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

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:

• 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:

• 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:

• the fee.
• <00:13:03.320> are retake fee um and all these fees are retake fee um and all these fees are
• The filing fee is...
• the driver's license agent fee-sharing account collecting revenue from those filing fees.
• They collect that fee now.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and you pay professional fees.
• We adopted impact fees in 2015.
• As it stands right now, a portion of that is taken up by impact fees or offset by impact fees.
• These fees are causing builders to leave our high-impact fee city for a non-impact fee city area like
• fees seven times.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> The impact fee?
• with that impact fee. with that impact fee.
• >> The the impact fee? >> The the impact fee?
• <00:21:24.960> and<00:21:25.120> the fee um because the impact fee and the fee um because
• Thank you. fees going forward. So fees going forward.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• administrative fee. administrative fee.
• the fee.
• And if it's a fair fee, is it the right fee?
• Then, um fair fee, is it the right fee?
• the waiver of the Um which is the fee the waiver of the fee. fee. fee.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Long Range Capital Planning and Utilization Committee first approved the March 16, 2026 minutes, then took up several Department of Transportation property actions. The committee approved a Greenland access point sale for a cell tower site to Wakefield Investments for $132,800 plus a $1,100 administrative fee, and approved disposal of two Epsom parcels to the town at no cost, with the town assuming demolition of the former depot and the committee waiving the fee. It also approved a Milton access point sale to Jeremy West Champney and Cameron McDermott for $90,000 plus the fee, with conditions requiring permits and other approvals. During the DOT items, members asked about appraisals, access restrictions, and where the administrative fee goes; staff said the fee generally offsets agency administrative costs and may go to a dedicated fund or the general fund depending on the project. The committee then considered three Department of Environmental Services requests for utility easements to bring power to dams so gates can be operated more efficiently and potentially remotely. It approved an easement with New Hampshire Electric Co-op for Pine River Dam in Wakefield, an easement with New Hampshire Electric Co-op for Sunset Lake Dam in Alton, and an easement with Eversource for Suncook Lake Dam in Barnstead. Members discussed whether to waive the $1,100 administrative fee on these items, with some questioning the fee’s purpose and where it is deposited. The committee ultimately approved the DES items as requested, including the fee waivers, while asking staff to research the fee’s history, sufficiency, and use for a future report. Finally, the committee received informational items from the New Hampshire Council on Resources and Development. Members briefly discussed a property at Bloody Point in Newington and the related Sullivan Bridge demolition, and DOT staff said the property had been tabled previously and is now being worked on with Fish and Game for a possible transfer of management and future water access use. No votes were taken on the informational items.

Transcript Highlights:

• A political subdivision is not limited in how frequently it may impose an impact fee. ...but impact fees
• This document is the 2022 impact fee study for transportation impact fees in the City of Fort Worth.
• Impact fees play a major factor in that.
• They're just getting whacked on these fees.
• A couple of things: impact fee statutes...

Bills: SB32, SB464, SB996, SB1163, SB1173, SB1277, SB1452, SB1453, SB1548, SB1882, SB1883, SB2016

Keywords: ad valorem taxation, tax exemption, franchise tax credit, income production, personal property, SB 464, school buffer zone, tobacco retailer, vape shop, e-cigarette, vaping, nicotine, tobacco products, retail permit, comptroller, Class A misdemeanor, school proximity, youth access, public school, private school

Summary: The Senate Local Government Committee heard several bills by Senator Bettencourt focused on property tax and local government accountability. SB 32 would provide about $700 million in business tax relief by raising the business personal property exemption from $2,500 to $25,000 and continuing a 20% franchise tax credit for inventory taxes paid. Witnesses from NFIB, the Texas Retailers Association, and Texas Realtors supported the bill, saying business personal property and inventory taxes are burdensome and especially hard on small businesses. After no opposition testimony, SB 32 was left pending. The committee also heard SB 1453, which would change how interest and sinking tax rates are calculated by using only the minimum debt service required under bond schedules, while still allowing a higher rate with a 60% governing body vote and a public explanation. A witness from the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association supported the bill as a way to keep debt rates from rising as property values increase and to preserve tax relief. The bill was left pending after testimony. SB 1883 would tighten rules on local impact fees by requiring 60 days of public availability for capital improvement plans and land use assumptions, raising the approval threshold for adopting impact fees from a simple majority to two-thirds, limiting how often fees can be increased, and expanding notice requirements. Builders and developers testified in support, arguing that impact fees are often poorly reviewed, lack accountability, and are passed on to homebuyers, worsening housing affordability. Committee members discussed adding audit provisions and questioned the lack of city testimony. The bill was left pending with subcommittee action. SB 1452 would require a voter election to decide whether a municipal management district continues to exist, with dissolution if voters reject it; supporters said it would add accountability, while others noted some districts provide essential services and infrastructure. The committee heard testimony from district representatives and builders, then left SB 1452 pending before recessing.

Transcript Highlights:

• and tournament fees.
• or fees and equipment costs that are divided between the state and the county. fees or fees and equipment
• that you waive the fees?
• is a larger fee.
• , the administration fee?

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and tournament fees.
• fees, fee revenues generate by almost a million dollars.
• that you waive the fees?
• is a larger fee.
• the administration fee?

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• or gain these fees.
• While I understand there are fees and that I have to pay fees, the duplicate fees are a issue in this
• Lower fees.
• Or is this just fee on top of fee on top of fee that goes to the general fund that just... you know,
• We need to have less fees. What would I do if I had less fees?

Bills: SB264, SB542, SB924, SB1008, SB1029, SB1036, SB1057, SB1058, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1376, SB1569, SB1664, SB1697, SJR50

Keywords: SB 264, Texas Workers' Compensation Act, group self-insurance, self-insured groups, workers' compensation, Texas Department of Insurance, commissioner of insurance, certificate of approval, guaranty fund, trust fund, wind down, dissolution, labor code, insurance regulation, employer coverage, risk pool, business and commerce, trade workforce economic development, property owners' association, water conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• the most are not review fees, but project impact fees.
• Things like parkland dedication fees, affordable housing fees, drainage fees, fees for gray water use
• fees, from a percentage on new development, civil inspection fees, plan review fees, from a percentage
• , park dedication, park improvement, reforestation fees, inspection fee, final plat fees, $10,000 plus
• fees.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Summary: The committee met to monitor implementation of several housing-related bills from the 89th session, with the chair emphasizing Texas’s housing shortage and the need to review land-use laws. For House Bill 24, witnesses from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Reason Foundation, a church-affordable housing project, Habitat for Humanity, developers, and housing advocates said the bill’s higher protest threshold and simpler council override had reduced procedural barriers to rezoning, helped projects move forward, and supported lower rents and more multifamily development. Public testimony largely praised HB 24 as working as intended, and the chair noted it had passed the committee 6-1, the House 83-56, and the Senate unanimously. The committee then heard testimony on Senate Bill 1567, which preempted certain municipal occupancy limits based on unrelated-adult restrictions. Supporters, including Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Realtors, Texans for Housing, and Texas A&M student leaders, said the law improved clarity, reduced arbitrary local limits, and helped students and property owners use existing housing more efficiently. Opponents from College Station and Bryan-College Station neighborhood groups argued the law has encouraged investor purchases, tear-downs, and “stealth dorms,” displaced working-class residents, and harmed family homeownership. The chair noted SB 1567 had passed the committee 5-1, the House 101-19, and the Senate 30-1. The committee also reviewed Senate Bill 15, which reduced minimum lot sizes in covered jurisdictions. Ed Pinto of AEI said the law had already led to thousands of new small lots and lower-cost starter homes, while recommending expansion to more counties and broader application to attached housing. Other witnesses from builders, Pew, and housing advocates said smaller lots can increase affordability, but some cities, such as College Station and Grand Prairie, were adding local standards that could blunt the bill’s effect. City representatives from El Paso described how they implemented the law by reducing lot sizes and widths, while urging broader applicability to more of the city. The chair said SB 15 had passed the committee 7-0, the House 86-43, and the Senate 24-7. Finally, the committee began hearing testimony on Senate Bill 840, a by-right multifamily redevelopment measure. City officials from Garland and Plano described how they had updated local standards to comply while preserving design and setback rules, and said the bill could help redevelop built-out commercial corridors and add housing without expanding city footprints. The transcript ended as the committee continued taking testimony on SB 840.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• that the fees utilities to demonstrate that the fees are<00:02:13.360> just,<00:02:14.000>
• would eliminate most reconnection fees. would eliminate most reconnection fees.
• Reconnection fees for non-payment. Reconnection fees for non-payment.
• program is funded by late fees. program is funded by late fees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 3912, as amended, and the author moved that the bill be laid over for consideration in a future omnibus bill. The amendment was adopted without objection. Representative Holland described the bill as an energy affordability measure that would bar utilities from charging certain fees during the cold weather rule for customers above 50% of state median income, prohibit reconnection fees after shutoff for nonpayment, and create a framework for regulating late fees. He argued that late fees are often high, compound monthly, and disproportionately burden low-income households, citing utility debt and disconnection figures and noting that the need for relief is concentrated in greater Minnesota. Annie Levenson Faulk of the Citizens Utility Board supported the bill, saying reconnection fees and late fees fall on households already struggling to pay for essential service. She said reconnection fees should be treated as part of the cost of doing business and that late fees should be limited to a reasonable approximation of actual carrying costs, with protections for low-income customers. She also said the issue is already being considered in utility rate cases before the Public Utilities Commission, but that legislative action is still appropriate. Nick Martin of Xcel Energy and Katherine O'Donnell of CenterPoint Energy opposed the bill in its current form while emphasizing their companies’ commitment to affordability and customer assistance. Xcel said the bill would shift reconnection costs to other customers and could undermine a proposed arrears management program funded by late payment charges; Xcel also noted that the PUC is already reviewing these issues in its rate case. CenterPoint said it already offers extensive outreach, payment plans, and assistance programs, does not charge late fees once a customer is on a payment plan, and that its reconnection fee does not fully cover costs. After testimony and brief discussion, the chair noted the helpful information from utilities, the author said he was open to further work on the bill, and the bill was laid over.

Transcript Highlights:

• that section is— all the fees within this subdivision, every fee?
• within this subdivision, every fee?
• 2.28 um the very first examination fees 2.28 um the very first examination fees um<00:14:49.079>
• keep this fee long term.
• no-show fee or on the no- show fee no-show fee or on the no- show fee altogether<00:26:17.720>

Keywords: 1183, house