Video & Transcript Research : 'spending cap'

Page 7 of 500
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

HOU Public Hearing 01-27-2026

Housing

Transcript Highlights:
  • So, if a home buyer wanted to sell their unit in three years, they could, but their price would be capped
  • >> I don't know if they're not requesting any funding, but we're removing the cap of the funding, right
  • <00:42:49.119> we're<00:42:49.359> removing<00:42:49.680> the<00:42:49.920> cap
  • any funding, but we're removing the cap any funding, but we're removing the cap of<00:42:51.119>
Summary: The committee heard five housing measures, with the chair announcing that SB 2060, SB 2063, SB 2062, and SB 2069 were works in progress and that decision-making would be deferred to February 3. SB 2060 would allow HHFDC, with Finance approval, to transfer money within the rental housing revolving fund and its subaccounts without further legislative authorization, including a transfer to the mixed-income subaccount for FY 2026-2027. HHFDC and other supporters said the change would give the agency more flexibility to move projects forward, while Catholic Charities Hawaii and a testifier from Roars and Cares supported the bill but warned that shifting money away from lower-income housing could weaken efforts to serve households under 80% of area median income and people at risk of homelessness. HHFDC said the fund’s uncommitted balance was about $100 million and that demand exceeded available resources. SB 2063 would revise the mixed-income subaccount by changing project priorities, adding new criteria, allowing transfers within the subaccount without legislative approval, and directing conveyance tax revenues into the subaccount. HHFDC, OPSD, LURF, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Stanford Carr Development, and Roars and Cares supported the measure, while Catholic Charities urged the committee to keep rental and for-sale housing policy separate and to use other mechanisms for homeownership. Catholic Charities said the rental housing revolving fund should remain focused on rentals, and that for-sale initiatives should be addressed separately. The chair indicated an intent to defer the bill for further edits. SB 2062 would make the dwelling unit revolving fund equity pilot a permanent HHFDC program, allowing the agency to buy equity in for-sale developments to lower initial purchase prices and require repayment through shared appreciation. HHFDC said the pilot had been successful, with 83 units committed and $7.6 million of the $10 million program cap already committed, and said permanence would let the agency pair the program with DERF loans earlier in project financing. The chair said SB 2069 would be used as the vehicle for amendments to the DERF equity program and related changes. SB 2069 would authorize HHFDC to use existing dwelling unit revolving fund balances for the equity pilot; it drew support from HHFDC and several housing organizations. SB 2070 would create a permanently affordable for-sale housing program by replacing the current 10-year buyback restriction with a resale price cap tied to an appreciation index, which HHFDC said would preserve affordability while allowing owners to build equity. In questioning, senators pressed HHFDC on whether the bill was necessary, whether it would remove first-time homebuyer and other ownership restrictions, and whether the new program was truly “permanently affordable” if not tied to AMI. HHFDC said the current statutory restrictions limit flexibility, that the proposal would expand access to local residents, and that the price cap would be based on about 4.5% annual appreciation. Supporters said the approach would help buyers move up the housing ladder, while some senators expressed concern that it could open the program to owners of multiple properties and that the committee should see sales-velocity data on existing restricted units before proceeding.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Intergovernmental Affairs May 13th, 2025

Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • Taxpayers spend money in our city.
  • We encourage them to spend, and keeping that funding in the coffers is essential. of the state while
  • And spend more resources there, correct? Oh yes, ma'am.
  • sales taxes for specific purposes, a contract with the voters is created. created, and the city has to spend
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • Transaction limits are changed in the substitute to $3,000 a day with a fee cap of 12%.
  • Additionally, transaction fee caps do not prevent consumer fraud, and in combination with transaction
  • Such restrictions on the transaction limits and the fee caps look forward to working with you all and
  • Vermont has a $1,000 per day transaction limit and a 3% cap. What happened in Vermont?
  • Is it the $1,000 limit there in California, the 15% cap, or...? Both, both equally.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Business and Commerce Apr 15th, 2025

Business & Commerce

Transcript Highlights:
  • They cap fees at 15% and a $1,000 per day transaction limit.
  • I mean, examples like the currency exchange brokers and online ticket brokers do not have any caps on
  • Vermont has a $1,000 per day transaction limit and a 3% cap.
  • Vermont has a $1,000 per day transaction limit and a 3% cap. What happened in Vermont?
  • It's important to remember that every dollar we spend on electricity infrastructure for one resource
Summary: The committee took up a long list of pending bills before moving to several bills on the day’s posting. It reported favorably SB 438, SB 512, SB 647, SB 648, SB 715, SB 758, SB 1964, SB 2121, SB 2145, SB 2167, SB 2330, SB 2349, SB 2443, SB 2629, SB 2702, SB 1495, and SB 2268, with several of those adopted from committee substitutes. Some measures were sent to the local and uncontested calendar, while others were reported to the full Senate. Votes on the pending-business bills were generally strong, though SB 715 and SB 2330 drew recorded opposition; SB 647 and SB 648 had one member present not voting because of confusion over the deed-related bills. A major discussion centered on SB 715, which would establish a reliability standard and penalties/incentives for generation resources. Senator Sparks said the committee substitute would avoid unfairly penalizing existing dispatchable generation, allow wind and solar to qualify through storage or backup power, give the PUC flexibility to set standards and phase in the program, and exempt switchable units. Critics raised concerns that it could raise consumer costs and destabilize the market, while supporters argued it would improve reliability. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported out 6-4. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2330, dealing with payroll deduction for association dues, where the author said the bill would end state involvement in dues collection except for first responders covered by meet-and-confer agreements. Members questioned why teachers and other employees were treated differently, and the bill was reported out 6-5. Other notable bills included SB 2864 on building-integrated photovoltaics, SB 1012 on sale of surplus state property, SB 2221 on fraudulent UCC filings, SB 1705 regulating cryptocurrency kiosks with licensing, transaction limits, fee caps, and a 72-hour hold, SB 1181 on combative sports licensing, SB 2586 on HOA transparency, SB 2075 as a TDLR cleanup bill, and SB 383 restricting offshore wind interconnection based on impacts to shipping, wildlife, and coastal interests. Several of these were left pending after testimony, with SB 1705 drawing both law enforcement support and industry concerns over the fee caps and limits.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Natural Resources Mar 26th, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • So that cap would apply. The, the 36 month.
  • Well, I think the setting an arbitrary cap in of itself.
  • Is there any existing cap, uh, that utilities have to follow, or there is not any existing cap that.
  • And To set an arbitrary cap.
  • If a a cap is set, then that balance shifts.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Natural Resources Mar 26th, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • In recent years, the board approved spending over 7 million dollars just to increase staffing so we could
  • We know we're going to have to spend money on those pipes to ensure that they are shored up for the future
  • to a point where we have to, at SAWS, say the cost is going to be high, and we are going to have to spend
  • That is unfun, as it is, to spend money on a pipe that's underground, but still working.
  • As mentioned before, more resources go back to those utilities that they can spend to provide more water
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Natural Resources Mar 26th, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • So that cap would apply.
  • Is there any existing cap that utilities...
  • There is not any existing cap that utilities have to follow.
  • If a cap is set, then that boundary is established.
  • Although I do understand the cap, and it's very well intended.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Elections Finance and Government Operations Committee 3/25/26

Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:
  • It corporate spending in our elections.
  • They come in here spending lobbyists.
  • I spend not have money or influence.
  • it dark money um that is being spended it dark money um that is being spended in<00:51:57.440>
  • Corporations are up to people to spend.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

S/C on Transportation Funding Mar 31st, 2025

S/C on Transportation Funding

Transcript Highlights:
  • I could spend hours before this committee going through the countless reasons why this project is in
  • Under current statute, that category is capped at 10 percent.
  • The bill that I filed would have just removed that cap.
  • Chairman, would increase that cap on Category 12 from 10% up to 20%, and that's the gist of it.
  • It would simply let us spend money where it'll do the most good.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Senate Session (Part I) Aug 6th, 2025

Texas Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • During the regular session, when we lowered the rate and capped it at 3.5, we had a long runway, a long
  • We're reducing their revenue by about 30%, and as I understand I understand, on average, most cities spend
  • That $331 million does not come under this cap. That's money that's outside the cap.
  • Alvarado, Bettencourt, Blanco, Campbell... 18 ayes, 3 nays, we'll spend it.
  • Spend the constitutional three-day rule so... Mr. President. Secretary, will call the roll.
Bills: SB15, SB9, SB7, SB1, SB2, SB67, SB15, SB9, SB7
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Natural Resources Mar 12th, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • This put a cap on what we can appropriate, so it's only a $50 million.
  • know, with inflation, that doesn't make sense anymore, so we're asking for $100 million. raise of the cap
  • So my My biggest objection is to why have them spend the money to do something because Because human
  • Judgment of how to spend those taxpayer dollars and the witnesses are correct had legislation on this
  • To spend taxpayer dollars on something that not even five of those taxpayers wants to spend Muds start