Transcript Highlights:

• that section is all the fees within this subdivision, every fee.
• My concern is on line 2.28, the very first examination fees.
• road tests are are uh do not have a fee road tests are are uh do not have a fee Associated<00:20
• this fee long term.
• If folks were interested in exploring a sunset on increasing the no-show fee, or on the no-show fee altogether

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• must be paid, including towing fees and any fees owed to a body shop or other storage facilities.
• must be paid including touring fees and any fees owed to a body shop or other storage facilities with
• It also prohibits a provider from charging a late fee or compelling or...
• Aguilar shared with us, an average of 333% to 1,456% APR if you add up those fees and things.
• Madam Chair, members, HB 2265, courts fees assessments, prohibits the court from imposing certain fees

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee worked through a very long minority caucus calendar covering a wide range of bills, with many items being described and then either left on consent, pulled from consent, or noted for votes. Topics included bullion and state depository proposals, a produce incentive appropriation, a biennial budget change, veterans services funding, driver licensing and traffic enforcement measures, procurement and public records changes, school board and school facilities rules, SNAP work requirements and verification, child welfare and juvenile justice provisions, housing and homelessness measures, energy and fuel policy, election administration, and several tax, commerce, and licensing bills. Members repeatedly raised concerns about constitutionality, federal preemption, duplication of existing law, and whether some measures were policy priorities that had been vetoed in prior sessions and were returning unchanged. Several bills drew extended debate. Members objected to English-proficiency requirements for commercial drivers and motor carriers, arguing federal law and the supremacy clause would bar them. Earned wage access regulation prompted strong opposition over consumer harm, overdraft cycles, and high effective APRs. School-related bills were criticized for overregulating public schools while not imposing similar requirements on ESA/private-school programs, especially on fingerprint clearance and reporting. SNAP-related bills were also opposed as setting unrealistic mandates and repeating vetoed proposals. Other contested measures included a drag-show criminalization bill, a bill restricting photo enforcement, a bill limiting local regulation of unmanned aircraft, and a bill conforming Arizona tax law to federal changes, which members said would benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations without a clear funding source. The committee also heard a number of supportive or less controversial measures, including bills on veterans awareness, dementia care telemonitoring, Braille transcription funding, CPA licensure pathways, cash acceptance by retailers, and some child safety and court administration changes. Several bills were pulled from consent for further discussion, while others were noted as having unanimous or near-unanimous votes. The meeting ended with caucus announcements, including an affordability award presentation, an upcoming Latino Caucus discussion on community land trusts, and an invitation to African American Legislative Day activities, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• If more than 90 days have passed since expiration, renewal is permitted at a higher fee.
• Sometimes these fees can be as high as 23% on the franchisee's gross receipts.
• excess cost, and this increase in fee becomes a financial burden on, uh, uh, business owners.
• First, it caps the municipal franchise fee.
• It's not a tax, a franchise fee on solid waste. So that is 48% of our general fund budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• windows, so our amendment that maybe, for terms of Casper, is looking at, just strikes the initial fee
• Initial fee of $15, so it would be just like we passed it over, other than the fact that we're striking
• Yeah, I would prefer the lower fee just because I think it's closer to the actual cost.
• , $15.50, and an annual fee of $30, and then they have a $100 personalized fee in Minnesota.
• We could increase the fee. For the next committee's sake? We could increase the fee, Madam Chair.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on Senate Bill 2133 met to resolve differences over the fee structure for a specialty motorcycle/license plate. The main dispute was whether the plate should carry a $15 or $25 per registration period fee, with the Senate members arguing the higher fee was reasonable for a novelty/specialty plate and helped cover costs, while House members favored the lower fee as closer to actual manufacturing cost and noted the plate would still likely include a personalized plate fee. Members also discussed examples from other states and whether demand for such plates would be significant. A motion was made by Senator Klein to adopt amendment 5.0580.0204, described as the Corey amendment, and Representative Casper seconded it. The committee then voted, with Chairwoman Corey, Senator Paulson, Senator Klein, Representative Johnston, and Representative Casper voting aye/yes, and Representative Hendricks voting no. After the vote, members acknowledged they were at an impasse, with no agreement reached on the fee amount. The committee briefly discussed whether there was room to compromise before the next meeting, but no new motion or resolution was offered. The chair indicated the committee was effectively at a stalemate and adjourned after inviting further feedback for the next conference committee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um I had to pay over $20,000 in fees. Um but and go through additional approvals.
• Um but my fees were obviously significantly less than hers were.
• Um but my fees were obviously significantly less than hers were.
• Um but and go pay over $20,000 in fees.
• <00:06:45.440> less fees were obviously significantly less fees were obviously significantly

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, reducing the LLC filing fee will result in extreme loss of revenue.
• Further reducing the annual report fee would lead to further revenue loss.
• Additionally, reducing the filing fee is going to increase fraudulent filings.
• Nantucket voters overwhelmingly support a transfer fee.
• Please consider an optional real estate transfer fee for seasonal communities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on Governor Healey’s economic development proposal, H. 5386, also referred to as the Mass Winds Act, focused on global investment, talent, innovation, housing, and business competitiveness. Governor Healey, Secretary of Economic Development Eric Paley, and Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorzkowicz described the bill as a response to federal uncertainty and global competition, building on the 2024 Mass Leads Act. They highlighted proposed investments in a Global Mass initiative, including a $50 million innovation access fund and $20 million for sites to help international companies locate or expand in Massachusetts, along with support for AI, quantum, robotics, defense innovation, climate tech, downtown revitalization, and creative/cultural economy projects. They also emphasized measures to lower business costs, including reducing the LLC filing fee, expanding the small business energy tax exemption, and streamlining housing and development rules. Committee members questioned the administration about non-compete reform, AI and data-center infrastructure, housing affordability, and whether the bill would help retain workers and companies in Massachusetts. The governor and secretaries argued that the non-compete changes would restore the original compromise by requiring any alternative to garden leave to be negotiated at separation, and they said the bill’s housing and workforce provisions are intended to help young workers stay in the state. They also said Massachusetts is already investing in AI training, an AI hub, and energy-related planning, while acknowledging that data-center growth will require careful attention to water, electricity, and ratepayer impacts. Several witnesses testified on specific sections. Northeastern University supported the internship tax credit, saying experiential learning helps students gain jobs and remain in Massachusetts. The Latino Empowerment Advisory Council supported the waiver of redundant English testing for internationally trained nurses, saying it would speed entry into the workforce without lowering clinical standards. Russell Beck opposed the non-compete changes, arguing they would undermine the 2018 compromise and could reduce other forms of employee compensation. The Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office opposed the LLC fee reduction, citing revenue loss and fraud concerns. Municipal and regional groups, including the MMA and the Metro Mayors Coalition, supported site plan review codification and downtown/arts investments, while urging continued municipal input. The AFL-CIO asked for trigger language to preserve labor protections if federal law changes, and business and industry witnesses generally supported the bill’s competitiveness and global investment provisions. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with written testimony invited after the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill as amended does not require a separate parking fee or other fees, camping fees, facility rental
• The bill as amended does not require a separate parking fee or other fees, camping fees, facility rental
• It only says entrance fees. It's entry fees.
• It only says entrance fees. It's entry fees.
• this is a fee much like the all the fees this is a fee much like the all the fees that<04:06:53.359

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first adopted amendment 2026-2021S to correct a drafting issue in the budget language so that the $2.5 million appropriation for Medicaid per diem rate stabilization at county nursing homes can be spent during the biennium rather than lapsing at the end of the fiscal year. Senator Lang explained that the funds are matched with federal dollars for a total of $5 million and are intended to prevent rate reductions that could shift costs to county property taxpayers. The amendment was adopted unanimously by both chambers, and the committee proceeded on the bill as amended by the Senate. The main discussion then focused on HB 155 and a proposed amendment to the business enterprise tax. The House proposal would lower the BET rate in stages when combined business tax revenues exceed certain thresholds, while the Senate opposed an immediate rate reduction and argued that tax changes should be handled in a budget year. Senators emphasized that raising the filing threshold to $375,000 had already removed about 3,500 small businesses from filing requirements, and they preferred further relief through threshold changes rather than rate cuts. House members argued that the trigger-based reduction was a reasonable, tested mechanism and would provide future tax relief without taking effect unless revenues rose enough. Members debated whether the trigger could be distorted by one-time revenue spikes, such as the recent tax amnesty receipts and prior federal repatriation-related revenue, and Representative Sweeney said he was willing to adjust the effective date or carve out amnesty revenue. The committee did not reach agreement on the BET reduction, and the chair called a break and then continued the meeting later with a new proposal to delay the trigger’s effective date to January 1, 2028. Senator Lang rejected that version but offered a counterproposal to raise the filing threshold to $400,000, and the parties ultimately agreed to continue discussions and reconvene later. The meeting also took up HB 1102, concerning the research and development tax credit and state park fees. The House position was to support the R&D tax credit but remove the park-fee provisions, citing testimony from the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources that it did not need the increase and concerns about discouraging tourism, especially at border parks. Supporters of the park-fee language argued that the department had not raised rates in years, could set its own rates, and should be able to charge nonresidents more while keeping New Hampshire residents’ fees lower. The discussion remained unresolved, with members debating the likely effect on tourism and fairness to residents versus the need for additional revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you could say if there is any fees, then the organizations pick up that cost.
• But, I mean, if there's no fees, then I don't think the amendment's harmless.
• Is the incurred fee?
• I should not— Payment of the fees. I have a right to stop deducting. Absolutely.
• Shouldn't be able to deduct the fees without a valid authorization. Absolutely.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations met for its final meeting of the 2026 session and took up SB 312 by Senator Talbot, a bill concerning labor organizations, employee dues and fees, withdrawal from unions, annual notice requirements, and related reporting and notification provisions. The committee first adopted a technical amendment set, then debated a larger amendment set that shifted the cease-withholding request to the employer, required electronic confirmation, placed certain administrative costs on the labor organization, and added language about employer notification and authorization procedures. Members discussed whether the bill was needed, whether employees already have the ability to opt out, and whether the amendments would create confusion or unnecessary bureaucracy. Supporters said the bill protects employee choice and ensures dues stoppage happens at the nearest payroll period; opponents argued the added language was unclear and burdensome. The committee also adopted a separate technical amendment adding mass transit employees to the list of exemptions. Testimony came from the bill author and several stakeholders. Senator Talbot said the bill is meant to ensure workers know they do not have to join a union, can revoke dues authorizations, and can stop deductions without waiting for a fixed annual window. Representative Eccles defended the amendments as employee protections and a way to shift administrative costs away from taxpayers. Jim Patterson of LABI supported the amendments, saying they protect public employers and taxpayers from administrative costs. After the amendments were adopted on a roll call vote, union representatives Matt Wood of the Louisiana AFL-CIO, Peter Robbins-Brown of the AFL-CIO, and Larry Carter of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers and School Employees testified in opposition to the amended bill, saying they had worked in good faith on a simpler opt-in/opt-out framework and objected to the new cost and bureaucracy provisions. Several members also spoke in favor of the bill as a matter of freedom of choice and employee control over paycheck deductions. At the end of debate, Representative Wilder moved to report SB 312 with amendments. The motion passed on a roll call vote, and the bill was reported from committee with amendments. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and amendment ...or the discontinuation of the withholding of dues or fees.
• But, I mean, if there's no fees, then I don't think the amendment's harmless.
• I just don't see what the, what the fee is when you opt out and discontinue the withholding, what fee
• Is the incurred fee?
• Shouldn't be able to deduct the fees without a valid authorization. Absolutely.

Summary: The House Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations met for its final meeting of the session and took up SB 312 by Senator Talbot, a bill concerning labor organizations, employee dues and fees, withdrawal from unions, collective bargaining agreements, and related notice and reporting requirements. The author explained the bill would require annual notice to employees of their right to join or refrain from joining a labor organization, allow dues deductions to be authorized and revoked electronically, and require stoppage of deductions at the nearest possible payroll period after notice. The committee first adopted a technical amendment set, then considered a larger amendment set that shifted the withdrawal request to the employer, required the employer to notify the labor organization, placed the burden of proving notice compliance on the labor organization, and made the labor organization responsible for certain administrative costs. Supporters said the bill protected employee choice and could reduce taxpayer-funded administrative burdens; opponents argued the amendments created confusion, unnecessary bureaucracy, and unclear invoicing and cost-shifting procedures. Testimony came from business and labor representatives on both sides. Jim Patterson of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry supported the cost-shifting language as a way to protect taxpayers and public employers. Matt Wood, Peter Robbins-Brown, and Larry Carter, representing labor groups, said they had worked for months to reach a simpler opt-in/opt-out framework and objected to the new amendments as adding complexity and uncertainty. Several members questioned why police, firefighters, and later mass transit employees were exempted; the author and others said those exclusions were tied to federal law or because those groups had not requested inclusion. After debate, the committee adopted the large amendment set and then adopted a separate technical amendment adding mass transit employees to the exemption list. On the bill itself, members continued debating whether the measure was necessary if unions already allow members to opt out and whether the bill should apply only to public employees such as teachers and school workers. The committee ultimately voted to report SB 312 with amendments. The motion passed on a roll call vote, with several members voting no, and the meeting adjourned afterward.

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.
• Reed mentioned fees, and there was a lot of work done on Senator Roem's bill.
• It's not really what the fees are about.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, there are 20 states that have a fee less than $50.
• And out of those 20, 11 charge nothing for their fees.
• Uh, there are 20 is a reasonable fee.
• states that have a fee less than $50. states that have a fee less than $50.
• As a free country with for their fees.

Bills: SB249, SB259, HB67, HB214

Keywords: municipal tax, license fee, local tax increase, ordinance, public hearing, 30-day notice, municipal notice requirements, city council, town council, Alabama municipalities, Code of Alabama 1975, Section 11-45-2, open meetings website, newspaper publication, local government finance, tax transparency, fee increase, municipal ordinance procedure, University of South Alabama, Board of Trustees

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, it sounds like we're increasing registration or these fees.
• Now we're adding an extra fee for just electric and plug-in vehicles on top of those fees, right?
• That is the fee for the gas tax based upon the mile. I'll let the secretary explain the mileage.
• The 25% increase on registration fees will materialize entirely to the state road fund.
• We don't think that this is a fair fee.

Transcript Highlights:

• These two fees apply to employers. Alabama.
• fees to Alabama employers, insurers, and consumers.
• These new fees will go... consumers.
• These dispensing fees will be passed down immediately by PBMs.
• These bills impose a $10.64 fee on every prescription filled. $10.64 fee on every prescription filled

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Without burdensome fees and redundancy.
• Impact fees, I think we've heard some of these on this list already today, but impact fees.
• Impact fees, especially those around traffic impact fees specifically, can make costs rise dramatically
• Impact fee waivers: I mentioned already waiving impact fees in Mountlake Terrace for child care facilities
• And those who develop now pay a late-comer fee for those improvements.

Summary: The committee held a work session on form-based codes, child care facility siting, and street standards/frontage improvements. On form-based codes, Commerce’s Dave Anderson explained that these codes emphasize building form, orientation, and the public realm more than traditional use and density tables, and that they are typically applied in specific districts rather than citywide or statewide. Lacey’s Vanessa Dolby described the city’s Woodland District code, developed through community charrettes, fiscal and market analysis, and subdistrict-specific standards to create a walkable downtown. She said the approach has helped produce a more desirable built environment and more flexibility in permitted uses, but also noted it can be less user-friendly for applicants and still requires some use restrictions; both presenters said a hybrid approach is often best. The committee then heard from DCYF and multiple providers about barriers to opening child care facilities. DCYF officials said Washington has more than 6,500 licensed providers and that a new pre-licensing support team is helping applicants navigate licensing, but local zoning, building, fire, parking, utility, and occupancy requirements still create delays and confusion. Testifiers described long permitting timelines, inconsistent local interpretations, costly upgrades, and utility hookup delays; one Yakima provider said county requirements, a floodplain-related elevation certificate, and a private well issue stopped her in-home child care proposal, while others described traffic impact fees, parking mandates, and zoning barriers that made projects infeasible. Enterprise Community Partners highlighted examples of successful local reforms, including fee waivers, expedited permitting, and zoning changes in several cities, and DCYF said it is working toward a 2026 action plan and a resource guide for providers. In the final section, planners and developers discussed how street standards and frontage improvement requirements can undermine infill and middle housing. Poulsbo’s planning manager said current standards were designed for greenfield subdivisions and often force costly curb, gutter, sidewalk, stormwater, and utility upgrades on small infill sites, sometimes adding tens of thousands of dollars and causing projects to be abandoned. A Seattle-based developer made similar points about small middle-housing projects being burdened by frontage work, curb ramps, buried standards, and EV-ready parking requirements that can trigger expensive undergrounding. Committee members asked about possible state-level changes, including whether child care should be treated as an essential public facility and whether parking requirements had already been reduced; one senator noted that minimum parking requirements for child care facilities were eliminated in prior legislation, with implementation phased in over the next few years.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is also a fee that is charged.
• Do you separately list out, like Uber does, the booking fee, which is the insurance fee?
• Do you separately list out like Uber does the booking fee, which is the insurance fee?
• “Do you separately list out, like Uber does, the booking fee, which is the insurance fee, on Lyft?”
• “These are like the Access for All fee or the Clean Miles Standard fee, but these are pennies compared

Summary: The hearing focused on transportation network companies in California, with the chair framing it as an informational hearing on the history, regulation, safety, climate, accessibility, and data issues surrounding Uber, Lyft, and smaller or autonomous TNC services. The CPUC described its decade-long regulatory role, including safety rules, background checks, insurance requirements, reporting obligations, and two major legislative programs from 2018: the Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program. Members asked about complaint trends, data collection and disclosure, program implementation, and how the CPUC uses annual reports for policymaking, compliance, and program oversight. Uber and Lyft said the statewide framework has supported growth while providing safety and access benefits, but both companies emphasized that insurance is a major cost driver and argued that California’s UM/UIM requirement is unusually high compared with other vehicles. They said the Clean Miles Standard is pushing electrification but faces headwinds from EV affordability and charging infrastructure, while Access for All has expanded wheelchair-accessible service but still needs continued support. They also discussed transit partnerships, wildfire response, and the potential role of autonomous vehicles, with both companies saying human drivers will remain important and that future regulation should account for new technology. The final panel, including the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and UC Berkeley researchers, presented evidence that TNCs have increased congestion and reduced transit ridership, especially in dense urban areas. They described prior research showing TNCs contributed to congestion growth in San Francisco and noted that this work helped spur local taxes on ride-hailing trips to fund safety and transit improvements. The panel also discussed the CPUC’s evolving data-disclosure decisions, arguing that public access to TNC trip data is important for understanding transportation impacts and informing local policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• So VLF, vehicle license fee, our favorite topic.
• The vehicle license fee, our favorite topic.
• And our fees are capped at 17% of those revenues.
• The prior fee structure was a flat fee of either $75,000 or $100,000 based on two tiers of total tonnage
• Whereas the new fee structure applies The new fee structure applies a $60 per ton rate, including fractions

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• or not to assess fees.
• > altogether Eliminating fines and fees altogether Eliminating fines and fees altogether would
• rehabilitative value for fines and fees rehabilitative value for fines and fees for<01:01:12.400
• or or not to discretion to assess fees or or not to assess<01:02:13.839> fees.
• And I I would like to assess fees.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, they're not supposed to look at fees. We're supposed to look at fees.
• fee.
• but more than I guess the current fee. but more than I guess the current fee.
• doubled the fees. doubled the fees.
• the fees. the fees. Good<03:09:57.160> point.

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:

• fees are higher?
• Well, the way that the statute structures our fees, licensees are required to pay.
• Last year, the last fiscal year, the assessments and fees were $2,800.
• So previously, before the fee study being conducted and then the fees being increased, the fee tied to
• the fee.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration heard a series of budget change proposals and trailer bill items, beginning with Housing and Community Development (HCD) requests. HCD sought permanent authority for seven existing temporary positions to support the HCD Connect IT system, and a separate proposal to fund implementation of eight 2025 housing-related laws with $4.2 million General Fund and 16 positions, plus $470,000 one-time General Fund. Members asked about how HCD Connect would interact with programs moving to the new Housing Development Finance Committee, and HCD also explained that the estimated cost to implement AB 1053 had been revised downward from about $6 million to $1.9 million because of shared implementation with CalHFA and the new committee structure. The committee also heard a Cal ICH proposal for $339,000 one-time General Fund to implement AB 678 on LGBTQ+ inclusive and culturally competent homelessness services, with testimony emphasizing data gaps and the need for a contract-based approach because HMIS cannot be changed unilaterally. The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation presented three continuation proposals: $15.34 million and 53 positions for the California Consumer Financial Protection Law program, $13.5 million and 51 positions for the Debt Collector Licensing Act program, and $49,000 ongoing for two positions in the broker-dealer/investment adviser education program. Members and the public raised concerns about the size and fairness of debt collector assessments and licensing fees, while DFPI explained the pro rata fee structure, the current license count, and how larger assessments fall on larger firms. Public testimony also supported retaining funding for the Student Loan Empowerment Network and requested funding for a franchise broker registration program. The committee also considered a mandate item involving suspension of a disclosure requirement related to property taxation, and trailer bill language from the Government Operations Agency to amend AB 91 on MENA demographic data collection, with the administration emphasizing data nondisclosure, protection of federal funding, and delayed implementation. The Secretary of State’s office then presented Help America Vote Act funding requests: $10.3 million for VoteCal maintenance and operations and $4.492 million for HAVA spending plans supporting voter education, training, accessibility, auditing, and county assistance. The office also requested $660,000 General Fund to implement AB 1392, which would make voter registration information for elected officials and candidates confidential, and explained the need to modify VoteCal and county election systems. The committee also heard requests to continue the Cal-Access Replacement System with $11.8 million General Fund and to continue the Notary Automation Program Replacement Project with $9.75 million from the Business Fees Fund. Members asked about total project costs, testing, data migration, and the expected November 2026 go-live date for Cal-Access replacement. Votes were taken on the vote-only items once quorum was established, and the committee approved the items considered. The final informational item was an overview from the California Arts Council, which highlighted the agency’s 50th anniversary, its statewide grantmaking, and the economic impact of arts funding. Council staff described Creative Corps, cultural districts, and the role of arts funding in local economies, while members and public witnesses urged increased support, including a request to raise local assistance grant funding to $50 million and to provide additional funding for cultural districts. Testimony emphasized the arts as economic infrastructure, community infrastructure, and a source of civic and cultural vitality across California.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, I believe anybody who paid the fees, those fees are not going to get it back.
• The agreed repeal of school impact fees.
• CD1 abolishes various impact fee CD1 abolishes various impact fee accounts<00:02:50.120> and<
• Um, had to pay the fees. Um, had to pay the fees.
• um, who paid the fees, those fees are, um, who paid the fees, those fees are, um, they're<00:03:

Bills: HB2241, HB1163, HB1514, HB1696, HB2021, SB2135, SB2466, SB2727, SB3082, SB3097, SB2861, SCR100, SB3096, SB99, SB2138, HB2289, HB2319, HB1711, HB2270, SB3138, SB3076, HB1642, HB2338, HB2171, HB1785, SB2881, HB2505, SB2552, HB1518, HB1815, SB3125, SB3234, SCR162, SB2614, SB3118, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB2158, HB1718, HB2207, HB1801, SB3229, SB2338, SB3069, SB2600, HB2300, HB1800, HB1960, SB2999, SB2060, SB2866, SB2239, HB1741, HB1713, HB2023, HB2417, SB2877, SB2598, SB2921, SB2645, HB2547, HB2275, HB2452, HB2329, HB2339, HB1838, HB1509, HB1661, HB2271, HB2272, HB2344, HB1888, HB1707, SB2340, HB2474, HB1576, HB1853, HB1804, HB1854, HB2095, HB2050, HB472, SB3215, SB2247, SB2400, HB1618, HB1802, HB1969, HB1541, HB2310, HB2498, HB2443, HB2218, HB649, HB2104, HB1710, SB2802, HB1973, HB1974, HB1894, HB1891, HB1890, SB177, SB2101, SB3320, SB2487, HB2429, HB1870, HB1839, HB2583, HB1391, HB2094, SB2671, SB2673, SB2892, SB2057, SB3245, HB306, HB2592, SB3157, SB3204, SB3324, SB2580, SB2074, SB411, SB3025, SB2934, SB2567, SB2125, SB3238, SB2367, SB2599, SB3007, SB2001, SB2756, SB3029

Keywords: renewable energy, income tax credit, solar energy, wind energy, low-income households, energy policy, commercial drivers license, non-domiciled, federal regulations, commercial learner's permit, citizenship, lawful residency, Department of Transportation, workers' compensation, vocational rehabilitation, injury recovery, employment services, return to work, commercial driving, driver's license