretty simple.
• dollars in legal fees. dollars in legal fees.
• it goes simple. It goes through. it goes simple. It goes through.
• permit fee. permit fee.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill 2778, the Community Service Revolving Fund, to extend the repealer on the authority to collect fees
• Um, this is a simple bill. It actually came at the request of the circuit judges association.
• Um, this is a simple bill. It actually came at the request of the circuit judges association.
• Um, this is a simple bill. It actually came at the request of the circuit judges association.
• Um, this is a simple bill. It actually came at the request of the circuit judges association.

Keywords: Corrections - Room 210; 29 January, 2026: 11:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2778, which extends by four years the repealer on the authority to collect monthly supervision fees from probation and parole offenders for the Community Service Revolving Fund. Members asked no questions, and the bill was moved and passed by a sufficient motion with no opposition. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2041, which would require the Department of Correction to do pre-screening for dyslexia. Senator Hickman said the bill is intended to identify a condition that is reportedly more prevalent in the prison population and to help reduce recidivism through earlier intervention. Questions focused on cost and implementation; the sponsor said the fiscal impact would be minimal because the department already has the needed IT infrastructure and the screening would be an added step rather than a separate system. The bill was then moved and passed. Next, Senate Bill 2036 was explained as a narrow change from “shall” to “may” in language affecting probation, postrelease supervision, or suspension, giving judges discretion in revocation decisions. Senate Bill 2777, requested by the circuit judges association, would clarify that probation or postrelease supervision may be revoked if a person commits a felony, including in situations where the offense occurs before the prior supervision has commenced. That bill also advanced on a do-pass motion. Senate Bill 2043, dealing with parole eligibility for nonviolent offenses, was described as allowing the parole board to reduce eligibility dates by awarded days and to better assess whether offenders are truly eligible; the committee discussed a committee substitute and a reverse repealer before moving on. Finally, Senate Bill 2037 was taken up and amended to require medical care service providers to submit claims at no more than the Mississippi Medicaid reimbursement rate. The amendment by Senator Kirby was adopted, and the bill then received a do-pass-as-amended motion and passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• , what does net of fees mean again?
• and taken the fees out.
• public markets book our overall fee public markets book our overall fee structure<00:14:16.120><
• We're talking about simple things like equity.
• We're talking about simple things like equity.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It would allow for prorated bases and adjust the amount of fees assessed under this section during the
• The House amended Senate Bill 1883 to require political subdivisions. to post the impact fee audit on
• its website, allow the impact fee audit to be paid for with funds from the impact fee, and clarify that
• a political subdivision may schedule increases over the lifespan of up to 10 years of the impact fee
• but not increase the impact fee above the maximum. amount adopted in the impact fee ordinance.

Bills: HJR34, HB6, HB18, HB39, HB107, HB114, HB138, HB247, HB300, HB647, HB748, HB762, HB793, HB1240, HB1275, HB1397, HB1584, HB1700, HB1875, HB1894, HB1965, HB2071, HB2254, HB2340, HB2350, HB2516, HB2712, HB2713, HB2715, HB2760, HB2842, HB3088, HB3104, HB3260, HB3479, HB3575, HB3687, HB3788, HB4163, HB4187, HB4205, HB4370, HB4384, HB4655, HB4753, HB4809, HB4850, HB5195, HCR90, HCR98, SJR60, SB203, SB317, SB719, SB801, SB867, SB1071, SB1232, SB1319, SB1483, SB1633, SB1798, SB1978, SB2233, SB2363, SB2603, SB2607, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2928, SB3038, SJR5, SB4, SB9, SB21, SB23, SB27, SB34, SB40, SB75, SB213, SB458, SB482, SB493, SB840, SB841, SB843, SB912, SB1241, SB1253, SB1350, SB1388, SB1423, SB1535, SB1559, SB1789, SB1951, SB2037, SB2143, SB2155, SB2544, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2308, HB2525, HJR34, HB1393, HB26, HB388, HB2712, HB1633, HB685, HB762, HB2286, HB1606, HB1458, HB1240, HB2791, HB3146, HB1397, HB2061, HB647, HB4738, HB2563, HB128, HB581, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB793, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3104, HB5180, HB1584, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB2254, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB4205, HB5652, HB3687, HB2025, HB3395, HB2495, HB138, HB18, HB1700, HB4655, HB2516, HB1894, HB1965, HB300, 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, HB2467, HB2468, HB2518, HB4310, HB4386, HB4490, HB180, HB5323, HB2, HB149, HB4945, HB2434, HB2529, HB3161, HB3745, HB4044, HB5155, HB5667, HB4996, HB2697, HB2492, HB2355, HB2282, HB2001, HB1902, HB1866, HB1445, HB1443, HB1306, HB1024, HB908, HB305, HB285, HB449, HB171, HB47, HB3464, HB2637, HB4263, HB5436, HB4429, HB3986, HB3966, HB3510, HB2560, HB2026, HB2688, HB4076, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB1978, 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, SB2683, SB1319, SB3038, SB3045, SB1538, SB719, SB3071, SB3065, SB823, SB3062, SB719, HB39, HB114, HB138, HB247, HB300, HB762, HB793, HB1275, HB1584, HB1700, HB1894, HB1965, HB2254, HB2340, HB2350, HB2760, HB2842, HB3088, HB3104, HB3260, HB3479, HB3575, HB3687, HB3788, HB4163, HB4205, HB4370, HB4655, HB4809, HB5195, SB1978, SR508, HJR34, SB963, SB1383, SB1883, SB1968, HB2525, HB112, HB117, HB557, HB783, HB869, HB876, HB1039, HB1201, HB1347, HB1359, HB1650, HB1788, HB1904, HB1955, HB2370, HB2849, HB2853, HB3066, HB3169, HB3178, HB3179, HB3196, HB3241, HB3567, HB3672, HB3715, HB3720, HB3883, HB3954, HB3976, HB4070, HB4098, HB4222, HB4327, HB4359, HB4412, HB4683, HB4755, HB4894, HB4926, HB5115, HB5165, HB5320, HB5437, HB5499, HB5596, HB5650, HB5651, HB5654, HB5656, HB5658, HB5659, HB5661, HB5662, HB5665, HB5666, HB5670, HB5671, HB5672, HB5674, HB5676, HB5677, HB5678, HB5679, HB5680, HB5681, HB5682, HB5688, HB5694, HB5695, HB5696, HB5699, HCR46, HCR59, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR111, HCR142, HB112, HB117, HB557, HB783, HB869, HB876, HB1039, HB1201, HB1347, HB1359, HB1650, HB1788, HB1904, HB1955, HB2370, HB2849, HB2853, HB3066, HB3169, HB3178, HB3179, HB3196, HB3241, HB3567, HB3672, HB3715, HB3720, HB3883, HB3954, HB3976, HB4070, HB4098, HB4222, HB4327, HB4359, HB4412, HB4683, HB4755, HB4894, HB4926, HB5115, HB5165, HB5320, HB5437, HB5499, HB5596, HB5650, HB5651, HB5654, HB5656, HB5658, HB5659, HB5661, HB5662, HB5665, HB5666, HB5670, HB5671, HB5672, HB5674, HB5676, HB5677, HB5678, HB5679, HB5680, HB5681, HB5682, HB5688, HB5694, HB5695, HB5696, HB5699, HCR46, HCR59, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR111, HCR142

Keywords: HJR 34, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, real property, border counties, U.S.-Mexico border, United Mexican States, border security, border security infrastructure, landowner, county tax base, local government, tax relief, property value increase, infrastructure improvements, voter approval, November 2025 ballot, mental health

Bills: HJR34, HB6, HB18, HB39, HB107, HB114, HB138, HB247, HB300, HB647, HB748, HB762, HB793, HB1240, HB1275, HB1397, HB1584, HB1700, HB1875, HB1894, HB1965, HB2071, HB2254, HB2340, HB2350, HB2516, HB2712, HB2713, HB2715, HB2760, HB2842, HB3088, HB3104, HB3260, HB3479, HB3575, HB3687, HB3788, HB4163, HB4187, HB4205, HB4370, HB4384, HB4655, HB4753, HB4809, HB4850, HB5195, HCR90, HCR98, SJR60, SB203, SB317, SB719, SB801, SB867, SB1071, SB1232, SB1319, SB1483, SB1633, SB1798, SB1978, SB2233, SB2363, SB2603, SB2607, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2928, SB3038, SJR5, SB4, SB9, SB21, SB23, SB27, SB34, SB40, SB75, SB213, SB458, SB482, SB493, SB840, SB841, SB843, SB912, SB1241, SB1253, SB1350, SB1388, SB1423, SB1535, SB1559, SB1789, SB1951, SB2037, SB2143, SB2155, SB2544, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2308, HB2525, HJR34, HB1393, HB26, HB388, HB2712, HB1633, HB685, HB762, HB2286, HB1606, HB1458, HB1240, HB2791, HB3146, HB1397, HB2061, HB647, HB4738, HB2563, HB128, HB581, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB793, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3104, HB5180, HB1584, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB2254, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB4205, HB5652, HB3687, HB2025, HB3395, HB2495, HB138, HB18, HB1700, HB4655, HB2516, HB1894, HB1965, HB300, 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, HB2467, HB2468, HB2518, HB4310, HB4386, HB4490, HB180, HB5323, HB2, HB149, HB4945, HB2434, HB2529, HB3161, HB3745, HB4044, HB5155, HB5667, HB4996, HB2697, HB2492, HB2355, HB2282, HB2001, HB1902, HB1866, HB1445, HB1443, HB1306, HB1024, HB908, HB305, HB285, HB449, HB171, HB47, HB3464, HB2637, HB4263, HB5436, HB4429, HB3986, HB3966, HB3510, HB2560, HB2026, HB2688, HB4076, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB1978, 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, SB2683, SB1319, SB3038, SB3045, SB1538, SB719, SB3071, SB3065, SB823, SB3062, SB719, HB39, HB114, HB138, HB247, HB300, HB762, HB793, HB1275, HB1584, HB1700, HB1894, HB1965, HB2254, HB2340, HB2350, HB2760, HB2842, HB3088, HB3104, HB3260, HB3479, HB3575, HB3687, HB3788, HB4163, HB4205, HB4370, HB4655, HB4809, HB5195, SB1978, SR508, HJR34, SB963, SB1383, SB1883, SB1968, HB2525, HB112, HB117, HB557, HB783, HB869, HB876, HB1039, HB1201, HB1347, HB1359, HB1650, HB1788, HB1904, HB1955, HB2370, HB2849, HB2853, HB3066, HB3169, HB3178, HB3179, HB3196, HB3241, HB3567, HB3672, HB3715, HB3720, HB3883, HB3954, HB3976, HB4070, HB4098, HB4222, HB4327, HB4359, HB4412, HB4683, HB4755, HB4894, HB4926, HB5115, HB5165, HB5320, HB5437, HB5499, HB5596, HB5650, HB5651, HB5654, HB5656, HB5658, HB5659, HB5661, HB5662, HB5665, HB5666, HB5670, HB5671, HB5672, HB5674, HB5676, HB5677, HB5678, HB5679, HB5680, HB5681, HB5682, HB5688, HB5694, HB5695, HB5696, HB5699, HCR46, HCR59, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR111, HCR142, HB112, HB117, HB557, HB783, HB869, HB876, HB1039, HB1201, HB1347, HB1359, HB1650, HB1788, HB1904, HB1955, HB2370, HB2849, HB2853, HB3066, HB3169, HB3178, HB3179, HB3196, HB3241, HB3567, HB3672, HB3715, HB3720, HB3883, HB3954, HB3976, HB4070, HB4098, HB4222, HB4327, HB4359, HB4412, HB4683, HB4755, HB4894, HB4926, HB5115, HB5165, HB5320, HB5437, HB5499, HB5596, HB5650, HB5651, HB5654, HB5656, HB5658, HB5659, HB5661, HB5662, HB5665, HB5666, HB5670, HB5671, HB5672, HB5674, HB5676, HB5677, HB5678, HB5679, HB5680, HB5681, HB5682, HB5688, HB5694, HB5695, HB5696, HB5699, HCR46, HCR59, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR111, HCR142

Keywords: HJR 34, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, real property, border counties, U.S.-Mexico border, United Mexican States, border security, border security infrastructure, landowner, county tax base, local government, tax relief, property value increase, infrastructure improvements, voter approval, November 2025 ballot, mental health

Transcript Highlights:

• or a connection fee.
• So you have to start the conversation about impact fees and what's a fair fee with the question of what
• impact fees for things like infill projects.
• So what are the advantages of an impact fee system?
• The larger jurisdictions tend to use the impact fee system.

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard presentations on a range of housing finance, permitting, and affordability tools. Chattanooga described its affordable housing PILOT program, which uses a per-unit property tax abatement tied to the rent loss from providing affordable units, with a 15-year term and annual compliance monitoring. Committee members asked about the program’s structure, whether it had been used elsewhere, and who was participating; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would bring 278 units with 42 affordable units and that the model was attracting private market-rate developers. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary zoning approach, emphasizing that longer tax exemption periods and station-area zoning changes had helped spur development, with most current pipeline projects concentrated near light rail stations. The committee also heard from the Municipal Research Services Center and the Department of Commerce on tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and permit timelines. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, while proportional impact fee guidance is intended to help jurisdictions charge fees more closely aligned with actual project impacts. On permit timelines, Commerce presented its first annual report under recent law changes, using 2024 as a baseline year and noting that reported timelines were generally longer than statutory goals; members asked about outliers, paper versus electronic processing, and whether back-and-forth between applicants and staff was driving delays. Commerce said it would follow up with more data, including on CHIP funding and permit reform practices. Several local governments then shared permitting process improvements. Auburn reported relatively short review cycles and described its move to fully electronic permitting, internal performance standards, and a stock plan program that speeds review for repeated home designs. Bellevue described an AI permitting pilot with a local startup to help with pre-application questions, document triage, and plan review, aiming to reduce incomplete applications and revision cycles. Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would help homeowners split lots, finance, build, and manage ADUs, with the homeowner eventually buying out the partner and retaining ownership; committee members asked about rent setting, management fees, and default risk, and staff said they would follow up. The committee also heard brief overviews of community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives as permanent affordability models, with presenters urging continued state and local funding support and policy recognition for these approaches.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:45.759> to the court shall not charge any fee to the court shall not charge any fee
• Really simple<00:23:43.120> bill.
• SP 512, uh relative to the fees SP 512, uh relative to the fees and<02:53:14.240> criminal
• I'm not paying a fee to have that done. I'm not paying a fee to have that done.
• still a a fee being paid to the court. still a a fee being paid to the court.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think the progressive fee is great.
• And I think the progressive fee is great.
• And then there's some other fees attached to it.
• One issue I have is with an attorney fees piece.
• It's a very simple amendment.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We want it to be transparent and simple, understandable as much as possible.
• We want it to be transparent and simple, understandable as much as possible.
• Here's my idea: it's really quite simple.
• I appreciate that this idea is simple I appreciate that this idea is simple and<00:32:41.960>
• <01:03:43.000> simple valuing them according to a fee simple valuing them according to a fee

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those can include provider fees to put up the state share or be funded by the state.
• Those can include provider fees to put up the state share or be funded by the state.
• A state plan amendment is primarily used for our fee-for-service program.
• As well as the cost and fees. The blue is the criminal and the gold is the civil.
• Oh, it's a simple question. Thank you. Oh, it's a simple question. From a simple mind.

Summary: The Medicaid Subcommittee of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee met to adopt the November 2018 minutes and receive a primer on the subcommittee’s role and Medicaid oversight in Arkansas. Legislative audit staff reviewed the subcommittee’s history and explained that Medicaid is audited annually through the statewide single audit because it is a high-risk federal program. Staff summarized recent audit findings, including weaknesses in eligibility and data-matching controls, improper use of Medicaid funds for partially non-Medicaid work, issues with incarcerated juveniles’ coverage, the absence of a Medicaid recovery audit contractor program exception request, reporting problems involving MFCU recoveries, and provider eligibility documentation concerns. Staff also noted a DHS departmental audit finding involving employees who improperly received benefits, which was referred for further action. The Department of Human Services gave an overview of Medicaid’s structure, eligibility, delivery systems, and budget. DHS described Arkansas Medicaid as covering about 850,000 people through fee-for-service, managed care, and premium assistance for the expansion population, and outlined major spending categories such as institutional care, long-term services, pharmacy, capitated payments, and supplemental payments. DHS also explained the difference between state plan amendments and waivers, and said it has a beneficiary-fraud unit that refers cases to local prosecutors. The Office of Medicaid Inspector General described its role in detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse, distinguishing between suspensions for credible allegations of fraud and recovery actions for mistakes or overpayments. OMIG said it works with DHS and law enforcement, issues quarterly and annual reports, and has increased recoveries in recent years. The Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit explained that it prosecutes provider fraud criminally and civilly, can also handle long-term care neglect, abuse, and exploitation cases, and works with local prosecutors as special deputies. Committee members asked about court venue, provider suspensions, beneficiary fraud, education of providers, and the status of Medicaid expansion work requirements; DHS said it is preparing to implement community engagement requirements under HR 1 and will begin with a soft launch before full enforcement. No formal votes were taken beyond adoption of the minutes, and the meeting adjourned after questions were answered.

Transcript Highlights:

• , authorizes management boards to impose tuition fees and attendance fees for certain distance education
• It's a yearly fee.
• Number one, the PBMs can only administer a flat fee.
• That means each script comes through, they can administer a fee for that.
• , which is the Medicaid dispensing fee at 1181 for each script.

Bills: HR115, HR116, HR117, HR118, HR112, HR113, HR114, HCR51, HCR52, SCR18, SCR20, SB14, SB76, SB118, SB142, SB156, SB170, SB197, SB234, SB258, SB287, SB288, SB313, SB315, SB393, SB396, SB426, SB427, HCR7, HB76, HB84, HB132, HB181, HB210, HB250, HB265, HB275, HB291, HB322, HB342, HB457, HB475, HB477, HB486, HB616, HB635, HB639, HB690, HB740, HB757, HB761, HB766, HB774, HB808, HB855, HB866, HB872, HB883, HB886, HB903, HB949, HB962, HB996, HB1003, HB1036, HB1054, HB1071, HB1076, HB1078, HB1113, HB1132, HB1146, HB1232, HB1233, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HCR6, HCR19, HCR10, HR74, HCR26, HCR35, HB98, HB108, HB131, HB151, HB161, HB288, HB294, HB305, HB310, HB320, HB336, HB380, HB392, HB403, HB420, HB459, HB476, HB540, HB615, HB631, HB637, HB648, HB665, HB682, HB789, HB813, HB815, HB835, HB870, HB905, HB915, HB933, HB938, HB987, HB1040, HB51, HB82, HB143, HB145, HB160, HB180, HB192, HB393, HB430, HB445, HB506, HB515, HB521, HB565, HB590, HB614, HB638, HB670, HB672, HB685, HB692, HB752, HB773, HB781, HB799, HB860, HB874, HB887, HB917, HB937, HB956, HB965, HB972, HB977, HB982, HB1006, HB1010, HB1044, HB1072, HB1088, HB1179, HB1200, HB81, HB400, HB154, HB410, HB463, HB827, HB868, HB952, HB953, HB140, HB750, HB911, HB52, HB961, HB399, HB401, HB901, HB9, HB58, HB193, HB284, HB570, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB733

Keywords: Kappa Alpha Psi, fraternity, Louisiana, commemoration, community engagement, recognition, state championship, basketball, sports achievement, school commendation, commendation, athletics, team sports, youth, community recognition, water utility, tax credit, excessive rates, residential service, subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 7831 reauthorizes the APD fee program.
• H.R. 7831 reauthorizes the APD fee program.
• H.R. 7831 reauthorizes the APD fee program.
• H.R. 7831 reauthorizes the APD fee program.
• <03:43:11.520> will authority to collect these fees will authority to collect these fees will

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• these veterans... ...ensures fees for helping these veterans are one-time fees and that the fees are
• So the only thing that is prohibited by this fee model would be an upfront fee.
• Only require hourly or flat fees charged on the back end? Upfront fees, right?
• than contingent fee.
• It's simple. But, 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:

• <00:05:35.400> it the voucher program it's simple it the voucher program it's simple it repeals
• traditional paradigm uh tuition and fees traditional paradigm uh tuition and fees and<00:34:29.320
• 88% is hung up an administrative fee 88% is hung up an administrative fee that's<01:50:11.679>
• It is a simple bill.
• It is a simple bill.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's very simple.
• So just very simple preliminary questioning from the front-line supervisors.
• is $60, and must move into civil court where the fee is significantly higher.
• Chairman, House Bill 451 is really simple, but it has a big impact.
• That distill less than 100 gallons can receive a permit by paying a permit fee of $100.

Bills: HR2, HR37, HR61, HCR11, HCR64, HB89, HB183, HB341, HB371, HB451, HB480, HB520, HB541, HB579, HB597, HB816, HB1004, HB1064, HB1165, SB44

Keywords: transparency, accountability, Justice Department, FBI, Jeffrey Epstein, victim protection, investigation, public trust, HR37, House Resolution 37, Honduras veterans, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, military medal, veteran recognition, Congress memorialization, U.S. veterans, foreign deployment, 1981 to 1992, military service awards, combat support

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first took up House Bill 1165, which was converted into a substitute bill to reorganize the Avoyelles Parish court system by creating two city courts, one for Marksville and one for Bunkie, and expanding their jurisdiction parishwide, including small claims and certain misdemeanor, civil, and juvenile matters. The sponsor and supporting judges said the change would better use existing courts and improve access to justice, while the district attorney opposed it, arguing it would not help the criminal docket, could create staffing and constitutional issues, and needed more study. After questions about voting districts, appellate procedure, and minority vote dilution, the committee adopted the substitute and reported the bill favorably. The committee then heard House Bill 1064 creating a domestic violence intervention court pilot program in the 19th Judicial District, with testimony from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and the YWCA describing a specialty court model focused on accountability, victim services, and wraparound support. The bill was reported favorably. House Bill 341, clarifying law enforcement officer rights during administrative investigations, was amended to specify administrative matters and reported with amendments. House Concurrent Resolution 64, as amended, expanded a study of behavioral health courts to include additional parishes and a later reporting deadline, and was reported favorably. House Bill 579, the sexual assault survivor bill of rights, was amended to strengthen notice, confidentiality, and funding provisions and then reported favorably. Later, House Bill 1004, which would have raised the jurisdictional threshold for justice of the peace courts from $5,000 to $7,500, drew significant opposition from city court judges who warned of unintended consequences, including different evidentiary standards, possible attorney-representation issues for entities, and added burdens on district courts. Supporters framed it as an inflation adjustment and access-to-justice measure, but after debate the committee voted 5-11 to defer the bill. House Bill 183, limiting courthouse cell phone bans in fee-payment areas, was amended and then failed on a 7-7 tie with the chair voting no. The committee also reported favorably House Bill 451 on ATC hearing notices, House Bill 541 on micro distillers via substitute, Senate Bill 44 on tactical medical professionals’ firearms, House Resolution 37 honoring veterans who served in Honduras, and House Bill 89 requiring a district attorney office to pay certain retirees’ health premiums from its own funds. Several other bills were voluntarily deferred, and the meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.