Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 995, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In states that a full refund is not required, we already refund victims their fees.
• vulnerable and then a fee refund for vulnerable and then a fee refund for anybody<00:48:38.720> who
• <00:53:34.240> So, refund if they're a scam victim. So, refund if they're a scam victim.
• , there's no chance of getting a refund, there's no chance of getting a refund, but<00:53:42.880>
• report, and then they get a full refund. report, and then they get a full refund.

Bills: SB1166, SB888, SB2387, SB2471

Keywords: insurance, climate change, responsible parties, damages, Hawaii Property Insurance Association, Hurricane Relief Fund, civil action, climate disasters, extreme weather, SB888, Hawaii, consumer protection, smart home security, smart household security device, home security camera, video doorbell, Ring, Nest, connected devices, internet of things

Summary: The committee heard SB 1166 SD2, a bill on insurance and climate-related damages that would authorize the Hawaii Property Insurance Association and, in amended versions discussed during testimony, other public and private entities to pursue civil actions to recover losses tied to climate disasters and extreme weather. DCCA’s Insurance Division and the Department of the Attorney General raised legal concerns, saying the bill’s scope may not fit the insurance code section being amended, that it could create subject-matter and title issues, and that some subrogation language may be duplicative of existing rate-filing practice. Lawyers for Justice opposed the measure, arguing it conflicts with existing subrogation law and recent Hawaii Supreme Court rulings that treat the judicial lien process as the exclusive remedy. The American Petroleum Institute also opposed, warning the bill would add liability and litigation risk for companies operating under existing permits and could undermine energy reliability and investment. Supporters said the bill would help shift climate-related insurance costs away from residents and onto fossil fuel companies and other responsible parties. Testimony in support came from the Polluters Pay Hawaii Coalition, Center for Climate Integrity, Hawaii Island Council, Our Hawaii, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, who described recent flooding, storm damage, rising premiums, non-renewals, and underinsurance as evidence of a worsening climate-driven insurance crisis. Several supporters urged amendments to give the Attorney General explicit authority to recover insurance-related losses for the Hurricane Relief Fund, HPIA, and private insurers, and to ensure recovered amounts benefit policyholders. Committee members questioned whether HPIA is a private entity, whether the Attorney General could represent it, whether the bill could create double recovery or affect pending climate litigation, and whether insurers would have standing or damages if they are only paying contractual claims. The committee then took up SB 888 SD2, a consumer protection bill that would restrict smart household security device operators from sharing user data with law enforcement without consent or a judicial order, and would bar conditioning device use on such consent. The Office of Consumer Protection testified in support and said an Illinois law could serve as a useful template for exceptions to the warrant requirement. An individual supporter said the measure would protect immigrant communities, judges, and others from surveillance and misuse of private data. No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting provided, and the chair noted additional written testimony submitted in support of SB 1166.

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, on the refunds, tying it to a certain period of time without reoccupancy.
• And then to arbitrarily put a time limit on the refunds just won't make sense.
• and the terms, conditions, and explanation of the process of how that refund will happen.
• Should the commission recommend changes to how CCRCs refund their entrance fees?
• Or some other entity that we can really understand the cadence of refunds.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), beginning with a presentation from Two Life Communities on its Opus Newton model, which is opening in the fall. Two Life described Opus as a middle-income, modern CCRC built around affordability, care coordination in residents’ apartments rather than separate care buildings, and resident-driven community life. Commissioners asked about financing, home care arrangements, affordability, Medicaid/MassHealth access, and the role of resident councils versus board representation. Two Life said it wants to remain within the CCRC framework, but expressed concern about proposals that would require multiple discrete care levels, impose deadlines on entrance-fee refunds, or require resident board seats. The commission then discussed possible recommendations. There was broad support for Senate Bill 478, which would require clearer disclosure of entrance-fee refund terms in a separate document for prospective residents. On refund timing, members were divided: some favored a one-year deadline or a deadline with waivers, while others opposed a fixed deadline because of financing risks and the potential impact on new development and current residents. Several members suggested keeping the status quo but adding better data collection and reporting on refund timing. On the CCRC definition and marketing, members debated whether the current statutory definition is too vague and whether the commission should recommend clearer standards or a certification-like process, while also noting resource limits for state oversight. Members also discussed the Age CCRC Consumer Guide, with general agreement that it should be updated and made more useful to consumers, possibly with clearer questions to ask and more information about facilities, though some cautioned against adding subjective financial-risk statements that would be hard to administer. On resident representation, several commissioners strongly supported requiring resident voting members on boards, while providers argued that strong resident associations and regular meetings with boards may be preferable and that communities should retain flexibility. The meeting ended with a request for written comments by July 11, draft recommendations to be circulated July 18, and a possible final meeting on July 21, with the commission aiming to finish by August 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, just very quickly, House File 2499 would expand the renters credit to ensure property tax refunds
• The homestead credit is a state-paid refund to homeowners whose property taxes are also high relative
• The homestead credit is a state-paid refund to homeowners whose property taxes are also high relative
• renters's uh property tax refunds renters's uh property tax refunds essentially<00:05:08.720>
• Some more renters will qualify, and some renters will get a larger property tax refund.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 2499, authored by Representative Lee, which would expand Minnesota’s renters’ credit to more closely match the homestead credit for homeowners. Lee explained that the bill would raise the income cutoff from about $75,389 to $143,140 and increase the maximum credit to $3,500, with the goal of addressing what she described as an inequity between renters and homeowners who both pay property taxes. She cited revenue estimates showing the change could make about 80,000 additional renters eligible, while acknowledging the bill would be costly to enact this year. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project testified in support, describing how the renters’ credit works, including the assumption that 17% of rent goes toward property taxes. She highlighted 2022 data showing most recipients had low incomes, many were seniors or people with disabilities, and participation was higher in greater Minnesota in some respects. Michael Dah of Homeline also supported the bill, saying renters face rising housing costs and use the credit for basic needs such as groceries, school supplies, medical care, and car repairs. Members discussed whether expanding the credit would simply benefit landlords or encourage rent increases. Representative Anderson opposed the bill on the grounds that policy should incentivize homeownership, while Representative Huitt argued the credit could help renters build savings and move toward homeownership if they choose. Representative Lee responded that the housing market is broken and that the credit is one tool to help renters in a broader housing continuum. The discussion also covered outreach and administration of the credit, including the recent move to file it with income taxes, electronic certificates of rent paid, and funding for tax-preparation assistance and outreach through VITA sites and community organizations. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• time period for a refund was the same as the federal law, and then their application for refund was
• or applications for refunds.
• So application for refund was uh denied.
• or applications for granting of refunds or applications for refunds.<00:44:20.319> So<00:44:20.880
• So it it I think is going to uh refunds.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The next bill is House Bill 4082, An Act Relative to a Refundable Title V Septic Tax Credit.
• House Bill 4082 would change the existing Title V septic tax credit to a refundable tax credit, thereby
• To help reduce this financial burden, the Commonwealth currently offers a non-refundable Title V septic
• to a refundable tax credit, thereby enabling all eligible homeowners to realize the benefits of this
• to a refundable tax credit. thereby who seeks to change the tax credit from a non-refundable to a refundable

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on bills related to transportation, telecommunications, and utilities, with Senators Eldridge, Rausch, and Jehlen and House members including Co-Chair Madaro, Leader Donato, Representatives Paulino, Wells, Gómez, and Plouffe present. The chairs reviewed hearing procedures, deadlines for written testimony, and the new joint rules governing action on bills. No votes were taken; the hearing was for testimony only and was adjourned after public comment. Testimony began with strong support for Senate Bill 1998 and House Bill 3230, An Act Enhancing Renewable Heating Solutions for the Commonwealth. A representative of the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas said the bill would help decarbonize heating by allowing utilities to use renewable natural gas and other qualified renewable fuels, while also supporting jobs and local economic development. The committee then heard support for House Bill 4082, which would make the Title V septic tax credit refundable; the Falmouth Water Quality Management Committee said this would better help lower- and middle-income homeowners facing costly septic upgrades or sewer connections in nitrogen-sensitive coastal areas. The committee also heard opposition to House Bill 4080 and Senate Bill 1924 from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which argued that higher aviation fuel taxes would not be justified without a clear aeronautical use for the revenue and noted federal restrictions on aviation fuel tax proceeds. In contrast, a coalition opposing private jet expansion supported Senate Bill 1924, saying a higher jet fuel tax would better align tax policy with climate and public health goals and help address aviation emissions. Finally, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council supported House Bill 3050 on regional ballot initiatives, arguing that local revenue tools could help cities and towns fund transportation projects and reduce pressure on state transportation dollars.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:04.960> on construction, you can get a refund on construction, you can get a refund
• So, no private entity can even refund.
• <00:17:18.880> of<00:17:19.120> $4,218 you know a refund of $4,218 you know a refund
• <00:17:43.120> Basically for you know for a refund. Basically for you know for a refund.
• and they were given the refunds and they were given the refunds makes<00:18:39.520> common

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• forward was creating some refundability forward was creating some refundability on<00:04:29.919>
• refund uh refundable R&D regarding the refund uh refundable R&D tax<00:36:25.920> credit<
• R&D making the R&D tax credit refundable R&D making the R&D tax credit refundable
• <01:01:41.359> and preventable mistakes missed refunds and preventable mistakes missed refunds
• 20 year period the 25% refundability 20 year period the 25% refundability proposal<01:11:58.639>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2437, the governor’s proposed tax bill, and first adopted the A25-Z42 amendment to put the bill in the desired shape. Commissioner Paul Marquardt of the Department of Revenue then presented the bill as part of Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan’s budget, describing it as a response to budget pressures that would make the tax system more fair and stable while supporting economic development and jobs. Marquardt walked through the bill’s major provisions. These included sustainable aviation fuel policy, repeal of K-12 education credit assignment, elimination of the political contribution refund, expansion of the research and development credit, short-line railroad infrastructure modernization, changes to the state airport fund levy, replacement of attachments and appearances with distribution systems, a narrow personal property tax exception for low-income housing tenants, reduced aquatic invasive species aid, and a 34% reduction in PILT payments. He then focused on the sales tax article, saying it would lower the statewide rate by 0.75% while expanding the base to selected professional services such as accounting, banking, brokerage, and legal services, with business-to-business transactions exempt. He said the proposal would be effective for sales and purchases after September 30, 2025, and estimated a first-year rate-cut impact of about $99 million versus $215 million from the service expansion, while arguing that most households would see a net tax cut. He also noted other changes such as landlord penalty adjustments, a 30% reduction in sustainable aviation fuel incentive payments, repeal of local government cannabis aid, and repeal of the tax filing modernization account. Public testimony began with Kyle Playford of the Financial Planning Association of Minnesota, who strongly opposed the proposed sales tax on professional services, especially financial planning. He argued that financial planning is an essential service for retirement, investment, and long-term financial security, and said the tax would raise costs for consumers, reduce access for middle-class families, small business owners, and retirees, and put Minnesota firms at a competitive disadvantage. The chair then indicated that additional public testimony would continue before member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a 90% refundable based upon reoccupancy of the unit.
• Many times, a family member might come and say, quickly, where's the refund?
• We look at about 120 days for a refund.
• It also depends on the refundable percentage.
• So you have 90%, 75%, or 50% refundable.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Aging and Independence commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with members and presenters discussing how the model works, consumer protections, and areas for future review. After member introductions, Jennifer Fuller summarized survey results showing the top priorities as financial viability and affordability, consumer protections and rights, and regulation/monitoring standards. The commission said those issues would guide its work plan, while also keeping staffing, definitions, and federal support on the radar. Alyssa Sherman of LeadingAge Massachusetts and Jim Freiling of Brookhaven at Lexington gave a detailed overview of CCRCs, explaining that they combine housing with health-related services under long-term contracts and typically require entrance fees plus monthly fees. They described the three common contract types: Type A/life care, where costs stay relatively stable if residents need more care; Type B, which offers some included or discounted care with higher costs later; and Type C, fee-for-service, with lower entrance fees but higher costs if care needs increase. They also discussed nonprofit governance, resident involvement, and the role of state and Attorney General disclosure requirements. Several members raised concerns about affordability, refund timing, and the need to distinguish true CCRCs from other senior housing marketed similarly; presenters said refunds are often tied to reoccupancy and that their organizations are collecting data on refund timelines and contract terms. The discussion also covered resident rights and governance, including whether residents should have seats on nonprofit boards. Christine Griffin said her community lacks resident board representation and urged the commission to consider a state requirement, while others said resident associations and direct engagement with boards can be more effective than mandatory board seats. Members also discussed transparency around monthly fee increases, financial screening before admission, and the importance of clear marketing so consumers understand what they are buying. No votes were taken. The meeting ended with logistical updates, including a tentative public hearing date of June 3, 2025, a note that the next meeting would focus on regulation and monitoring standards, and a reminder that the commission would continue refining its work plan based on survey feedback.

Transcript Highlights:

• instead of one refund uh to two years instead of one year<00:46:18.960> pass<00:46:19.240>
• <00:47:32.119> who aware of the property tax refund who aware of the property tax refund who
• or apply for a refund.
• refund but I think refund or apply for a refund but I think we<00:54:02.079> would<00:54:02.280
• being eligible for a property tax refund being eligible for a property tax refund and<00:54:36.200

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to issue the refund. to issue the refund.
• . refund. refund.
• to send out in refunds for that year. to send out in refunds for that year.
• <03:03:59.920> amount,<03:04:00.399> you refunds by by refunding that amount, you refunds
• available to process the refunds. available to process the refunds.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for the renter refund program.
• for uh the renter property tax refund for uh the renter refund<00:01:54.799> program<00:01:55.560
• <00:02:08.800> program refund for uh the renter refund program refund for uh the renter refund
• moved the entirety of the renters refund moved the entirety of the renters refund on<00:04:59.800
• property tax refund would be on the property tax refund would be on the income<00:08:11.599> tax

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• which will not through one-time refunds which will not be<00:54:13.440> taxable<00:54:13.880>
• so the idea here and you refunds so the idea here and you mentioned<00:54:19.000> this<00:54:
• you couldn't do than onetime refunds you couldn't do ongoing<00:57:42.839> tax<00:57:43.119><
• Would I be eligible for a refund under your proposal?"
• <01:59:41.079> under<01:59:42.040> this a refund under this a refund under this bill

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• They can be somewhat or fully refundable upon death or contract termination, so they could be 25% refundable
• or 45% refundable or 75% refundable.
• In California, the refundable fees must be held, or at least a portion of them, in trust in a refund
• And these are not purely refundable, but are conditionally refundable based on the resale of the unit
• And these are not purely refundable, but are conditionally refundable based on the resale of the unit

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission’s fifth meeting focused on consumer protections and resident rights in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a presentation by Yvonne Choyah of UC Law San Francisco. She described California’s CCRC framework, including entrance fee structures, monthly fee increases, contract types (A, B, and C), disclosure requirements, and regulatory oversight. A major theme was that residents often do not understand the contracts they sign, while providers retain broad discretion over fees, transfers, terminations, and changes to the physical plant. She also emphasized that California’s regulator is understaffed and not well suited to oversee the complex financial and insurance-like aspects of CCRCs, and that resident complaints and litigation can be slow and difficult. Choyah and commission members discussed several consumer-protection issues, including refundable versus repayable-on-resale entrance fees, rising monthly care fees, the decline of life care contracts, and the need for clearer disclosures and better comparative data for prospective residents. She noted that California requires annual disclosure statements, resident bill of rights materials, and some fee-related reporting, but that enforcement and accessibility remain weak. Members raised questions about resident board representation, accreditation, refund requirements, and whether state agencies or resident associations could help explain contracts to consumers before admission. Choyah suggested stronger oversight, more financial expertise in regulation, and better transparency about ownership and fee-setting. The meeting ended with discussion of the commission’s next steps toward its August report. Staff said a draft report would be prepared from the commission’s discussions and circulated for comment before final revisions. The chair also announced staff transitions: Jennifer would be leaving the State House role, and Juliana Fernandez and Vicky Halal would be the main contacts going forward. The commission adjourned after thanking Choyah for her presentation and answering member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The most prominent, or the most well-known, is the homestead credit refund, where you get a refund for
• an ADD refund from the state.
• contribution refunds.
• Refunds by category in fiscal 24 show the homestead credit making up about 69% of the total refunds,
• is no longer a refund but instead an income tax credit.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Tax Committee met to receive a presentation from House Fiscal staff Cynthia Templin and Katrina Heimark on state tax revenues, property tax aids and credits, and key budget terms and timelines. They explained the difference between fiscal years, tax years, biennia, the general fund, and dedicated funds, and reviewed the legislative budget calendar, including the governor’s January budget recommendation, the February forecast update, March budget resolution deadlines, and the expected end of session in May. The presentation focused on how Minnesota tax revenue is collected and where it goes. House Fiscal said fiscal 2024 total revenue for public services was about $102.5 billion, with $46.5 billion coming from state and local taxes. Of total state tax revenue, about 85% goes to the general fund and about 15% is dedicated to other funds. They noted that income and sales taxes make up the largest share of state collections, while local property taxes are the largest share of local revenue. They also reviewed constitutional and statutory dedications, including the Legacy sales tax dedication, the motor vehicle sales tax dedication to transportation, and the auto parts sales tax dedication that was changed in 2023 to a 100% transportation dedication phased in over 10 years. Members asked several questions about slowing income tax growth, possible effects of migration and corporate departures, and whether changes in population or wages were affecting revenue trends. Templin said she was not aware of recent independent or MMB studies tying revenue loss to migration, but would look into it. Members also discussed the sharp rise in tax receipts in fiscal 2021 and 2022 after the pandemic downturn, with staff explaining that the low fiscal 2020 base and a shift toward goods purchases during COVID helped drive the increase, especially in sales tax revenue. No bills were taken up and no votes were recorded during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• It has an unknown effect on property tax refunds.
• That has a negligible effect on property tax refunds beginning in fiscal year 27.
• <00:29:36.320> from to um qualify for the refund from to um qualify for the refund from Senator
• It has an unknown effect on property tax refunds.
• That has a negligible effect on property tax refunds beginning in fiscal year 27.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• rather than an annual refund.
• could now become a quarterly refund could now become a quarterly refund rather<00:02:15.120>
• would allow them to uh get their refund would allow them to uh get their refund on<00:02:26.239>
• Since a refund can only be filing.
• refund opportunity.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But one-time refunds. So the idea here...
• A refund ahead of paying back our schools. Please vote no.
• Would I be eligible for a refund under your proposal?
• For a refund under your bill.
• Would I be eligible for a refund under this bill? Representative Johnson.

Transcript Highlights:

• formally requests the refund.
• And we'd like to have statewide consistency on how these overpayments are refunded.
• You can request a refund and it must be processed within 60 days of the request.
• on overpayments not timely refunded.
• We immediately refund it. You don't have to ask us for the money. You get it back. It's yours.