Transcript Highlights:

• Regarding mutual taxes and fees, the bill reduces the tax of 8 percent to 5 percent and reduces the tax
• on slot machine revenues from 35 to 34 percent and eliminates a licensing fee for slot machine licensing
• expenditures and clarifies the order in which tax credits are taken against insurance premium taxes and caps
• the amount of contributions organizations can receive under the program and caps the amount that they
• It creates a three-year tax credit program capped at $5 million a year.

Transcript Highlights:

• the local education agency billing option program and the statewide school-linked behavioral health fee
• While this bill will increase the maximum assessment cap amount that will be collected by the commission
• I'm pleased to present AB 681, which increases the annual loan cap under the existing Dream Loan Program
• It simply increases the loan cap within the existing allocation.
• This change would result in minor reductions in fee revenue that would likely be offset by an associated

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on April 9, 2025, with a large regular-order agenda and a consent calendar. The committee first approved a set of unanimous consent bills, then heard and acted on several measures, generally with authors describing them as having minor or absorbable fiscal effects. Bills discussed included AB 439 on Coastal Act streamlining, AB 322 on school-based health and mental health reimbursement participation, AB 679 on state park land acquisition exemptions, AB 482 updating the California Table Grape Commission law, AB 681 increasing the Dream Loan Program cap, AB 40 clarifying emergency services include reproductive health care, AB 454 making the California Migratory Bird Protection Act permanent, AB 572 creating protections for families of people killed or seriously injured by peace officers, and AB 639 narrowing the definition of dams to avoid extra regulation for certain water operators. Testimony was largely in support of the bills. Supporters included representatives from the University of California, the California Table Grape Commission, Audubon California, Sempervirens Fund, emergency physicians, health equity groups, water districts, and several impacted family members and advocacy organizations on AB 572. AB 572 drew especially emotional testimony from family members describing police-involved deaths and the need for transparency and protection from coercive questioning. No organized opposition was raised on most of the bills heard in committee, though AB 439 drew no-votes from some Republicans, and AB 572 and other measures were framed as low-cost or cost-neutral. The committee reported the bills out on roll calls after motions and seconds, with several measures passing on B-roll calls and AB 482 passing on an A-roll call. After the hearing on presented bills, the committee also approved the suspense calendar and accepted brief public comment on bills not heard that day, including opposition to AB 339 and support for AB 335. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• that those caps are too high. that those caps are too high.
• might need uh what are called gas fees might need uh what are called gas fees on<01:16:20.719>
• c> less<01:22:07.199> fraud, less fees and less fraud, less fees and less fraud, why<01:22
• > fee?
• Again, talking about the fees, the other thing they found was that the fees were 20% or more for these

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, yeah, the disagreement on the caps. Alright.
• They have capped limited predictable punitives.
• I think that the 5 million cap is arbitrary.
• So there were two caps that applied.
• And he lost a trial and he lost a 4 million verdict, but he got capped down to the tort Claims cap at

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The tipping fee is the fee that you pay per ton when your trash goes to the landfill, right, or waste-to-energy
• have the The Tipping fee is the fee<03:10:56.359> that<03:10:56.520> you<03:10:56.760>
• You want to raise the fee? Oh, I see. Right.
• , then I'm going to have to pay a fee to go to the court, and then I'm going to have to pay a fee at
• to have to pay a fee at the court.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• establishes a 4-year tuition and fee establishes a 4-year tuition and fee maximum<00:03:18.480><
• It's about 17 million in savings, and it does cap it at 1%.
• up<02:08:52.079> so know that these fees can only go up so know that these fees can only
• We're thankful the House took measures to rein in the growth of tuition and fee cap in the state grant
• The legislature should provide oversight of the tuition and fee cap as it has previously to ensure the

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Finance and Policy Conference Committee met publicly to compare House and Senate positions on the higher education budget, with the chairs emphasizing transparency and alternating gavel control. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through a spreadsheet of differences across the Office of Higher Education and Minnesota State, including major items such as state grants, childcare grants, work study, tribal college grants, emergency assistance grants, hunger-free campus grants, student parent support, direct admissions, paramedic scholarships, and several medical residency and fellowship programs. The House and Senate also differed on administrative funding, campus sexual assault reporting, and a House FY25 cancellation that would be carried forward. Members discussed several of the larger policy and funding choices. The Senate explained its increase for Minitex as support for operating costs and statewide access to information. The House explained its cuts to student parent support and other items as necessary to work within a zero target and to prioritize direct aid to students, while the Senate said it focused on direct appropriations and access-related programs. On hunger-free campus grants and emergency assistance grants, the Senate said it was changing the distribution method and direct appropriations rather than reducing the overall money, while the House noted differences in whether nonprofit institutions remained included. The committee also reviewed Senate-only additions and reductions in Minnesota State, including free course materials, Lake Superior College remediation, and changes to the Kids on Campus appropriation. A representative from Lake Superior College testified that the PAS remediation funding would help address contamination issues at an emergency training site near Lake Superior and that the money was shifted from the Kids on Campus initiative. No final conference agreement or vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee continued discussing differences and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pay a $15,000 fee to exhibit at a national event, and we just charged ourselves $750 and the cost to
• There is a $750,000 cap on non-economic damages.
• On that same slide as well, how did we arrive at the actual money damages not having a cap?
• on, on, uh, non-economic damages or certainly not impose a cap on total damages.
• There are still cost of living expenses beyond tuition and fees.

Transcript Highlights:

• But let's talk about whether or not we can use that permitting fee and the way station revolving fund
• there I'd like to leave the cap there because with everything that's going on we desperately need some
• Do you know typically what flows into that revolving fund annually from the collection of the fees and
• One of the reasons that our motor fuel tax today is 20 cents is because we use a user fee That is the
• A user fee is one of the most conservative ways to fund infrastructure there is You can't solve every

Keywords: 914, all

Bills: HB1974, HB1853, HB1973, HB1574, HB2619, HB1966, HB1643, HB1671, HB2558, HB1854, HB2173, HB1575, HB2229, HB1535, HB1978, HB2508, HB1549, HB2187, HB1550, HB1977, HB2314, HB1871, HB2319, HB1591, HB1858, HB1898, HB2372, HB1765, HB2012, HB1706, HB1962, HB1963, HB1975, HB2009, HB2083, HB2224, HB1877, HB1959, HB1626, HB1665, HB2488, HB2456, HB2548, HB2207, HB1832, HB2079, HB1985, HB1618, HB2486, HB2242, HB2045, HB1703, HB2236, HB2480, HB1976, HB2287, HB2288, HB1777, HB276, HB1660, HB1676, HB1605, HB1751, HB1967, HB2383, HB2340, HB1946, HB2268, HB1950, HB2156, HB2118, HB1859, HB1863, HB1996, HB2114, HB2423, HB2429, HB2475, HB2534, HB2545, HB1813, HB1941, HB2474, HB2583, HB1576, HB1886, HB1939, HB2540, HB2590, HB2000, HB2163, HB2386, HB1691, HB1680, HB2516, HB1993, HB2442, HB1510, HB1958, HB1692

Keywords: HB1974, hearing loss, audiology, audiologist, hearing screening, hearing aids, cochlear implants, tele-audiology, communication access, assistive technology, speech-language pathology, deafness, hard of hearing, public health, kupuna, keiki, dementia, cognitive decline, fall prevention, State Health Planning and Development Agency

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:13:41.519> provider<00:13:41.839> fees<00:13:42.160> and patients, CAPS
• provider fees and patients, CAPS provider fees and streamlines<00:13:42.880> dispensary<00:13:
• Last year's bill, though, that allowed for telemedicine and a capping of the fee to about $110, $120,
• ><01:30:03.040> about<01:30:03.440> $110<01:30:04.400> $120 a capping of the fee
• to about $110 $120 a capping of the fee to about $110 $120 has<01:30:05.600> helped<01:30:06.159

Bills: HB1974, HB1853, HB1973, HB1574, HB2619, HB1966, HB1643, HB1671, HB2558, HB1854, HB2173, HB1575, HB2229, HB1535, HB1978, HB2508, HB1549, HB2187, HB1550, HB1977, HB2314, HB1871, HB2319, HB1591, HB1858, HB1898, HB2372, HB1765, HB2012, HB1706, HB1962, HB1963, HB1975, HB2009, HB2083, HB2224, HB1877, HB1959, HB1626, HB1665, HB2488, HB2456, HB2548, HB2207, HB1832, HB2079, HB1985, HB1618, HB2486, HB2242, HB2045, HB1703, HB2236, HB2480, HB1976, HB2287, HB2288, HB1777, HB276, HB1660, HB1676, HB1605, HB1751, HB1967, HB2383, HB2340, HB1946, HB2268, HB1950, HB2156, HB2118, HB1859, HB1863, HB1996, HB2114, HB2423, HB2429, HB2475, HB2534, HB2545, HB1813, HB1941, HB2474, HB2583, HB1576, HB1886, HB1939, HB2540, HB2590, HB2000, HB2163, HB2386, HB1691, HB1680, HB2516, HB1993, HB2442, HB1510, HB1958, HB1692

Keywords: HB1974, hearing loss, audiology, audiologist, hearing screening, hearing aids, cochlear implants, tele-audiology, communication access, assistive technology, speech-language pathology, deafness, hard of hearing, public health, kupuna, keiki, dementia, cognitive decline, fall prevention, State Health Planning and Development Agency

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 750 by Eckhardt. at all relating to the exemption of tuition and laboratory fees at public
• Senate Bill 759 by Cook relating to the disclosure of certain fees by a landlord to business and commerce
• Senate Bill 798 by Eckhart relating to authorizing an optional county fee on vehicle registration in

Bills: SJR1, SJR2, SJR5, SJR33, SJR34, SJR35, SJR37, SJR38, SJR39, SCR12, SB4, SB40, SB701, SB702, SB703, SB704, SB705, SB706, SB707, SB708, SB709, SB710, SB711, SB712, SB713, SB714, SB715, SB716, SB717, SB718, SB719, SB720, SB721, SB722, SB723, SB724, SB725, SB726, SB727, SB728, SB729, SB730, SB731, SB732, SB733, SB734, SB735, SB736, SB737, SB738, SB739, SB740, SB741, SB742, SB743, SB744, SB745, SB746, SB747, SB748, SB749, SB750, SB751, SB752, SB753, SB754, SB755, SB756, SB757, SB758, SB759, SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764, SB765, SB766, SB767, SB768, SB769, SB770, SB771, SB772, SB773, SB774, SB775, SB776, SB777, SB778, SB779, SB780, SB781, SB782, SB783, SB784, SB785, SB786, SB787, SB788, SB789, SB790, SB791, SB792, SB793, SB794, SB795, SB796, SB797, SB798, SB799, SB800, SB801, SB802, SB803, SB804, SB805, SB806, SB807, SB808, SB809, SB810, SB811, SB812, SB813, SB814, SB815, SB816, SB817, SB818, SB819, SB820, SB821, SB822, SB823, SB824, SB825, SJR1, SJR2, SJR5, SJR33, SJR34, SJR35, SJR37, SJR38, SJR39, SCR12, SB4, SB40, SB701, SB702, SB703, SB704, SB705, SB706, SB707, SB708, SB709, SB710, SB711, SB712, SB713, SB714, SB715, SB716, SB717, SB718, SB719, SB720, SB721, SB722, SB723, SB724, SB725, SB726, SB727, SB728, SB729, SB730, SB731, SB732, SB733, SB734, SB735, SB736, SB737, SB738, SB739, SB740, SB741, SB742, SB743, SB744, SB745, SB746, SB747, SB748, SB749, SB750, SB751, SB752, SB753, SB754, SB755, SB756, SB757, SB758, SB759, SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764, SB765, SB766, SB767, SB768, SB769, SB770, SB771, SB772, SB773, SB774, SB775, SB776, SB777, SB778, SB779, SB780, SB781, SB782, SB783, SB784, SB785, SB786, SB787, SB788, SB789, SB790, SB791, SB792, SB793, SB794, SB795, SB796, SB797, SB798, SB799, SB800, SB801, SB802, SB803, SB804, SB805, SB806, SB807, SB808, SB809, SB810, SB811, SB812, SB813, SB814, SB815, SB816, SB817, SB818, SB819, SB820, SB821, SB822, SB823, SB824, SB825

Keywords: bail denial, illegal aliens, felony offenses, constitutional amendment, law enforcement, SJR 2, Senate Joint Resolution 2, homestead exemption, property tax relief, school property tax, ad valorem tax, residence homestead, school district taxes, Texas Constitution Article VIII, public school finance, homeowner exemption, elderly exemption, senior tax relief, disabled exemption, tax year 2025

Transcript Highlights:

• of vehicle liability security to provide for a decrease in reinstatement fees.
• It's the same bill as last time, but there is a fee on this.
• So with all of the amendments that were added in the House, there is a fee.
• This bill just allows them to raise the fee by $3.50. I see no questions.
• This is basically a correction in fees that have been at the same level since 2015.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• last dollar award, and it's designed to cover any remaining balance of eligible tuition and mandatory fees
• be enrolled in a program or course of study leading to a degree, diploma, or certificate. mandatory fees
• after other scholarships, mandatory fees after other scholarships, grants,<00:02:33.520> stipends
• be eligible for NSP base but not be a recipient of NSP base because the total of their tuition and fees
• the enrollment intensity of the students who attend each type of institution, and the tuition and fees

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have yet to find a provider who has gotten paid for outpatient services on the fee-for-service side
• And will they now fall outside the fee-for-service AIHP?
• The program will not have monthly fees just for enrolling people.
• Unlike last year's bill, this bill does cap the program with the amendment to 250 members.
• Because of this cap, we will need to pursue a CMS waiver.

Bills: SB1086, SB1193, SB1318, SB1345, SB1346, SB1451, SB1496, SB1611, SB1630, SB1631, SB1632, SB1672

Keywords: reimbursement, healthcare, laboratory services, noncontracting providers, Arizona health care cost containment, personal identifying information, PII, privacy, confidential records, public records exemption, commercial disclosure, data privacy, licensure, certification, health professions, health care licensing, Arizona Department of Health Services, ADHS, emergency medical care technician, EMCT

Transcript Highlights:

• The Internal Revenue Service's fee structure begins at a couple hundred and includes fee amounts well
• Ultimately, it is unlikely that a specific or capped fee amount would cover the actual costs incurred
• The Internal Revenue Service's fee structure begins at a couple hundred and includes fee amounts well
• Ultimately, it is unlikely that a specific or capped fee amount would cover the actual costs incurred
• <00:08:28.479> fee unlikely that a specific or capped fee unlikely that a specific or capped

Bills: HF2048, HF2360, HF2006, HF950, HF912, HF3140, HF2931

Keywords: individual income tax, retirement contributions, tax corrections, annuity contracts, tax year attribution, tax credit, economic development, community investment, data disclosure, Minnesota regulations, tax increment financing, municipal authority, job creation, transferred increment, public hearing, nonresident employees, income tax exemption, Minnesota taxation, employment duties, tax withholding

Transcript Highlights:

• as fees.
• It should come, it should be a cap. It should be provided with a cap to even begin it.
• provided with a cap to even begin it. provided with a cap to even begin it.
• What are the fees going to be? Estimate only. What are the fees going to be? Estimate only.
• caps.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, there's no cap and there's also no income cap or affordability cap associated with the program.
• Now, um, there is a $6 transaction fee that happens per deed transfer and mortgage recording fee each
• There is no recurring fee each.
• we're going to on the other fee? we're going to on the other fee?
• asking me for 7500 for the closing fees. asking me for 7500 for the closing fees.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:03 Roll Call 00:00:08 Discussion of Indiana Residential Infrastructure Fund 00:01:27 Discussion of Affordable Housing Trust Fund 00:33:30 Discussion of Urban Infill 01:12:37 Approval of Minutes from July Meeting 01:39:00 Adjournment 01:39:42, 958, all

Summary: The Housing Task Force heard a presentation from Anita Sanford of the Homebuilders Association of Kentucky and Sheri Cybert of Indiana’s Residential Infrastructure Fund about Indiana’s low-interest loan program for local housing infrastructure. They described the program as a voluntary, locally driven model that helps communities finance roads, sewers, sidewalks, traffic lights, turning lanes, and other infrastructure needed for new housing development. Sanford emphasized that infrastructure and regulation are major drivers of housing costs, citing estimates that infrastructure can account for up to 30% of a home’s cost and regulations another 25%, and said the association is studying Kentucky-specific regulatory costs. She also noted that every $1,000 added to new home construction can price out about 2,000 Kentucky households. Cybert explained that Indiana’s program, administered through the Indiana Finance Authority, began in 2023 with $75 million appropriated over two years and has since closed 17 loans totaling $60.7 million, with more than 2,700 projected housing units. The program reserves 70% of funds for rural communities and 30% for urban communities, requires applications from local governments rather than developers, and asks communities to show need through a market study, describe the infrastructure and housing to be built, and provide preliminary engineering plans and a repayment source. She said the loans currently carry an interest rate around 3.5%, reset quarterly, and that the program has generated about $25 million in savings to communities compared with private borrowing. She also described recent Indiana legislative changes that encourage higher density and other zoning reforms, and said a majority of those local ordinance changes must be adopted for an application to be fundable. Members asked about the ordinance requirements, the funding split between rural and urban areas, repayment mechanisms, and whether there were caps on project size. Cybert said repayment is worked out case by case, often through existing or project-specific TIFs, temporary tax agreements, or letters of credit, and that the program has no cap on request size or income/affordability restrictions. She said the largest request funded was $19 million for a 700-unit project. Co-chair Mills and others discussed whether Kentucky could adopt a similar model and what it would cost, while Sanford and Cybert said they were still refining budget estimates. Later, Scott Welch, president of the Homebuilders Association of Kentucky, testified that upfront infrastructure costs are a major barrier in his projects, citing a $1 million pump station and road-widening and utility relocation costs as examples, and said an infrastructure fund would help get projects off the ground.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill, members, addresses a fee that was set in 2007 at a cap of $500. It hasn't been updated.
• Are you telling me that the only people that will have the $500 to $1,200 fee—is it a fee or a fine?
• And then you got to pay a monthly fee. I mean, that monthly fee is like $200.
• And right now, the fees fluctuate.
• And is that a fee from the funeral home? That's a fee from who?

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2777 by Representative Rose, which would bar the death penalty for defendants who can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they had schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and active psychotic symptoms at the time of the offense. Rose said the bill would still hold defendants accountable through life without parole, would save money by avoiding lengthy capital litigation, and would address cases where severe mental illness was not adequately considered. Supporters from NAMI Texas, the Catholic bishops, and a forensic psychologist said the bill is narrowly tailored, consistent with neuroscience and moral principles, and would prevent executions of people whose psychosis substantially impaired reality testing. Committee members questioned how the bill interacts with existing competency and insanity law, whether the diagnosis is sufficiently defined, and whether the statute requires active psychosis at the time of the offense. An opponent argued the death penalty should remain available for juries to decide in all cases. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard House Bill 1221 by Representative Lozano, which would raise the cap on pretrial intervention program fees from $500 to $1,200. Lozano and a district attorney witness said the increase is needed because program costs have risen and the fees help make diversion programs self-sustaining, allowing first-time or low-level offenders to complete rehabilitation and potentially obtain expunction. Opponents from the Texas Fair Defense Project argued the higher fee could make diversion unaffordable for indigent defendants and undermine an important alternative to incarceration, especially where related supervision and monitoring costs already add up. Members discussed whether the fee applies only to PTI participants, how payment plans and waivers work, and whether ability to pay should be addressed more explicitly. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1738 by Representative Jones, which would repeal Penal Code Section 21.06 and related Health and Safety Code references concerning homosexual conduct. Jones said the law is unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas, remains harmful on the books, and has led to confusion and unnecessary costs even though it is unenforceable. Supporters said the bill simply removes outdated language and protects civil liberties, while opponents from Texas Values argued the statute still serves as a statement that homosexual conduct is unacceptable and should remain as a warning, even if unenforceable. Members debated whether the law’s remaining language is merely symbolic or still harmful, and whether other criminal statutes already cover conduct such as prostitution, incest, and offenses involving minors. The bill was left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• The scholarship coverage includes required education expenses such as tuition, mandatory fees, and course
• It is limited to eight semesters or 16 quarters with a cap of $3,000 per academic period.
• The funding is $10 million. ...the education trust fund capped at $10 million annually.
• it's limited to eight semesters or 16 quarters. ...limited to eight semesters or 16 quarters with a cap
• Of course, in Alabama, we've actually capped... course, in Alabama, we've actually capped how that growth

Bills: HB188, HB52

Keywords: healthcare, insurance, patient rights, medical treatment, access, affordability, income tax, CHOOSE Act, education funding, ABLE account, tax credits, poverty threshold, legislative funding, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We put a cap of 10 years - if you haven't committed a felony in 10 years.
• Tax collector can draw excess fees or a municipality is going to be looking at the best way to save dollars
• the nuisance abatement boards can include the time of their legal assistants in calculating attorney fees
• Yes, to remove the cap. Chair Koster: You are recognized for a follow-up. Rep.
• Booth: a sheriff's office and communities where the cap, and bottom line people especially with this