Transcript Highlights:

• In 2021, when the Legislature removed the cap on this fee, there was an unexpectedly large fee increase
• In 2021, UC Law paid a $104,932 fee to verify the remediation.
• The additional fee totaled $117,545.
• The new fee passed weeks before UC Law ceased generating.
• The issue is not simply the fee, but the unanticipated increase in fees without a cap.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation heard several bills focused on transit funding, veterans’ tax relief, clean energy incentives, housing development costs, and tax conformity. SB 63 would authorize a Bay Area regional sales tax measure for transit agencies facing fiscal shortfalls; supporters said it was needed to avoid major service cuts, while the California Taxpayers Association opposed it on Proposition 13/218 concerns. SB 56 would exclude veterans’ disability compensation from income calculations for the disabled veterans’ property tax exemption, and SB 296 would expand property tax relief for 100% disabled veterans and certain surviving spouses; both drew broad veterans’ support. SB 86 would extend and expand the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority sales and use tax exemption program, including fusion energy, and SB 302 would conform state tax law to federal clean energy credit monetization provisions; both were backed by industry, labor, and clean energy advocates. SB 328 would cap Department of Toxic Substances Control fees on contaminated-soil remediation for infill and master-planned housing projects, with housing groups arguing the current fee structure can make projects infeasible. SB 711 would update California’s tax conformity date to January 1, 2025 to reduce complexity and inconsistencies with federal law, and was supported by tax professionals and business groups. Several bills were held or sent to suspense, while others advanced with amendments. After quorum was established, SB 63 passed the committee 4-2 and SB 86, SB 302, SB 328, and SB 711 were referred to suspense, with SB 86 and SB 302 later approved out of suspense with amendments. SB 56 was held in committee, SB 296 was made a two-year bill, and SB 284 and SB 723 were held. The committee also approved a number of additional suspense-file bills, including SB 293, SB 359, SB 419, SB 587, SB 603, SB 663, SB 710, and SB 785, while SB 591 was approved with amendments and SB 353 was made a two-year bill. The hearing concluded with the committee adjournment after final roll calls and bill actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees.
• the fee cap. the fee cap.
• ><00:42:26.720> fees.
• , to amateurize fees above the fee cap, to amateurize fees above the fee cap, which<00:43:06.960>
• . fees. fees.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Here's our fee for $400." Here's our fee for $400."
• Eventually they relented and didn't charge the fee, but we basically paid the fee in attorney's fees
• Eventually they relented and didn't charge the fee, but we basically paid the fee in attorney's fees
• Eventually they relented and didn't charge the fee, but we basically paid the fee in attorney's fees
• . fees. fees.

Bills: SF1750, HF704, HF3479

Keywords: common interest community, CIC, homeowners association, HOA, condominium, planned community, cooperative, unit owner, association board, declarant, declarant control, special declarant rights, assessment lien, foreclosure, late fees, fines, attorney fees, resale disclosure, annual report, maintenance plan

Transcript Highlights:

• Cheryl Thomas, Budget Officer, Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
• The increase is needed to protect against potential fee exposure.
• So this really clarifies that land donations, fee waivers, fee deferrals—those all can be things a local
• I just want to say that we do support any sort of impact fee relief generally.
• There's been legislation related to impact fees.

Summary: The committee opened with the State Controller’s Office May Revision requests, including funding for Fiscal book-of-record stabilization, a Broadcom IDMS licensing adjustment, the California State Payroll System, ACFR reporting automation, and $3 million for unclaimed property outreach. Testimony emphasized progress on Fiscal becoming the state’s accounting book of record in July, faster ACFR publication, and the move to electronic unclaimed property claims. Members asked about the size of the unclaimed property fund and how quickly money is transferred to the General Fund; the Controller’s office said about $15 billion is held, with most excess transferred regularly, and the LAO noted the fund is the General Fund’s fourth-largest revenue source. No concerns were raised by Finance or the LAO, and the item was closed after no public comment. The committee then heard the administration’s proposal to tax prewritten digital software and software-as-a-service, with Finance saying it would modernize sales tax treatment and raise an estimated $450 million General Fund and $560 million local revenue in 2026-27. The LAO supported modernizing the tax but suggested broader digital goods coverage and a business-use exemption; industry and taxpayer groups opposed the proposal, warning of higher costs for consumers and businesses. Members also heard CDTFA’s administrative request tied to the proposal, plus a separate CDTFA budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs; that reduction was presented as a savings item and drew positive reactions. Next, the committee considered federal conformity for “Trump accounts,” which would align California tax treatment with federal rules for tax-deferred children’s accounts and avoid tracking burdens for families. The LAO recommended approval, and the item drew no opposition. The committee also heard a proposal to cut the first-year $800 annual business tax to $400 for LLCs, LPs, and LLPs; Finance argued it would lower startup costs and encourage new business formation, while the LAO said the benefit was not well targeted and could subsidize entities that would form anyway. Members discussed the policy tradeoff, and public commenters split between support for small business relief and concern about revenue loss. The final major revenue item was a permanent business tax credit limitation, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability, while excluding the low-income housing tax credit and personal income tax credits. Finance said it would raise significant revenue from large profitable corporations, and the LAO said it was a reasonable option but noted it would mainly affect the R&D credit and could have future implications for programs like California Competes. Public testimony was sharply divided, with business groups opposing the cap and anti-poverty advocates supporting it as a way to recapture revenue. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment request, which would return most of the direct-file-related resources to the General Fund while retaining a smaller staff to improve CalFile, and the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which members and advocates supported despite relatively modest annual donations. The hearing continued with GoBiz proposals on civic media funding, CA RISE reappropriation, and a semiconductor facility reversion, with the LAO supporting the latter two and members raising questions about the civic media program’s scope, outreach, and inclusion of broadcast and ethnic media.

Transcript Highlights:

• And CCRCs also have entrance fees in addition to monthly fees.
• And again, we’ll talk about entrance fees a little bit here.
• So your lower fee, the entrance fee may be a little lower than a life care contract, with the potential
• And so theirs are much lower, their entrance fees.
• , that entrance fee, before we admit them.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Aging and Independence commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with members and presenters discussing how the model works, consumer protections, and areas for future review. After member introductions, Jennifer Fuller summarized survey results showing the top priorities as financial viability and affordability, consumer protections and rights, and regulation/monitoring standards. The commission said those issues would guide its work plan, while also keeping staffing, definitions, and federal support on the radar. Alyssa Sherman of LeadingAge Massachusetts and Jim Freiling of Brookhaven at Lexington gave a detailed overview of CCRCs, explaining that they combine housing with health-related services under long-term contracts and typically require entrance fees plus monthly fees. They described the three common contract types: Type A/life care, where costs stay relatively stable if residents need more care; Type B, which offers some included or discounted care with higher costs later; and Type C, fee-for-service, with lower entrance fees but higher costs if care needs increase. They also discussed nonprofit governance, resident involvement, and the role of state and Attorney General disclosure requirements. Several members raised concerns about affordability, refund timing, and the need to distinguish true CCRCs from other senior housing marketed similarly; presenters said refunds are often tied to reoccupancy and that their organizations are collecting data on refund timelines and contract terms. The discussion also covered resident rights and governance, including whether residents should have seats on nonprofit boards. Christine Griffin said her community lacks resident board representation and urged the commission to consider a state requirement, while others said resident associations and direct engagement with boards can be more effective than mandatory board seats. Members also discussed transparency around monthly fee increases, financial screening before admission, and the importance of clear marketing so consumers understand what they are buying. No votes were taken. The meeting ended with logistical updates, including a tentative public hearing date of June 3, 2025, a note that the next meeting would focus on regulation and monitoring standards, and a reminder that the commission would continue refining its work plan based on survey feedback.

Transcript Highlights:

• So these veterans with this bill would not have to pay the municipal fees for residential Municipal fees
• Removing the fees simply lowers costs for our disabled veterans.
• small sacrifice to make sure disabled veterans do not have to pay those fees.
• sure disabled veterans do not have to pay those fees.
• project, they don't have to pay fees. project, they don't have to pay fees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• They don't have to pay the extra fee, the pet fee. Is that already in statute someplace? It is.
• , They don't have to pay the extra fee, They don't have to pay the extra fee, the<00:05:05.840>
• > pet<00:05:06.080> fee.
• any attorney's fees in collections. any attorney's fees in collections.
• <03:18:31.200> Of attorneys fees. And I'm an attorney. Of attorneys fees.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that's set in law, and tuition fees are kept at the highest average tuition fees for a public institution
• Changes in tuition and fees can also have a continuing impact on the projection, so if tuition fees increase
• Changes in tuition and fees can also have a continuing impact on the projection, so if tuition fees increase
• formula where we have tuition and fees formula where we have tuition and fees we<01:09:34.239>
• everything except for tuition and fees everything except for tuition and fees um<01:09:51.080>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee received an informational presentation from the Minnesota Office of Higher Education on the State Grant program and governor-recommended changes, with some discussion of North Star Promise. Staff explained that State Grant is the state’s largest financial aid program, intended to promote college access and choice for students with the highest financial need, and that it works alongside Pell Grants. They reviewed program eligibility, award calculation, and participation rules, and noted that the program serves a large share of low- and middle-income students, including many dependent students, student parents, BIPOC students, and adult learners. They also described how awards and spending are distributed across public and private institutions and how the agency projects spending using enrollment, tuition, and FAFSA data. A major focus was the current fiscal-year deficit in State Grant. Staff said the program is experiencing a shortfall driven by higher-than-expected enrollment, more students with greater financial need, and major FAFSA formula changes that increased the number of applicants with zero or negative student aid index values. They said the office has already rationed awards where allowed and imposed a FAFSA deadline for spring awards, and does not expect to fund some awards. Officials explained that if the program projects a surplus, they typically adjust the living and miscellaneous expense allowance to spend down funds; if it projects a deficit, they can increase student and family responsibility to reduce award sizes, but the program must stay within its appropriation. Senator Duckworth asked several questions about whether unused funds could be transferred between State Grant and North Star Promise, and how the two programs are treated. Staff said State Grant funds revert to the general fund at the end of the biennium, while North Star Promise uses a special revenue account, and that transfers may be possible but would need clarification under current authority. They referenced a prior legislative transfer from North Star Promise funds to cover a shortfall in the Fostering Independence Grant and said they would follow up on the exact transfer authority. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• utilities to demonstrate that the fees utilities to demonstrate that the fees are<01:04:26.559><
• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.

Bills: HF3458, HF3777, HF3778, HF3912

Keywords: electric utilities, service areas, Tribal lands, Minnesota statute, energy regulation, utility rates, public utilities, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, ratepayer, consumer protection, affordable energy, energy affordability, ability to pay, just and reasonable rates, rate regulation, electric rates, natural gas rates, energy conservation, renewable energy

Summary: The committee approved the March 5, 2026 minutes and then took up House File 3458, as amended, which would exempt tribes from utility exclusive rights and assigned service areas. The bill’s author and the Upper Sioux community chairman said the measure was prompted by a dispute over a solar project at the tribal casino and argued the issue is really about tribal sovereignty, not solar, citing tribal civil regulatory authority and prior court cases. The amendment A1 was adopted before testimony. Testimony was split. Chairman Kevin Jensel of the Upper Sioux community strongly supported the bill, saying the tribe should not be forced to follow utility service territories and that the state should correct a long-standing omission in law. Derek Mo of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association opposed the bill, warning it would undermine the regulatory compact, reliability, long-term planning, and financing for electric service, especially in tribal areas. Justin Johns of East Central Energy also opposed the bill, but emphasized that many cooperatives have productive tribal partnerships and said his co-op has worked successfully with the Mille Lacs Band on solar, resilience, and workforce efforts; he cautioned that removing service obligations could leave difficult-to-serve areas underinvested. Members discussed whether the Public Utilities Commission process already underway should be allowed to resolve the dispute and whether the bill’s scope could extend beyond the current solar issue. The chair responded that the bill was a legislative approach to a problem that had not been resolved and said the amendment addressed concerns about removing the obligation to serve. A roll call was requested, and the committee voted to re-refer House File 3458, as amended, to the General Register.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then there's going to be an annual monitoring fee of $20,000.
• And we've got some language in be a fee of $175,000 be a fee of $175,000 for<00:25:33.360> the
• Another fee of $25,000 trust fund.
• monitoring fee of $20,000. monitoring fee of $20,000.
• <00:28:11.200> 9 18 cents new t uh new storage fee. 9 18 cents new t uh new storage fee. 9

Bills: HB179, HB354, SB57, SB137, HB431, HB179, HB354, SB57, SB137, HB431

Keywords: campus chaplain, chaplain, school chaplain, volunteer chaplain, public schools, public K-12 education, public charter schools, local control, teacher support, student support services, religious volunteer, faith-based support, church-state separation, background check, sex offender registry, school volunteer, education policy, district attorney, compensation, constitutional amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• Two, those who do this work must provide a written fee agreement.
• If they ask about the fee, it's a mistake, but the bills keep coming.
• <00:15:49.199> it's<00:15:49.360> a fee if they ask about the fee it's a fee if they
• what fees what fees are<00:42:41.559> the<00:42:41.760> veteran<00:42:42.400> gets
• Minnesota exempts 100% permanently and totally disabled veterans from those fees.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:11:47.000> that period so this net tuition fees that period so this net tuition fees that
• Hampshire unique program there's a fee Hampshire unique program there's a fee that<00:23:05.880>
• habitat fee that Fisheries habitat<03:39:08.000> fee<03:39:08.439> is<03:39:08.680>
• Agent fees are clear, right?
• Going back to these machines and the groomers, are they getting $4 of your fee, the license fee?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the University System of New Hampshire chancellor on the system’s budget, enrollment, finances, workforce role, and response to federal policy changes. The chancellor said the governor’s recommended budget would reduce university system funding by about $16.5 million over the biennium, or roughly 8.3%, and asked that state funding be held at the governor’s level. She described planned cost reductions already underway, including lower headcount, reduced benefits and retirement contributions, property sales, and lease reductions, and said the system expects to remove about $20 million from its cost structure in fiscal year 2026. A large portion of the discussion focused on enrollment and finances. The chancellor said fall 2024 enrollment was about 23,000, with New Hampshire enrollment increasing for the first time since 2013, and noted that the system remains a major workforce pipeline, with about 3,000 graduates entering the state workforce each year. She explained that net tuition has fallen over time because of declining enrollment and increased financial aid, while research grants and contracts have grown significantly. She also walked through endowment funding, explaining that payouts are based on a 12-quarter rolling average and are intentionally smoothed to reduce volatility; members asked for follow-up information on payout comparisons, administrative salaries, headcounts, and compensation per student. Members questioned the university about the relationship between state support, tuition, endowments, and research spending. The chancellor said the system has used state capital support to leverage major investments, including the UNH Life Sciences building, Plymouth’s Hyde Hall, and the Olson Advanced Manufacturing Center, and described partnerships with businesses such as Lonza and regional manufacturers. She also explained a long-running New Hampshire 529-related revenue stream that has built endowment support for scholarships, and said the system’s endowment now totals about $988 million. In response to questions about possible cuts, she said the system is considering academic program sharing, consolidation of specialties, online delivery, AI-assisted administrative efficiencies, and footprint reductions, but declined to name specific programs. The committee also discussed DEI-related issues and federal grants. The chancellor said the system is reviewing executive orders and a U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague letter, and that general counsel is working through websites, programs, and more than 1,200 federal grants to ensure compliance. She said the system spends about $3 million on what it calls DEI-related offices and services, but emphasized that these services include disability support, veteran support, Title IX, ADA, and employment-law compliance, and that the system does not have race-based programs, separate housing, or separate graduation ceremonies. She reported that the system had received stop-work orders on four federal grants totaling about $700,000 and warned that reductions in federal direct or indirect costs could affect research, jobs, and innovation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I allowed for a $5 fee for those swabs.
• So, what it did say the fee uh would be.
• Simplicity of doing it online and fees.
• to include um not a cap on the fee to include um not a cap on the fee associated<00:42:44.640>
• <00:42:59.280> for us being able to recoup that fee for us being able to recoup that fee for

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:02 Roll Call 00:00:23 HB 414 Discussion 00:01:58 HB 414 Vote 00:22:34 HB 43 Discussion 00:24:56 HB 43 Vote 00:26:37 HB 518 Discussion 00:27:37 HB 518 Vote 00:45:20 Adjournment 00:46:35, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up three bills. House Bill 414, sponsored by the chair, would require collection of DNA at booking for felony arrests. Supporters, including Sen. Julie Rocky Adams, Michelle Kyper, and Ashley Spence, argued that felony-arrest DNA collection is already used in many states and in the federal system, helps solve cold cases, and can exonerate innocent people. Kyper and Spence gave detailed personal testimony about sexual assaults and how delayed DNA collection allowed serial offenders to remain unidentified for years. Members asked about the removal of a $5 fee in the committee substitute and about what happens to DNA if a case is dismissed; the sponsor said the fee was removed to treat DNA collection like other booking procedures, and that dismissed-case language was taken out because of concerns about duplicate samples. The committee adopted the substitute and passed the bill favorably on a roll call vote. House Bill 43, sponsored by Rep. Diana Gordon, would create a grace period for deputy coroners to complete required annual training when extenuating circumstances prevent timely completion. Gordon said the bill was a repeat of last session’s HB 403 and was intended to let deputies remain employed rather than lose their license and reapply. After a brief question about how often extensions would be used, she said the grace period would be discretionary and limited to unusual circumstances. The committee then passed the bill favorably by roll call. House Bill 518, also with a committee substitute, addressed local tax collection and payment procedures. The sponsor described it as a compromise between business groups and local governments, aimed at simplifying payment of local occupational license fees and net profits taxes by requiring cities and counties to offer electronic payment options. Testimony from the Kentucky League of Cities, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the County Judge/Executive Association focused on reducing paperwork for businesses while preserving local control and avoiding forced centralization. The committee adopted the substitute and passed the bill favorably on a roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• portion about the fee. portion about the fee.
• But if they don't do charge that fee.
• regarding the fee. regarding the fee.
• the reason the reasonableness of the fee the reason the reasonableness of the fee and<00:36:21.200
• >> A fee. Yes. Correct. >> A fee. Yes. Correct.

Keywords: Education - Room 216, January 6, 2026; 12:45 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee welcomed three new members and elected Senator Brian Rhodes as committee secretary by acclamation. It then took up three education bills. Senate Bill 2001, a $2,000 across-the-board pay raise for teachers, teacher assistants, and certain higher education instructors, was explained as a partial step that could be increased later if more funds become available. The bill also included language to prevent school districts from offsetting state raises for teacher assistants by reducing local supplements. After no questions, the committee adopted a motion that the bill be reported. Senate Bill 2003, which expands the program allowing retired individuals to return to teach, drew the most discussion. The bill broadens eligibility beyond retired educators, raises the retirement-pay percentage from 50% to 65%, shortens the required break in service from 90 days to 45 days in most cases, removes the critical-shortage-area limitation, and allows retirees to teach in any district. Senator Hill offered and the committee adopted an amendment to clarify that the retiree must be receiving a PERS retirement allowance. Members debated possible effects on the retirement system, but the bill was ultimately reported. Senate Bill 2002, dealing with public school district transfers, would remove the sending district’s ability to veto a student’s transfer to another public district. Senator Hopson offered a single amendment, adopted by the committee, to allow receiving districts to charge a reasonable fee, require transfer notice by March 15 absent good cause, and preserve MHSAA’s authority over extracurricular eligibility. Members discussed transportation, equity, and athletic recruiting concerns, and the amendment was clarified to leave the fee amount to the receiving district’s board. After the amendment, the bill was reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• What this bill does is say that the only people who have to ever pay the fines and fees or judgments
• , how do those fines and fees ultimately get paid?
• can't go knock on grandma's door and say you owe fines and fees for your grandbaby.
• And I also have to pay the court costs and fees. Any further questions?
• Sometimes there are bad faith arguments, Fees right now.

Summary: The Criminal Justice Subcommittee met with a quorum present and considered two bills. HB 59, by Rep. Koster, would expand Florida’s wrongful incarceration compensation process by extending the filing deadline from 90 days to two years, removing the statute’s clean hands provision, and allowing exonerees to choose between a civil lawsuit and the state compensation process. Supporters from criminal defense, innocence, civil liberties, and justice reform groups appeared in support, and members spoke favorably about the bill’s purpose. A technical amendment was adopted to align the bill with the Senate companion and remove conflicting statutory language. The committee then voted 17-0 to report HB 59 favorably as amended. The committee next heard HB 243, by Rep. Andrade, which would prevent cash bond funds posted by third parties from being automatically used to satisfy a criminal defendant’s fines, fees, or judgments. The sponsor said the bill protects third-party depositors, while some members raised concerns about clerk revenue, bail incentives, and whether third-party organizations posting bonds should be treated differently. Rep. Gottlieb indicated he would support an amendment allowing a cash depositor to authorize those funds to be used for costs at the time of posting, and the sponsor said he would accept that concept. Public testimony was in support from Florida Smart Justice Alliance and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. After debate, the committee voted 15-3 to report HB 243 favorably. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Reyes's no-fee smart meter opt-out bills with urgency for six reasons.
• Citizens need a guaranteed no-fee opt-out. We're grateful Senator Moore and Rep.
• How will they be able to afford to pay opt-out fees?
• And Eversource's fee is even more punitive at $34 a month, or over $400 a year.
• Notification, consent, choice, the meter, no fee, no added cost to opt out.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a range of energy, utility, broadband, and municipal infrastructure bills. Representative Powell supported H 3466, which would create a task force to study public ownership of utilities and alternatives to investor-owned electric and gas systems. Representative Therber supported H 3574, which would use RGGI funds to reimburse cities and towns affected by power plant decommissioning, citing lost jobs, tax revenue, and service cuts in communities such as Somerset, Plymouth, Salem, and Everett. Several witnesses from municipal light plants and related organizations testified in support of mutual aid bills, including H 3486/S 2252 and H 3330/S 2277, saying the measures would clarify protections and liability coverage for MLP workers assisting in emergencies and non-emergency work. Jim Leiden of EMWIC opposed H 3514/S 2295, saying the proposed board and governance changes would reduce local control, add burdens, and weaken confidentiality protections. A committee member asked whether the mutual aid bills had been reviewed for municipal impacts, and the witnesses said they had done due diligence. The committee also heard extensive testimony on H 3551/S 2306, the smart meter opt-out bills. Supporters argued that smart meters emit harmful wireless radiation, that some residents have developed health problems or electromagnetic sensitivity, and that opt-outs should be available without fees or penalties; several witnesses urged notification, consent, and non-transmitting analog meter options. The committee also heard testimony from municipal officials and the Massachusetts Municipal Association in support of H 3462/S 2250, which would strengthen municipal authority to enforce timely removal of double utility poles, citing safety, accessibility, and construction-delay concerns. Derek Leffert of Gateway Fiber opposed H 3450, saying it would improperly shift broadband deployment costs to competitors. At the end of testimony, the chair closed the hearing by motion and vote, with members voting aye and no opposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, we have reduced fees, waived fees, and even gotten fee eliminations going to the legislature
• in fact we have reduced fees we fees in fact we have reduced fees we have<02:05:31.639> waved
• It's 100% funded by patient application fees and ATC licensing fees. And ATC licensing fees.
• <02:09:59.079> for fees um uh to application fees for fees um uh to application fees for certain
• those fees and in fact that was the fee those fees and in fact that was the fee that<02:11:16.880

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That is now a nominal 1-cent fee.
• That is now a nominal 1-cent fee.
• That is now a nominal 1-cent fee.
• That is now a nominal 1-cent fee.
• the entire fee amount.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is this a new fee here for charging a fee for, um, screening the database?
• , this fee, some other fees, whatever you want to do, right?
• or lower fees.
• or lower fees.
• fees increase fees or lower fees even even even yeah<04:05:59.279> represent<04:06:00.239>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee met to continue work on House Bill 2, with the chair saying the goal was to finish the bill as given by the governor, though additional amendments were expected. Members first discussed the bail section and agreed to hold it for later because a separate House bail bill was expected on Thursday and could have significant county cost impacts. They also generally accepted the proposed reorganization of positions between Fish and Game, DNCR, and the Department of Environmental Services, but noted the need to review effective dates and funding details, including a possible double appropriation of $275,000 for a scientist position already funded in HB 1. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on environmental review and native plant-related sections moving functions from DNCR to DES. Members discussed changing the rulemaking timeline from 180 days to 90 days, and clarifying that “begin” means the public hearing stage. They also reviewed how fee revenue would shift between agencies in HB 1 so the budget impact would be net zero. The committee indicated it would prepare amendments reflecting these changes and revisit them at a later vote. The longest discussion concerned the boathouse provisions. Members debated whether the new definitions and construction standards were appropriate in a budget bill, with one member arguing they should be in a separate bill, while others said the provisions were urgent because of a lawsuit and the lack of clear guardrails. Concerns included the February 20, 2025 effective date, which some thought might be retroactive, the detailed limits on what may be stored in a boathouse, and a fee increase that some felt could discourage homeowners from seeking permits. The committee also questioned whether the fee structure should be tiered for smaller projects and whether permit-by-notification projects should be exempted. No final votes were taken on these sections during the discussion; instead, members agreed to seek legal and policy answers and to return with amendments and public hearing input before voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees as necessary.
• The first has to do with fees.
• The first has to do with fees.
• If you guys are concerned about fees, just make sure the fees stay at 300.
• If you guys are concerned about fees, just make sure the fees stay at 300.

Summary: The joint sunset oversight hearing reviewed five regulatory entities: the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the Board of Psychology, the Physician Assistant Board, the Podiatric Medical Board, and the California Massage Therapy Council. Across the hearing, each entity described recent accomplishments, licensing and enforcement workload, workforce shortages, and efforts to modernize processes. Common themes included streamlining licensure, expanding access to care, addressing telehealth or emerging technology, and balancing consumer protection with workforce needs. For the Board of Behavioral Sciences, members discussed workforce shortages in mental health, supervision barriers, telehealth confidentiality, AI in therapy, interstate compacts, school-based services, and military spouse licensure. The board said it has expanded outreach, improved licensing processes, and created temporary practice authority tracking, while also expressing concern about counseling compacts and emphasizing California-specific law, ethics, and cultural competency. Public commenters supported the board’s work and the possible move to a national MFT exam, while also urging more resources. The Board of Psychology highlighted fee adjustments, streamlined licensure pathways, enforcement process improvements, new CPD requirements, and proposed changes including a psychotherapist-client privilege exception for investigations. Committee members and public witnesses focused heavily on that privilege proposal, with some members opposing it as too broad and privacy-invasive, while the board argued it is needed to obtain records in bias and sexual misconduct cases. The board also discussed workforce shortages, processing improvements, and the use of inactive status for psychological associates. The Physician Assistant Board reported growth in the PA workforce and education programs, SB 697 implementation, and financial pressure from rising enforcement costs. The main policy debate centered on physician-to-PA ratios and practice agreements, with board representatives and many public commenters arguing that current restrictions limit access to care, especially in rural areas, while the California Medical Association defended the need for explicit ratios and agreements. The board also discussed AI, fee increases, and tracking temporary practice authority. The Podiatric Medical Board described licensing and renewal reforms, residency expansion, enforcement support, and budget constraints, while public testimony raised concerns about a proposed fee increase and about reimbursement parity and practice recognition for podiatrists. Finally, the California Massage Therapy Council defended the certification model over licensure, citing lower costs, local government collaboration, anti-trafficking work, and its role in vetting applications and disciplining bad actors; no formal votes or final actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.