Transcript Highlights:

• What those fees are and...
• Setting of the fees now, so all of these boards pretty much said they own fees.
• All license applications set administrative fees. I'm on page eight, line 197.
• Okay, custodian of all board records, process all license applications, set administrative fees.
• Applications set administrative fees related to license renewals and examinations.

Bills: SB174, SB180, HB196, HB25, SB193, HB25

Keywords: business taxes, annual reports, Alabama Tax Tribunal, tax appeals, local government, media monitoring, government contracts, state agencies, local agencies, media regulations, transparency, juvenile detention, county management, legal procedures, juvenile justice, county commission, supervision, administration, emergency services, 911

Transcript Highlights:

• a one-stop grant application for communities.
• Those fees... Those fees raised roughly $18 million last year.
• And those fees...
• I think this is an opportunity to use this bill to revisit those fees.
• It's an opportunity to use this bill to revisit those fees.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 4987, the administration’s transportation bond bill centered on Chapter 90 roadway funding and related capital programs. Administration officials described the bill as a roughly $5.5 billion package that would continue $300 million per year for Chapter 90 over four years, with part of the funding distributed by the traditional formula and an additional $100 million based solely on road miles to better support rural and smaller communities. They also highlighted authorizations for municipal pavement work, Shared Streets and Spaces grants, accelerated bridge and pavement repairs, MBTA rail modernization and reliability, housing-related transportation improvements, and a new DCR-focused PRISM program for parkways and related infrastructure. Officials emphasized that the bill is financed through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues, and said it would help municipalities plan more predictably, speed project delivery, and support housing, safety, and climate goals. Committee members and witnesses discussed the bill’s broader scope beyond traditional Chapter 90, especially the $200 million for transportation projects that support housing development and the $200 million for MBTA modernization and rail reliability. Members asked about the rationale for a four-year authorization amid fiscal uncertainty, federal funding volatility, and the status of commuter rail electrification. Administration officials responded that the capital authorization is backed by dedicated transportation revenues rather than the operating budget, and said multi-year certainty helps cities and towns make better long-term repair decisions. They also said the MBTA’s rail modernization funds would support locomotive procurements, including battery-electric and Tier 4 diesel locomotives, as part of a longer-term regional rail and electrification strategy. Municipal officials and regional advocates strongly supported the bill. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, along with town and city officials from Sherborn, Conway, and Yarmouth, said the increased Chapter 90 funding and road-mile-based distribution are especially important for small and rural communities with limited local revenue capacity, and that multi-year funding would let them bundle projects, bid at better prices, and address backlogs more proactively. A Better City and MAPC also supported the bill but urged the committee to treat it like a traditional bond bill by adding policy provisions and considering new transportation revenue tools, such as TNC fee changes, road pricing, parking taxes, and other mechanisms. The committee took no vote during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• It establishes fees for applications for terrain alteration and requires the department to adopt rules
• Originally, it was for reviews; now it's for applications, and the fees have changed somewhat.
• Originally, it was for reviews; now it's for applications, and the fees have changed somewhat.
• fee.
• It's not a separate application, but we need to have a fee that we charge for the review of that add-on

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 110, as amended by the Senate, which would establish fees for alteration-of-terrain applications and direct the Department of Environmental Services to adopt rules for a permit-by-notification process for certain projects. Trisha Milo introduced the bill for Senator Lang and noted that the department had worked on the amended language. Matt Mayberry of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association said the industry strongly supported the bill, describing it as a public-private partnership that would speed review for developers without affecting local control, with builders paying the costs rather than taxpayers. Members focused heavily on how the bill’s fee structure and permit thresholds would work, especially for projects near shoreland, wetlands, and protected water bodies. Representative Opel raised concerns about whether the bill reduced review of habitat and shoreland impacts or shifted costs unfairly; Philip Trobridge of DES explained that the bill does not eliminate those reviews and that shoreland projects still receive greater scrutiny. He said the bill creates different tiers, with the permit-by-notification process applying to certain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet that are not in protected shoreland, while larger or shoreland-affected projects remain under the standard review process. He also said the proposed fees were based on sustaining the program, covering added habitat and species review responsibilities, and keeping reviews efficient. Trobridge said the new fee structure would generate about $1.2 million in additional revenue and help fund additional staff and related program costs. He stated that the department had worked with the regulated community and believed the fees were fair and reasonable, though he acknowledged the bill’s wording was confusing and that the threshold could be revisited later if the new process works well. Members also discussed how the state process interacts with local approvals, and Trobridge said both state and local approvals are required before a project can begin. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're asking me about fees for college tuition, I do not have that fee scale in front of me.
• I do not have that fee scale in front of me.
• I don't set fees for colleges and universities.
• Let me reiterate, I do not have the fee schedule. I do not have the fee schedule.
• I do not have a fee schedule in front of me.

Bills: HB1427, SB1403, SB1448, SB1489, SB1546, SB1557, SB1614, SB1377, SB1990, SB1439, SB1630, SB1632, SB1696, SB1796, SB1824, SB1362, SB1849, SB2066, SB2071, SB2104, SB933, SB1633, SB1224, SB1246, SB1280, SB1303, SB1346

Keywords: tax credit, clean-burning fuel, hydrogen fuel cells, compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, environmental impact, vehicle modification, renewable energy, job incentives, tax rebates, Oklahoma Quality Jobs Program, employment growth, wage requirements, Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, deceptive practices, exemptions, statutory exemptions, Corporation Commission

Transcript Highlights:

• That’s the virtual inspection fee.
• <00:06:47.160> I fees and our elevator inspection fees I fees and our elevator inspection
• The shipment label fee and the resale decal fee are both new.
• That fee that you'd pay, that same fee, to have the home inspected.
• That fee that you'd pay, that same fee, to have the home inspected.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Likewise on our grain fees that we had talked about, those changes and that fee structure and that pricing
• suspend this funding as many applicants suspend this funding as many applicants who<00:16:15.839
• And so it's an important distinction between an applicator and what a handler is.
• <00:42:42.640> and distinction between an applicator and distinction between an applicator
• <00:42:55.520> which certified test to be an applicator which certified test to be an applicator

Bills: HF2446

Keywords: agriculture finance, broadband development, Department of Agriculture, Board of Animal Health, Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Office of Broadband Development, food safety, food handler license, cottage food, home processed food, livestock dealer, meat packing company, milk marketer, milk marketing license, grain buyer, grain storage, beginning farmer, emerging farmer, farm down payment assistance, livestock investment grant

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:38.840> so like in in um in actual application so like in in um in actual application
• fee by tax types, all of those types of things.
• well I can give you examples of the fee well I can give you examples of fees<01:33:08.840> uh
• The Internal Revenue Service's fee structure begins at a couple hundred dollars and includes fee amounts
• unlikely that a specific or capped fee unlikely that a specific or capped fee amount<01:56:10.159

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we don't get a direct tax or fee or...? There are taxes and fees that come through these things.
• The fees, I'm not... Is that one of our legislative requests?
• This is a transfer to PR fees.
• Assessments and fees? Yes, sir. Yes.
• Why is that $250,000 in GR rather than included in this fee?

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Fees.
• He paid a flat fee.
• Instead of replacing the current attorney's fees section, awarding fees...
• fees for a frivolous motion.
• I'm just trying to say, basically, judges will let the lawyer collect the fee from the fee for whoever

Bills: HB2242, HB2446, HB2799, HB4502, HB2920, HB2790, HB5620, HB5060, HB5076, HB5080, HB5081, HB5128, HB5130, HB3847, HB5116, HB2969, HB4546, HB4202, HB5624, HB3964, HB4803, HB872, HB4775, HB4777, HB4961, HB5570, HB2988, HB4260, HB1375, HB5009, HB5411, HB5134, HB4388, HB3095, HB1387

Keywords: constables, civil rights, local government, law enforcement, policy-making authority, affidavit, medical bills, civil actions, reasonable charges, healthcare services, judicial statistics, court performance, family law, civil cases, efficiency reporting, court security, emergency management, harassment penalties, judicial safety, court committee

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 4961, which would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages after a collision. The author said the bill is intended to create incentives to maintain insurance and to address what he described as an unfair system for insured drivers. Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texas Eagle Forum testified in support, while the Texas Trial Lawyers Association opposed it, warning the bill could also affect pedestrians, passengers, children, and others who did not choose whether a vehicle was insured. The bill author clarified that passengers would be included in the bill’s coverage. No vote was taken and the bill was left pending. House Bill 5570 would extend a legislative attorney CLE exemption to attorneys appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate to boards or commissions. The author said the measure is meant to ease time burdens and encourage service, and a witness supported it as a modest incentive for public service. A committee member noted a discrepancy in the number of affected attorneys, and the author agreed to verify the correct figure. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 2969, which would restrict the State Bar from adopting rules or penalties that unreasonably burden attorneys’ religious exercise or free speech based on sincerely held beliefs. The author and several witnesses from Texas Values, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Cecilia Wood argued the bill protects lawyers of faith from an ABA model rule they described as a speech code. No one testified against the bill, and it was left pending. House Bill 4260, which would prohibit county judges and county commissioners from practicing law in courts over which they have jurisdiction, drew opposition from the County Judges and Commissioners Association, which argued existing ethics rules already address conflicts and that the bill would burden rural officials. The author said the bill was prompted by concerns about judges using their office to pressure others. The bill was left pending. House Bill 5134 would limit Rule 202 pre-suit depositions to people who have suffered or reasonably expect actual damages and would allow attorney’s fees against abusive petitioners. The author said the bill is aimed at preventing harassment and fishing expeditions, especially in family-law disputes. Questions focused on how the standard would work and how it differs from current law; the author said the main change is fee-shifting and a clearer legislative directive. The bill was left pending. House Bill 3095, a committee substitute version of a similar uninsured-motorist bill, would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages and limit economic recovery, with several exceptions. Trial lawyers argued it was unconstitutional because it capped economic damages and could unfairly affect innocent drivers, pedestrians, and older people who no longer drive. The author acknowledged constitutional concerns and said the bill would need further work; the committee withdrew the substitute and left the bill pending. Finally, House Bill 4388 would require all judges, including county judges who perform administrative duties, to remain subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct. Supporters said some elected judges avoid accountability by relinquishing judicial functions, while opponents argued the bill is too rigid and unnecessary because existing remedies already exist. House Bill 3964 would limit public nuisance claims to their historical role and bar such claims against lawful conduct, conduct already covered by other remedies, and products. The author and supporters said the bill is meant to prevent courts from using public nuisance to make policy, while opponents argued it would eliminate useful remedies and could affect local actions against environmental or product-related harms. The author said the bill would not affect statutory nuisance claims, private nuisance claims, or other causes of action, and would be amended to clarify some provisions. The bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some areas in the state do have assessment fees.
• They're not the only fees that are being collected.
• Our last general plan up On not the only fees that are being collected.
• We do charge a fee for cities like ours. You don't want that fee to be excessive, as was mentioned.
• And so it does take time for that fee to accumulate.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the county that imposed the fee would not explain how they had to be.
• And then the applicant has a quick, timely resolution to that.
• And then the applicant has a quick, timely resolution to that.
• Impact fees, for example, are exempt under the bill because impact fees go through a rough proportionality
• Those fees are tacked onto the mortgage and continue to make housing unaffordable.

Bills: SB1254, SB1431, SB1478, SB1566, SB1787

Keywords: workers' compensation, industrial commission, safety regulations, employee protection, penalties, compliance, municipal planning, homeowners associations, design regulations, property rights, building permits, single-family homes, liquor, alcohol, spirituous liquor, liquor license, liquor licensing, Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, restaurant to-go cocktails, mixed cocktails

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 1566, which would prohibit municipalities and counties from maliciously delaying licensing, permits, or approvals, authorize the Attorney General to enforce the prohibition, and provide expedited judicial review. The sponsor said the bill is intended to address affordability by preventing intentional government delays in housing and business approvals. County representatives supported the goal but opposed the bill as drafted, arguing the county language differed from the city/town language and could sweep in ordinary processing delays or incomplete applications; the sponsor said a floor amendment would fix the county language. Testimony from supporters described long permit and parcel-number delays and argued the bill would give applicants a remedy against intentional obstruction. The committee recommended the bill do pass by a 7-3 vote, with one present and one absent. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1787, which would require written notice for exactions imposed on development projects, allow individualized determinations, and create an appeal path including judicial review. The sponsor framed it as a takings and affordability measure to stop unrelated or excessive exactions from being imposed on housing projects. Cities and counties opposed the bill, saying existing law already requires nexus and proportionality, already provides an appeal process, and that the bill would create a duplicative Attorney General review and confusion, especially for mixed-use projects. Supporters, including Pacific Legal Foundation, the Home Builders Association, and a homeowner who described a costly infrastructure demand on her property, argued the bill would curb extortionate demands and make the process fairer. The committee passed the bill 7-2 with one present and one absent. Senate Bill 1478, a liquor-regulation cleanup bill, was also heard and received broad support. The measure makes technical changes to liquor statutes, including clarifying interim permits, repealing a federal food-safety preemption provision, and updating definitions such as cider and production terminology. Industry stakeholders said the bill was the product of months of consensus work and mostly technical corrections. It passed unanimously, 10-0. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1431, which would limit municipal control over home design features and prohibit certain required shared amenities that would necessitate HOA maintenance. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would reduce housing costs by preventing subjective aesthetic mandates and unnecessary HOA-driven requirements, while opponents from cities and neighborhood groups warned it would undermine local control, crime-prevention design standards, neighborhood character, and quality. Home builders and property-rights advocates said the bill would expand consumer choice and reduce costs, while critics argued it could lead to lower-quality housing and remove local recourse. The bill was not reported out in the portion provided, and testimony continued with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• dees as it's considering applications. dees as it's considering applications.
• we don't have to raise the fees at all? we don't have to raise the fees at all?
• The spay and neuter fee was a add-on that was charged on top of the regular dog license fee.
• And that was in my applicant.
• Representative Scully and then— be borne by the applicant. So that's be borne by the applicant.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• mind, we created the abandonment grant funding program, which would be funded by increases to all fees
• Even though individuals who've been buried have paid endowment fees, sometimes endowment fees that were
• Last year, we received over 3,000 applications for public reports.
• Last year, we received over 3,000 applications for public reports.
• In addition to state fees, we pay outside legal counsel to review our documentation.

Summary: The Assembly Business and Professions Committee heard a lengthy agenda of Senate bills, with most measures ultimately advancing on party-line or broad bipartisan votes after substantial testimony and several amendments. Early in the hearing, SB 418 by Sen. Menjivar was presented as a health access bill to codify ACA nondiscrimination protections in state law and require coverage for up to a 12-month supply of medically approved hormone therapy; supporters framed it as protecting continuity of care amid federal threats, while there was no opposition testimony. The committee later also took up SB 456, which would exempt muralists from contractor licensing requirements for commissioned fine art murals; supporters said recent enforcement had chilled mural projects and harmed artists and communities, and the bill passed unanimously to Appropriations. SB 641, part of the wildfire response package, and SB 774, a sunset review bill for the Department of Real Estate and Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers, also advanced with support and no opposition. SB 775 and SB 776, sunset extensions for the behavioral sciences, psychology, and optometry boards, passed after witnesses described technical changes and the need to keep the boards operating. SB 777, dealing with abandoned cemeteries, drew testimony from local governments, industry, and counties; after amendments removed a local takeover mandate and shifted the bill toward a stakeholder working group and study process, opposition softened or was withdrawn and the bill moved forward to Local Government. SB 790, on interstate reciprocity for online higher education, generated the most debate, with supporters arguing California students and institutions need stronger consumer protections and access to the national reciprocity framework, while opponents said the bill’s terms conflicted with the existing compact; it passed as amended to Appropriations after committee members emphasized continued work on student protections. The consent calendar, including SB 389 and SB 861, was also approved, and the committee adjourned after additional vote changes were recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Central Services fee is a 5% fee that gets deducted from all special funds, so that's the calculation
• So if there's anything pending, like a docket application or even motor carrier fees being collected
• or even Motor Carrier uh application or even Motor Carrier uh fees<00:50:48.880> being<00:50:
• fee I would like to have the fee fee I would like to have the fee structured<01:10:30.000> a<
• <01:10:35.760> as supposed to be blanking out the fee as supposed to be blanking out the fee

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of transportation-related bills. SB 21 on water carriers would create an inflationary cost index mechanism; DOT, Agriculture, DCCA, the PUC, and several harbor and logistics interests supported it, while Pacific Transfer opposed. SB 1478 would require vessel masters to follow harbor master evacuation orders during emergencies; DOT clarified it applies only to commercial ports, with support from Hima and the Harbor Users Group and opposition from the Hailongm Association. SB 108 would authorize DOT to regulate vessel noise near commercial harbors; the White Harbor Users Group opposed, while DOT said it supported the intent but warned the bill may be preempted by federal law. SB 1475 would raise the bond ceiling for harbor improvement projects from $100 million to $600 million, and SB 1473 would cap central services assessments on DOT funds at $5 million and tie them to CPI; DOT supported both, and Budget and Finance explained the central services fee is generally a 5% deduction from special funds with some statutory exceptions. The committee also heard SB 1402 on securing mooring lines in state commercial harbors, which drew support from the General Contractors Association of Hawaii and the Hawaii Longline Association. SB 1522 on vehicle title transfers was supported by the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Customer Services. SB 599 would require DOT or counties to scan deceased cats and dogs for microchips before disposal; DOT said it would provide scanners, the Hawaiian Humane Society and a private witness strongly supported the bill, and the committee discussed that the measure would not charge pet owners and that Oʻahu microchip rates are about 80% for dogs and 70% for cats. SB 1025 would allow service and non-service animals on mass transit under certain conditions; DHS offered comments, Maui and Honolulu opposed, while the Hawaiian Humane Society, the Environmental Caucus, and others supported it, and an opponent raised concerns about large pets, service animals, and the need for size and off-peak restrictions. Later, the committee heard SB 1096 on license plate-flipping devices, with DOT and Honolulu police supporting it. SB 384 would expand victim restitution in DUI-related negligent homicide cases to include child support for surviving minor children; DOT, MADD, and the Kiki Injury Prevention Coalition supported it, while the Public Defender opposed, arguing the restitution amounts would be unverified and better handled through civil remedies. SB 597 would extend the deadline for the administrative driver license revocation office to issue decisions, and the Attorney General, police, and Maui prosecutors supported it because of drug-testing delays, especially on neighbor islands. Finally, SB 1285 would create a lower-level impaired driving offense and authorize administrative action; the Attorney General and Public Defender both raised concerns about charging discretion and resource impacts, while county, public health, alcohol policy, and victim advocates strongly supported the bill as a life-saving measure. The transcript ends partway through testimony on SB 1285, with no final committee votes or actions recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees fees in<01:31:24.719> the<01:31:24.880> amount<01:31:25.119> of<01:31:25.480
• Is it storm water fees and sewage fees? Yeah, we're going to have to get that information.
• yeah is storm water fees and sewage fees yeah is storm water fees and sewage fees yeah uh<01:37:11.800
• Is it storm water fees and sewage fees? Yeah, we're going to have to get that information.
• <01:43:17.400> goes fees well that the user fees goes fees well that the user fees goes through

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 410, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ biennium operating budget. OHA asked for a modest increase over its base budget, including $1.2 million to fund 13 new full-time positions for a strategy and implementation team tied to its long-term plan, with emphasis on housing, education, health, and economic resilience. OHA also described a broader effort to work directly with executive branch departments to improve outcomes for Native Hawaiians. Testimony was largely supportive, with several individuals speaking in favor and one testifier expressing strong frustration about Native Hawaiian rights and access to resources. The chair noted there were 38 additional written/supporting testimonies and three in opposition. Members asked about OHA’s funding sources and public land trust revenues; OHA said it is not receiving the full 20 percent share, described a public land trust working group and system issues, and said a related bill would seek funding to begin an inventory. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then considered House Bill 304, which would make the Hawaiian version of a law binding when the law was originally drafted in Hawaiian and later translated into English. The Judiciary supported the bill, saying it reinforces Hawaiian as an official language and looks to the original language for legislative intent. The Attorney General supported the intent but recommended narrowing the bill with a proviso to avoid ambiguities, limiting it to laws originally drafted in Hawaiian that were not later amended, codified, recodified, or reenacted in English. Public testimony was generally supportive, though one speaker raised broader sovereignty concerns. Members questioned how many laws would be affected and whether the proposed amendment would undercut the bill; the Attorney General said the amendment was meant to address uncertainty in interpretation. No final action was reported. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 603, which would direct OHA to administer a Native Hawaiian business marketing program to promote Native Hawaiian-owned businesses through marketing and technical assistance. OHA supported the concept, saying a label or branding program could help consumers identify and support Native Hawaiian-owned businesses, but requested that funding be redirected to a working group to study program design, implementation, enforcement, and long-term viability. The chair noted four supportive testimonies had been received, and a member asked OHA to confirm that its programs serve all Hawaiians, not only those eligible for homelands; OHA said it serves all Hawaiians in the state. The transcript ends before any vote or further action on HB 603.

Transcript Highlights:

• It prohibits a person with interests adverse to the wards from filing an application for appointment
• Um, traditionally, people have thought that when you have a guardianship application, that a guardian
• Provided for you the application that is required for someone to fill out.
• Once that license is returned to us, we complete the application, then submit it to the state.
• It cost $20,000 in legal fees to fight to get her child back.

Transcript Highlights:

• But with the program relying on these fees, the fees are the resource in which these programs... are
• Is it a fee or a fine? It's a program fee, and it's for the administration of the program.
• That monthly fee is like $200.
• And is that, that's a fee from the funeral home? That's a fee from who?
• But the fee has stayed the same.

Bills: HB 1194, HB 1221, HB1738, HB1913, HB2177, HB2178, HB2180, HB2229, HB2282, HB2448, HB2492, HB2777, HB2984, HB3357, HB3553, HB3602

Keywords: emergency protection order, protective order, magistrate, criminal procedure, victim safety, family violence, domestic violence, stalking, assault, magistrate's order, temporary protection, court order duration, defendant restrictions, Article 17.292, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, emergency restraining order, victim protection, firearm restriction, pretrial intervention, reimbursement fee

Transcript Highlights:

• They provide recommended fees, and these are outlined in table 12.
• We review the applications and the requisitions the exact same way.
• But there's about $68 million of applications still pending from those 18 applicants that had not met
• The annual application process, as I said, starts in about July.
• , an application fee to process that to see if it's worthwhile.

Transcript Highlights:

• . efficiencies, we've gotten year over year about 150 to 200 more applicants.
• So those are two of the applicants that we have this year, of the 428.
• So if you have, you said, in excess of 400 applications, how many of those applications do you anticipate
• The vast majority of the applicants are eligible.
• The new applicants are brought in with the rollovers. We ask for the same information.

Summary: The Committee on Agriculture met to hear updates on land conservation and agricultural preservation programs. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services presented on the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, explaining that it protects active agricultural lands through conservation easements while keeping land in private ownership and on the tax rolls. The director said the program requires participants to use agricultural best management practices, noted strong demand with 428 ranked projects for 2025, and reported that consistent legislative funding and partnerships with USDA, DOD, local governments, land trusts, and water management districts have expanded acreage protected, much of it within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. Committee members asked about eligibility, ranking, local government involvement, and how many projects are typically funded each year. Conservation Florida’s president and CEO testified that both Rural and Family Lands and Florida Forever are critical and complementary tools for preserving working lands, wildlife habitat, water resources, and public access to nature. She warned that uncertainty or cuts in state funding can stall projects, raise land prices, and reduce conservation momentum. In discussion with senators, she said public access is often negotiated case by case and is more common on lands acquired for parks, forests, and other public green space than on conservation easements. The Department of Environmental Protection then updated the committee on Florida Forever, describing it as the state’s premier conservation and recreation land acquisition program. DEP said Florida Forever uses both conservation easements and fee-simple purchases, with about half of acquisitions done through easements, and emphasized that steady funding is needed to keep projects moving. The deputy secretary reported 60 projects on the current work plan, more than $1.4 billion invested since 2019, and recent acquisitions including new state forest, park, and preserve expansions. Members also raised concerns about payment in lieu of taxes for fiscally constrained counties, local notification of acquisitions, and the need for continued support for agriculture, citrus, roads, and conservation funding. No formal votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after member comments and public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Contractors and customers may face the pricey fees, and some HOAs.
• same-location swapouts, and places a soft cap on permit fees that can be exceeded if the fee is flat
• Permit fees are really not a meaningful contributor to the project costs.
• Permit fees are really not a meaningful contributor to the project costs.
• So we're doing our best... ...massive fees and massive just out of nowhere.

Keywords: 988, house, all