Transcript Highlights:

• reimbursement fee. reimbursement fee.
• was not based on the fee. was not based on the fee.
• It is a fee that is um fee.
• . fee. fee.
• The new fee would be $1,200. autopsy. The new fee would be $1,200.

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 10 March, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum present, received the invocation and pledge, and then dispensed with reading the journal, committee reports, and bill titles. Several guests and pages were introduced, including junior pages, a doctor of the day, Farm Bureau representatives, and other visitors in the galleries. The chamber also recognized a birthday and welcomed a House member to the Senate. On the calendar, the Senate took up several bills and mostly adopted strike-all amendments before passing them, often by morning roll call. These included HB 1646, which increased disaster trust fund transfer limits for declared and non-declared disasters; HB 1649, which authorized additional state fund transfers for Main Street revitalization projects and increased the total authorized expenditure; HB 1653, which kept a local improvements project fund bill alive for possible repurposing of funds, including a Mississippi Valley State residence hall project; and HB 669, which allowed patrons to bring wine into licensed premises with a corkage fee and changed wine shipment reporting from quarterly to semiannual. HB 1620 created an economic zone around the Chevron refinery in Jackson County, and HB 2787 changed school district gas-piping inspection requirements from annual testing to a two-year cycle, with funding support from gas companies. The Senate also handled several concurrence and conference motions on House and Senate bills, including SB 2263 on probable-cause requirements for Marine Resources officers boarding or stopping vessels, SB 2524 establishing the Postsecondary Attainment Council, and SB 2597 involving the ABC warehouse transfer in Madison County, with the chamber choosing not to concur and to invite conference on those items. SB 2368 made technical changes to the higher education legislative plan grant program, and SB 2526 on the Rural Water Oversight Committee returned with changes removing a reverse repealer and shifting administration of some duties to a nonprofit using rural water revolving loan funds. The Senate also tabled motions to reconsider on some items, and one nomination-related motion drew extended remarks about the role of the capital post-conviction counsel office and respect for crime victims.

Transcript Highlights:

• So then on the entrance fee refunds.
• The fees pay for key operations. But don't they pay for everything?
• I thought that was the monthly fee. Yeah.
• , entrance fees, and operating.
• That's the advantage of CCRCs over the... fees.

Keywords: 995, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The other element I want to point out there is there's not a direct correlation between entrance fee
• You could pay a high entrance fee and have 4,000 square feet of living space.
• In most cases, the CCRC entrance fee model was developed to create a cost of construction, and that's
• And a lot of times, that money that's brought in from entrance fees is used for capital improvements
• You're probably sick of hearing me say that, and entrance fees.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities met for its third meeting, focused on regulations, oversight, and enforcement. Staff and agency presenters reviewed the current framework: the Executive Office of Aging and Independence explained that assisted living regulations generally do not apply to CCRCs unless an assisted living component markets itself separately, and that CCRCs must submit marketing materials, contracts, and disclosure statements for public posting. The Attorney General’s office described Chapter 93A consumer protection standards and noted it is working on draft assisted living-specific regulations. DPH outlined its oversight of licensed nursing facilities associated with some CCRCs, including routine surveys, complaint investigations, and enforcement tools such as admissions freezes, fines, receivership, and license actions, along with federal CMS sanctions for certified facilities. Commission members and presenters then discussed gaps and ambiguities in how CCRCs are defined and regulated, especially whether communities without on-site skilled nursing should still be treated as CCRCs, how assisted living-like services within CCRCs are classified, and whether residents have enough clarity about the services they are buying. A major theme was disclosure: members raised concerns about entrance fees, refund timing and conditions, whether skilled nursing is on-site or provided by contract, and how residents can compare communities. Several participants suggested more standardized disclosure and possibly broader consumer protection rules, while others cautioned that overly rigid requirements could affect community finances and development. The commission also explored enforcement and resident protections. Some members argued that independent living residents are already covered by landlord-tenant law and that existing complaint systems and community education may be sufficient, while others said residents in supported or assisted settings within CCRCs should have clearer access to ombudsman services and oversight. The discussion turned to closure and ownership transfer, with members citing recent national examples of sales and bankruptcies that changed resident terms. DPH explained its closure process for licensed nursing facilities, and members noted that Chapter 197 of 2024 adds oversight for facility transfers and financial disclosures. The meeting ended with logistics for the next session at Brookhaven at Lexington on June 2, a public hearing on June 16, and a request to circulate the hearing notice broadly to residents and stakeholder organizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• The privilege fees are the taxes that should be going to the state.
• The privilege fees are the taxes that should be going to the state.
• fees.
• privilege fees.
• Thank you. fees that's taxes under our regulated environment privilege fees okay thank you but you did

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the Arizona Auditor General’s sunset review of the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found some strengths, including timely licensing and complaint resolution in the sample reviewed and rules that matched statutory curriculum requirements, but it also identified a major finding that the board had imposed inconsistent discipline for similar violations and lacked documentation for deviations from its disciplinary guidelines. Other issues included missing reciprocity education requirements, weak application quality control, incomplete school and establishment oversight, and compliance concerns involving open meeting law, public records, and conflicts of interest. The report made 25 recommendations total, including two tied to the disciplinary finding and three suggested statutory changes on esthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and eyelash technician training. The board’s executive director said the board agreed with the findings, had already implemented several recommendations, updated disciplinary policies and conflict-of-interest procedures, and was working on legislation and rule changes. After questions about enforcement consistency, licensing verification, cash handling, complaint volume, and conflict disclosures, the committee voted 7-0 to recommend the board be continued for six years, until July 1, 2032. The committee then took up the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Arizona Racing Commission, and the Arizona Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission together. The Auditor General reported that the department correctly distributed more than $158 million in tribal contributions in fiscal year 2024 and issued event wagering licenses to reviewed applicants, but found several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audit reports for event wagering and fantasy sports operators, did not fully comply with conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements, and lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes. The review also found delays in distributing Compact Trust Fund payments to some tribes, gaps in IT security and horse-racing license checks, and incomplete fee-setting and public-records practices. The report made 36 recommendations to the department, six to the Racing Commission, and 13 to the Boxing and MMA Commission, and all three entities said they agreed and would implement them. In response, the Department of Gaming director said the agency was already making changes, including a historical look-back on operator audits, updated guidance to operators, a new constituent services unit and complaint-tracking process, and improved conflict-of-interest training and forms. She also explained the Compact Trust Fund dispute, saying the department administers the fund but the beneficiary tribes must agree on the revenue baseline formula, which has been complicated by COVID-era closures; no Category Three distributions had yet been made. Committee members asked about possible revenue losses, penalties, and the status of 2024-2025 audits, as well as prediction markets and whether they are legal under Arizona’s event wagering framework. The director said the department had issued cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed prediction-market operators, would review licensed operators for suitability if needed, and would continue to enforce Arizona law. The transcript ends while questioning on prediction markets is still underway, before any vote on the gaming-related reviews is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><03:06:50.640> in The uh the fee the last time the fees in The uh the fee the last time the
• the fees uh that uh Mr.
• One is fees that we collect from fees.
• of those fees as they relate to the fees of those fees as they relate to the fees in<03:14:47.359
• The fees collected line 14, fees The fees collected line 14, fees collected<03:15:41.760> from

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee discussed House Bill 185, which would amend RSA 3109 to add timelines for OPLC’s complaint review and investigation process. Members reviewed the existing five-year limitation period for misconduct complaints and noted that the bill would add a 30-day deadline for the office to make a recommendation to the board and a 90-day deadline to complete investigations. Some members raised concerns that the new deadlines could conflict with the existing statute of limitations, create pressure to dismiss cases too quickly, and potentially undermine the separation between OPLC’s investigative role and the boards’ adjudicatory role established by House Bill 655. Nicholas Fry, OPLC general counsel, testified that the agency’s fiscal note originally assumed it would need roughly double its staff to meet the proposed deadlines, though a later amendment reduced that estimate somewhat. He said OPLC would still need additional personnel, including investigatory paralegals and a physician investigator for the Board of Medicine, to meet the timeframes. He also explained OPLC’s current complaint and hearing procedures, including new consumer-friendly correspondence, website guidance, and efforts by the enforcement division to improve transparency and communication with complainants and licensees. Bob Quinn of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors testified in support of the bill’s basic goal of speeding up intake and investigation, saying the 30-day intake/review period was reasonable and that the bill would not change OPLC’s role in that first step. He argued, however, that the investigation step is where delays occur, especially for lower-priority complaints, and that some cases have remained unresolved for years. Committee members also questioned how the added staffing costs would be paid, with discussion of whether they would come from license fees or the general fund. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're here to discuss the trailer bill language for the $1 BPA fee.
• date, we have not collected any fees under that particular regulation.
• fee for service.
• The other one is the complaint fee and so the developers are very you know confident in the fee for service
• , timber harvest fees, etc.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:35:24.240> So going for fees. So going for fees.
• <00:38:53.520> So new fees or additional fees forward.
• So new fees or additional fees forward.
• fee schedules.
• This is a submedaid fee fee schedules.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have defense counsel incurring tens of thousands of legal fees fighting this.
• Consumers, your constituents are getting no benefit from this attorney's fee shifting provision.
• And lastly, I think it's important what we're requesting here in terms of the fees.
• network companies like Uber and Lyft from a low flat fee to a percentage-based fee.
• states have now implemented fees, and our 20-cent fee per ride assessment is much lower than other cities

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Financial Services Committee heard testimony on several insurance, transportation, and labor-related bills. Senator Edwards supported bills addressing app-based delivery workers, arguing that food-delivery drivers should be treated as employees with protections and mileage reimbursement, and that a small surcharge on app-based deliveries could raise revenue for the Commonwealth and localities. Kevin Brousseau of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO also backed the delivery-worker bill, saying it would preserve employee status, add data transparency, and create a process for challenging deactivations. MAPC supported a bill to change transportation network company fees from a flat per-ride charge to a percentage-based assessment, saying the current fee is outdated and that a higher fee could raise more transportation revenue and help address congestion and emissions. A large portion of the hearing focused on auto insurance and collision repair issues. Insurance industry witnesses supported a bill to limit attorney’s fees in PIP cases by giving insurers 30 days after a complaint is served to pay amounts due without fee exposure, arguing that PIP litigation has surged, is clogging courts, and is being driven by out-of-state firms. They also opposed auto body labor-rate bills, saying the market is already adjusting and that a statutory floor is unnecessary. In contrast, auto body shop representatives and the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Massachusetts urged favorable action on bills to raise and regularly update collision repair labor rates, saying current reimbursement levels are far below market, have not kept pace with inflation or vehicle technology, and are making it hard to retain workers and keep small shops open. One witness also supported a bill to limit insurance surcharge points for low-damage accidents or minor moving violations. Committee members asked questions about deactivation rights for delivery workers, the mechanics of the PIP litigation issue, and the gap between body-shop and mechanical labor rates. Testimony emphasized that current auto body reimbursement rates are around the mid-$40s per hour, while mechanical work can be reimbursed at much higher rates, and that advisory-board discussions have produced only limited progress. At the end of the hearing, the chairs asked if anyone else wished to testify, then moved to close the hearing; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• You mentioned fees.
• CSG does not receive any fees related to compacts at all.
• But in terms of licensure fees, each state gets to set their multi-state license fee, and through this
• But in terms of licensure fees, each state gets to set their multi-state license fee, and through this
• Electronic textbooks that have fees and licenses and subscriptions attached to them.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure held a hearing on late-filed bills and home rule petitions, with both in-person and remote testimony. Committee chairs reviewed logistics for public testimony and then heard a series of bill presentations on topics including nitrous oxide sales, liquor license extensions and alcohol license density, cosmetology licensure compacts, electronic textbooks, HVAC supervisor licensing, and automotive warranty reimbursement rates. Several members asked questions about the public health, consumer protection, economic mobility, and regulatory impacts of the proposals. Representative John Barrett testified in support of H. 4907, which would regulate the sale of nitrous oxide, arguing it is a public health measure aimed at reducing recreational misuse by young people while preserving legitimate culinary, medical, dental, and industrial uses. Southbridge officials Peg Dean and David Adams supported a local liquor license extension bill, saying delayed revitalization and staffing disruptions from the pandemic-era “Great Resignation” had slowed development and postponed demand for the licenses. MassPack supported H. 4597 to limit new alcohol retail licenses near existing stores after 2026, citing oversaturation and public health concerns, while the committee also heard testimony on a cosmetology compact bill from industry and state-government representatives who said it would improve workforce mobility, especially for military spouses, though members questioned its fee structure and interaction with existing reciprocity rules. Representative Mindy Domb testified for H. 559, which would create a commission to study electronic textbooks and automatic textbook billing, arguing that digital course materials can limit consumer choice, raise costs, and reduce students’ ability to share or resell materials. Student testimony echoed those concerns. The committee also heard strong support for H. 4719, a bill to create HVAC construction supervisor licensing, from industry witnesses who said it would improve consumer protection, accountability, and clean-energy implementation; and opposition testimony on H. 4019, which would change how auto dealers are reimbursed for warranty work, with dealers supporting a fix to manufacturer reimbursement practices and manufacturers warning the bill would raise costs and allow overpayment. At the end of the hearing, the chairs read the agenda items and the committee adjourned by unanimous voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• don't know what other fees there are. don't know what other fees there are.
• the fees? That's kind of a broad term. the fees? That's kind of a broad term.
• So, what what are<00:48:29.680> the<00:48:29.839> fees? are the fees? are the fees?
• Miss Barton: The fees do include things like the filing fees, the classroom fees, the fees for the exam
• certificate if you don't have it. fees, the fees for the exam, um things fees, the fees for the exam

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Businesses have seen their credit card fees soar.
• I don't think they—you pay credit card fees on a debit card.
• You do pay some fee; you don't pay all of the fee, but you still have the interchange fee as well.
• We've heard a lot about the credit card surcharges and fees.
• On the debit side, debit card fees are much, much lower.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business held an informational hearing focused on the conditions facing small and micro businesses in Massachusetts and the state programs intended to support them. Chairs Andy Vargas and Adam Gomez opened by emphasizing equitable economic development, the importance of CDFIs, and the need to help underserved entrepreneurs, especially women, minorities, veterans, immigrants, and other groups facing barriers. Committee members noted the hearing would not take up bills, and testimony was limited to 10 minutes per organization. State and quasi-public agency witnesses described current programs and funding. Dico Gibral of the Executive Office of Economic Development highlighted the Business Front Door, multilingual access, small business office hours in Gateway Cities, and funding in the Mass Leads Act, including support for CDFIs, small business technology, and capital grants. Tom Hooper of Commonwealth Corporation described workforce training programs such as the Workforce Training Fund, Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund, and Career Technical Initiative, saying they help small businesses train workers, fill labor shortages, and support returning citizens and people with disabilities. Committee members asked about federal funding uncertainty, workforce migration, training schedules, and program uptake. Business and advocacy groups focused on cost pressures and regulatory burdens. The Massachusetts Restaurant Association urged continuation of outdoor dining and takeout alcohol sales, and pressed for relief from high credit card swipe fees, support for surcharging, and streamlining municipal licensing. The Retailers Association of Massachusetts cited survey results showing inflation, utility costs, payroll taxes, health insurance, and interchange fees as major concerns, and said many members might sell or close within five years; it also backed ending the state prohibition on surcharging and creating an Office of Main Streets Massachusetts. MACDC, BECKMA, and the Coalition for an Equitable Economy emphasized the need for more technical assistance, CDFI and small business funding, and protections against rising costs, tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and immigration enforcement impacts on immigrant-heavy business districts. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's also going to include any municipal specific fees and costs, so that would be permit fees and
• And so you're seeing permits and fees as the top line.
• So that would be any of your impact fees or permits and fees that you would have with a permit submitted
• And so we have raw land and permitting and fees.
• If I might, in 1993, the legislature passed the Development Fees Act, and think of it as impact fees;

Transcript Highlights:

• Kiosk transactions that authorize a fee.
• This fee, which, by the way, is unregulated in the bill.
• We're setting it into law, we're allowing them to charge a fee, we're not even putting a cap on the fee
• There is a fee for an expedited...
• Do we have any idea what that fee would be?

Bills: HB3014, HB3109, HB3126, HB3474, HB3594

Keywords: gift card fraud, counterfeit gift card, gift card tampering, gift card theft, prepaid card, stored value card, retail fraud, financial crimes, consumer protection, organized retail crime, gift card skimming, magnetic stripe, chip card, redemption information, gift card packaging, Penal Code, felony theft, state jail felony, third-degree felony, second-degree felony

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um increase our fees um quickly.
• So, I'm I'm saying if it's a<00:26:37.679> fee a fee a fee because<00:26:39.120> of<00:
• could be a fee. could be a fee.
• becomes a fee. Yes, that's possible. becomes a fee. Yes, that's possible.
• camping fees. camping fees.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 649, which would create a small boat harbor commercial vessel special fund and raise mortgage fees on commercial vessels to fund harbor improvements. DLNR stood on written testimony in support, while the Ocean Tourism Coalition, Activity and Attractions Association of Hawaii, Calypso Charters, and a local commercial operator all opposed the bill, arguing that the fee increase would burden thin-margin businesses without fixing procurement and staffing problems and that the bill’s fee language and fund allocations were too vague. A DLNR witness also noted a prior bill, HB 2477, had sought to broaden the fee base to more ocean operators statewide rather than increase the percentage. No vote was taken on HB 649 during the portion shown. The committee then heard HB 2599 on aquatic protection, which would prioritize ecosystem integrity and use of best available science in managing aquatic resources and set coral reef resilience goals. DLNR supported the measure, and a testifier from the public urged stronger coral goals for Oahu and a broader framework including water quality, herbivore management, fishery management, enforcement, and coral restoration. There was no opposition or vote shown on HB 2599 before the committee recessed to a joint hearing. In the joint Economic Development and Tourism / Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts hearing, members heard HB 2118 on transferring the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and the King Kamehameha Celebration Commission from DAGS to DBED, HB 2474 on authorizing non-binding international cooperative agreements, HB 1863 on creating an honorary ambassador to Canada, HB 1943 on out-of-state DBED offices and export promotion, and HB 2604 on a performing arts ticket surcharge. Testimony was generally supportive for HB 2118, HB 2474, HB 1863, and HB 1943, with questions focused on agency placement, sister-state relationships, and the rationale for overseas offices. HB 2604 drew opposition from the Tax Foundation and others, who argued the surcharge functioned as a tax and would make arts participation more expensive; the chair recommended deferring it. During decision-making, both committees passed HB 2118, HB 2474, HB 1863, and HB 1943 with amendments, including technical changes and revised effective dates. For HB 2474, the amendments were described as clarifying definitions for sister-state and international cooperative agreements, allowing relationships with national governments, and preserving legislative approval and transparency. HB 1943 was amended to require an office in Laoag City, Philippines, rather than a non-existent DBED Philippines office. HB 2604 was deferred. After the joint session, the Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts committee resumed and heard HB 2395 on permits for taking marine deposits and HB 2361 on administrative support for the Kahului Bay Regional Council, both of which drew only DLNR written testimony and no further action in the excerpt. The committee then began HB 1823 on Coastal Zone Management Act exemptions, with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs testifying first, but the transcript cuts off before further testimony or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is tuition and fees, right?
• <00:16:15.279> oh tuition so what's included in fees oh tuition so what's included in fees
• 20.040> fees<00:16:21.040> um<00:16:21.399> you um Recreation fees athletic fees
• in fees?
• Recreation fees, athletic fees, and you could have student organization fees.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee received an orientation from University System of New Hampshire Chancellor Katherine Preventure and Senior Director of Government Relations Lauren Banker on the system’s enrollment, finances, workforce role, and academic programs. They described the system as consisting of UNH, Keene State, and Plymouth State, with about 23,000 students, $928 million in FY24 operating expenses, a $3.7 billion economic impact, and UNH’s R1 research status. They emphasized the system’s role in graduating students into the New Hampshire workforce, its statewide Cooperative Extension and regional campus presence, and its alignment of degree offerings with top occupations identified by New Hampshire Employment Security. The presentation also highlighted partnerships with businesses, internships, and collaboration with the community college system, including 100 transfer pathways and a direct-admit program. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on tuition, state support, and student costs. The chancellor said the state invested $95 million in FY25, with about $81 million used to reduce resident tuition and about $14 million for statutory programs such as Cooperative Extension and the Agricultural Experiment Station. She said the state subsidy is about $7,300 per New Hampshire student, and that resident net tuition averages about $7,000, while nonresident net tuition averages about $16,600. She provided published tuition figures for UNH, Plymouth State, and Keene State, and explained that resident tuition has been held flat for five years while financial aid has increased, reducing average net tuition and fees for New Hampshire students from about $10,500 in 2020 to $9,800. Members asked for clarification on how residency and workforce-retention percentages were calculated, and the chancellor said she would follow up. Members also asked about comparisons with peer institutions, housing and meal costs, research funding, and the reasons for declining enrollment and staffing reductions. The chancellor said peer comparisons were based on flagship universities for UNH and smaller regional publics for Plymouth and Keene, and noted that out-of-state tuition has risen about 2.5% annually. She said housing for a UNH double room is $8,536 and a meal plan is $5,100, and offered to provide a consolidated cost document. On research, she said the system’s direct research spending includes federal funding and that indirect costs were about $34 million last year, with a follow-up promised on the federal/state and direct/indirect split. She attributed enrollment declines largely to demographics and said the system is responding by reducing costs, selling buildings, exiting leases, moving the system office to NHTI, and implementing Workday. She also noted that Plymouth received approval for five three-year bachelor’s degree programs and that members praised the shorter, workforce-focused pathways, especially for manufacturing and other in-demand fields.

Transcript Highlights:

• Did you collect fees from that property? No. Why not?
• Yet, those landowners and/or business owners do not pay a fee similar to the fee demanded by the local
• But this legislation... ...providing a fee without service.
• So when we talk about a fee, there are two different fees or payments in this scenario.
• So when we talk about a fee, there are two different fees or payments in this scenario.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At that income level, the TERA fees are set at 4.5% of adjusted gross income.
• into the Medicaid program through fees. into the Medicaid program through fees.
• Under this program, parents pay a fee Under this program, parents pay a fee based<00:04:41.759><
• She explained that the TERA fees increase to 5.99% up to 975% of the federal poverty guideline.
• The fees cannot be in excess of the services provided to the child.

Bills: HF2995, HF2434

Keywords: human services, funding, appropriations, MinnesotaCare, behavioral health, general assistance, healthcare, personal care assistance, worker retention, disability services, state funding, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• You received your discount plus a moderate fee of $345, and the patient paid a $5 copay. ...$345, and
• But for the pharmacy service, the member of SEIP and PUP paid a $2 fee.
• ..$20, then the fee that's paid by the PBM industry may be a dollar; they go down to 25 cents.
• It's based on the average cost of a drug plus a fee, and it's really a pharmacy service.
• It's called a fee, but it's a... ...a service.

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, creates a fee of $40 for that non-domiciled CDL.
• Uh, creates a fee of $40 for that non-domiciled CDL.
• Uh, creates a fee of $40 for that non-domiciled CDL.
• Uh, creates a fee of $40 for that non-domiciled CDL.
• Uh, creates a fee of $40 for that non-domiciled CDL.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student
• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student
• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student
• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student
• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee reviewed differences among the Governor’s, House, and Senate proposals for state grant parameter changes and their effects on state grant spending, North Star Promise spending, and average student awards. Nonpartisan staff explained that the proposals use different combinations of parameter changes, with the Governor’s and Senate plans modeled to avoid or minimize rationing, while the House plan would require rationing to balance the program. Staff reported projected biennium balances of a positive $29.836 million for the Governor’s proposal, a negative $60.758 million for the House proposal without rationing, a positive $994,000 for the House proposal with rationing, and a positive $3.623 million for the Senate proposal; North Star Promise balances also varied, with the Senate showing a positive balance and the Governor and House with rationing showing negative balances. Staff also said the Senate proposal would extend availability of the state grant appropriation and suspend surplus procedures through fiscal year 2029, allowing the balance to carry forward. The committee then focused on the House-only tuition and fee cap provision, which would limit the tuition recognized for state grant purposes for four-year programs to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities level, with 1% annual increases in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. House members said the cap was intended to address rising tuition, especially at the University of Minnesota, and to produce savings in the state grant program. The governor’s office confirmed the provision was not included in the Governor’s bill. Representatives from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Private College Council opposed the cap, arguing it would reduce awards for low-income students and shift costs to students rather than address underlying tuition pressures; they also said it could discourage enrollment at higher-cost institutions. Supporters from Minnesota State argued the cap would improve fairness because students at lower-tuition institutions are effectively capped lower, while students at more expensive institutions receive larger awards, and they said the legislature should intervene in a variable that has grown substantially over time. Committee members questioned how the cap would work and whether it was tied to the Twin Cities campus rate. Testifiers clarified that the state grant formula is tied to the University of Minnesota level, but because Minnesota State institutions are below that level, the cap effectively limits their students to their own lower tuition while allowing higher awards at the University of Minnesota and private colleges. No formal vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue with item-by-item review of the remaining parameter changes and hear additional testimony from agencies and institutions.