Transcript Highlights:

• It allows the PUC to assess a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the applications, and it restores.

Bills: SJR39, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB34, SB37, SB75, SB209, SB310, SB505, SB552, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB747, SB762, SB769, SB819, SB825, SB870, SB926, SB964, SB1030, SB1080, SB1099, SB1124, SB1177, SB1208, SB1233, SB1314, SB1325, SB1333, SB1405, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1541, SB1577, SB1579, SB1596, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1750, SB1758, SB1760, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1869, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2023, SB2024, SB2056, SB2078, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2252, SB2361, SB2365, SB2368, SB2405, SB2411, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB762, SB1596, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB310, SB505, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1333, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1314, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB855, SB1233, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB1818, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1208, SB1124, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2662, SB2161, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB2533, SB1413, SB1413

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, volunteer fire department, Texas A&M Forest Service, West Texas A&M University, prescribed burning, fuel loading

Bills: SJR39, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB34, SB37, SB75, SB209, SB310, SB505, SB552, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB747, SB762, SB769, SB819, SB825, SB870, SB926, SB964, SB1030, SB1080, SB1099, SB1124, SB1177, SB1208, SB1233, SB1314, SB1325, SB1333, SB1405, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1541, SB1577, SB1579, SB1596, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1750, SB1758, SB1760, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1869, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2023, SB2024, SB2056, SB2078, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2252, SB2361, SB2365, SB2368, SB2405, SB2411, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB762, SB1596, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB310, SB505, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1333, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1314, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB855, SB1233, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB1818, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1208, SB1124, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2662, SB2161, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB2533, SB1413, SB1413, SB1, SB34, SB310, SB819, SB1030, SB1124, SB1208, SB1233, SB1333, SB1405, SB1541, SB1750, SB1758, SB1869, SB2078, SB2365, SB2411, SB762, SB33, SB37, SB505, SR402, SR409, SB2695, SB2695

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, volunteer fire department, Texas A&M Forest Service, West Texas A&M University, prescribed burning, fuel loading

Bills: HB145, SB37, HB279, HB292, SB35, SB48, SB20, SJR1, SB38, SB41, SB73, SB100, SB111, SB132, SB152, SJR7, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM29, HM43, HM59, HM30, HM52, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB2, HB70, HB180, SB151, SB240, SB273, HB95, HB247, HB332, HB8, HB253, HB4, HB96

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, high-quality literacy instruction, science of reading, structured literacy, reading instruction, literacy assessment, dyslexia screening, phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, biliteracy, English language learner, ELL, bilingual education

Transcript Highlights:

• An impact fee, instead, if it follows the dual rational nexus test, is a fee, and that fee is going to
• , I pay a big impact fee.
• So $10,000 impact fee. What's a $10,000 impact fee?
• Well, that's a lot of money. $10,000 impact fee. What's a $10,000 impact fee?
• on fees on fees very often, and they have some of the highest fees in the state.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• They pay a handling fee. Sometimes they pay a delivery fee.
• They pay a handling fee. Sometimes they pay a delivery fee.
• fee?
• It's the interchange fee. It's the Visa and MasterCard fees that they set.
• as credit card fees.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met for its second hearing to study the future of credit card payments and sales transactions and their impacts on small businesses. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurants, and payment-industry representatives on interchange fees, processing fees, fraud, chargebacks, rewards programs, and the ability of businesses to pass fees on to customers. Several witnesses argued that swipe fees have risen sharply, are especially burdensome for restaurants and other small businesses, and are charged on taxes and tips that are merely pass-through amounts. They urged state action to prohibit fees on tax and tip portions, improve transparency, and allow surcharging or convenience fees, while opponents warned that state regulation could reduce fraud protections, increase compliance costs, and threaten consumer rewards programs. Business owners and trade groups described thin margins, rising costs, and the difficulty of understanding merchant statements or negotiating with processors. Restaurant witnesses said card-not-present and online transactions create the greatest fraud and chargeback risk, with money often removed immediately from merchants’ accounts and disputes rarely resolved in their favor. Retail witnesses gave examples of rising effective rates, higher fees on rewards cards, and the burden of processing fees on low-value transactions. A representative from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and others said restaurants are effectively paying fees on meals tax and gratuities, which they argued should not be subject to interchange charges. On the other side, the Cooperative Credit Union Association said interchange revenue helps credit unions fund fraud prevention, rapid card replacement, and member protections, and warned that state limits on interchange could weaken those safeguards and lead to higher consumer costs or reduced services. Airlines for America testified that airline credit card rewards are popular, support travel and jobs in Massachusetts, and could be harmed by interchange reform. The National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that interchange fees are set by card networks rather than competitive markets, that banks remain highly profitable even with rewards, and that states can act after recent court decisions. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questions from commissioners.

Transcript Highlights:

• could directly attach to the fee.
• <00:37:34.000> at fee they aren't collecting that fee at fee they aren't collecting that fee
• One of the things, too, when we put these fees in, when we put the gas fees, we put the delivery fee
• <00:56:16.559> in the gas fees we put the delivery fee in the gas fees we put the delivery
• fee on that so fee on or 3% credit card fee on that so it's<00:56:39.319> just<00:56:39.559><

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 5 was heard in the Transportation Committee and moved by the author, Representative Jim Joy, to be referred to the Tax Committee. Joy described the bill as a package to make Minnesota more affordable by fully eliminating the Social Security tax subtraction, ending the motor fuels tax indexing, repealing the retail delivery fee, and studying vehicle registration/license taxes compared with neighboring states. Committee fiscal staff explained the bill’s fiscal effects across the general fund, highway user tax distribution fund, transportation advancement account, and metro county sales tax allocations, including that the delivery fee repeal would reduce Transportation Advancement Account revenue and that the bill would shift some revenue sources to offset losses. Several stakeholders testified. The Minnesota Grocers Association strongly supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it is costly and complex for retailers to administer, especially small businesses, and that the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. The Minnesota Propane Association also supported repeal, saying the fee is burdensome for propane businesses, that only a small share of deliveries are actually subject to it, and that compliance costs can exceed the fee revenue collected. Fiscal staff noted that delivery fee revenue forecasts have fallen below earlier projections, and explained that the fee is imposed on sellers with several exemptions, including a $100 transaction threshold and exemptions for some sales such as bars, restaurants, nonprofits, and certain small businesses. Opposition came from local government groups. The League of Minnesota Cities said it supported the Transportation Advancement Account and its 2023 funding sources, including the delivery fee and motor vehicle parts sales tax, and warned that the bill would prematurely alter a funding structure that cities rely on for predictable transportation revenue. The Minnesota Association of Small Cities said small cities had long lacked dedicated transportation funding and wanted a stable, ongoing revenue stream, but were neutral on the exact source as long as it was reliable. Metro Cities echoed support for stable, predictable transportation funding for metro-area cities. The committee took testimony and discussion only; no final vote was recorded in the excerpt beyond the motion to refer the bill to the Tax Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Fees will be annual. The CCB may prorate fees over a longer period of time.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate Bill 323, suspending the rules to consider it immediately. The bill was described as a broad agricultural measure with committee amendments and fiscal implications, and it was reported favorably by the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee, Ways and Means, and Appropriations. Members outlined sections dealing with milk market corrections, farm-to-school language, repeal of the obsolete pest control compact, pesticide applicator licensing changes, seed law updates, the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program, hemp regulation, and CAFO-related provisions. The Agriculture committee reported the bill out 7-0-1, and the effective date was described as July 1, 2026, except for the hemp provisions, which would take effect upon passage. Much of the discussion focused on the hemp sections. Supporters said the bill updates Vermont law to reflect federal changes and shifts hemp oversight from the Agency of Agriculture to the Cannabis Control Board. The hemp provisions would create registration and licensing requirements for hemp producers, processors, and certain hemp products; set fees; authorize testing, inspections, stop-sale orders, and administrative penalties; and allow rulemaking on product standards, labeling, insurance, additives, and age restrictions. Speakers said the changes were intended to help Vermont’s hemp industry maintain access to banking, insurance, and interstate commerce while improving consumer safety and regulatory clarity. Other agricultural provisions were also explained in detail. The bill would clarify milk producer hearing rights, update farm-to-school grant/contract language, remove outdated pest-control compact language, and adjust pesticide applicator exam and fee rules, including removing the limit on retakes and eliminating certain government applicator fees. It would also modernize seed labeling and definitions, transfer the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program into a new statutory structure under VEDA, and make conforming cross-reference changes in tax and cannabis fund statutes. The final sections would add a CAFO permit working group and require consultant training for state agencies on CAFO inspections, with those provisions contingent on future funding. Ways and Means noted the bill’s fee changes could affect state revenues, including an estimated hemp-related impact of roughly $10,000 to $90,000, though the exact effect was uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees.
• Because, like I said, egg inspection fees, pesticides, other agricultural fees, water fees are impacted
• They're supposed to be fees that were to fund. They were user fees.
• They're supposed to be fees that were to fund... They were user fees.
• User fees should be limited to the limited cases where the user is paying for the fee or the fee is funding

Bills: SB1142, SCR1028

Keywords: scholarships, tax credit, education funding, nonprofit organizations, Arizona Revised Statutes, constitutional amendment, state revenue, tax policy, legislative approval, two-thirds vote, 1182, all

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee heard Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028, which would send to voters a constitutional change narrowing an existing exception to Arizona’s two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases. The resolution would require legislative approval for increases in state revenue through fees and assessments that are authorized by statute before January 1, 2027, and set by a state officer or agency without a prescribed formula, amount, or limit. The sponsor argued the measure would close a loophole that has allowed agencies to raise fees without direct legislative accountability, while opponents said it would make it harder for agencies to adjust fees for inflation, operations, and regulatory costs and could shift costs to taxpayers or slow services. After testimony and debate, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SCR 1028 with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1142, which would have Arizona opt into a federal tax credit program for donations to scholarship-granting organizations. Supporters said the measure would bring new private scholarship funding into Arizona at no cost to the state, expand school choice, and help students with tutoring, special needs services, transportation, and other educational expenses. Opponents argued the federal program was not yet fully written, lacked clear guardrails, and could further strain public schools by diverting resources away from the majority of students who remain in the public system. Committee members debated whether the program would benefit Arizona students without affecting state funds, and whether more transparency and rules were needed before adoption. After discussion, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SB 1142 with a do pass recommendation. Several members explained their votes on both measures, with supporters emphasizing voter choice, accountability, and limiting fee increases, and opponents emphasizing the need for revenue, public school funding, and caution about the unresolved federal scholarship rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• Interchange fees are fees that card acceptors pay to card Interchange fees are fees that card acceptors
• a network fee, or the processor's fee.
• Again, you know, fee after fee after fee—that's what we're being charged. When is enough enough?
• fees.
• fee-free.

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 407, which would expand the California Pollution Control Financing Authority. The author said the measure would increase flexibility and access to resources, and the bill was approved 7-0 and sent to the Committee on Local Government. The committee also adopted the consent calendar, which included AB 76, by a 7-0 vote. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on AB 1065, which would prohibit swipe fees on the sales tax portion of credit card transactions. Supporters, including small business owners, restaurant and grocery representatives, and a payments-policy expert, argued the bill would reduce costs for merchants and consumers and rein in dominant card networks. Opponents, including banks, credit unions, and payment industry groups, argued the bill is likely preempted by federal law, would be difficult to implement, and could disproportionately affect community banks and credit unions. After extensive questioning about preemption, fraud, implementation, and consumer impacts, the committee rejected the bill on a 6-0 vote, but then granted reconsideration by a 7-1 vote. The committee then heard AB 1365, which would create the Cal Account Program, a zero-fee, zero-penalty state banking account for unbanked and underbanked Californians. Supporters said the program would help low-income households, survivors of abuse, and others facing barriers to traditional banking, while opponents from community banks and credit unions argued existing low-cost accounts and the Bank On program already address the need and raised concerns about cost, feasibility, and duplication. The bill advanced on a 6-0 vote and later received enough votes on the reopened roll to move forward to the Committee on Labor and Employment. The committee also approved AB 1052, which would create a legal framework for digital assets and address unclaimed digital property and restrictions on public officials issuing or promoting digital assets, and AB 1180, which would create a pilot program for paying state fees with digital financial assets and require a report on broader adoption. Both bills passed with broad support after brief testimony and discussion. Final roll calls later confirmed AB 1052 and AB 1180, along with AB 407 and AB 1365, were moved out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The minimum fee for an on-site electrical inspection was updated from $35 to $55 last year, and the fee
• These changes simply update the cross-references to the fee schedules that the investigation fee is based
• The minimum fee for an on-site electrical inspection was updated from $35 to $55 last year, and the fee
• <00:03:46.080> for year's fee schedule updates, the fee for year's fee schedule updates, the
• fee for 16 or for 15 circuits. fee for 16 or for 15 circuits.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the 50-cent delivery fee, when you talk about a delivery fee, when you talk about a propane
• Chair. fee they aren't collecting that fee at fee they aren't collecting that fee at the<00:37:55.680
• One of the things, too, when we put these fees in, when we put the gas fees, we put the delivery fee
• <00:56:38.079> in the gas fees we put the delivery fee in the gas fees we put the delivery
• <00:56:59.440> on card fee on or 3% credit card fee on card fee on or 3% credit card fee on

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Minnesota House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee met on January 22, 2025, for its first meeting and took up House File 5, introduced by Representative Jim Joy and moved to the Tax Committee. Joy said the bill would make Minnesota more affordable by eliminating the Social Security tax, repealing the motor fuels tax inflator, removing the retail delivery fee, and changing vehicle-related taxes and metro-area sales tax allocations. Committee fiscal staff reviewed the bill’s fiscal effects, including impacts on the general fund, the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, the Transportation Advancement Account, and the split between Metropolitan Council and metropolitan counties. Testimony was largely divided along stakeholder lines. The Minnesota Grocers Association and Minnesota Propane Association supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it creates administrative burdens, requires costly software changes, and raises costs that are passed on to consumers; propane representatives said the fee is especially burdensome because most of their deliveries are exempt but still require tracking and reporting. In contrast, the League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota Association of Small Cities, Metro Cities, and Minnesota Association of Townships emphasized the need for stable, predictable transportation funding for local roads and said they support the Transportation Advancement Account and related revenue streams, though some were neutral on the exact source of funding. The League and small cities groups said local governments need reliable annual revenue and that past funding has been inconsistent. Committee members asked about who pays the delivery fee, its exemptions, and how much revenue it has generated versus earlier forecasts. Fiscal staff said current estimates for delivery fee revenue are below original projections, and explained the fee’s exemptions and $100 transaction threshold. Representative Joy said his intent was to keep small cities and townships whole as the bill moves forward. No vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the bill was heard and referred as noted at the outset.

Transcript Highlights:

• If they choose the per-mile or the flat fee, it'll be added on to their registration fees. Okay.
• owners paying the annual fee.
• owners paying the annual fee.
• The highway use fee is a mandatory fee. Right, but this is in lieu, right?
• The voluntary is that in lieu of paying the highway fee? It is paying it on a per-mile fee.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee first took up three highway naming resolutions on its consent calendar: ACR 109, SCR 78, and SCR 90. The committee approved the consent calendar with 11 aye votes and no no votes, then adjourned the bill-hearing portion. Members also recognized committee science fellow AJ Mendeola for his service, noting his contributions to bill analysis and staff support. The committee then held an informational hearing on alternatives to the gas tax, focused on the projected decline in fuel-tax revenue and the need for a more sustainable transportation funding model. The chair and invited experts described how inflation, improved fuel efficiency, and growth in electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles are eroding gas-tax revenues. Presenters from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the University of California discussed state options such as higher or indexed gas taxes, EV registration fees, road usage charges, delivery fees, public EV charging fees, transportation network company fees, and managed lanes, emphasizing tradeoffs among revenue adequacy, fairness, administrative cost, and public acceptance. Committee members raised concerns that mileage-based fees or EV fees could function as new taxes on commuters and lower-income drivers, especially if the gas tax is not repealed. Presenters responded that road usage charges are generally intended as replacements for the gas tax, not additions, and argued that mileage-based systems better preserve the user-pays principle while being less tied to vehicle fuel efficiency. They also noted that flat EV registration fees are easy to administer but can be less equitable because they are not linked to actual road use. Officials from Hawaii, Utah, and Oregon described their state programs and policy choices. Hawaii said its new road usage charge began July 1, 2025, for EVs, offers a choice between a per-mile charge and a flat annual fee through 2028, and will transition to mandatory EV participation before expanding to all light-duty vehicles by 2033. Utah described its voluntary EV road usage charge program, quarterly reporting, privacy protections, and legislative scenarios for removing the cap or making participation mandatory. Oregon outlined its constitutional cost-responsibility framework and broader transportation funding challenges, including reliance on user fees and limited use of general-fund support.

Transcript Highlights:

• 1088HD1 relating to school impact fees 1088HD1 relating to school impact fees which<00:19:36.640
• <00:22:13.919> fee about not only the school impact fee fee about not only the school impact
• fee fee program<00:22:15.120> but<00:22:15.360> its<00:22:15.600> predecessor<00
• The smaller projects also have to pay the impact fee, right, if it's in the declared impact fee district
• <00:26:30.400> is isn't the nexus for the impact fee is isn't the nexus for the impact fee

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Joint Senate Committee on Education, Hawaiian Affairs, and Housing heard House Bill 1088 HD1, which would exempt housing developed by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) from school impact fees. The Department of Education said it was open to working with DHHL and the Legislature, including possibly eliminating the construction-cost portion of the fee for DHHL and other government affordable housing projects, but it wanted to retain the land-dedication requirement for future school sites where growth would exceed existing school capacity. The School Facilities Authority supported the bill, and DHHL strongly supported it, noting that its testimony referenced an earlier emergency proclamation but that the exemption remains in the current proclamation. DHHL also said it had no objection to a proposed amendment from the Wahiawa Hawaiian Homestead Association. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii testified in opposition to the broader school impact fee program, arguing that the fund has accumulated about $29 million that has not been spent and citing concerns raised in State Auditor Report 19-13, including administrative and constitutional issues. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the fee system is being applied fairly, especially to smaller projects and homeowners, and whether the districts and calculations used to assess fees have been updated. Members questioned the DOE and SFA about the distinction between land and construction costs, the use of fees in areas like Kīhei, Kalihi, Ala Moana, and Ewa, and whether the department had revisited district calculations as recommended in the audit. DOE said it had collected about $500,000 in construction money and $2.8 million in land contributions for Kalihi-related areas, and said it would follow up on questions about land conveyances and district updates. After discussion, the chair called for a vote. The Education committee recommended passing HB 1088 HD1 as is, with Senator San Buenaventura voting with reservation and Senators Ihara and Kole voting aye. The recommendation was adopted. The Housing committee then also deferred the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• to Visa and MasterCard as a network fee or to the processor as a processing fee.
• Again, you know, fee after fee after fee, that's what we're being charged. When is enough enough?
• fees.
• fee-free.
• fees?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You pay attorney's fees, and you pay professional fees. It's already in the statute.
• Here's your fees.
• We'd like $2,000 in attorney fees. Well, they're already getting the attorney's fees.
• These fees are causing builder flight as builders leave our high-impact-fee city for a non-impact-fee
• And that $10,000 doesn't include a $5,500 parks dedication fee and the developer fee.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 5695, which would create the Sayers Ranch Municipal Utility District in Bastrop County between Elgin and Bastrop. Representative Gurdis said Bastrop County commissioners unanimously supported the district. There was no public testimony, the bill was left pending, and later reported favorably to the full House on an 8-0 vote. The main debate centered on Senate Bill 291, which would require condemning entities to pay landowner attorney’s fees if they fail to provide 10 years of appraisal reports with an initial offer in an eminent domain case. Supporters, including Rita Beving and Charles Maley, argued the bill would add an enforcement mechanism and better protect landowners in a process they described as intimidating and lopsided. Opponents, including Tom Zabel and Lisa Kaufman, said current law already provides a remedy through abatement and attorney’s fees under Section 21.047 of the Property Code, and warned the bill could create inconsistency, delay public infrastructure projects, and increase costs. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 5699, a simple MUD boundary change in Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 405 that would allow a tract to leave one district and join another. Representative Schofield said the landowner and district agreed to the change and to pay the tract’s share of debt. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote. Later, the committee considered House Bill 5489, which would impose a four-year moratorium on impact fees. Representative Dyson framed it as an “active study” to test whether impact fees raise housing costs. College Station officials and other opponents argued impact fees help fund infrastructure for growth and that local governments should retain control; supporters said the fees are regressive and add to housing prices. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 292, which would update the Landowner Bill of Rights to add information on surveys, require separate offers for property not sought in condemnation, and require the rights document to be delivered with the initial offer. Supporters said it would improve transparency and fill gaps in the current document, while opponents said it was unnecessary because the law already exists and warned against revisiting a 2021 compromise. The transcript ends during that discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Transfer fees. Transfer fees are part of the solution.
• buyer, would be the one paying the fee?
• And so this fee, in some way, do you understand this fee can make it less affordable for many people
• I would not have had to pay this fee when I purchased my home last year, unlike the land bank fee that
• The transfer fee is not a fee.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on a series of bills focused largely on local-option real estate transfer fees and housing funding tools for communities facing severe affordability pressures. Testimony strongly favored bills for Somerville, Concord, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, Chatham, and a statewide local-option transfer fee, with speakers arguing that high-end real estate transactions should help fund affordable housing, anti-displacement efforts, workforce housing, and related capital improvements. Elected officials and local housing leaders described rising rents and home prices, investor activity, shrinking year-round housing stock, and difficulty recruiting or retaining teachers, police, health care workers, and other essential employees. Several witnesses emphasized that the proposals would be optional for municipalities, could include exemptions for first-time homebuyers or seniors, and would direct revenue into local affordable housing trust funds or housing banks. Committee members asked questions about who would pay the fee and whether it could make housing less affordable, and supporters responded that the fees would be targeted at higher-value transactions and designed with local flexibility. For Somerville, the delegation and Mayor Katjana Ballantyne backed both a local home rule petition and statewide enabling legislation, saying the city has already used zoning reform, inclusionary zoning, and local housing funds but still needs a new revenue source to address displacement and investor-driven purchases. For Concord, Representative Carmine Gentile and Concord housing advocates supported a home rule petition and the statewide bill, arguing that a modest fee on sales above $1 million could generate predictable revenue for affordable housing production and preservation. One committee exchange focused on whether the fee would affect most Concord sales and whether it would be passed on to buyers; supporters said the policy was intended to shift costs toward higher-value properties and help leverage other funding sources. The committee also heard testimony on House 4105, which would redirect a casino-related revenue stream to the Healthy Incentives Program. Farmers, advocates, and residents said the current funding was originally intended to support horse racing but has not met that goal, and that the money would be better used to support Massachusetts farmers and food-insecure residents through HIP. In a separate bill, Senator Becca Rausch testified in support of Senate 268, which would create a state-level hostile learning environment complaint process for higher education institutions and potentially strip tax exemptions from colleges or universities found to have such environments; she cited anti-Semitic and transphobic incidents on campuses and argued that existing federal protections should be mirrored in state law. The hearing also included testimony on college tuition debt reduction legislation from Senator Michael Moore, who said the bill would allow a deduction for tuition and fees paid to Massachusetts public colleges and universities to ease student debt and support the state’s workforce. A major portion of the hearing focused on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket housing bank proposals. Hospital, school, housing, planning, and municipal officials from Martha’s Vineyard said the island’s year-round housing shortage is harming health care, schools, and the local workforce, and urged approval of a housing bank funded by a local-option transfer fee. Nantucket witnesses made similar arguments, pointing to a very high median home price, a large seasonal housing stock, and the need for a dedicated revenue stream to preserve and create year-round housing. Supporters repeatedly cited the long-running success of the islands’ land banks as evidence that transfer fees can work without harming real estate markets. Senator Julian Cyr and Representative Thomas Moakley Luddy also backed the Cape and Islands transfer-fee bills, saying the region needs bold action and a sustainable local funding source to address its housing crisis.

Transcript Highlights:

• You pay attorney's fees, and you pay professional fees. It's already in the statute.
• Here's your fees.
• We'd like $2,000 in attorney's fees. Well, they're already getting the attorney's fees.
• These fees are causing builder flight as builders leave our high-impact-fee city for a non-impact-fee
• And that $10,000 doesn't include a $5,500 parks dedication fee and the developer fee.

Bills: HB5489, HB5695, HB5699, SB291, SB292

Keywords: impact fee, moratorium, local government, Texas legislation, infrastructure funding, municipal utility district, eminent domain, bonds, assessments, infrastructure, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Harris County, Municipal Utility District, territory exclusion, debt service taxes, property taxation, condemnation, property acquisition, real property, appraisal reports

Transcript Highlights:

• fees on actual restaurant revenue.
• In 2025, our group paid over $350,000 in credit card fees, but close to $100,000 of which was on fees
• That fee is not currently...
• That fee is not currently refunded.
• The interchange fees paid to the issuing bank or credit union, fees to the acquiring bank, fees to the

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• So one, we're adding language to say a fee or fees per transaction cannot come in above $7.50.
• They are fee-based.
• Those fees have to be clear.
• fees, and payday loans.
• is a one-time fee.

Transcript Highlights:

• You mentioned the fees.
• That’s a separate fee, interchange... ...That’s a separate fee.
• , not the processor fee, not the acquiring fee, just that.
• They publish fee schedules, which have hundreds of categories of fee rates for interchange fees.
• other fee that they charge—interest rates or late fees or things like that—each bank sets its own fee

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on several bills focused on financial security, banking regulation, and payment-card fees. Treasurer Deborah Goldberg supported the Massachusetts baby bonds proposal (H. 48) and also endorsed bills on matched savings (H. 1158/S. 737) and retirement planning/Secure Choice (H. 1143/S. 722), arguing these measures would help address wealth inequality, build assets, and improve retirement readiness. Supporters of baby bonds included policy experts and health advocates from Children’s Health Watch and Boston Medical Center, who said early-life asset building could improve long-term economic and health outcomes for children in low-income families. AARP also urged passage of the retirement planning bill, citing the large share of private-sector workers without access to an employer retirement plan. Representative Donato testified for H. 1143, describing it as a voluntary retirement-savings opportunity for workers at small employers. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3933, concerning the Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance Corporation, from former Bank Commissioner Mike Hanson, who defended the state’s full deposit insurance system for credit unions and savings institutions as a longstanding consumer-protection model. The Massachusetts Bankers Association raised concerns about the bill’s technical provisions and broader credit union/bank competitive issues, while the Cooperative Credit Union Association supported related legislation allowing modest compensation for credit union directors (S. 821/H. 1338) and flexibility for state financial institutions to grow through partnerships (S. 723). Bankers opposed those credit union bills, arguing they would upset a level playing field and blur long-standing distinctions between banks and credit unions. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1259/S. 688, which would prohibit card interchange fees on the tax and gratuity portions of restaurant transactions. Restaurant owners and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association testified in favor, saying the fees are a significant and growing expense, especially as most customers now pay by card; they argued the bills would save restaurants money without affecting state revenue. Credit union, banking, and payments-industry representatives opposed the bills, saying interchange helps fund fraud protection and payment infrastructure, that the proposal would create compliance burdens and likely litigation, and that it would mainly affect Massachusetts-chartered institutions while national banks could be preempted. Committee members noted that a commission on payment-card fees is being established and said the issue would be studied further. The hearing also included support for a separate bill on virtual credit cards for dental providers, with dentists saying automatic virtual-card payments impose hidden processing fees and fraud risks.