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:

• 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

Transcript Highlights:

• Even with this fee increase in the proposed fee increase in the trailer bill language.
• So, again, the intent is for those fees... ...for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• example of fees to businesses.
• To propose a fee that...
• Another example of a state agency raising fees and then rounding those fees up.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Governor’s housing reorganization proposal and trailer bill language that would consolidate several affordable housing finance programs under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC). Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplication, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits so projects can move from award to construction more quickly. The proposal would also shift some positions and reallocate portions of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program and other housing funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the concept has merit but raised concerns about the proposed bond set-aside floor and recommended more flexibility and earlier reallocation of unused bonds. Several senators questioned the structure and, especially, the proposed changes to the climate-related ASIC program, arguing that it could weaken the program’s original transportation-and-housing integration and that the budget lacks enough direct funding for core housing production programs. The item was held open. The committee then received an update from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal tax credit changes and state housing finance tools. Staff explained that federal H.R. 1 increased the 9% low-income housing tax credit allocation and reduced the bond-financing threshold for the 4% credit from 50% to 25%, allowing California to finance many more projects. They reported that emergency regulations were adopted quickly to implement the new federal rules, resulting in awards for 195 projects and more than 25,000 units in the 4% program, while the 9% program funded 58 projects and nearly 3,000 units. Members discussed the importance of state enhanced low-income housing tax credits, with committee questions focused on how much additional leverage state credits provide and how they help fill remaining financing gaps. The final portion of the hearing focused on the Civil Rights Department’s response to federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing the end of limited-term funding: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal civil rights enforcement has been weakened by closed offices, shuttered programs, and reduced support for fair housing organizations, while CRD’s open caseload has grown from about 8,700 to more than 12,000 matters. He said the department is using overtime, triage, and process reengineering to manage the surge and to direct people to the right services. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern that California is being asked to do more with less as federal protections erode. No votes were taken on the informational items, and the committee discussed the vote-only budget requests for CRD separately.

Transcript Highlights:

• Even with this fee increase in the proposed fee increase in the trailer bill language.
• And we don't want to be dealing with partial increments for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• So again, the intent is for those fees... ...for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• example of fees to businesses.
• To propose a fee that...

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extensive presentation on the administration’s housing reorganization proposal, which would centralize multifamily affordable housing finance under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC) and align it with the Governor’s trailer bill language. Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplicative timelines and costs, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits more efficiently. They also described proposed changes to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, including shifting a larger share of funding toward housing-related awards while preserving a portion for sustainable communities investments. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported the streamlining concept but recommended changes to the proposed bond set-aside timing and urged flexibility for integrated applications and future reporting on demand. Senators, especially Senator Cabaldon, raised concerns that the proposal could weaken the original climate-and-transportation purpose of the sustainable communities program and that the reorganization would be undercut by the lack of new housing production funding in the budget. The item was held open without a vote. The committee then received a report from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal and state housing tax credits. Staff explained that the federal H.R. 1 change lowering the bond-financing threshold from 50% to 25% greatly expanded the number of projects able to use the 4% federal tax credit, allowing California to fund many more projects and units. They also described the state low-income housing tax credit as an important gap-filling tool for projects that still need additional subsidy, and noted existing set-asides for rural, homeless, at-risk, and extremely low-income projects. Members discussed rehabilitation as well as new construction, and the item was informational only. Finally, the Civil Rights Department reported on the effects of federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing expiration: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal cuts and policy shifts have reduced support for fair housing and other civil rights functions, while CRD’s caseload has grown from about 8,700 open matters a year ago to more than 12,000, with a six-month wait for interviews despite overtime triage efforts. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern about the broader federal rollback of civil rights enforcement. The department said it is using overtime, intake triage, and outreach partnerships to manage the workload and direct Californians to appropriate state, local, and nonprofit resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• In my experience, landing fees are actually pretty rare. Parking fees are different.
• While ASA does not have a position regarding landing fees or user fees or the use of ADS-B to collect
• We are not trying to stop fees.
• This has nothing to do with fees.
• Now those guys do have the money to pay those line fees, but those line fees are also thousands of dollars

Bills: HB2003, HB2063, HB2111, HB2116, HB2210, HCM2007

Keywords: driver education, instruction permit, underage drivers, motorcycle licenses, traffic regulations, corrections oversight, appropriation, independent office, public safety, funding, driver license, examinations, motorcycle awareness, traffic laws, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2003, which would lower the instruction-permit age for Class D, G, and M licenses from 15 and a half to 15, while increasing supervised practice requirements for minors: 50 hours for Class G with 20 at night, 50 hours for Class M, and a nine-month permit holding period before licensure. The sponsor argued the bill builds on Arizona’s graduated driver licensing system and is intended to improve teen safety, citing other states with longer permit periods and lower teen fatality rates. Questions focused on who certifies the supervised hours, with staff explaining that a parent, legal guardian, or custodial parent signs off, though driver education remains an alternative. The bill received a do-pass recommendation by a 9-1 vote. House Bill 2063, which appropriates $1.5 million from the General Fund in FY 2027 to the Corrections Oversight Fund, drew emotional testimony in support from a mother whose son died after a prison suicide, and from advocates who said the oversight office is needed given prison health care problems and federal receivership. The sponsor said the funding would support prison oversight and transparency. The committee then approved the bill unanimously, 10-0. The committee also passed House Bill 2116, appropriating $1 million to the Colorado River litigation fund, after the sponsor said the money would help Arizona prepare for possible litigation over Colorado River cuts and that the issue affects nearly every district in the state. Members discussed whether the funding should come from the WIFA fund instead of the General Fund, but the bill received an 8-0 do-pass recommendation with two not voting. The committee also considered House Bill 2210, which would prohibit the state, local governments, and private entities from using ADS-B aircraft surveillance data to calculate, generate, or collect aircraft fees. Supporters, including pilots and the Arizona Pilots Association, argued the technology was intended for safety and should not be used for billing, warning that fee collection could discourage pilots from keeping the system on. Opponents, including the Arizona Airports Association and the City of Phoenix, said airports should retain local control over fee collection methods and that the bill was a solution in search of a problem. After extensive debate about federal requirements, safety, and billing practices, the bill received a tied 4-4 do-pass recommendation. Finally, HCM 2007, a memorial urging renaming sections of State Route 69 to honor veterans of several wars, passed 5-4. The committee also briefly noted that some bills were being held at members’ request.

Transcript Highlights:

• The inspection, reinspection flat fee would be a cost per trip, and then the fees established by the
• , and it is a fee-for-service.
• It is a fee-for-service.
• , fees, fees.
• Permit fees were within 10 or 15%. I.E., a $200,000 building, the permit fee was really close.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Labor Committee heard Senate File 560, a bill to require the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to establish a cost-per-square-foot valuation for residential building permits. Senator Dornink said the measure is intended to make permit fees more fair, reasonable, transparent, and predictable, and to reduce housing costs by limiting large differences in permit fees between municipalities. He said the bill would be sent to the Housing Committee without recommendation, and members discussed but did not act on a related amendment that would have shifted plan review and inspection fees to hourly and trip-based charges and made fee information publicly available. Testimony from Housing First Minnesota supported the bill’s goal, arguing that Minnesota’s housing shortage and high new-home prices make it important to reduce inefficiencies in the permitting system. The witness said permit valuations are often increased by cities, leading to higher costs for homebuyers, and cited examples of large fee differences between municipalities and claims of overcollection. He said some other states, including Texas and Wisconsin communities, use square-footage-based approaches. A League of Minnesota Cities representative opposed the amendment language and cautioned that trip charges and hourly billing would make fees less certain, could raise costs, and would be especially burdensome in Greater Minnesota; he said current valuation-based fees better reflect the actual cost and complexity of service and can be appealed if disputed. A representative of the Association of Minnesota Building Officials also raised concerns about the amendment, saying building departments provide consultations, inspections, plan review, and other services beyond a single trip, and that trip charges would not fit a responsive fee-for-service model. He said the current valuation system helps cover the full range of permitting work, though he acknowledged that a consistent square-foot valuation standard could improve transparency and reduce disputes over project value. Committee members asked about other states’ approaches and the scope of the bill, and the discussion emphasized that the proposal applies to one- and two-family dwellings.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a real hodgepodge of structures, but most do require entrance fees; 83% require entrance fees.
• and monthly fees.
• deals with entrance fees.
• With regard to monthly care fees, this is really the number one source of stress for residents: the fees
• So, the fees and fee increases will fluctuate.

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:

• We'd have the fee in place.
• Legally, the board approves the fee. Is the fee a legal fee at that moment?” “Yes, it is.”
• So you have a legal fee.
• It is a fee.” “It is legally a fee at that point in time.
• It is not a fee unto itself.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the Mitigation Fee Act.
• and prohibiting impact fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller, and requiring that fees for
• Because many times they're avoiding impact fees, school fees, and they're already having to pay.
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right? Yes.
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right?

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills. SB 457 would direct HCD to develop statistical formulas based on historical development data to help cities complete housing element site inventories, with the author and supporters arguing it would make RHNA compliance more realistic and less costly; the California Building Industry Association opposed, and the bill was later approved on a 7-1 vote. SB 904 would codify and expand wildfire-rebuilding coordination and reporting practices used after recent fires, with supporters saying it would speed recovery and opponents questioning the need for additional reporting; it passed 11-1. The committee also took up SB 1091, which would create a state acquisition-and-preservation program for unsubsidized affordable housing to prevent displacement; it drew broad support from housing and tenant groups and passed 9-1, with members emphasizing preservation as a key housing strategy. Members also considered SB 1267, which would require EV charger installers in common-interest developments to indemnify associations during installation and make homeowners responsible for costs arising from use of privately owned chargers. The bill was presented as a follow-up to prior HOA-related EV charging legislation, with support from HOA, EV, and climate groups and opposition from the California Association of Realtors pending amendments; it passed 10-0. SB 1117 would clarify that ADU impact fees above the 750-square-foot exemption are charged only on the portion above that threshold, not the entire unit, and supporters said it would remove a fee cliff that discourages slightly larger ADUs. Cities, special districts, and fire agencies opposed or opposed unless amended, citing infrastructure funding concerns, but the bill passed 10-0 after extensive debate. The committee also heard SB 1361, which would prevent local governments from taking actions to avoid SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Supporters from L.A. Metro, labor, and housing groups said it would protect transit investments and jobs, while the City of Burbank opposed; the bill passed 9-0. Two consent items, SB 722 and SB 1426, were approved without discussion. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly stressed the goals of streamlining housing production, preserving existing affordable homes, and reducing barriers to rebuilding and transit-oriented development.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd have the fee in place.
• Legally, the board approves the fee. Is the fee a legal fee at that moment? Yes. All right, it is.
• So you have a legal fee.
• It is a fee. It's legally a fee. That's correct. At that point in time.
• of their fees.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees
• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees
• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees
• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees
• Part of that was the tab fees in that, and we've been hearing across the state very loudly that tab fees

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: Legislators and reporters discussed the final contours of a Minnesota bonding and tax package centered on a $1.2 billion capital investment bill. Supporters said the bill would fund state and local infrastructure projects, maintain state assets, and include anti-fraud measures such as electronic verification for service providers and a 100% excess tax on fraud proceeds to prevent offenders from profiting. They also said the package would backfill road-and-bridge funding so the fee reduction would not reduce transportation dollars. A major point of emphasis was a temporary reduction in tab fees, described as a $254 million savings for taxpayers in 2027. Republicans said the reduction was a top priority and that it was secured through negotiations, though they acknowledged it is only a one-year reprieve unless changed in a future session. They estimated the average savings at about $145 on a $50,000 vehicle, with larger savings for households with multiple vehicles. They also noted that the first proposal had included both a depreciation change and a rate change, but only the rate cut remained in the final compromise. In response to questions, lawmakers said the tab fee cut was driven by constituent complaints and that they would try to extend it next year. They also discussed related transportation issues, including accelerating collection of an auto parts sales tax and concerns about greenhouse gas-related costs for roads and bridges. On other topics, one lawmaker said gun control proposals in the House were not part of these negotiations and urged continued movement on the broader package. No formal vote was taken in the exchange, but participants expressed confidence that the bonding portion of the deal was largely settled, while some details of the full package still needed to be finalized.

Transcript Highlights:

• that you would have a fee that you would have a fee increase,<00:16:04.240> right?
• Witness: So they do get fees.
• So they do get fees. So death. Yeah. So they do get fees.
• How are these fees set? maintenance. How are these fees set?
• no revenue then there's no fee. Correct. no revenue then there's no fee. Correct.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds met to review the House budget provision that would impose a 5% administrative charge on a broad list of dedicated funds, with some exemptions. Members discussed the House approach versus the Senate’s more general approach of leaving the governor discretion over which funds could be charged. The chair explained the committee was hearing from agencies about any legal, contractual, or practical reasons their funds should be exempt, and the agenda was expanded to include several departments and written submissions from others. The Department of Education testified first, identifying several funds it said should be exempt: a printing revolving fund that is funded by transfers rather than fees; teacher certification, which is self-funded by educator licensing fees and would require an immediate fee increase if charged; a vending stand set-aside tied to the federal Randolph-Sheppard program and subject to federal approval and vendor committee procedures; and a public school infrastructure/safety account, where most revenue is transferred from the education trust fund or general fund rather than generated by fees. Members questioned the department about the effect on school safety projects and whether the fee would simply reduce the number of projects completed each year. The Veterans Home asked for exemptions for three funds: a donation benefit account used for recreational activities and quality-of-life expenses for residents, a small memorial trust fund whose interest supports veteran activities, and a resident member account that holds veterans’ personal income such as Social Security and pensions. The department argued the charge would reduce donations, cut services, and effectively function like an income tax on vulnerable veterans. The Banking Department also requested exemption for its consumer credit administration license fund, saying it is used to keep exam fees low and is expressly intended by statute to reduce costs on regulated businesses; it said the 5% charge would undermine that framework and could eventually force higher fees. The Department of Justice began testimony on its dedicated funds, starting with the medical legal investigative fund, which pays for death investigations and related services under statute and without general fund support. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee mainly heard testimony and asked questions about the practical and legal effects of applying the administrative charge.

Transcript Highlights:

• The application review<00:07:22.880> fee<00:07:23.280> and<00:07:23.520> fee<00:
• and fee for taking the jurist review fee and fee for taking the jurist prudence<00:07:25.520> and
• review fee from $100 to $150. review fee from $100 to $150.
• The late renewal fee from $75 to $100. The late renewal fee from $75 to $100.
• The reinstatement fee from $100 to $300. The reinstatement fee from $100 to $300.

Keywords: 0:00– Meeting start/roll call 0:39 – Approval of minutes 1:11 – Council on Postsecondary Education 3:06 - State Board of Elections 5:33 - Office of the Attorney General; Office of Regulatory Relief 7:02 - Board of Examiners of Psychology 16:38 - Energy and Environment Cabinet; Department for Environmental Protection 17:37 - Education and Labor Cabinet - Department of Education 19:14 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee met for its January meeting, approved the minutes from the prior meeting, and welcomed the new regulations compiler. The first item was a repealer from the Council on Postsecondary Education, 13 KAR 2:111, which was explained as necessary because Senate Bill 77 from the 2025 session removed the regulatory authority for advanced practice doctoral degree programs at comprehensive universities. No questions were raised, and the repealer moved forward without objection. The subcommittee then reviewed a large package of State Board of Elections regulations with staff-suggested amendments. The package would update definitions and election procedures, require e-poll books to be ready before polls open, change the standard and timeline for removing an election officer, add oversight by a State Board appointee on election days, recognize the Kentucky party, require voter registration records to be added to electronic voter records, require ballots to fit all races and questions on a single sheet, adjust precinct consolidation petition deadlines, and update incorporated forms and identification references. The package was approved without objection. The Office of the Attorney General’s Office of Regulatory Relief also presented multiple regulations with staff amendments, covering funeral planning declarations, cemetery companies, pre-need cemetery merchandise and funeral/burial contract sellers, and crematory contract sellers. These changes were described as adding specificity, streamlining forms and reporting, and bringing the regulations into compliance with KRS Chapter 13A; they were approved without objection. The Board of Examiners of Psychology presented several regulations, including compact rules, grace-period extensions, and significant fee increases for applications, renewals, reinstatements, exam retakes, and reciprocity. Board representatives said the increases were needed because many fees had not been raised since 2002, the board was operating at a deficit, and legal and administrative costs had risen sharply after the termination of state legal services. Members expressed concern about the size of the increases, but the chair said he would not hold the matter up and would raise the issue with the committee of jurisdiction. The subcommittee also approved staff amendments for the Energy and Environment Cabinet’s air quality regulations and the Education and Labor Cabinet’s education regulations, which updated nontraditional instruction procedures, waiver requests, instruction topics, superintendent assessment requirements, and academic standards. The meeting ended with the next meeting scheduled for February 9 at 1 p.m., and the agenda was adjourned without further objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have some convenience fees, some matters to take up.
• Once again, is this fee optional?
• fee.
• ACH does not have that extra fee.
• That fee is approved.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 28, 2026, approved the May 19 minutes, and then considered three third-party convenience fee schedules for online payments. The first was for the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, presented by Rebecca Dupree with Louisiana Interactive; members confirmed the online payment option would be voluntary and approved the fee schedule without objection. The second was for the Department of Health’s Safe Drinking Water Program, presented by Karen Benjamin, and generated extended discussion about a $2.50 flat fee plus a 2.5% card-processing charge, especially whether that charge would violate recently passed Senate Bill 254 regarding debit card surcharges. Senators Mizell, Lambert, and Luneau questioned the structure, and department representatives said they believed the fee was not a surcharge and that ACH payments would avoid the percentage charge; the committee approved the fee schedule but urged the department to review it for compliance with SB 254. The third fee schedule was for the Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal, presented by Lindsay Savoy and Garrett Lee, covering online payments for the conveyance program and the Fire Emergency Training Academy. Senators again raised concerns about the 2.5% card charge in light of SB 254, and the presenters said they intended to comply with the new law and would discuss the issue further. The committee approved this fee schedule as well, with a similar reminder to consider the bill’s impact going forward. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fees are collected.
• So your coverage would determine the facility fee and the professional fee.
• And they charge membership fees, access fees.
• You've got a professional fee, you've got a hospital fee.
• Professional fee, you've got a hospital fee.

Bills: SB500, SB719, SB912, SB1232, SB1467, SB1777, SB1864, SB2023, SB2119, SB2458

Keywords: SB 500, Texas adoption law, Family Code, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, child-placing agency, prospective adoptive parents, adoption records, confidential information, nondisclosure agreement, child history report, health history, social history, educational history, genetic history, termination of parental rights, permanency plan, single source continuum contractor, privacy, redaction

Summary: The committee first took up several pending bills and reported them favorably: SB 968, SB 636 as substituted, SB 1137, and SB 1138 as substituted. Each was advanced by roll call vote, and the committee also recommended the approved bills for the local and uncontested calendar. The chair then moved to the posted agenda and heard SB 719, a mental health bed-capacity study bill by Senator Eckhart, with a committee substitute that refined the data collection to distinguish state and non-state beds, child and adult beds, include two point-in-time counts, and capture jail diversion data. Testimony on SB 719 was largely supportive from Integral Care, NAMI Texas, and the Children’s Hospital Association of Texas, all of whom said Texas needs better data on inpatient psychiatric capacity, workforce needs, and future demand. Several witnesses described long waits for beds, especially for forensic restoration, and argued the study would help target future investments. Senator Perry and others noted the state has already made major investments in new beds and urged the bill to account for beds already coming online; the committee ultimately withdrew the substitute and left SB 719 pending after public testimony closed. The committee then heard SB 1864, which would allow small egg producers to sell ungraded eggs more broadly, including to restaurants and retailers, with the substitute increasing the weekly sales threshold and addressing sanitation and labeling. Supporters said grading is about size, not safety, and that the bill would help small farms reach new markets; opponents from the Texas Poultry Federation argued grading and candling help identify cracks and defects that can affect safety and quality. The committee adopted the substitute and left the bill pending. It also heard SB 1467, requiring DSHS to share death record information with hospitals for record accuracy and quality review, and SB 912, which would modernize continuing education tracking for health licensing agencies; both bills drew supportive testimony and were left pending. Finally, the committee heard SB 2023, which would create an HHSC grant program to help counties pay for indigent burial costs, with county representatives testifying in support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Once again, is this fee optional?
• fee.
• ACH does not have that extra fee.
• The fee, the safe drinking water fee, is actually collected by the water system from customers, which
• That fee is approved.

Keywords: 974, senate, all