Transcript Highlights:

• This, you can see, the present structure. This is how the building looks today.
• The building is structurally very sound.
• I heard rumors that you were going to raise the fee to $1,700 or $1,800.
• so we could charge a fee to recover some of those costs.
• So, the thing with the fee is we would, if the fee goes forward, and I don't know that's the board's

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The total amount of the dog license fee was not supposed to be changed by HB 1626.
• structure.
• <01:14:45.520> So fees back to it to what they were.
• So fees back to it to what they were.
• <01:21:03.679> and relative to dog license fees and relative to dog license fees and establishing

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The current statute also opens up practitioners to costly legal fees.
• Texas has a uniquely strong penalty structure. Mr. Miller, if I could pause you for just a minute.
• And patients can see costs before treatment and prevent surprise fees, billing, gouging, etc.
• penalty structure under these four federal transparency laws was initially too low and often ignored
• So the surgeon provides, you know, we provide the service as far as the facility fee.

Bills: SB2024, SB227, SB268, SB1467, SB1580, HB5537, SB1313, SB1677, SB918, SB331, SB2207, SB2721

Keywords: e-cigarettes, marketing prohibition, youth protection, criminal penalties, public health, school funding, education reform, state budget, property taxes, equity in education, health care, licensing, complaint procedure, disciplinary action, law enforcement, death records, vital statistics, healthcare, trauma facility, Medicaid

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here to talk about the sheriff's<00:04:06.640> fees. sheriff's fees. sheriff's fees.
• There's a fee for summoning another.
• There's fee for summoning grand case.
• Chairman, um that this is a a structural um that this is a a structural underfunding<00:19:34.720>
• Is it fee increases, inflation? volume? Is it fee increases, inflation?

Keywords: Call to Order: 00;15 Approval of Minutes: 01:22 Update on Generator replacement: 01:52 Update on Sheriff Fees: 13:28 Adjournment: 25:22, 958, all

Summary: The committee met for its fourth budget subreview session focused on personnel, public retirements, and finance. Members approved the minutes from the prior meeting and then heard from Finance Cabinet staff on two main items: a $7.5 million request related to generator systems and a sheriff’s fees budget request. The generator request was described as a preventive, life-cycle replacement and capacity-enhancement effort for 26 generators serving Frankfort-area state buildings, intended to protect continuity of government and expand beyond basic emergency power to support continuity of services. Members asked detailed questions about how many generators would be replaced, the cost per unit, the scope of the study, and whether the work could be phased. Staff said the $7.5 million would cover a full evaluation and any resulting engineering/replacement work, but the exact number of replacements was not yet known. They estimated the initial study would cost about $500,000 to $750,000, would take six to nine months once funded, and would produce building-by-building recommendations. Staff also said typical generator life cycles vary widely, often around 15 to 20 years but sometimes longer depending on run hours and usage. The committee then reviewed sheriff’s fees, with the Division of Local Government explaining that the state reimburses counties for several statutory sheriff-related costs, especially court security, which accounts for more than 90% of the claims. Staff said the current budget base is about $20 million, while actual spending has been running above $23 million, leading to a $3.5 million growth request to align the base with projected spending and reduce the need for non-general fund expenditure (NGE) adjustments. Members asked about claim volume, county participation, reimbursement controls, and whether the request reflected growth or underfunding; staff said all 120 counties submit claims, volumes have been fairly steady, and reimbursements are governed by statute and signed monthly certifications. No votes were taken on the requests, and the meeting adjourned after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's why education, structure, and support matter.
• These are structural vulnerabilities.
• These are structural vulnerabilities.
• I was drowning in attorney fees, and I had not saved properly for taxes.
• They have to pay $100 filing fee. They have to do a criminal background check.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on name, image, and likeness (NIL) financial literacy programs and how NIL is affecting student athletes in California. The chair opened by noting California’s early leadership on NIL and the need to ensure athletes have the education and support to manage contracts, taxes, budgeting, and other financial decisions. Witnesses across the panels generally agreed that NIL has created new opportunities but also significant risks, especially for young athletes who may lack experience, legal advice, or consistent institutional support. Tyree Dillingham and Brandon Copeland described widespread financial vulnerability among student athletes, including confusion about pay, taxes, credit, and contract terms, and warned about predatory deals, cash advances, and conflicts of interest. They argued for standardized, mandatory financial literacy and stronger protections, including a players association model and limits on predatory practices. Mikey Williams and attorney Anthony Coronae gave a personal account of a NIL-related advance they said functioned like a payday loan, with terms they said were not fully understood and that left Williams owing money while his name and image were used to raise additional funds. They urged legal review, clearer rules, and guardrails to prevent similar exploitation. Adam Shore, athletic director at the University of the Pacific, and San Diego State representatives Brendan Hill and Sloan Benchoff offered an institutional perspective. Shore said college sports are in a chaotic transition, with transfer rules, revenue sharing, and NIL creating pressure on schools, but he also described existing support structures and suggested California consider adapting sports-agent registration rules and pursuing a national solution. Hill and Benchoff highlighted San Diego State’s mandatory multi-year life skills program, which includes financial literacy, internships, and career preparation, and said that model should be standardized statewide. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony, questions, and policy ideas.

Transcript Highlights:

• And President Gates, it would not change the current structure that we have in place in terms of the
• adjacent to over 250 feet of water slides that are less than... ...concrete stair structure adjacent
• Structured their boundaries in ways the Attorney General said are almost certainly unconstitutional.
• And then there were some counties getting a little out of hand with permit fees and development fees,
• And then there were some counties getting a little out of hand with permit fees and development fees,

Summary: The Senate convened with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several member introductions of guests and staff. The chamber then took up returning messages from the House and acted on several bills, including transportation facility designations (SB 628), affordable housing/Live Local Act changes (HB 1389), utility services (HB 1451), education (HB 1279 substituted for SB 7038), data centers (SB 484), and land use/development regulations (SB 208/HB 399). Several other measures were temporarily postponed, including education, emergency services, and environmental rule ratification bills. On SB 628, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-4. On the affordable housing bill, senators discussed the fourth iteration of the Live Local Act, including a new provision allowing certain affordable housing on religious institution property, removal of accessory dwelling unit language, and changes to tax exemption and expiration provisions; the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 35-0. On the utility services bill, the House amendment shortened the surcharge phase-out timeline and advanced reporting dates; the Senate concurred and passed the bill 30-6. The education package was substituted with the House companion, amended to include agreed-upon provisions on student health and safety, early learning, math, virtual instruction, career and technical education, school choice, accountability, tuition protections, and financial aid, and passed 36-1. The data centers bill drew extensive debate over transparency and ratepayer protections. Senators questioned the removal of the Senate’s nondisclosure agreement prohibition, the 12-month confidentiality period, and whether costs could be shifted to residential and commercial customers. Supporters said the amendment strengthened ratepayer protections and maintained local land-use authority, while critics objected to the loss of transparency and the possibility of local NDAs. After debate, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-6. The land use and development bill generated the most contentious discussion. Amendments addressed a Fontainebleau/Miami Beach resort water park issue, a sunset provision, and a major rural boundary/property rights proposal affecting counties such as Orange and Seminole. Senators debated whether the rural boundary language protected property rights or undermined local planning and environmental safeguards, with concerns raised about takings, county liability, and the use of an Attorney General opinion. The transcript cuts off during extended debate on that amendment, so no final vote on the land use bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• structure of the spreadsheet.
• <00:18:18.200> with<00:18:18.480> PILT, protected in fee with PILT, protected in fee
• protected with in fee protected with in fee without<00:18:44.920> PILT without PILT without
• ><00:19:07.360> protected<00:19:07.840> in fee without PILT and protected in fee without
• , structures, structures, improve<01:00:07.920> enforcement<01:00:08.440> tools<01:00:08.760

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no fee for consumers on the covered products.
• Paint Care is funded through a fee on new paint sales.
• This fee ranges from $0 to $2.75 based on the size of the container.
• Costs will be internalized, with no fee to consumers.
• Consumers are still paying a fee. Retailers are still collecting that fee.

Summary: The committee held an interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), then on hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility (EPR). On the CCUS topic, industry and nonprofit presenters described point-source capture, direct air capture, mineralization, and geologic sequestration, emphasizing Washington’s basalt formations and state trust lands as strong candidates for storage. They argued that CCUS can help hard-to-abate industrial sectors, support jobs and investment, and provide a pathway for compliance, while also noting the need for clearer permitting, subsurface rights, pipeline authority, and storage infrastructure. Ecology and Commerce staff explained current state policy touchpoints, including Cap-and-Invest offsets and exemptions for permanently stored CO2, the public comment process underway to define “thousand-year” permanence, and how CCUS might fit within the Clean Energy Transformation Act without counting emitting generation as non-emitting. Some presenters supported more state action and primacy over federal permitting, while others warned about costs, energy use, uncertain capture performance, and the need to ensure real net greenhouse gas reductions and long-term liability protections. Members asked about public meetings, whether mineralized carbon would qualify as exempt under the Climate Commitment Act, the timeline for Ecology guidance, aquifer and water-quality concerns, energy intensity of capture systems, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Responses said Ecology’s guidance process is already underway, public meetings will be virtual, mineralized carbon would likely qualify if it meets the permanence standard, and EPA rules require storage in deep saline formations below drinking water aquifers. Industry speakers said capture energy use varies by source and concentration, and one presenter noted that some states use trust funds funded by injectors to address long-term liability. The second half of the session shifted to hazardous waste and EPR. Ecology staff reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste management in Washington. They highlighted that E-Cycle and PaintCare are producer-funded, that the battery stewardship program will begin in 2027, and that the mercury lamp program is in transition after its prior stewardship organization exited, prompting enforcement notices and a pending replacement plan. Ecology recommended best practices for future EPR programs, including clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong agency enforcement and plan approval authority. Local government speakers from King County and Douglas County described rising collection costs, equity and access barriers, rural travel distances, and the need for stable funding and flexible local implementation. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and supports EPR as a way to shift costs from ratepayers to producers, while Douglas County emphasized that rural residents will participate when services are accessible and that future systems should account for geography and local infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're not charging guardianship fees.
• They're not charging guardianship fees.
• charging guardianship fees. charging guardianship fees.
• those ongoing fees for that guardian.
• So uh this has structured set to it.

Bills: HB0101, HB0062, HB0109

Keywords: guardianship, monitoring, ward protection, financial independence, case management, governmental claims, liability limits, inflation adjustment, public safety, local government insurance, property tax, tax exemption, homeowner, armed forces, residency requirement, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , fees related to administering trusts, fees related to safe deposit boxes being exempt.
• to brokerage fees um fees related to brokerage fees um fees related to administering<01:03:41.839
• Like those of us who don't see fees, there's a reason why we don't see fees.
• Like those of us who don't see fees, there's a reason why we don't see fees.
• Like those of us who don't see fees, there's a reason why we don't see fees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• these ownership changes, we've heard from residents facing steep rent increases, new and confusing fees
• So, transparency means getting your hands on reports on surprise assessments, increases in condo fees
• And as I'm looking at it, I'm already being charged maintenance fees. So this is an addition.
• rent structure.
• So you're paying an excise tax fee? Oh, I am, yes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hearing on a wide range of housing bills focused on manufactured housing, condominiums, public housing, tiny homes, and protections for elderly and disabled residents. Chairs Haggerty and Cyr opened by emphasizing the importance of these housing types and the need to hear from many speakers. Testimony on manufactured housing was especially extensive and sharply divided. Supporters of bills such as H. 1475, S. 990, and H. 1513 argued that out-of-state corporate owners are buying communities, raising rents and fees, reducing services, and exploiting legal gray areas. Residents and lawmakers from affected communities like Taunton, Middleborough, Attleboro, and Oak Point described steep rent disparities, fear of displacement, and the need for stronger protections, while Representative Hawkins urged an omnibus approach and said the bill would create a local board to ensure compliance with existing law. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Association and Hometown America’s counsel, argued that current law already provides protections, that the bills would create uncertainty or unfairly restrict owners, and that H. 1475 was intended to clarify the post-Blake legal landscape. The committee also heard testimony on condominium reform through S. 980, with owners describing lack of transparency, surprise assessments, and limited accountability, and urging updates to Chapter 183A and more owner rights. Public housing bills also drew support from housing authority advocates. MassNAHRO backed S. 955, H. 1517, H. 1512, H. 1550, and H. 1551, saying housing authorities need more flexibility to preserve and expand affordable housing. Witnesses supported tax relief for replacement public housing units and streamlined procurement rules, arguing these changes would help projects move faster and make better use of capital funds. Committee members asked questions about PILOT agreements, tax treatment of new developments, and whether state and federal public housing would be treated similarly. The committee also heard from Senator Lovely and advocates for S. 1007/H. 1525, which would prevent and respond to bullying of elderly and disabled residents in housing. Supporters described the bills as a long-needed response to harassment in senior and public housing, calling for building-level plans, staff training, and AG oversight; Jerry Halberstadt said the measure should be strengthened with enforcement and tenant advocacy support. Pamela and other witnesses described severe personal impacts from bullying and management retaliation. Another major topic was S. 1474/H. 1474 on movable tiny houses as permanent dwellings and accessory dwelling units. Supporters, including Representative DeCoste, Vera Struck, Kaylee DeCrease, and Abundant Housing Massachusetts, said tiny homes are a safe, affordable, sustainable option for seniors, workers, and others facing the housing shortage, and urged the committee to legalize them and align state rules with emerging standards. They also discussed tax classification and the need for a clear building code and DMV category. Finally, H. 1476 on pet-friendly elderly housing drew support from animal welfare groups, who said the bill would restore and modernize a prior pet program, expand access across state-aided housing, limit pet deposits, and reduce pet surrender caused by housing barriers. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• same kind of criteria and structures same kind of criteria and structures that<00:13:56.120>
• the amendments to the Medicare fee the amendments to the Medicare fee schedule<00:36:36.680>
• they linked costs to the Medicare fee they linked costs to the Medicare fee schedule<00:47:57.160
• didn't have to pay the registration fee didn't have to pay the registration fee for<01:14:30.840
• , or is it just a fee for out-of-state?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Health Committee held its first hearing of 2025, with Chair Greg Takayama and Vice Chair Representative Leoy opening the meeting and outlining housekeeping rules, including a two-minute limit for testifiers and Zoom etiquette. The committee first heard HB 303 on health care preceptors. The Department of Health, Department of Taxation, University of Hawaiʻi, Hawaii State Center for Nursing, and several health care organizations supported the bill, saying the existing preceptor tax credit program has been successful and that expanding eligibility to additional professions and students would help address workforce shortages. In response to questions, the Department of Health said the annual tax credit cap is $1.5 million, about 650 to 670 credits are currently used each year, and the bill applies only to unpaid preceptors. The committee then moved on to HB 441, which would raise cigarette taxes. The Attorney General, Department of Health, University of Hawaiʻi Cancer Center, Hawaii Public Health Institute, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and others supported the measure as a way to reduce smoking, especially among youth, and to support tobacco control and cancer-related programs. Opponents, including the Taxpayers Protection Alliance and the Cigar Association of Hawaii, argued the tax is regressive and unreliable as a revenue source. The Department of Health noted the last cigarette tax increase was in 2011, and one witness urged a larger increase than proposed. No vote was taken on either bill in the portion of the hearing provided. The committee also heard HB 557 on telehealth. The Department of Health supported the bill so long as it did not displace executive budget priorities, and the Hawaii State Health Planning and Development Agency and Hawaii Primary Care Association supported it. HPCA said the bill would conform state insurance law to recent Medicare changes expanding audio-only telehealth coverage beyond mental health services, and it emphasized access for rural residents, kupuna, and people with disabilities. HMSA opposed the bill as written, saying it strayed from the intent of Act 107 and that audio-only telehealth should remain limited because of quality-of-care concerns, though it supported continued access and asked for a different amendment approach. A telehealth provider also testified that payment disparities limit provider expansion and that audio-only access remains important for patients with serious illness. The hearing ended in the excerpt before any committee action or vote on HB 557.

Transcript Highlights:

• an individual fee-for-service.
• an individual fee-for-service.
• to a direct payment structure.
• structure to a direct payment structure structure to a direct payment structure so<00:35:48.839>
• <01:09:39.159> for people on disabilities on fee for people on disabilities on fee for service

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The department is currently structured into four programs.
• The department is currently structured into four programs.
• No structural changes at all.
• I think we're about 73, 74% at user fees.
• So that's Discover Pass, camping, reservation fees, mostly user fee, with about 25% coming from general

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Reed, are you looking at fees as well in other states and how they assess fees?
• And there's a place for fees, especially if you're limited staff.
• And there's a place for fees, especially if you're limited staff.
• Sure, FOIA makes sense when you lived in a paper world, and the fee structure was based on that.
• It's not really what the fees are about.

Keywords: Freedom of Information Advisory Council, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a lot about what the committee structure a lot about what the committee structure and<00:36:26.480
• In 2024, the fee-for-service pharmacy dispensing fee, which is intended to cover the cost associated
• And unlike non-specific formulary fees.
• ,<01:32:08.719> the The way that the bill is structured, the The way that the bill is structured
• We've also structured the health plans.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• likely to visit if that such structures likely to visit if that such structures were<00:19:36.440
• Next up, we have the Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi. fees in one of the polls a visitor was fees in one of
• <00:26:52.360> and progressive tax rental car fees and progressive tax rental car fees and
• assessed parks and other taxes and fees assessed parks and other taxes and fees assessed on<00
• it wouldn't impact a resort fee it wouldn't impact a resort fee collected<00:40:09.520> at

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the House Committees on Tourism and Water and Land was held on March 20, 2025, on SB 1396 SD3 HD1, which would raise transient accommodations tax revenues beginning in 2027, impose a $20 per-night tax on stays booked through loyalty or rewards points, and dedicate funds to DLNR for natural resource protection, management, and restoration. The Office of the Governor, DLNR, DBEDT, the Hawaii State Energy Office, Tax Department, Hawaiian Home Lands, HI-EMA, the Climate Advisory Team, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, HCDA, the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force, Resource Legacy Fund, KUA, and the Hawaii Tourism Authority all testified in support or with comments, generally emphasizing the need for dedicated funding for environmental stewardship, resilience, wildfire and climate preparedness, and community-based projects. Several supporters cited polling showing broad visitor willingness to pay additional fees to protect Hawaiʻi’s resources, and DLNR and the Attorney General noted the bill aligns with broader state land-management and fire-safety priorities. Opposition came from the Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi and the Maui Chamber of Commerce, which argued the bill unnecessarily raises the TAT, places more burden on visitors and visitor-dependent businesses, and could harm Maui’s still-recovering economy. The Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaiʻi initially marked opposition but then said it had misunderstood the bill’s relationship to another measure and asked to resend testimony. Expedia Group did not oppose the TAT increase itself but raised operational concerns about the new tax on loyalty-point redemptions, calling it novel and difficult to administer. The American Hotel Lodging Association and Hawaiʻi Hotel Alliance were listed as having no comments present. Testifiers also suggested amendments, including dedicating the revenues to a special fund, ensuring community grants, and clarifying administrative provisions. One testifier urged the bill be used to fund hurricane shelters and stronger building standards, while another emphasized that the measure should support people and disaster resilience as well as environmental protection. During questions, members asked for the polling methodology and for a breakdown of current TAT allocations; staff indicated they could share the survey memo and began identifying existing statutory remittances. No vote or final committee action was taken during the excerpted portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are some fees in the bill raising our AIS fees, with the small portion of general fund going back
• There are some fees in the bill raising our AIS fees, with the small portion of general fund going back
• I think that's the only new fee.
• Uh there are fees that are part fee.
• Um the water use fees pay.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• bill um on that on those attorneys fees bill um on that on those attorneys fees is<00:01:58.479>
• plus additional costs incurred in pursuing these fees.
• My understanding is the court is still considering, and there are motions about fees.
• rights uh Statute in order to claim fees rights uh Statute in order to claim fees from<00:06:55.400
• due soon the judgment on attorney's fees due soon the judgment on attorney's fees has<00:10:49.600

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, we recognize that tuition and fees are not the only costs incurred by college students.
• structures, regional structures.
• This work has helped us better understand how to structure transfer pathways.
• So we still have this structural issue of the Chapter 70 formula.
• But districts across Massachusetts are in a structural financial squeeze.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing was a Joint Committee on Ways and Means budget session held in Lawrence focused on the governor’s proposed FY27 education and local aid budget, with remarks from legislative co-chairs, local officials, and education agency leaders. Acting Mayor Giovanni Rodriguez and Superintendent Ralph Carrero emphasized Lawrence’s high-need student population, the importance of Chapter 70 and Student Opportunity Act funding, and the impact of state aid on schools serving many English learners and low-income families. Carrero highlighted Lawrence High School programs such as early college, dual degrees, career pathways, and early childhood classrooms embedded in the high school, while lawmakers introduced themselves and noted the importance of the hearing to their districts. Acting Secretary of Education Amy Kershaw, Commissioner of Higher Education Noi Ortega, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Pedro Martinez, and Commissioner of Early Education and Care Amy Kershaw outlined the administration’s FY27 priorities. They described investments in literacy initiatives, universal school meals, student mental health, early college and career pathways, higher education affordability, community college and university student-success supports, preschool expansion, child care subsidies, and workforce supports for early educators. The commissioners also discussed federal funding threats, equity gaps, and the administration’s efforts to improve outcomes for Black and brown students, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and low-income students. Members questioned the panel about the local contribution formula study, the final year of Student Opportunity Act implementation, and the need to revisit Chapter 70 funding to better address rising costs such as special education, transportation, and health care. Officials said the local contribution study report is expected by the end of June, with a draft to be shared after data analysis and public comment. Commissioner Martinez said the Student Opportunity Act narrowed funding gaps but more work is needed, and he pointed to a proposed Accelerating Achievement Initiative to support the highest-need schools. Senator Oliveira also raised concerns about Chapter 70 disparities and asked about partnerships with libraries to support literacy, prompting discussion of broader early literacy collaboration.