Transcript Highlights:

• and more fees.
• and more fees.
• fee does.
• the DVS way just like every other fee the DVS way just like every other fee does.<00:59:22.200><
• <01:03:40.160> that again I don't think the fees that again I don't think the fees that they're

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All fees, mileage, and commission are collected.
• The fee for a nonresident motor vehicle permit would be two times the resident fee.
• The fee for a temporary nonresident motor vehicle permit would be two times the fee for a resident motor
• The commission shall establish such fees by rule and regulation.
• permit, and the convenience fee.

Bills: LB737, LB753, LB788, LB913, LB1055, LB1195, LB1216, LB1256, LB429, LB721, LB722, LB727, LB743, LB745, LB749, LB778, LB787, LB365A, LB823, LB900, LB903, LB940, LB954, LB1127, LB1127A, LB1205, LB1240, LR293, LR296, LR422, LR505, LR507

Keywords: LB737, Olmstead, developmental disabilities, disability services, community-based services, integrated settings, DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services, stakeholder advisory committee, independent consultant, public hearing, legislative oversight, disability rights, community integration, housing, employment, education, transportation, community supports, self-advocacy

Transcript Highlights:

• to pay an assessment or a fee? That number is pretty low.
• Association's fee, you know, so that's good to learn that. The fact is...
• For past assessments, so the fines or fees or those types of things, you're not able to foreclose on
• They are also required to post their managerial certificates with a list of the transfer fees that is
• And some of those fees do really add up.

Bills: HB406

Keywords: local economic development, notification, workforce development, municipal agreements, county contracts, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, current law governing fee schedules for court-appointed attorneys in child protection cases
• asked them to submit their family protection representation fee schedules.
• Criminal fee schedules do not match the work that is done in child protection cases.
• So anyway, I won and I got my fees paid.
• We need to be paid a reasonable fee. I can tell you in Galveston County, we're paid $100 an hour.

Bills: SB387, SB1650, SB1838, SB1839, SB1923, SB1940, SB2052

Keywords: judicial bond, guardianship, probate law, county judge, statutory county court, attorney general, criminal prosecution, public order, law enforcement, jurisdiction, attorney ad litem, parent-child relationship, compensation, legal representation, government entity, probate, court proceedings, record delivery, wills, legal documentation

Summary: The Senate Committee on Jurisprudence heard several family-law and probate bills. Senate Bill 2052 would codify a rebuttable presumption that a parent acts in the best interest of a child and require clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption in disputes involving non-parents; the author and several witnesses supported the bill as a clarification of existing case law, while one witness suggested refining the modification language. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1923, which would allow child support to follow a child placed temporarily with kin or fictive kin under a parental child safety placement or authorization agreement; the bill’s author and a grandparent caregiver testified in support, while one witness suggested the Attorney General could handle the change administratively. That bill was also left pending. Senate Bill 1838 would standardize fee schedules and compensation rules for attorneys ad litem and related court-appointed counsel in DFPS child-protection cases. The author said the bill would clarify unclear current law, and witnesses from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and family-defense bar supported it, though one asked that expert-witness expenses be expressly included. Senate Bill 387 would raise the bond requirement for county judges handling guardianship proceedings to at least $500,000; the author described it as a refiling of a prior bill that passed unanimously but was vetoed, and a statutory probate judge testified in support. Senate Bill 1839 would require original or paper wills to be delivered to the transferee court when probate proceedings are transferred; the committee substitute broadened the delivery methods, and the district clerk witness supported the change. All three bills were left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 1536, which had previously been voted out with the wrong committee substitute; members reconsidered the vote, adopted the corrected substitute, and then voted 3-0 to report the bill favorably to the full Senate, with local and contested calendar certification. Finally, Senate Bill 1940 would create a transfer-on-death mechanism for manufactured homes classified as personal property, similar to existing tools for real property and vehicles; the author and an estate-planning attorney testified that it would streamline transfers and reduce probate costs. A non-substantive committee substitute was still being prepared, and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• , if they don't cut the fees they can charge for these.
• So I wonder what that was included in regards to the fees.
• how the fees are calculated.
• But we are working way to approach on those fees going back.
• Chair in reference to 2 the fees.

Transcript Highlights:

• resident asked about the adjuster's fee resident asked about the adjuster's fee he<01:26:21.520>
• <01:29:49.679> high up ho fees HOA fees to historically high up ho fees HOA fees to historically
• They did not even owe late fees or any late dues.
• They did not even owe late fees or any late dues.
• <01:47:42.159> for to negotiate comes with legal fees for to negotiate comes with legal fees

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• fee some time ago.
• It is a capped fee. It is not a mandatory fee. You are correct. It is a capped fee.
• It is not a mandatory fee.
• Fees and all those types of things, surprise fees at the end of the day. And so how does that work?
• And it's also not a government fee.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 712, which would expand California’s smog-check exemption for classic vehicles by adding model years 1976 through 1986 in phases, with a sunset in 2032. The author and supporters, including lowrider advocates and the Specialty Equipment Market Association, argued the bill would preserve car culture, support a small class of rarely driven collector vehicles, and reduce burdens on owners who struggle to find equipment for older smog tests. Opponents, including air district officials, the American Lung Association, and other environmental groups, warned the bill would weaken an important emissions-control program and increase pollution. After discussion, the committee adopted the motion to do pass as amended to Appropriations on a roll call vote of 10-0, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee then heard SB 800, which requires Caltrans, working with local governments, to assess mitigation measures for suicide prevention on locally owned overpasses crossing state highways. The bill was presented as a response to recent tragedies in Rancho Cucamonga and was supported by local officials, health organizations, and suicide-prevention advocates, who said the measure would help identify high-risk locations and lead to life-saving interventions. There was no registered opposition. The committee members expressed support, and SB 800 was passed to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call vote, with the roll held open. Next, the committee considered SB 30, which would prohibit California public entities from selling, donating, or transferring decommissioned diesel locomotives and railroad equipment with Tier 1 or older engines unless the engine is removed, while allowing Tier 2 and newer transfers under certain conditions. The author and supporters framed the bill as a climate and public-health measure to prevent older, dirtier locomotives from continuing to pollute elsewhere, while transit agencies opposed it, arguing it could limit useful transfers of equipment that still supports passenger service and could be better handled through case-by-case air-quality review. After debate, the committee voted 6-4 to pass SB 30 as amended to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also heard SB 791, which replaces the flat dealer document processing charge cap with a 1% fee capped at $350, along with new disclosure requirements. Dealers and industry groups supported the bill as a way to recover costs and improve transparency, while consumer advocates opposed it as an unjustified increase that would burden buyers. The committee approved SB 791 on a 8-? roll call vote and held the roll open. The meeting then moved on to SB 34, a port-air-quality bill presented by Senator Richardson, but the transcript ends during testimony and debate on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are the license fees too high or too low? Those types of things.
• On line 30 on page 7, it provides for fees, that we can collect reasonable fees, and that will go into
• We will also use fee money to help with that.
• Obviously, that would kind of fit in for the reasonable fees.
• your fees.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 2276, which addresses water projects that cross county lines. Senator Larry Luick and Danny Quissel of the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association explained that the bill would require joint boards for multi-county projects, with equal representation from each county, and would add a dispute-resolution process: mediation through the Agriculture Department, then appeal to the Department of Water Resources, and finally court if needed. An additional cleanup amendment was adopted to clarify that a district could proceed if a joint board or district refused to participate. Members raised concerns about possible county-versus-county litigation, but the committee approved the amendment and then passed SB 2276 as amended on an 11-0-2 roll call. The committee then heard the final bill of the day, Senate Bill 2267, on on-site wastewater treatment systems. DEQ Director Dave Glott presented a revised amendment reflecting prior discussion and input from local public health units and installers. The proposal would give the Department of Environmental Quality exclusive rulemaking authority, require public health units to inspect systems within 24 hours, allow MOUs with neighboring counties or health units, prohibit local rules that conflict with state standards, and create a state licensing system for installers while exempting homeowners working on their own property. It also set up permitting and appeals procedures, civil penalties for violations, and a $99,000 appropriation, with the department saying it would also rely on fee revenue and report back later on whether the program is working. Members asked about homeowner installation, local permitting, technical assistance, and whether the $99,000 appropriation and expected fees would be sufficient. Glott said homeowners could still consult with local health units and would likely still need permits, and estimated fees might be around $200 per year for installers, generating roughly $50,000 annually. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed SB 2267 as amended on a due-pass motion, with one no vote recorded. The chair then adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees or attorney fees without incurring fees or attorney fees uh<00:10:46.720> appropriating<
• , that would be some sort of minimum threshold of fees accrued or a time of delinquent fees leading to
• acred or or a time of uh of of fees acred or or a time of uh delinquent<00:12:12.360> fees<00
• and assessments, creating standardized fines and fees and assessments.
• and assessments, creating standardized fines and fees and assessments.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So, the next fee items are the dees boat fee, dees dam fee, dees hazardous waste generation fee, generator
• fee, automotive fee, hazardous fee, and hazard waste fee.
• So um the next the dees boat fee, dees So um the next the dees boat fee, dees dam<00:47:13.920> fee
• fee, automotive fee, fee, generator fee, automotive fee, hazardous<00:47:19.920> fee,<00:47:20.319
• hazardous fee, and hazard waste fee. hazardous fee, and hazard waste fee.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee worked through several HB 2 budget amendments, focusing first on energy-related transfers and then on judicial funding. For the energy item, members discussed moving remaining money from the renewable energy fund into the general fund for the biennium, with later-year amounts going to the general fund rather than ratepayers. They noted the proposal was based on prior House Bill 111 language, that the exact amount was still being worked out with the Department of Energy, and that some language about “incentive payments” was being removed or clarified. Amendment 1211H was moved and adopted on a 5-4 vote. The committee then considered amendment 1040 on the governor’s scholarship fund, which would eliminate the program and sweep uncommitted funds. Members supporting the program argued it helps New Hampshire students afford in-state college and should be reworked rather than repealed; opponents said the remaining balance was limited and the program should be ended. Amendment 1040 was defeated 4-5. The committee then turned to a judicial council request tied to a Franklin Pierce criminal justice clinic that had previously used ARPA funds. Supporters said the clinic cleared 323 cases in nine months, provided training for future attorneys, and could reduce more expensive assigned-counsel costs by helping the public defender system handle cases more efficiently. The amendment would add $100,000 to the judicial council line for that purpose. There was some confusion over the line item and whether the request should be attributed to the judicial branch or judicial council, which was corrected during discussion. Members also discussed a larger issue: the judicial council’s budget request appeared lower than intended because of a possible clerical error in how prior-year funding was calculated, especially after the last budget combined HB 1 and HB 2 funding. The committee compared the public defender line and assigned counsel line, noting that if public defender funding is cut, more cases would shift to assigned counsel, which is more expensive. No final vote on the judicial council amendment is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then there is a percentage fee that, say— Across it, and then there is a percentage fee that, say
• Counties and cities could decide what that fee could be. I mean, it could be a fee on haircuts.
• Counties and cities could decide what that fee could be. I mean, it could be a fee on haircuts.
• fee, and then they put a system fee on top that they kind of glean off of that.
• We had a disposal fee and then we worked within that disposal fee to pay for contracts for operation,

Summary: The task force met to focus on funding systems and incentive structures for a proposed regional waste infrastructure effort, including how a future WIPA framework might support solid waste planning in the Willamette Valley. Staff and members heard presentations from DEQ on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, from Business Oregon on the Special Public Works Fund, and from Oregon State Treasury on state bonding capacity and the bond issuance process. Presenters explained how their programs are structured, how projects are scored or approved, what kinds of public entities and projects are eligible, and how interagency coordination and co-funding can work. DEQ emphasized that its revolving loan fund is driven by water-quality benefits and public-health criteria, while Business Oregon described a broader infrastructure loan program for public entities with no scoring system, and Treasury outlined the state’s debt-capacity process and the differences between general obligation and lottery bonds. Members used the presentations to discuss whether similar funding tools could support solid waste infrastructure, especially for transfer stations, regional hubs, and related facilities that may need to be built before Coffin Butte reaches the end of its lifespan. Several questions centered on whether public-private partnerships could qualify, whether equipment inside facilities could be financed, how repayment would work, and whether planning costs could be covered. DEQ and Business Oregon both said they could potentially collaborate on scoring or co-funding, but noted eligibility limits and the need for public ownership in many cases. Treasury said bond capacity is limited and competitive, especially for lottery bonds, and that project authorization generally runs on a two-year cycle, though unused authority can sometimes be reauthorized. In task force discussion, members debated whether the group should pursue a dedicated funding lane for the seven-county region rather than having local governments compete with other statewide needs. Some members stressed the importance of criteria to avoid stranded assets and to ensure funding is available when projects are ready, while others raised concerns about how cities and counties would generate revenue to repay debt during construction and early operations. The group also discussed flow control, system fees, and the need for regional collaboration among counties, cities, and haulers to create enough waste volume to support new infrastructure. Staff noted that pre-session filing materials for the legislature are due September 11, and the chair said the August meeting will focus on organizational structure and identifying partners. During public comment, Representative Kevin Mannix submitted written testimony supporting the WIPA concept and urging the task force to endorse it. Commissioner Bubba King of Yamhill County urged the task force to compare alternatives objectively and warned against adding bureaucracy before evaluating existing infrastructure and costs. Commissioners Kevin Cameron and Roger Nyquist of Marion and Linn counties described regional hub-and-spoke concepts, transfer stations, and intermodal options, emphasizing the need for planning, strategic siting, and collaboration with haulers and local governments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative, the 10% mitigation fee—why 10% versus maybe not five or six?
• It also extends the collection of these fees for 10 years.
• And then there’s one other fee, and it’s called the all-other-oil fee in the bill, or in the statute,
• result in the gas and Diesel fee result in the gas and Diesel fee dropping<00:52:56.760> it
• increase of total import fee increase of total import fee Revenue<01:04:44.359> all<01:04

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on HB 660, which would require historic horse racing facilities to pay 10% of HHR winnings to host communities as mitigation. Representative Om said the amendment was intended to leave charities and the state whole while funding local costs tied to large gaming facilities. Supporters argued the measure would address future municipal expenses, while opponents said host towns have not reported current problems and that the bill would single out one industry. Members questioned the 10% rate, whether the proposal was retroactive, and whether it would apply to existing facilities; the sponsor said it would apply to facilities already in place or later added. The hearing was then closed without any vote recorded in the transcript. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 658-FN, which raises reimbursement caps and adjusts fees for the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund and the Oil Pollution Control Fund. Representative Malloy introduced the bill, and Representative Aly explained the funds as a state-backed insurance mechanism for oil spill cleanup and prevention, including replacement of leaking home heating oil tanks for low-income homeowners. Bob Scully of the Energy Marketers Association supported the bill, saying the fee structure helps fund remediation and tank replacement, though costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. Department of Environmental Services officials Robert Bishop and Jennifer Marts described the bill as extending the fee collection for 10 years, changing reporting dates, increasing the cap for low-income tank replacement, and rebalancing fees based on an actuarial review. DES testified that the actuarial study found the fund needed to remain solvent and that home heating oil releases are the largest category of new releases, with the fuel oil fee otherwise needing to rise by more than 200% to cover projected costs. The board instead proposed a smaller increase and adjusted other fees accordingly, while maintaining a reserve to cover the first days of a major coastal spill before federal funds become available. Members asked about the basis for the fee changes, the role of the actuarial review, and the statutory language governing who pays the fees. The transcript ends during this hearing, with no final committee action or vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• It can take up to three years to approve new fees.
• , you're still allowed to do new fees.
• new fees.
• a fee or exactions.
• Specifically, this bill increases the first-page fee on recorded documents from $10 to $15 and the fee

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• , then we'd have to raise fees for everybody else.
• you guys already raising the the fees you guys already raising the fees<00:15:08.959> you<00:
• equ but it didn't because fees equ but it didn't because fees increase<00:16:45.680> so<00
• But, you know, when you talk about fees, especially these kind of fees, water and sewer fees, I mean,
• , especially these kind of fees, water and sewer fees, I mean, that's a monthly burden.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing focused primarily on Senate Bill 1409, which would cap county user fees charged to Department of Hawaiian Home Lands beneficiaries. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands supported the measure, arguing it would reduce monthly housing-related costs for lower-income beneficiaries and help make homesteading more affordable. Several testifiers, including the Tax Foundation of Hawaii and some individuals, also submitted comments or support. County and city water and sewer agencies, including the County of Kauai Department of Water, the City and County of Honolulu Department of Facility Maintenance, the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, and the City and County Department of Environmental Services, strongly opposed the bill, saying it would shift substantial costs to other ratepayers, create lost revenue, and could force fee increases for everyone else. They also raised concerns about the bill’s cap structure and potential misuse, while noting their systems are funded by user fees rather than taxes. During committee discussion, Honolulu Board of Water Supply officials estimated about 4,500 DHHL customers on Oʻahu and projected lost revenue of roughly $30 million to $36 million over five years, with larger cumulative impacts over time; they said any waiver would be absorbed by other customers. The County of Hawaiʻi representative estimated nearly 2,000 DHHL customers on the Big Island and about $2.4 million in annual lost revenue. DHHL responded that it is pursuing revenue-generating projects on unused lands, but members questioned whether the department should do more to generate its own revenue and suggested looking at other affordability mechanisms, including market rent on commercial properties or a similar cap on other beneficiary fees. After hearing the testimony and discussion, the committee chair announced the recommendation to defer SB 1409 indefinitely, and the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs agreed with that decision. The hearing then moved to Senate Bill 1408, a housekeeping measure. DHHL testified in support, saying the bill was part of an effort to lower housing costs through a modular manufacturing approach. DHHL described plans to use an unused hangar at Kalaeloa for a potential modular housing manufacturing plant, including discussions with the University of Hawaiʻi and a Denver-based company, and said it was also exploring a pilot project with Habitat for Humanity on Maui. No vote or final action on SB 1408 was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the flat fees?
• to the flat fees?
• licensing fees. licensing fees.
• <01:18:03.120> What examination fees to the flat fees?
• What examination fees to the flat fees? What was<01:18:03.520> that?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill does not actually raise the fees; it just raises the caps on the fees.
• But why is it, **Madam Chair**, that only the commercial fees...
• The fees have been stagnant for over 50 years.
• These fees will help ...to increase our staff.
• These fees will help me cover those fee-based programs and get more staff online. Thank you.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: During the legislative meeting, House Bill 287 was discussed, which proposes the establishment of a permanent Health and Human Services Committee to oversee the state's $14.4 billion expenditure in this area. An amendment to the bill was adopted, which clarified funding and operational details. Public comments were solicited, but no one spoke in opposition. The committee ultimately voted, with some members expressing concerns about budget implications, but the motion to pass the bill as amended was made and seconded, with several members opposing it. House Bill 371 was also addressed, which focuses on creating an Acequia Infrastructure Fund to support land grant and Acequia communities. The bill aims to provide a financial mechanism for these communities to access funds for infrastructure projects without relying on capital outlay requests. The committee discussed the bill's implications, potential funding sources, and the need for further amendments regarding representation and oversight. A motion to pass the bill was made, with some opposition noted, particularly regarding the lack of specificity in the bill's provisions. Lastly, Senate Bill 143 was presented, which seeks to raise the caps on inspection fees under the Egg Grading Act, among other agricultural regulations. Supportive testimony was provided by representatives from agricultural organizations, emphasizing the need for updated fee structures. The committee engaged in discussions about the bill's implications for consumers and the agricultural sector, ultimately moving towards a vote to pass the bill.

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 rebate administrative fee is paid by manufacturers.
• There were some questions about fees, just to give you some perspective.
• types of junk fees and other things in here.
• There are at least, like, 20 fees...
• Other types of junk fees and other things in here, there are at least, like, 20 fees that PBMs charge

Bills: AB93, AB204, AB414, AB504, AB598

Keywords: public employees, police officers, benefits, appropriation, law enforcement, medical debt, collection agency, healthcare, consumer protection, financial assistance, occupational safety, air quality, greenhouse gases, employee monitoring, safety program, hemp, hemp products, cannabidiol, CBD, cannabis

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.