Transcript Highlights:

• The current system gives... ...over $24 billion, generating $2.3 billion in tax revenue, and supporting
• Revenue to the restaurant, yet we're still charged fees on them every single day.
• That was charged on money that was never restaurant revenue.
• Tips are not business revenue either.
• And if you disrupt that revenue stream, those services and rewards don't just disappear quietly.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing chaired by Senator Paul Feeney and Representative Jamie Murphy. The commission reviewed its charge to gather input on payment trends, cashless transactions, credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now/pay later, and related issues affecting small businesses. Representative Sean Garballey testified in support of maintaining the current card system, emphasizing tourism’s importance to Massachusetts and arguing that universal card acceptance and interchange stability are especially important with major upcoming events and visitors. A large portion of the hearing focused on independent restaurants and small businesses arguing that credit card processing fees are burdensome and unfair when applied to sales tax and gratuities that are not business revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others described razor-thin margins and said restaurants pay fees on money passed through to the state or employees. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses first, and making fees proportional. In response, credit union and banking representatives, including Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Deb Peters, and Keely McEwen, argued that interchange funds fraud protection, card infrastructure, and consumer protections, and warned that state-specific changes could create compliance burdens, higher costs, or reduced access to services. Several witnesses addressed legal and policy questions. Dan Swanson and David Montero said states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system, but Montero warned that state-specific rules could create uncertainty and conflict with federal banking law. Julian Morris and other industry witnesses argued that card payments benefit consumers and merchants by reducing cash-handling costs and increasing spending, while critics of reform said changes could shift costs into bank fees or reduced rewards. Commission members questioned whether sales tax could be separated from card transactions, whether surcharging should be considered, and whether vendor compensation or other state-level relief might be more workable. The chairs said they were exploring a narrower, targeted approach rather than a broad overhaul, and announced plans for one additional public hearing to allow further testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Brian, and I'm a Senior Legislative Director for Budgets and Revenue.
• I work on the Budgets and Revenue Committee with two co-chairs: one Republican and one Democrat.
• Quickly on taxes, regarding budgets and revenue, I'll mention a couple of areas we are looking at in
• The costs that are calculated, we hear.
• So we took a risk; it was a calculated risk to bring oncology services to Ruidoso.

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a revenue and tax bill. So we're looking at the impact on revenue of a tax policy.
• That will increase the revenue we get. That will increase the revenue we get, but not until FY27.
• Well, if it's a benefit, then it should be in this calculation.
• I would say the corporations that made underpayments took a calculated risk.
• Either way, revenues generate more money.

Summary: The House opened with roll call, prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the previous day’s journal. Messages from the Senate were received, including Senate Joint Memorial 108 and Senate Bills 1227, 1226, and 1225, which were filed for first reading and referred to committees. Standing committee reports also moved House Bill 557 and House Concurrent Resolution 25 to the second reading calendar, and several new House bills were introduced, including measures on civil asset forfeiture reporting, the Idaho Consumer Asset Recovery Fund, license plates, and juvenile transition services. The main floor action centered on House Bill 559, a tax conformity bill tied to the federal tax changes described by supporters as providing relief for workers, seniors, and businesses. Supporters argued it would preserve federal tax benefits for Idahoans, including provisions on tips, overtime, standard deductions, and research and experimentation expensing, and said the fiscal note was a reasonable estimate. Opponents argued the bill would significantly reduce state revenue at a time of budget shortfalls, warned it could force cuts to services such as education, health care, roads, and public safety, and questioned whether the fiscal note fully captured the bill’s cost. Members also raised questions about business underpayments and the treatment of certain deductions. The House first voted to suspend the rules for immediate consideration of House Bill 559 by a two-thirds vote, then debated the bill at length. After debate closed, the House passed House Bill 559 by a vote of 59-9, approved the title, and transmitted the bill to the Senate. The chamber then held third-reading bills one legislative day and moved to announcements and committee schedule notices before adjourning until the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'll begin with revenues.
• of all revenue.
• This shows the actual revenue.
• So, given that, where in the calculations we have to limit our revenue to $600 million, how do we take
• On slide 10, page 10, where it says other revenues? Other revenues? Yes, sir.

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The committee began a series of House Appropriations budget hearings focused on the fiscal year 2026-2027 executive budget, the preamble, and the executive department. Staff presented revenue and spending trends showing projected declines in revenues alongside increasing expenditures, with members emphasizing the need for a standstill budget and additional efficiencies. The House Fiscal Division also reviewed the FY25 surplus and FY26 excess, the constitutional uses of surplus funds, and the overall FY27 budget structure, including the distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. The commissioner of administration described the administration’s use of one-time money, efficiency reviews, and budget reductions, while members asked about revenue forecasts, the motor vehicle sales tax dedication, corporate tax changes, and the impact of federal policy changes on state costs, especially SNAP and Medicaid administration. The committee then moved through several executive department agencies. The Division of Administration presentation covered its budget, vacancies, debt service, and reductions tied to statewide adjustments and efficiency measures. GOSEP’s functions were described as transferred into the Department of Military Affairs under Act 262 of 2025, and military officials outlined the new combined structure, emergency response duties, overseas deployments, youth programs, and concerns about future federal funding. The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority reviewed its largely dedicated funding and explained that large apparent balances reflect long-term project planning and multi-year capital work. The Office of the State Inspector General presented a budget increase for consulting services tied to the governor’s DOGE-style efficiency initiative, and the inspector general said the effort had identified nearly $1 billion in savings across the executive branch, largely through eligibility reviews in Medicaid and SNAP and implementation of prior audit recommendations. Members raised questions throughout about how budget figures were calculated, why some totals appeared to rise while state general fund support fell, and how federal changes would affect state agencies. There were also questions about the transition of GOSEP into Military Affairs, the status of school safety centers, and whether the new structure would change local emergency responsibilities. No formal votes or amendments were taken during the portion provided; the meeting consisted of presentations, explanations, and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So basically, this is a credit against diesel excise tax revenues.
• Did some new revenue source show up?
• You should not tie an ongoing expense with not an ongoing revenue source.
• You should not tie an ongoing expense with not an ongoing revenue source.
• GGRF revenues are always oversubscribed with various climate program demands.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> upon how the revenue projections work. upon how the revenue projections work.
• . revenues. revenues.
• </c> insurance premium tax revenues. insurance premium tax revenues.
• They're going to lose a lot more<01:07:55.520><c> revenue</c> more revenue more revenue the<01:07:57.440
• </c> and we do have revenue problems. and we do have revenue problems.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This modification would change it to required beginning dates for conformance with the Internal Revenue
• 00:14:03.440><c> with</c><00:14:03.720><c> the</c><00:14:03.959><c> Internal</c><00:14:04.440><c> Revenue
• </c> conformance with the Internal Revenue conformance with the Internal Revenue code<00:14:06.199><c
• Right, I think this in testimony we saw some calculation that the minimum wage currently is $14, but
• </c><00:53:56.440><c> Family</c> by the department to calculate Family by the department to calculate

Committee: House Labor

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that was in the budget; there's the expected revenue.
• That was the point of the list of the revenue balance. I understand that.
• We match up a revenue with the need.
• My calculation shows it's going to be a lot less than that. We're...
• My calculation shows it's going to be a lot less than that.

Committee: House Conservation and Natural Resources

Summary: The Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources heard House Bill 2202, sponsored by Rep. Don Mayhew, which would allow active-duty military personnel, 100% disabled veterans, and youth during youth hunt seasons to receive certain hunting permits at no cost. Mayhew argued the bill would help recruit younger hunters, support military members and disabled veterans, and would not threaten conservation funding because the conservation fund has maintained substantial balances. Committee members questioned the bill’s fiscal impact, possible constitutional issues, effects on Pittman-Robertson federal reimbursements, and whether the bill duplicated existing Missouri Department of Conservation exemptions. Some members supported the concept of honoring veterans but suggested other funding mechanisms or clarifying language, and MDC said it would revise the fiscal note after misreading some figures. Testimony on HB 2202 was mostly opposed or informational. An Army veteran testified against the bill, saying current MDC rules already provide significant exemptions for veterans, active-duty personnel, and seniors, and warning the bill could reduce revenue and federal matching funds. MDC Deputy Director Aaron Jeffreys said the department already offers numerous veteran and military exemptions and supports veteran hunts through partnerships with NGOs, but also explained the agency’s fund balance is being used for major capital projects and is expected to decline. Several members and the sponsor debated whether conservation revenues are being held in reserve unnecessarily or are needed for ongoing projects and future obligations. The committee then heard House Bill 1734, sponsored by Rep. Colin Wellenkamp, which would create a Soil Erosion Control Fund Act to help homeowners associations finance erosion mitigation projects through assessments, state fund allocations, and matching local or grant dollars. Wellenkamp and supporters said erosion and flooding are causing major property damage, especially in water-rich and river-adjacent areas, and that the bill would give communities a practical tool to address problems that are too expensive for cities or counties to solve alone. Members from affected districts described severe flooding and erosion impacts, and the sponsor said the bill includes safeguards such as HOA nonprofit status, homeowner approval, and repayment terms to protect taxpayers. HB 1734 drew broad support from witnesses including the Community Associations Institute, a stream restoration business, the Missouri Municipal League, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy of Missouri, and a St. Charles County lobbyist. Supporters said the proposal would help stabilize land, protect homes and property values, improve habitat and water quality, and reduce long-term public costs. No witnesses testified in opposition, and the hearing on HB 1734 concluded with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Commissioner, Department of Revenue. Commissioner, Department of Revenue.
• Your base revenue the lottery revenue.
• > on</c><03:21:02.000><c> top</c> calculated um additional revenue on top calculated um additional revenue
• It's not part of your base revenue. Um, so they were just calculating the HHR as it is today.
• </c><04:12:39.439><c> But</c> revenue come in. But revenue come in.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 110, as amended by the Senate, which would establish fees for alteration-of-terrain applications and direct the Department of Environmental Services to adopt rules for a permit-by-notification process for certain projects. Trisha Milo introduced the bill for Senator Lang and noted that the department had worked on the amended language. Matt Mayberry of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association said the industry strongly supported the bill, describing it as a public-private partnership that would speed review for developers without affecting local control, with builders paying the costs rather than taxpayers. Members focused heavily on how the bill’s fee structure and permit thresholds would work, especially for projects near shoreland, wetlands, and protected water bodies. Representative Opel raised concerns about whether the bill reduced review of habitat and shoreland impacts or shifted costs unfairly; Philip Trobridge of DES explained that the bill does not eliminate those reviews and that shoreland projects still receive greater scrutiny. He said the bill creates different tiers, with the permit-by-notification process applying to certain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet that are not in protected shoreland, while larger or shoreland-affected projects remain under the standard review process. He also said the proposed fees were based on sustaining the program, covering added habitat and species review responsibilities, and keeping reviews efficient. Trobridge said the new fee structure would generate about $1.2 million in additional revenue and help fund additional staff and related program costs. He stated that the department had worked with the regulated community and believed the fees were fair and reasonable, though he acknowledged the bill’s wording was confusing and that the threshold could be revisited later if the new process works well. Members also discussed how the state process interacts with local approvals, and Trobridge said both state and local approvals are required before a project can begin. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe someday we will look at revenue options that will create that, but right now we have to rely on
• Maybe someday we will look at revenue options that will create that, but right now we have to reply on
• Buildings, however, require a different calculation that accounts for depreciation over time.
• Buildings, however, require a different calculation that accounts for depreciation over time.
• Buildings, however, require a different calculation that accounts for depreciation over time.

Committee: Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first heard an informational presentation on transportation fuel supply in Arizona from Gordon Shemp of Nemecu Analytics. He described Arizona’s dependence on pipeline deliveries, limited terminal inventories, and the resulting vulnerability to outages and price spikes. He also discussed recent refinery closures in California, increased imports from overseas, and a proposed Kinder Morgan project that could add east-to-west capacity into Phoenix. Committee members asked about fuel formulations and how many fuel types move through the system; Shemp said the project would not change destination fuel specifications and that multiple fuel products already move through the pipelines. The committee then took up House Bill 2758, which would allow groundwater transport from the McMullen Valley basin to an initial AMA and related uses, with provisions for eligible entities, transportation fees, and water improvement programs. Supporters, including Stan Barnes, Jim Downing, and Barry Arons, argued the bill follows the 1991 transfer-basin framework, provides needed water augmentation for urban Arizona, and includes local benefits and guardrails. Opponents, including La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin, Devonna Sater, and Ed Curry, said the bill would worsen groundwater decline, subsidence, and well failures in Salome and Wenden and favored rural communities being used to solve urban water shortages. The committee approved HB 2758 on a 4-3 vote. The committee also considered HB 2078, which clarifies that certain aggregate mining reclamation notice requirements apply only to new reclamation plans and new aggregate operations, not existing mines. The sponsor said the bill fixes confusion from prior legislation, and the committee passed it 5-0. HB 2031, extending the deadline for applying for a certificate of grandfathered right in the Wilcox AMA from 15 to 27 months, also passed after some members argued the extension was needed for affected applicants while others said it would delay needed protections. HB 2102, allowing county improvement districts in certain basins to use eminent domain for a well and standpipe site and to operate domestic water delivery systems, and HB 2103, allowing gifts and fee revenues to support water hauling and local water improvement programs, both passed 4-3 despite opposition that they were only partial fixes. Later, HB 2117, which increases the annual distribution cap for conservation district education centers and shifts Environmental Special Plate Fund disbursements to the Natural Resource Conservation Board, passed 5-2 after supporters called it a technical cleanup and one member objected to changing the administering entity. HB 2261, revising agricultural property tax valuation terminology and requiring income-based valuation for agricultural real property, passed 4-3 after assessors and county representatives warned it would remove agricultural improvements from the tax rolls and shift costs to homeowners, while farm groups said it would clarify and stabilize agricultural taxation. Finally, HB 2262, transferring the Resource Analysis Division from the State Land Department to the Arizona Geological Survey and changing related geospatial advisory duties, was presented with State Land Department concerns that the bill left several duties and funding questions unclear; the transcript ends before any final action on HB 2262.

Transcript Highlights:

• concerned that there are blanks in critical areas of the bill, which makes the bill impossible to revenue
• </c> makes uh the bill impossible to revenue makes uh the bill impossible to revenue estimate<00:05:34.880
• for FY 24 so ending June 30 calculated for FY 24 so ending June 30 of<00:21:37.799><c> last</c><00:21
• Blanks in critical areas of the bill make it impossible to revenue estimate and otherwise vet it in its
• </c><00:23:34.120><c> estimate</c> make it impossible to revenue estimate make it impossible to revenue

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee heard five bills on January 24, 2025. SB 1 would phase out disposable air filters and require reusable air filters by 2030; testimony was limited, with one supporter urging clearer definitions of fiberglass and paper and several opponents listed, and the committee later deferred the bill indefinitely for lack of support testimony. SB 13 would create an aquaculture investment tax credit beginning in 2026; state agencies and several industry groups supported it, while the Tax Foundation raised concerns about loose definitions, internal inconsistencies, and blanks that made the bill hard to estimate or vet. The committee passed SB 13 with amendments and technical changes, and deferred its effective date to July 1, 2015 as stated on the record. SB 177 would shift aquatic livestock import and movement permitting to the Department of Agriculture’s Animal Industry Division, require a risk-based assessment and biocontainment standards, and seek a $1 million appropriation for research and staffing. The Department of Agriculture said the bill would help expand aquaculture while managing risks to native species; aquaculture and farm groups supported it, while Animal Rights Hawaii was listed in opposition. The committee passed SB 177 with amendments, blanking the appropriation for committee report consideration, and deferred its effective date to July 1, 2050. SB 184 would raise the beverage container deposit and refund from 5 cents to 10 cents. Supporters said the higher deposit could improve recycling and environmental outcomes, while opponents, including the Tax Foundation, cited fraud concerns, the program’s existing fund balance, and practical challenges in redemption; the Department of Human Services also noted potential impacts on blind vendors. The committee took the bill up but deferred decision-making until Monday, January 27, 2025, at 10:01 p.m. in Room 224. The committee also heard SB 250, which would increase the income tax credit for interisland transportation costs for agricultural products. Agricultural and industry witnesses supported the bill as a way to offset rising shipping costs and preserve access to markets, while the Tax Foundation preferred direct appropriations over tax credits and objected to missing bill details. The committee passed SB 250 with amendments from the Department of Agriculture and deferred its effective date to July 1, 2050. Separately, a joint hearing on SB 240, the Right to Farm bill, drew mixed testimony: the Department of Agriculture supported further study and raised concerns about the bill’s fragmented approach, while farm, cattle, and other industry witnesses split between support for protecting customary Native Hawaiian subsistence farming and opposition to excluding CAFOs and certain business structures. No vote was taken on SB 240 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• maintenance calculation maybe not being<00:15:16.399><c> accurate.
• and that calculation was not in<00:15:39.920><c> there.
• I did get confirmation that $2 million has been raised in private revenue.
• </c><00:37:36.320><c> Um</c><00:37:36.880><c> and</c> private revenue has been raised.
• Um and private revenue has been raised.

Bills: HB0111 , HB0112 , HB0122

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: capital construction, state funding, Wyoming, major maintenance, community colleges, task force, legislative services, budget appropriation, unexpended funds, sunset clause, healthcare, rural health, transformation program, funding, incentives, training, access, perpetuity fund, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those dollars are not revenue to the restaurant, yet we're still charged fees on them every single day
• That was charged on money that was never restaurant revenue.
• Tips are not business revenue either.
• Interchange revenue... ...disputes, or enforcement questions.
• And if you disrupt that revenue stream, those services and rewards don't just disappear quietly.

Keywords: 995, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• During the last fiscal year, the Florida Park Service generated over $75 million in revenue and had a
• While some of the economic benefits of the WMA system can be calculated through spending in adjacent
• Funds in specific appropriation 1362 from the Incidental Trust Fund and the General Revenue Fund are
• And then total revenue that we collected off of our state lands last year was $7.11 million.
• And honestly, we used to get all of our revenue from timber management.

Committee: Senate Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources convened with a quorum present and took up SB 302 by Senator Garcia, which would promote nature-based solutions for coastal resilience. Garcia said the bill would direct DEP to adopt statewide guidelines, encourage local restoration projects through existing grant programs, streamline permitting for green and hybrid infrastructure, support workforce training, and require a study on flood-risk and insurance benefits. Senator Harrell asked about implementation, existing statutory authority, and possible fiscal impacts. The committee adopted an amendment clarifying that hybrid infrastructure need only combine green and gray elements, not prove superiority over either alone. The committee heard supportive testimony on SB 302 from Katie Bauman of Surfrider Foundation, who said nature-based approaches such as dunes, wetlands, and mangroves are cost-effective and protective, and several organizations waived in support, including the Environmental Defense Fund of Florida, the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, and 1,000 Friends of Florida. Senator Harrell said she supported the concept but remained concerned about the breadth of rulemaking and the fiscal implications of workforce funding. After closing remarks from Garcia, the committee voted to report CS for SB 302 favorably. The remainder of the meeting consisted of informational presentations on land management. Brian Bradner of DEP reviewed Florida State Parks management, including prescribed fire, invasive species removal, hydrologic restoration, cultural resource preservation, visitor use, and budgeted land-management activities. Melissa Tucker of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission described wildlife management areas, emphasizing habitat restoration, wildlife monitoring, ranch infrastructure, public access, and the economic value of the system. Rick Dolan of the Florida Forest Service outlined state forest management funded through a $20 million appropriation, including road and facility work, recreation upgrades, invasive species control, reforestation, habitat restoration, prescribed burning, and boundary marking. Senators praised the agencies’ work and noted the ongoing cost of managing state lands. The committee then adjourned without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, but yes, there is an excess of general fund revenue there that would go into the rainy day fund at
• What I would point out, though, is that even though revenues overall are slightly ahead of plan, uh,
• </c> is an excess of general fund revenue is an excess of general fund revenue there<00:26:28.480><c>
• overall are slightly though revenues overall are slightly ahead<00:26:37.679><c> of</c><00:26:37.840
• calculating a household's expenses<00:38:21.359><c> uh</c><00:38:21.520><c> or</c><00:38:22.560><c>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The work session was limited to House Bill 1750, a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services’ SNAP administration. Before testimony, Representative Terski distributed a written statement from Representative Priest for the record. Department officials Karen Heert and Nathan White then walked the committee through a chart showing SNAP participation, federal benefit dollars, and state administrative costs, emphasizing that the benefits themselves do not flow through the state budget. They explained that the reported administrative cost includes overhead and cost-allocation methods used to maximize federal reimbursement, and that the current participant count is about 75,000 with the trend steady in recent years. Members questioned whether the reported costs were stable, how much of the administrative expense was directly tied to SNAP, and whether reducing overhead would lower the need for the appropriation. The department said the cost per participant and per dollar distributed would be lower if SNAP were isolated, but that the broader allocation system also supports federal claiming across multiple programs. Officials said SNAP eligibility is redetermined every six months, that the department processes nearly 50 eligibility programs with about 250 field staff, roughly 70 unfunded positions, and a vacancy rate around 25%. They also said most errors in the program are unintentional and can come from either staff or participant mistakes, and that the department reviews errors to identify systemic fixes. The committee discussed the fiscal impact of the bill and related budget issues. DHHS said the current adjusted authorization for 2026 is about $31 million, but actual spending is expected to be closer to $25–26 million because of vacancies and unfilled positions. Members asked whether the $4.4 million shortfall identified in the fiscal note would come from the rainy day fund; staff said it would not be taken directly from that fund, but would reduce the amount available to flow into it at the end of the biennium. The committee also reviewed Senate Bill 603 FN, which was described as an alternative approach that would require DHHS to transfer funds within its existing budget rather than provide new money; officials said it would simply codify an option the department already has. No vote or final action on House Bill 1750 was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our calculation, which validates and tracks Professor Borenstein's calculation, is that Californians
• Here is the graph that shows the calculation.
• Here is the graph that shows the calculation of the mystery gasoline surcharge.
• So you calculate important impacts to health.
• That's a lot of revenue that comes into our state. This is revenue that we can't get back.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on California’s fuel transition, the announced refinery closures by Phillips 66 and Valero, and the potential effects on supply, prices, and the broader fuel system. Committee leadership said the state needs a system-wide transition plan rather than a piecemeal approach, and state witnesses from CARB, the CEC, and DPMO described the fuel market as a complex, interconnected ecosystem involving crude production, refining, storage, imports, and delivery. They emphasized that declining gasoline demand from EV adoption is occurring alongside shrinking in-state refining capacity, which could increase volatility and price spikes if not managed carefully. CARB Chair Liane Randolph reviewed the state’s climate and air-quality programs, including AB 32, SB 32, the 2022 scoping plan, the low-carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions rules. She said these policies have reduced emissions substantially but that California still faces major ozone and PM2.5 problems, especially in disadvantaged communities. Randolph also said federal actions challenging California waivers could complicate the state’s clean-air efforts, and she noted that while liquid fuels will still be needed in some sectors, the state must continue reducing fossil fuel dependence while protecting public health. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and DPMO Director Ty Milder presented data on gasoline demand, refinery throughput, crude imports, and price differentials. Gunda said the Legislature’s special-session laws gave the agencies transparency and planning tools, and that the CEC is developing a fuels transition plan while evaluating whether any regulatory tools should be used. Milder previewed DPMO findings that Californians have paid a long-running “mystery gasoline surcharge” averaging 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher margins concentrated in branded gasoline and among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show a concentrated market with some refiners doing well and others struggling, and that DPMO will continue investigating price behavior, competition, and supply risks. Members pressed the witnesses on whether state regulations contributed to refinery exits or higher prices, and on whether the agencies had adequately analyzed consumer costs. Witnesses said they had not yet implemented the new permissive tools from SB X1-2 and AB X2-1 because they were still assessing risks and benefits, and they stressed that refinery closures and capital decisions are driven by broader market conditions as well as regulation. No vote was taken; the hearing was informational, with the committee seeking updates and urging the agencies to develop a practical transition strategy that balances affordability, reliability, climate goals, and worker/community protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• The way that number was calculated is the real number is like 15.9. Is that correct, Mike?
• But I've been trying to work these numbers on my calculator. I've been texting with my kids.
• I've been using my calculator.
• We may come back later and see if revenue has improved. revenue has improved. >> Do you understand?
• We calculated that the program serves an average of 1,805 clients per year.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee opened by approving the May 15 minutes and then recognized Pam Ellis for her long service with the Legislative Budget Assistant’s office and upcoming retirement. The committee adopted the consent calendar with two items removed for separate consideration, then approved transfers for the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Environmental Services after questions about court benefit costs and dam project funding. The Department of Health and Human Services also received approval for a general fund transfer item. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Youth Development Center settlement fund. New administrator Jared Boyle, joined by the Attorney General, described the fund’s remaining caseload, the payment matrix, and the need for additional funding to begin hearings in August. Members raised concerns about administrative costs, attorneys’ fees, payday loans, structured settlements, and the long-term fiscal impact on the state. Boyle requested $55 million, but the committee ultimately approved a reduced appropriation of $20 million, with members noting the possibility of returning for more funding later depending on revenues and the October revenue review. The Department of Corrections then received approval for a smaller shortfall transfer and a larger overtime-related transfer, with officials citing a 52% corrections officer vacancy rate, ongoing recruitment, academy classes, and efforts to use civilian staff in some non-security roles. A late item from the Veterans Home was also approved to cover overtime, holiday pay, and indirect cost shortfalls within its existing budget. The committee then heard an informational presentation on implementation of Senate Bill 134 and the new federal Medicaid work-requirement rule. DHHS said it plans to submit a state plan amendment, seek approval for hardship exceptions, start with one eligibility check cycle, and use existing federal grant funding to make system changes. Finally, the committee received a performance audit of the Doorway opioid treatment program, which found weak written procedures, incomplete data use, reimbursement delays, and problems with the Governor’s Commission on Addiction Treatment and Prevention. Members discussed follow-up reporting, and the next Fiscal Committee meeting was scheduled for August 21 at 11:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you have the cost of the income or the revenues and then you have expenses and detailed costs.
• So you have the cost of the income or the revenues and then you have expenses and detailed costs.
• and then you have expenses and revenues and then you have expenses and detail detail detail costs<00
• </c><00:27:42.720><c> of</c><00:27:43.039><c> what</c><00:27:43.200><c> the</c> put into the calculation
• of what the put into the calculation of what the investment<00:27:44.000><c> and</c><00:27:44.320><c

Keywords: 00:25 Call to Order/Roll Call 01:36 Discussion of 25RS SB 153 23:11 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 153 30:56 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Health Services met on March 14, 2025, and took up a committee substitute for Senate Bill 153. The substitute deleted the original bill language and replaced it with provisions from Senate Bill 14, aimed at prohibiting pharmaceutical manufacturers from discriminating against 340B covered entities and adding reporting requirements for those entities. The sponsor explained that the protections would sunset after one year, allowing lawmakers to review data by July 1, 2026, and that Kentucky would continue to follow any future federal changes to the 340B program. Members asked several questions about the scope of the reporting, including what “total operating cost” means, how duplicate discounts are prevented, whether the reporting applies only to hospitals and not federally qualified health centers, and who would receive the data. The sponsor said the reporting is intended to help the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the Office of Health Data Analytics at LRC assess how the program is working, including charity care and community benefits, while preserving protections for rural hospitals and allowing them to continue using contract pharmacies. A representative from LRC confirmed the data would come to the General Assembly through the Office of Health Data Analytics. The committee expressed mixed views about the balance between transparency and potential burdens on hospitals, especially rural facilities. Several members said they were supportive but had reservations about the reporting requirements and the sunset structure, while others noted concerns about unintended consequences and the possibility of changes on the House floor. The committee ultimately adopted the committee substitute, approved a title amendment, and reported Senate Bill 153 with House Committee Substitute 2 favorably. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• and amends the transfer of funds for Central service expenses from the state highway fund, airport revenue
• HB 1164 restores a revenue bond authorization for the Department of Transportation to issue highway revenue
• A recent study calculated that between 1976 and 2022, over 22,000 additional lives could have been saved
• </c><00:24:46.080><c> that</c><00:24:46.240><c> between</c> recent study calculated that between recent
• study calculated that between 1976<00:24:47.919><c> and</c><00:24:48.120><c> 2022</c><00:24:49.000><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee met on February 11, 2025, and heard a series of bills focused on transportation funding and roadway safety. HB 1154 would cap Central Services assessments from the state highway, airport, and harbor funds, with a CPI-based process for additional deductions; the Department of Transportation supported it and the Department of Budget and Finance offered comments. HB 1164 would restore highway revenue bond authorization for DOT capital projects, and HB 1286 would prohibit pedestrians from walking along interstate and certain state highways except for authorized duties; both drew DOT support, with Ulupono Initiative and an individual offering comments or support on HB 1286. HB 1162 would require motorcycle instruction permit applicants, beginning July 1, 2026, to complete an approved basic rider course before becoming eligible, and HB 537 would require helmets and chin straps for all operators and passengers of two-wheel motorized vehicles; both had DOT support, with HB 537 also drawing support from AAA Hawaii and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and opposition from one individual. The committee then took up HB 387, which would expand negligent injury in the first degree to include injuries negligently inflicted by intoxicated drivers. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing current law already covers drunk driving and that the proposal would turn alcohol-caused negligence causing injury into a felony; prosecutors from Honolulu and Hawaiʻi counties and DOT supported it, saying serious injuries short of “substantial bodily injury” are not adequately punished and that circuit court would better handle restitution and related proceedings. Members asked about data on cases that might fit the new felony category, and prosecutors said they did not have exact numbers but could try to provide more information. The committee also heard HB 1084 and the related HB 1387, both of which would lower Hawaiʻi’s per se DUI blood alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05. Support came from DOT, police departments, the Department of Health, prosecutors, the Governor’s office, MADD Hawaii, the Hawaii Public Health Institute, the Hawaii Alcohol Policy Alliance, AAA Hawaii, and the National Transportation Safety Board, all citing research that lower BAC limits reduce impaired driving and fatalities. The Public Defender opposed the change, and some testimony raised concerns about enforcement and the need for an amendment in HB 1084. Several individuals and advocates gave emotional testimony about crashes and losses tied to impaired driving, while supporters emphasized that a 0.05 standard would save lives and would not harm alcohol sales or the tourism economy. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it dwarfs our general revenue. So while... So it dwarfs our general revenue.
• FY26 cash, general revenue, is very strong.
• Sending general revenue to roads, that's a strain on general revenue, but the governor understands it
• So that's a decrease for general revenue. So that helps general revenue.
• So that general revenue is $252 million.

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 994, senate, all