Transcript Highlights:

• It also increases the fees, establishes a fee for a PBN process.
• It also increases the fees, establishes a fee for a PBN process.
• It also increases the fees, establishes a fee for a PBN process.
• current fees.
• <03:23:58.640> Yes, fees. Thank you. Yes, fees. Thank you.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 27FN, which would change how improvements to dwellings over water are handled and align those projects more closely with the state building code. The bill was presented by Trisha Milo on behalf of Senator Lang, and attorney John Cronin explained that it arose from a specific New Hampshire Supreme Court case involving the Newcombs’ lakeside property, but that it could affect a small number of older waterfront homes statewide. He said the intent was to give the Department of Environmental Services (DES) limited waiver authority for improvements that do not harm water quality, plant life, or fish, while still requiring DES review and local permits. Committee members asked several questions about the scope of the bill, including whether it was tied to one case, how many properties might be affected, what counts as “living space,” and whether the language could allow larger decks or other expansions. Cronin said the bill was meant to be narrow, focused on access and egress and not on creating new living space, and that DES would still be able to deny unreasonable requests. He also described the Newcombs’ project as a rehabilitation of an older structure that had been approved locally and later challenged by DES, leading to the current dispute. Darlene Forst, the Wetlands Bureau administrator at DES, testified in opposition. She said the department was surprised the bill was being heard because it believed the Senate had sent it to interim study, and she argued the language was unclear and could have broader statewide effects than intended. Forst also said the underlying case was still active and should not be effectively re-litigated through this bill. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, why don't we go to the first fee bill, 4138. Very good.
• raising utility fees because...
• But that also raises utility fees, so we're raising utility fees and preventing this budget does not
• raise utility fees.
• The bills require the director of ADEQ to maintain vehicle emission fees in Area A so that fees collected

Bills: HB4138, HB4139, HB4140, HB4141, HB4142, HB4143, HB4144, HB4145, HB4146, HB4147, HB4148, HB4149, HB4150, HB4151, HB4152, HB4153, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846

Keywords: appropriations, education funding, health care, general fund, state budget, local funding, gaming, pari-mutuel, horse racing, regulatory assessment, first-time starters, budget implementation, federal funds, government services, budget stabilization, financial reporting, capital outlay, infrastructure, veterans services, highway construction

Summary: The committee met in a special joint appropriations session to review the FY 2027 budget package, including House Bill 4138 and Senate Bill 1831, the general appropriations or “feed” bills. Staff described the budget as including a one-time transfer of state funds, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general-fund budgets, continued funding for the state health insurance plan and school facilities, and various one-time restorations or reversions of prior appropriations. Members spent much of the meeting clarifying how the 5% reductions would work, noting that formula and mandatory funding such as K-12 basic aid are excluded, while the governor’s executive branch would decide how to implement the cuts within agencies. The chair repeatedly emphasized that the committee was not specifying line-item cuts and that agencies would have discretion over implementation. A large portion of the discussion focused on the practical effects of the budget on universities, public safety, health care, rural programs, and fund sweeps. Arizona Board of Regents and university representatives said the proposed reductions would amount to more than $85 million statewide and could affect programs such as the Arizona Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and tuition freezes, though no specific program cuts were written into the bill. Other testimony raised concerns about fund sweeps from encumbered balances, including university research funds, housing trust funds, utility regulation funds, and ADOT-related accounts, with some members warning about possible impacts on rural infrastructure and federal matching dollars. The committee also discussed the state employee health plan, including a $228 million general-fund infusion and proposed employee premium increases over three years, as well as questions about corrections, forestry and fire management, and rural critical access hospitals. Public testimony was largely opposed to the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, health care, and local government argued that the package would reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care access, and rural communities while preserving tax benefits for data centers and wealthy taxpayers. A mayor from Globe described severe flood damage and asked for state help for a flood relief fund, while a motorcycle safety advocate questioned a proposed transfer from the motorcycle safety fund. Committee members debated whether the budget’s effects should be described as speculative or as likely consequences of the broad cuts, and several exchanges became contentious over comparisons to the Great Recession and references to federal tax policy. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote taken in the portion provided, though leadership had earlier said the committee planned a mass roll-call vote on all the bills at the end.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is part of our ongoing work addressing fines and fees.
• protection of victims are made whole, just Simply provides consistency across county lines for fines and fees
• Representative, when somebody gets fines and Fees they may be paying that in two or three different counties

Bills: SB372, SB1224, SB1232, SB1264, SB1330, SB1381, SB1441, SB1450, SB1589, SB1618, SB1936, SB1980, SB2011, SB2030

Keywords: SB372, firearms, gun rights, lawful carry, concealed carry, open carry, handgun license, Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, weapons policy, gun law, school safety, private school, public school, college campus, university campus, technology center, courthouse, government buildings, municipal buildings, county courthouse

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill just increases the permit fees for oversized overweight loads.
• asked him how he proposes that we fund that, his proposal was this right here to increase the permit fees
• For oversized overweight loads, and Oklahoma had some of the lowest permit fees in this region.
• Representative, have you had Anyone reach out to you with any concerns from the industry on this increase of fee

Bills: HB2929, HB2956, HB2955, HB3128, HB3880, HB4294, HB2970, HB3338, HB3443, HB3783, HB3800, HB3818

Keywords: homeowner insurance, insurance premium, claim history, insurance regulation, at-fault claims, flood insurance, state law, consumer protection, appraisal management, Real Estate Appraiser Board, appraiser registration, background checks, ownership requirements, captive insurance, protected cell, sponsored captive, captive insurer, insurance commissioner, premium tax, dormant captive

Bills: HB2929, HB2956, HB2955, HB3128, HB3880, HB4294, HB2970, HB3338, HB3443, HB3783, HB3800, HB3818

Keywords: homeowner insurance, insurance premium, claim history, insurance regulation, at-fault claims, flood insurance, state law, consumer protection, appraisal management, Real Estate Appraiser Board, appraiser registration, background checks, ownership requirements, captive insurance, protected cell, sponsored captive, captive insurer, insurance commissioner, premium tax, dormant captive

Transcript Highlights:

• But same with fee simple and um leasehold.
• you would always see if it's a fee you would always see if it's a fee simple<01:11:39.760> or
• . 100% of those fees go to the towing company.
• <01:31:44.880> go<01:31:45.040> to in towing fees. 100% of those fees go to in towing
• fees. 100% of those fees go to the<01:31:45.440> towing<01:31:45.920> company.

Bills: HB1739, HB1741, HB2606, HB2362, HB2608, HB2294, HB2431, HB2375, HB2582, HB2585, HB2231, HB1601, HB2424, HB1956

Keywords: transit-oriented development, zoning, land use, urban planning, density, local governance, housing, inclusionary zoning, inclusionary mandate, affordable housing, below-market-rate housing, inclusionary housing, development exaction, impact fee, housing affordability impact fee, needs assessment study, financial feasibility, rough proportionality, essential nexus, county ordinance

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 19, 2026, and the chair opened by emphasizing strict time limits and that all bills would be deferred if the agenda was not completed before the noon session. The first major measure discussed was HB 1739 HD1, which would preempt county land-use authority in transit-oriented development areas. The Department of Planning supported the bill, saying it could promote state-funded TOD and infrastructure, while the city and county’s position was raised in questioning. Unite Here Local 5 opposed the bill, arguing it would strip counties of self-determination, disrupt state-county policy collaboration, and remove a check on unrestrained development. Committee members pressed the supporters on whether the bill was really about higher density and whether it would override local zoning and sustainability concerns. The committee then heard testimony on HB 1741 HD1, a housing bill described by supporters as reducing inclusionary housing mandates and increasing supply. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii argued affordability mandates reduce overall housing production and raise market-rate prices, while a Zoom testifier said the bill would improve housing stability, health, and community outcomes for working families, kupuna, and young residents. Members asked about the bill’s needs assessment and who would conduct it, with a witness saying the counties would likely contract it out but that the bill did not clearly specify the reviewer. HB 2668 HD1, dealing with water heating systems, drew testimony from the Hawaii State Energy Office and industry representatives. Supporters generally backed adding heat pumps to the law, but one solar-water-heater industry witness asked for amendments to remove or extend the current 15-year statutory life limit for solar water heaters and to update outdated standards and variance rules. A Kauaʻi Climate Action Coalition witness opposed the existing solar-only structure, arguing heat pump water heaters are cheaper, align with climate goals, and should be allowed without a variance. The Energy Office said the current law already allows variances in some cases, suggested adding high-efficiency heat pump water heaters to the exemption, and said the 15-year figure may be too short, with 18 years mentioned as a possible alternative. The committee also briefly moved through several other bills, including HB 2606 HD1 on off-site construction and HB 2362 HD1 on housing, with no notable testimony or action recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• tickets, and other court proceedings, so anytime somebody goes to court, gets in trouble, they pay a $4 fee
• 20 days of the request's filing and allows the court to impose civil penalties and award attorney's fees
• Courts may also impose civil penalties for improper withholding and award attorney's fees, creating accountability

Bills: SB1046, SB1317, SB1376, SB1416, SB1448, SB1471, SB1493, SB1498, SB1502, SB1504, SB1538, SB1544, SB1550, SB1579, SB1581, SB1584, SB1624, SB1673

Keywords: telecommunications, broadband, internet infrastructure, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, national security, foreign adversary, China, Chinese equipment, supply chain security, network equipment, microchips, Arizona Corporation Commission, telecommunications provider, communications infrastructure, Huawei, ZTE, state-owned enterprise, sanctions, infrastructure security

Summary: The committee first approved its February 4 minutes and announced several bills would be held, including SB 1317, SB 1416, SB 1419, SB 1490, and SB 1493. It then heard SB 1579, which would appropriate about $4.7 million from the state general fund to expand a law enforcement data-sharing pilot through the Department of Administration, with funds for DPS, county sheriffs, university police, and city/town police departments. Testimony from the sponsor, Flagstaff’s mayor, Eloy’s police chief, and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office staff emphasized faster records access, better coordination, and officer safety; an amendment added $125,900 for the Scottsdale Police Department after it had been omitted. The committee adopted the amendment and gave SB 1579 a do pass recommendation by a 6-0 vote with one not voting. The committee next considered SB 1581, which appropriates about $1.4 million from the Peace Officer Training Equipment Fund for pepperball equipment and about $1.316 million for public safety training simulators, with an amendment increasing the Nogales Police Department’s pepperball allocation and expanding simulator funding so Yavapai County could buy two simulators with a three-year warranty. Supporters from Navajo County, Phoenix, Glendale, Flagstaff, and Cochise County described pepperball as a de-escalation tool and simulators as important for crisis-response and use-of-force training. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1581 as amended on a 7-0 vote. SB 1673 was heard next and would appropriate $8.2 million from the general fund to the Law Enforcement Crime Victim Notification Fund, exempting the appropriation from lapsing. The sponsor and law enforcement witnesses said the automated notification system has improved victim communication, reduced workload, and sent millions of updates; committee members asked about funding sources and why a bill is needed for a constitutionally mandated program. The committee approved SB 1673 without amendment on a 7-0 vote. The committee also heard SB 1544, which would make adult probation records public on request, while requiring redaction or withholding of sensitive information such as victim data, minors’ information, medical or counseling records, active investigations, and confidential informants, and creating a process for written denials and court appeals. The sponsor said the bill is intended to increase transparency and data access, while witnesses raised concerns about risk-assessment language and confidential information; the sponsor said amendments would be brought later to clarify those provisions. The committee passed SB 1544 on a 4-3 vote. Finally, SB 1376, creating a civic leadership development special plate and fund for a youth mentoring nonprofit, passed unanimously, and SB 1550, a three-year Queen Creek pilot program to prevent runaway youth exploitation and improve investigations, also passed after testimony from Queen Creek officials and police; one senator voted no, citing concerns about how runaway youth are treated in other legislation. The committee then began hearing SB 1504, a pension bill modifying retirement dates and COLA timing for Tier 2 and Tier 3 public safety personnel, with supporters arguing it would improve recruitment and retention and opponents warning it would create significant unfunded liabilities, but the transcript cuts off before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:57:10.240> It an engine brake in certain areas. It an engine brake in certain areas.
• So we did not testify, but we prefer SB 2667. >> I was going to add what is engine brake, but then I
• But there's also a fee charging a registration addition to the registration.
• and the potential of these fees being assessed on a commercial vehicle.
• This is the, uh, what is typically known as a fee-bait bill. Yes. Yeah.

Bills: HB2392, HB2462, HB2423, HB1771, HB2081, HB2334, HB2336, HB1666, HB2375, HB2415, HB2451, HB2373, HB1641, HB1694, HB1695, HB1986, HB1797, HB1879, HB2034

Keywords: transportation, tax credit, employer incentives, commuting, environmental impact, flexible work arrangements, carpooling, bicycling, public transportation, consumer protection, subscription services, motor vehicles, ownership expectations, transparency, biodiesel, renewable diesel, diesel blend, B5, blending mandate, clean energy

Summary: The committees heard testimony on several transportation-related measures. SB 2356, relating to parking, drew support from the Office of Planning, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, Appleseed Center, Realtors, and the Hawaii Bicycling League. Members discussed the bill in the context of the planned stadium-area mixed-use development, with questions about whether parking would be built in structures rather than as large surface lots. Senators expressed support and noted the measure’s broader housing and parking-reduction goals, but no vote was taken during the hearing. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2699, which would create a fare-free youth transit program, a special fund, annual evaluations, and appropriations tied to the environmental, energy, and food security tax. The Attorney General’s office raised technical concerns about whether the special fund met statutory requirements. The Department of Education and Department of Health supported the bill, as did the City and County of Honolulu DOT, Appleseed Center, Hawaii Youth Transportation Council, Public Health Institute, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, Hawaii Bicycling League, Our Children’s Trust, and numerous youth testifiers. Supporters emphasized reduced family transportation costs, better school attendance, improved health and mobility, and environmental benefits. One senator raised emergency-planning concerns about how children using free transit would be handled during events like tsunamis; DOT and DOE responded that emergency procedures are being developed. The chair said the committee would work on language changes, including a delayed effective date to July 2027, and defer decision-making until the 12th. The final measure discussed was SB 2470, which would require leading pedestrian intervals, accessible pedestrian signals, and other safety improvements at state-controlled intersections, and create a process for community requests for accessible pedestrian signals. Appleseed Center, the Hawaii Association of the Blind, and the Disability Rights Center supported the bill, citing pedestrian safety, reduced collisions, and the need for audible cues for blind and low-vision pedestrians. Testifiers urged a phased-in approach that prioritizes high-traffic intersections. The hearing ended with the bill still under consideration and no final vote announced.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill would also provide for funding of the council from insurance license fees.
• and to amend Section 27-23-9, Code of Alabama 1975, to revise the distribution of insurance license fees
• Operators must clearly disclose the U.S. dollar amount, all fees, the total transaction amount in both
• someone who is considered an existing customer, the refund of one-half the transaction value and all fees
• someone who is considered an existing customer, the refund of one-half the transaction value and all fees

Bills: SB8, SB22, SB137, HB295, HB2, HB343, HB220, HB303, HB81, SB8, SB22, SB137, HB295, HB2, HB343, HB220, HB303, HB81

Keywords: emergency management, public funds, educational materials, state legislation, disaster response, uniformity, state laws, legislative commission, appointments, government structure, resilience, natural disasters, risk management, Alabama Resilience Council, Chief Resilience Officer, state planning, environmental protection, community preparedness, Alabama Office of Civic Engagement, Alabama Office of Minority Affairs

Bills: SB 2, SB 5, SB 10, HB17, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB17, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, SB2, SB5, SB10

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, property tax, school funding, enrollment changes, inflation adjustment, tax rate notice, school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings

Transcript Highlights:

• SB14 by Perry relating to the provision by a political subdivision of credits against impact fees to
• , And the developer creates a reduction that they work together to come up with a reduced fee.
• Within the discretion of the cities, of the government entities charging the impact fee.
• water and wastewater impact fee credit. I don't read that those fit directly as reductions.
• Chairman, we were talking earlier about the TEA automatic scoring engine, I was able to...

Bills: HB8, HB12, SB 3, HJR1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14, HB 8, HB 12, SB 3, HJR 1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Bills: SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, SB 1, HB4, HB4, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, SB1, SB2, SB5

Keywords: school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments, through-year assessment, diagnostic reports, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plans

Bills: SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, SB 1, HB4, HB4, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, SB1, SB2, SB5

Keywords: school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments, through-year assessment, diagnostic reports, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plans

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 14 relates to credit impact fees that cities will now have options to provide a percentage

Bills: SB2, SB3, SB5, SB9, SB10, SB14, SB16, SB34, SB18, SB 2, SB 3, SB 5, SB 9, SB 10, SB 14, SB 16, SB 18, SB 34

Keywords: flooding, public safety, outdoor warning sirens, disaster preparedness, emergency response, flood warning, outdoor sirens, local government, safety measures, flood management, emergency preparedness, municipal safety, disaster response, disaster relief, emergency funding, Meteorological forecasting, local government assistance, training facilities, hemp regulation, consumable products

Transcript Highlights:

• plaintiffs filing these lawsuits as they are not required. required to cover the legal costs of attorney's fees
• would hold claimants liable for the defendant's indictment. its court costs and reasonable attorneys fees
• Burdens that did cost me over a half a million dollars in legal fees alone. inside of this it was a three-year

Bills: HB166, HB2000, HB3248, HB3513, SB155, SB1659, SB1730, SB1778, SB1790, SB1848, SB2017, SB2105, SB2794, SB2917, HB2756, HB353, HB166

Keywords: child endangerment, controlled substances, penalty group, elderly protection, disabled individual rights, child grooming, sex offender registration, criminal justice, reportable conviction, law enforcement, defense, peace officers, local government, security, juvenile board, Moore County, appointments, juvenile justice, county legislation, dangerous dogs

Transcript Highlights:

• and the Interchange Fee.
• Right now, tax is being assessed through fees with a swipe fee process.
• There is a fee that's called a network assessment fee.
• your merchant fee costs.
• pay interchange fees.

Bills: SB231, SB584, SB600, SB668, SB841, SB986, SB1003, SB1244, SB1625, SB1960, SB1963, SB1964, SB2026, SB2056, SB2368

Keywords: temporary emergency electric energy facility, temporary generation, emergency power, backup generation, mobile generator, portable generator, grid resilience, power outage restoration, transmission and distribution utility, TDU, Public Utility Commission of Texas, PUCT, Utilities Code Section 39.918, competitive bidding, lease authorization, emergency procurement, bulk power system, locational marginal pricing, reliability model, black start

Transcript Highlights:

• is not disclosing that fee.
• Detailed fee data is necessary so you can manage your merchant fee costs.
• Thank you. point, because it kind of concerns you're talking about your fees going up, swap fees going
• interchange fees; merchants do.
• And what all of these fees do, whether it's chargebacks or the swipe fees in general, has to be built

Bills: SB231, SB584, SB600, SB668, SB841, SB986, SB1003, SB1244, SB1625, SB1960, SB1963, SB1964, SB2026, SB2056, SB2368

Keywords: temporary emergency electric energy facility, temporary generation, emergency power, backup generation, mobile generator, portable generator, grid resilience, power outage restoration, transmission and distribution utility, TDU, Public Utility Commission of Texas, PUCT, Utilities Code Section 39.918, competitive bidding, lease authorization, emergency procurement, bulk power system, locational marginal pricing, reliability model, black start

Transcript Highlights:

• It allows the PUC to assess a fee, I'm sorry, a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the applications.
• The unrelated third party would be required to pay for the fees associated with the appointment of the

Bills: SB231, SB584, SB600, SB668, SB841, SB986, SB1003, SB1244, SB1625, SB1960, SB1963, SB1964, SB2026, SB2056, SB2368

Keywords: temporary emergency electric energy facility, temporary generation, emergency power, backup generation, mobile generator, portable generator, grid resilience, power outage restoration, transmission and distribution utility, TDU, Public Utility Commission of Texas, PUCT, Utilities Code Section 39.918, competitive bidding, lease authorization, emergency procurement, bulk power system, locational marginal pricing, reliability model, black start

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce met with a quorum and first took up several pending and uncontested bills. It favorably reported SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, and SB 1968, and also moved SB 2321 to the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then heard SB 819, which would change how the Public Utility Commission reviews proposed utility-scale solar and related interconnection projects. The committee substitute would shift the default so interconnection is allowed unless the PUC affirmatively prohibits it within 180 days, limit denial to cases where harm substantially outweighs benefits, remove public meeting requirements, retain setback and financial assurance provisions, add optional application materials such as national security and environmental information, and restore local control over county tax abatements. The substitute was adopted and SB 819 was favorably reported to the full Senate on a 7-3 vote. The committee then took up SB 231, focused on CenterPoint’s use of large emergency generators after Hurricane Beryl. Senator King explained that the original bill was intended to prevent customers from being charged for non-mobile generators that were leased at great cost and did not match the bill’s emergency-response purpose. CenterPoint’s Jason Ryan apologized for the company’s communication failures and said the company would make customers whole through a combination of rate reductions, foregone storm-cost recovery, and a donation of the 15 large generators to ERCOT for about two years to address a San Antonio-area reliability issue, with the company absorbing the associated costs. PUC Executive Director Connie Corona said the commission could enforce the agreement through its contested-case process. Public testimony included consumer and reliability advocates, one of whom argued utility-scale microgrids should be preserved as a policy option. SB 231 was left pending. The committee also heard SB 986, which would create an alternative process for routine Public Information Act requests so local governments can make initial redactions without sending every routine exception to the Attorney General, while preserving an appeal path and training requirements. Supporters said it would reduce backlog and speed access to records; opponents argued it would shift the burden to requesters and encourage delay. The AG’s office testified that the process could improve efficiency and still fit within current timelines if used promptly. SB 986 was left pending. Finally, SB 584 was briefly laid out to require consumer reporting agencies that buy data from others to ensure the information complies with Texas law on excluded items such as bankruptcies, judgments, and tax liens, and SB 600 was heard on heir property. SB 600’s substitute would strengthen notice, require an attorney ad litem, add an heir’s bill of rights, allow settlement conferences, and require fair-market-value sales protections; supporters said it would curb predatory partition practices, while opponents warned some provisions could burden or diminish minority heirs’ property rights. SB 584 and SB 600 were left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• You paid your fee to the bail bondsman? Yes. No, I mean, their task is one.
• I'd like to point out that when individuals do pay a surety agent, that fee, that is non-refundable.
• Wu, yes, you pay a fee on this hand, and that hurts your pocketbook.
• The electric monitoring, you talk about, what are some of the fees associated?
• And having someone pay for fees that maybe they were not found guilty of on the back end.

Bills: HB36, HB75, HB76, HB166, HB799, HB 1135, HJR15, HJR16, HB36, HB75, HB76, HB166, HJR15, HJR16

Keywords: family violence, global positioning monitoring system, victim resources, electronic monitoring, protective orders, magistrate, criminal procedure, probable cause, written findings, law enforcement, bail bonds, bail fund, charitable bail fund, nonprofit bail organization, public funds, local government spending, political subdivision, county, city, taxpayer lawsuit

Transcript Highlights:

• restriction on awarding at attorney fees restriction on awarding at attorney fees which<01:00:20.960
• So removing this fee violating laws.
• <01:06:34.240> shifting can kill a project, fee shifting can kill a project, fee shifting
• fees to prevailing<02:20:56.080> plaintiffs.
• fees to prevailing plaintiffs. fees to prevailing plaintiffs.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 1531, HD1, which would require the governor or county mayors to provide American Sign Language interpreters during official emergency announcements broadcast on television or the internet, ensure the interpreter is visible, and provide a primary pool feed with picture-in-picture so rebroadcasters would not need to add the feature themselves. Testimony from the Disability and Communication Access Board and the State Council on Developmental Disabilities strongly supported the bill, emphasizing effective communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing residents and noting that interpreter placement and size can make broadcasts inaccessible. The council requested an effective date of July 1, 2027 to allow implementation time. Members raised concerns about interpreter availability and emergency logistics on Hawaiʻi Island, but the chair moved to pass the bill with amendments reflecting the picture-in-picture recommendation and the later effective date. The committee adopted the motion, with several members voting aye and others voting with reservations. The committee then heard House Bill 1880, HD2, which would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2027, the use or application of pesticides containing 1,3-dichloropropene, such as Telone. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity explained that pesticides are already regulated at both the federal and state levels, with EPA risk assessments and state enforcement of label restrictions, reporting, and school-buffer requirements. The Hawaii Public Health Institute supported the bill, citing cancer and respiratory risks and arguing that safer alternatives exist. In opposition, Dole Food and the Hawaii Farm Bureau said Telone is important for controlling nematodes in pineapple production, that it is applied underground under EPA conditions, and that no comparable registered alternative exists for pineapple; they also said the bill’s 2027 start date is too short for growers to adjust. A representative from the Y Alliance for Progressive Action and Support supported the measure, citing statewide usage data and concerns about drift and chronic health impacts. Committee members questioned both sides about drift monitoring, groundwater impacts, alternative methods, and whether a transition period or research into resistant varieties could reduce reliance on the chemical.