Transcript Highlights:

• that exemption and refund claim ensure that exemption and refund claim are<01:21:25.000> made
• <01:22:12.520> claims um that doax notes that refund claims um that doax notes that refund
• issuing the wrong amounts of refunds issuing the wrong amounts of refunds there's<01:24:11.880><
• statute that's in place for all refund statute that's in place for all refund claims<01:24:45.679
• processing these refund processing these refund claims<01:26:48.400> thank<01:26:48.560><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Economic Development and Technology met on March 12, 2025, and heard testimony on several measures. On SB 9, the Hawaii Food Industry Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation testified in support, and there were no questions or objections. On SB 148, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs offered comments, and a member of the public testified in support of combining boxing and MMA oversight into a single combat sports commission, with amendments to preserve safety standards and separate or distinct treatment for the two sports. Committee discussion focused on whether proposed requirements were primarily safety-related or cost-related, how to handle smaller events, and whether a one-year implementation delay was necessary; the department said many safety provisions already exist in the MMA program, that it was open to continued discussion on costs, and that it needed time to combine rules and appoint new commissioners. The chair suggested possible amendments to account for event size and to reduce burdens on smaller events. The committee then heard SB 816, which drew extensive testimony on providing legal representation for immigrants in immigration proceedings. Supporters included the Hawaii State LGBTQ+ Commission, ACU Hawaii, the Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic, the Legal Clinic, Hawaii Friends of Civil Rights, the Hawaiʻi Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Pride at Work Hawaii, and others. Supporters argued that immigration cases can be as serious as criminal cases, that counsel is essential for due process, and that representation improves outcomes; several also emphasized the economic importance of immigrants to Hawaii. One supporter noted a suggested amendment to include training for attorneys and partners doing deportation defense and asylum work. Opposition came from a Navy veteran who argued the bill would use state resources for a federal issue, create inequities, and impose fiscal burdens. The chair noted 69 testimonies in support and 44 in opposition, and later an additional supporter brought the total to 70 in support. No vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided. The committee also heard SB 125, with the Department of Economic Development, the Agreed Business Development Corporation, and the Hawaii Food Industry Association in support, and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii offering technical comments about complicated nested definitions in the bill. Testimony on SB 125 focused on updating the Enterprise Zone Program so local manufacturers selling directly to retail could qualify, along with value-added products and certain health-related sectors. Finally, on SB 732, the State of Hawaii Creative Industries testified with comments, raising concerns about county permit-fee waivers, implementation timing, and the bill’s lack of a carry-forward provision for the film tax credit. The witness said uncertainty in the credit was already causing productions to delay coming to Hawaii and urged stability to support the industry and local workers. The committee then moved on to additional testimony on the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• non-refundable? non-refundable?
• And in that scenario, we don't have a restriction on the refundable versus non-refundable.
• And in that scenario, we don't have a restriction on the refundable versus non-refundable.
• <00:49:04.319> But refundable versus non-refundable.
• But refundable versus non-refundable.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• most um every dollar of a tax refund most um every dollar of a tax refund that<00:16:40.319>
• Would I be eligible for a refund under your proposal?"
• <01:11:30.320> if single mom doesn't get a tax refund if single mom doesn't get a tax refund
• <01:14:49.880> under would I be eligible for a refund under would I be eligible for a refund
• Somebody who pays sales taxes is not eligible for a refund under your bill.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• If your refund is for $750 or more, you can request a refund quarterly.
• You can't get the refund.
• The refund request is due on April 15th. The refund request is due on April 15th.
• You can't get the refund. out of luck. You can't get the refund.
• <00:31:56.320> this fuels and our request for refund this fuels and our request for refund

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are four issues regarding this issue: refund contingencies, time limit and return of refund, bankruptcy
• The refund—can you?” “Time limit and return of refund, bankruptcy, and regulation.
• A refund limit.
• My suggestion is: make entrance fees non-refundable. Offer a lower refund percentage.
• It’s also important to protect the refunds and offer regulations.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities held a public hearing focused on studying CCRCs in Massachusetts, including their financial viability, consumer protections, oversight, entrance fee and refund policies, advertising, and procedures for closure or ownership changes. Chair Rep. Tom Stanley and co-chair Sen. Pat Jehlen opened by explaining the commission’s mandate under Chapter 197 of the Acts of 2024 and asked speakers to keep testimony brief. Several commissioners and staff also emphasized the importance of hearing directly from residents, providers, and advocates. Resident testimony largely centered on two themes: the need for stronger resident representation and the need for clearer, faster refund protections. Multiple residents urged the legislature to require resident seats on governing boards, including full voting rights on national or nonprofit boards, and to make board minutes and meetings more transparent. Several speakers described long delays in receiving entrance-fee refunds after leaving a community, with one family reporting an 18-month wait and financial hardship; they called for a one-year refund limit, vacancy-order systems, escrow or reserve protections, and state oversight or guarantee funds. One resident also argued that CCRCs should be more clearly defined in state law and possibly licensed or certified so only approved communities can market themselves as CCRCs. Providers and operators generally described CCRCs as valuable models for aging in place and emphasized transparency, resident engagement, and the benefits of nonprofit ownership. Speakers from nonprofit communities said residents often serve on boards or committees, participate in budgeting and planning, and benefit from integrated care, amenities, and financial stability. A for-profit operator also said residents receive disclosure and input, while noting that CCRCs vary widely and that consumer education is important. Commissioners echoed several recurring issues at the end of the hearing, especially the need to define what a CCRC is and to address refund timelines and information sharing. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with notice that the next virtual meeting would be on June 23 at 10:00 a.m., and written testimony was invited by email.

Transcript Highlights:

• . refunded. refunded.
• . refund. refund.
• TABOR refund by the amount of the over refund.
• out<01:40:03.960> the TABOR refund uh TABOR refunds out the TABOR refund uh TABOR refunds
• refund for 24-25. refund for 24-25.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate was in session with a quorum present, approved the journal, and received several committee and House messages before moving through a long third-reading calendar. The chamber also paused for multiple personal privilege recognitions, including welcoming community guests and students, and a lighthearted update that Senator Sullivan’s missing stuffed “Chip” had been found. The majority leader later moved to lay over the remaining third-reading bills until later in the day, and the Senate also laid over special-order second reading bills until after third reading. On third reading, the Senate passed Senate Bill 185 and a series of House bills, including HB 1342 on bear-luring behavior, HB 1269 on transit access, HB 1225 on distributed energy resources, HB 1233 on property tax procedures for nonresidential property, HB 1414 on medical records held by certain health care entities, HB 1256 on release procedures from the Department of Corrections, HB 1004 on a child care income tax credit, HB 1014 extending the Colorado Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit, HB 1111 creating a pesticide product disposal and container recycling program, and HB 1287 continuing certain Division of Real Estate regulatory functions. HB 1206 was laid over to Monday, and SB 193 was laid over to the bottom of the calendar. Several of these bills passed with notable no votes from minority members, while others passed with broad support. The Committee of the Whole then took up House Bill 1276, a bill concerning protections for immigrants in Colorado and related appropriations. Senator Weisman explained and the committee adopted two amendments: one extending the deadline for peace officer training from July 1 to December 31, 2027, and another clarifying that a certification requirement would not apply to the judicial branch’s e-filing system but would continue to apply to other judicial data systems. Senator Judah spoke strongly in support of the bill, arguing it was about government accountability, privacy, and conditions in detention facilities. The committee adopted both amendments and then adopted HB 1276. The committee also considered House Bill 1419, dealing with the overall refund amount for state revenues above the TABOR spending limit. Senator Bridges presented the committee report, and Senator Kirkmeyer spoke in opposition, arguing the bill was an unnecessary maneuver to retroactively alter accounting and TABOR refund calculations despite prior compliance and a clean audit opinion. After debate, the committee report was adopted and the bill was taken up for further discussion, with the transcript ending amid that debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• This describes the refund program.
• This describes the refund program.
• <00:13:43.800> The uh describes the refund program. The uh describes the refund program.
• refund portion. refund portion.
• The refund process we currently have some taxpayers that get refunds from our office.

Bills: SF0095, SF0107, SF0112

Keywords: driver's license, motor vehicle services, third-party providers, Wyoming, regulatory compliance, motor vehicle, registration, license plate, electronic system, State Department of Transportation, county treasurers, vehicle fees, public records, license plates, replacement cycle, vehicle registration, motor vehicles, state fees, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• refundable? refundable?
• A few issues to consider might be: you mentioned refundable versus non-refundable.
• A few issues to consider might be: you mentioned refundable versus non-refundable.
• . refundable. refundable.
• :03.680> the<01:01:03.920> refundability that the refundable the refundability that the

Bills: HB2241, HB2316, HB1566, HB1926, HB1673, HB1948, HB2602, HB1598, HB2334, HB2451, HB2243

Keywords: renewable energy, income tax credit, solar energy, wind energy, low-income households, energy policy, lead materials, drinking water, public health, water infrastructure, safety regulations, HB1566, energy efficiency, LED lighting, light-emitting diodes, fluorescent bulbs, fluorescent fixtures, compact fluorescent lamps, CFL ban, mercury-free lighting

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a bill to expand the solar energy tax credit for single-family residential properties by removing certain cap amounts and raising the adjusted gross income limits for taxpayers to elect a refund of excess credits. The Hawaii State Energy Office and Department of Taxation both said they were standing on written testimony, while industry and advocacy groups largely supported the measure. Members questioned whether the income thresholds were set appropriately, how many taxpayers would be affected at different income levels, and how many would qualify for refundable treatment; Taxation said it did not yet have the requested numbers but was preparing a fiscal estimate. A major issue raised was drafting and administration: witnesses said the bill appears to apply differently to owner-purchased systems versus third-party leased systems, and Taxation said it likely could not easily verify household income for leased systems or cross-reference different taxpayers. Discussion also covered whether the credit should remain refundable, whether credits should be limited to amounts actually expended, and whether the bill should instead be structured to keep the credit with the system owner or lessor, with concerns about equity, market effects, and possible incentives to lease rather than buy. The committee then moved to HB 2316, which would align state restrictions on lead materials in drinking water infrastructure with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The Department of Health and other supporters testified in favor, and there were no questions from the chair. Next, HB 1566 on energy efficiency would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting, with the Hawaii State Energy Office providing technical assistance and a compliance survey prioritized for first responder facilities; testimony from state agencies and advocates was in support, and again there were no questions. For HB 1926 on Red Hill, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Board of Water Supply, and multiple organizations and individuals supported funding for remediation studies, environmental monitoring, groundwater research, independent testing, and a public dashboard, with DLNR emphasizing that decades of work remain necessary even after defueling and that the bill supports ongoing university and community partnerships. The committee then heard HB 1673 on landfill units. The Department of Health initially said it was in support but later corrected the record and stated it strongly opposes the measure, saying the bill would undo protections enacted last session that keep landfills out of areas over aquifers; the Board of Water Supply also opposed repeal of those protections, while the City and County of Honolulu supported the HD1 version that leaves siting decisions to the counties. Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi and the Energy Justice Network opposed the bill, arguing the original protections should remain and that the amended version had confused commenters; supporters of the original version urged restoring it and considering additional language on ash.

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires refunds when investigate.
• Lastly, the refund enforcement.
• product is subject to statutory refund product is subject to statutory refund requirements<00:53
• Do you mean refund them the full amount of the crypto that they purchased, or do you mean refund them
• transactions required to be refunded. transactions required to be refunded.

Bills: HB2227, HB1775, HB1560, HB1642, HB1647, HB2003, HB1640, HB2198

Keywords: eviction, housing stability, tenant screening, court records, writ of possession, foreclosures, public sale, eligible bidders, housing, downpayment, judicial foreclosure, digital financial assets, consumer protection, financial kiosks, refunds, transaction security, HB1642, Hawaii, cryptocurrency ATM, crypto ATM

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on February 5, 2026, and heard testimony on several bills, beginning with HB 227 relating to eviction records. Supporters, including the Public First Law Center and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, argued the bill would help people who prevail in eviction cases avoid long-term housing harm from online court records, while the Public First Law Center said keeping records off eCourt Kokua would not violate the First Amendment because the records would still be available in person. Members discussed access-to-justice concerns, and a witness said legal aid attorneys could still access the records through the attorney-only Jeff’s system and the court’s access-to-justice room. The chair also asked about precedent, and a witness cited a Hawaii Supreme Court case as supporting removal from the online database rather than sealing records entirely. The committee then took up HP 1775 relating to foreclosures, but the transcript only shows in-person opposition comments from the Hawaii State Bar Association Collection Law Section, the Hawaii Credit Union League, and the Hawaii Bankers Association. The credit union and banking groups said they had concerns about broader negative impacts on mortgage lending and other requirements, but no detailed discussion or action was captured before the committee moved on. The next measure, HB 1560 relating to consumer protection, drew support from the Office of Consumer Protection and cryptocurrency companies including Coinflip and America Digital, which said they already use wallet-pinning and other safeguards to prevent fraud. AARP Hawaii did not take a formal position but said the bill addressed a real problem, noting that Hawaii residents, especially in Kona, had lost more than $920,000 in 2024 to cryptocurrency ATM scams and arguing that stronger oversight was needed. The committee also heard HB 1642, which would ban cryptocurrency kiosks. The Office of Consumer Protection supported the ban as the best way to protect consumers from fraud, while Coinflip, Bitcoin Depot, and America Digital opposed it, arguing kiosks provide cash-based access to crypto, especially for unbanked or underbanked consumers, and that targeted regulation would be better than an outright ban. AARP Hawaii took no formal position but strongly emphasized the harm caused by scams, saying victims are often frightened into acting quickly and that kiosk transactions currently lack enough friction or intervention. Finally, HB 1647, also on consumer protection, would impose liability on host businesses that provide space for crypto kiosks. The Office of Consumer Protection warned small businesses might not understand the liability, while Coinflip, Bitcoin Depot, and America Digital opposed the bill, saying it would unfairly shift enforcement duties to host stores and could discourage businesses from hosting kiosks, effectively creating a de facto ban. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The maximum refund is $2,720.
• The maximum refund is $1,000.
• The maximum refund is $2,720.
• The maximum refund is $1,000.
• The maximum refund is $2,720.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Tax Committee met to hear a House Research presentation from Jared Swanson on Minnesota’s property tax system. Before the presentation, the chair announced that the committee would put the governor’s budget on hold until the department could provide the information needed for a proper hearing. The committee then approved the prior meeting minutes without objection. Swanson gave an overview of how property taxes are structured and collected in Minnesota, explaining that the state uses a levy-based system in which local governments set levies and counties collect and distribute payments. He described the property tax cycle, the difference between referendum market value and net tax capacity, and how classification rates shift tax burdens among property types. He also outlined the state general property tax, noting it is split between commercial-industrial property and seasonal recreational property, and reviewed how Minnesota compares with other states, with residential taxes generally around the middle and commercial-industrial taxes relatively higher. The presentation also covered major property tax relief and aid programs. Swanson explained three broad relief mechanisms: shifting burdens through exclusions and classification rates, state-paid credits and refunds, and state aid to local governments or levy reductions. He discussed local government aid (LGA), township aid, and county program aid (CPA), including their funding levels, formulas, and general-purpose nature. Members asked why some cities receive no LGA and how the funds may be used; Swanson said cities with strong tax bases often receive zero aid and that the money generally can be used for the same purposes as property tax revenue. No votes were taken on the presentation itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• that are refunded.
• refund in a calendar year.
• a um uh that the contribut tion refund a um uh that the contribut tion refund program<00:49:28.200
• donations to candidates were refunded donations to candidates were refunded and<00:56:10.680>
• It's called delegation. somebody claiming their refund but in in somebody claiming their refund but in

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:18:43.600> So refunds are mostly income tested. So refunds are mostly income tested.
• tested. the prop tax refund.
• prop tax refund is income tested. prop tax refund is income tested. there's<00:30:25.840> a
• Um the uh sales tax refundable.
• is it showing up in the prop tax refund is it showing up in the prop tax refund column?

Bills: HF331, HF916

Keywords: school supplies, sales tax exemption, use tax, sales and use tax, back-to-school, classroom supplies, education tax relief, tax holiday, retail exemption, Minnesota sales tax, school materials, binders, calculators, notebooks, pencils, backpacks, book bags, local tax revenue, taxable sales base, income tax

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:00:21.760> claim<01:00:22.000> to refund pro to for that refund claim to refund
• > help<01:35:59.760> sta refunds and tax credits help sta refunds and tax credits help
• These refunds stabilize family incomes.
• surprised and in tears about the refund surprised and in tears about the refund that<01:36:27.280
• And most of those refunds claimed work.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill before you will simply change that refund from the state to a quarterly refund opportunity for
• The bill before you will simply change that refund from the state to a quarterly refund opportunity for
• refund opportunity.
• refund opportunity.
• refund opportunity.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Out of that 475,000, 240,000 refunds have gone out or are going to go out, and 96% of those refunds are
• Out of that 475,000, 240,000 refunds have gone out or are going to go out, and 96% of those refunds are
• Out of that 475,000, 240,000 refunds have gone out or are going to go out, and 96% of those refunds are
• Out of that 475,000, 240,000 refunds have gone out or are going to go out, and 96% of those refunds are
• prints the checks so like for refunds prints the checks so like for refunds and<00:31:23.000>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There are no date changes, as I understand it, and the amount applied for refund has changed.
• There are no date changes, as I understand it, and the amount applied for refund has changed.
• There are no date changes, as I understand it, and the amount applied for refund has changed.
• <00:26:48.120> has however of the applied for refund has however of the applied for refund
• uh uh political contribution refund uh uh political contribution refund program<01:02:04.480>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those taxes and wholesalers will then submit a request to have that money refunded to them, and very
• Chair and committee members, that time frame that that refund is executed can be months.
• Let's go with the testifier first, then we'll have the department weigh in. in issuing refunds so um
• R&D making the R&D tax credit refundable R&D making the R&D tax credit refundable
• 20year period the 25% refundability 20year period the 25% refundability proposal<01:20:22.159>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• A refund is just one option. And it needs refinement.
• valuation of what that refund should be.
• But a refund should only be one of the options for compliance.
• So there's a menu of options there that could include a refund but also give an alternative to refunds
• I agree with the refund.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So then on the entrance fee refunds.
• Yeah, I think we were very clear on that: the refunds need to be refunded after reoccupancy in all cases
• Can I just say, Matthew, that right now you all agree that you're refunding what?
• It returns to status quo or whatever scheme you actually use to return refunds. Couldn't we?
• I'm going to say I can have... ...to return refunds. Couldn't we?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met to review its draft final report on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with most of the discussion focused on whether recommendations required unanimous consensus and how to handle disagreements in the report. Members agreed that consensus meant no stated opposition, and several participants argued that unresolved issues should still be described in the report rather than omitted. The chairs said the report would include agreed-upon recommendations, note areas without consensus, and preserve written comments or dissent letters submitted by members. The draft report’s findings and slides were reviewed charge by charge, including CCRC definitions, financial condition, entrance fee refunds, regulatory oversight, advertising practices, and closure/change-of-ownership procedures. Members suggested several factual and wording edits, including clarifying financial data sources, correcting a presenter’s name, refining language about entrance fee use and refund timing, and revising statements about Attorney General authority and CCRC advertising. There was also discussion about the need to distinguish nonprofit and for-profit CCRCs and to better explain how different care levels and licensing structures are described. On recommendations, the commission kept the proposal to advance the disclosure bill (S. 478) and update the consumer guide, but removed a recommendation for annual open board meetings after objections that it was inadequate. The group spent considerable time debating whether to recommend resident representation on CCRC boards, timely refund requirements for entrance fees, and possible state registration or definition changes for CCRCs, but no consensus was reached on those items. The chairs said the final report would be completed by the statutory August 1 deadline, with final written comments due before then and the report and meeting materials posted on the legislature website.

Transcript Highlights:

• tax refunds.
• <00:15:53.839> by refunds by refunds by $80,000.<00:15:56.480> Um,<00:15:56.959> on<
• Section 27 later in the bill is also referenced. refund. Sections 11 and 12 are effective refund.
• must not issue a refund exceeding the maximum refund amount and allowing a person to file a refund claim
• must not issue a refund exceeding the maximum refund amount and allowing a person to file a refund claim

Keywords: 1187, senate, all