Latest news with #SB81
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Roundhouse effort to overhaul NM's home ‘insurer of last resort' fails
Rep. Harlan Vincent (R-Ruidoso Downs) asks questions of a panel at the Legislative Finance interim committee in Mescalero shortly after the South Fork and Salt fires. Vincent's bill to reform the state's residual insurance plan did not get through the Legislature, but he says lawmakers' other efforts will help the market cover New Mexicans who need it. (Photo by Danielle Prokop / Source NM) Senate Bill 81, which aimed to make it easier for New Mexicans in wildfire-prone areas to secure home insurance, never received its final committee hearing in the 60-day session, but the bill's Republican sponsor said reason for optimism remains for those trying to rebuild after wildfires. The bill would have required the board overseeing the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements plan to increase coverage limits to $750,000 for homes and overhauled a board now composed of insurance executives. The state's top 10 home insurers have increased premiums 60%, on average, since 2022, and insurers are also increasingly refusing to renew policies or canceling them. That's what makes reforms to the FAIR plan, often referred to as the state's home 'insurer of last resort,' all the more necessary, sponsors have said. NM Gov fire-insurance proposal 'won't happen this session' Even with the increase of costs to rebuild homes and rising home prices, the plan only covered $250,000 of losses for most of its existence until shortly after the South Fork and Salt Fires in Ruidoso, when the board agreed to increase it to $350,000. The FAIR plan board met again during the legislative session and increased the coverage limits to $750,000, plus up to $1 million for commercial properties, according to Rep. Harlan Vincent (R-Ruidoso Downs). Increasing the coverage cap to $750,000 was expected to increase the number of FAIR plan holders from about 7,000 to about 11,000, state insurance officials have said. 'SB81 had lots of traction, and it was a bipartisan effort,' Vincent told Source New Mexico on Saturday, following a post-session press conference with Republican leaders. 'However, the board [was] able to meet all the demands that the bill was asking for, except for the reforming of the board.' The bill's proposed board reforms included adding a consumer advocate, climate scientist and catastrophic risk expert to the board. It was amended again on the Senate floor to scrap that proposal and instead allow legislative leaders to appoint board members. None of the proposed amendments would have allowed the public to see what happens in FAIR Plan board meetings, even though the Legislature created the FAIR plan in 1969 and sought a major overhaul of the program this session. Vincent told Source New Mexico he believes the meetings should be public, however. 'I'm a very transparent person,' he said. 'So, yes, I do.' Why the state's insurance regulator thinks SB81 will save New Mexicans' homes from wildfire Even without SB81, Vincent said he thinks other legislative acts this session will help homeowners protect their homes from wildfires and also get enough coverage to rebuild if they occur. Several bills aim to address the insurance problem, directly or indirectly, including one that creates a state wildfire suppression fund and others that encourage or incentivize wildfire mitigation through the use of thinning and ignition-resistant construction materials. 'I'm thinking that a lot of our insurance problems are eventually going to start going away, traditional insurance starts to come back, because we were able to get four, three bills across the finish line that had to do with wildfire,' he said. 'So we're going to try to start doing wildfire mitigation so that we can make it not such a risk for insurance companies to come back.'
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why the state's insurance regulator thinks SB81 will save New Mexicans' homes from wildfire
A screenshot of a webcam showing downtown Ruidoso around 8:30 p.m. on June 17 as the South Fork Fire looms and drivers flee. The state's insurance regulator says SB81 will make it easier to rebuild in Ruidoso and across the state, while also helping the private market stay healthy. (Photo Courtesy Village of Ruidoso) As New Mexico becomes increasingly prone to wildfire, home insurance companies in New Mexico are jacking up premiums or canceling policies. Lawmakers and the state's insurance regulator are mulling multiple proposals that aim to mitigate wildfire risk and help New Mexicans get enough coverage to protect what is, for many, their only asset. As part of the New Mexico FAIR Plan Act passed in 1969, applicants insurance companies reject can get coverage through the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements plan, which officials refer to as the insurer of last resort. Even though the Legislature passed the act creating the FAIR plan, the board drafting the plan's coverage limits is composed of insurance industry executives who meet behind closed doors. The board has not increased coverage limits much despite rising home construction costs and an increase in wildfires, including the 2022 Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon wildfire, the largest in state history, and the South Fork and Salt Fires last summer, the most destructive. Senate Bill 81 seeks to increase coverage limits to $1 million for homes, revamp the FAIR Plan board to include more than just industry experts and possibly even use up to $50 million of taxpayer dollars to give the expanded FAIR plan a backstop before it becomes solvent. Some of that money would also be for property mitigation, offering grants to households and communities to reduce the threat of catastrophic fire in their neighborhoods. Types of mitigation include building a buffer between homes and forests, clearing pine needles, using fire-resistant building materials and adding sprinklers. Other bills this session aim to improve the health of the state's forests and provide mitigation grants. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham also touted in the State of the State a proposal to provide fire insurance to every New Mexican who needs it. However, her office has not responded to Source New Mexico's requests for the bill since the legislative filing deadline last week, and no bill introduced appears to match the description of her policy. Source New Mexico sat down with Timothy Vigil, the deputy superintendent of insurance, on Tuesday to discuss the office's priorities during the session, including SB81. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity. An actuary at your office recently testified at the Legislature that the state's top 10 insurers have increased premiums 60% on average since 2022. Insurers are also increasingly refusing to renew policies or canceling them. Can you tell us what will happen if the Legislature does nothing this session? If the Legislature does nothing, we do have some risk, and we're hoping that this is being addressed right now: of insurants not having an avenue to get insurance for their property. Because this is such a fast-moving problem with climate shifts and things like that, we really need to have people that are very much tuned in to those —such as somebody who has catastrophic event experience on the FAIR Plan Board, somebody who's an actuary, somebody who has a background in finance. So we have a number of things we would like to improve. That way, we don't run into trouble that other states have run into. We go out and we start to investigate: Why did this state have this problem and how can we avoid that? So those are some of the things that we're trying to do. After the South Fork and Salt fires in Ruidoso last summer, policyholders with the state's FAIR Plan made claims for more money than the plan had raised in premiums. What happened next? If you have a big event, a fire, and the claims exceed the premium dollars that you have collected, then what happens under a FAIR plan is you go to all the insurers in the state, and they assess each insurer for either the shortfall or more if they want to have a reserve. So what we think happened with South Fork and Salt Fire is the claims came in, they exceeded the funds that the FAIR Plan Board had collected, so they had to go out and do some assessments. Did the insurers then pass that $8 million assessment on to policyholders elsewhere in the state? I imagine they did, yeah. What our bill does is, if there is a big assessment, it allows for a surcharge. It allows, if they go out and they assess, they can surcharge the customers throughout the state over a three-year period so they can get those funds back from policyholders. How do you respond to climate advocacy groups that say that provision is a giveaway to insurance companies? We looked at other FAIR plans. I think they all work the same. We've given a little bit of relief to the consumer because we say, 'Surcharge that consumer over a three-year period, don't do an immediate recapture.' The bottom line is, we want our consumers to be protected as best as we can and we're trying to model things based on what we're seeing in other states and what has worked and has not worked. I don't think our thought process has ever been, 'let's cozy up to industry,' but it's not to be antagonistic either, right? We're all in this together, and we all need to work on it and come up with solutions, because if we don't, we have consumers that are just going to be having some rough times, losing properties that may be their only asset. Is there a risk you'll chase insurers out of the state with some of these policies? Is that something you have to keep in mind? We always keep that in mind. And again, the goal is not to chase anybody out. The goal is to create this healthy market. The FAIR Plan itself is that coverage of last resort. Our bill says if you are rejected three times, then we take you in, but we are trying to nudge you back into the market. How are you helping people return to the private market? One is, we're encouraging mitigation. And this isn't just a kind of a haphazard approach. There are tools. There are entities out there that have really studied the mitigation process, and they have a program that is in place that can help you, as a property owner, mitigate your property, and you can get a certificate. We're hoping that that certification helps you get back into the private market, because our hope is the insurer will take that into account. The fiscal impact report on SB 81 predicts that the number of FAIR plan policy holders will increase from about 1,500 to about 4,100 if the policy is enacted over the next couple years. Is there a risk that so many people will sign up eventually you'll just have a high-risk pool and the state will be on the hook to subsidize this plan for the foreseeable future? 'The state, the way the model has been built, will not be on the hook. All of this will be through assessments. If there is a big event, and then if there is a concentration of policies within the big event, and there's the shortfall and premium dollars haven't been collected sufficiently to cover it, then that just goes to an assessment. So it doesn't flow backwards to the state. Some of the recent hearing on SB 81 centered on what the FAIR Plan Board did or didn't do in the wake of the South Fork and Salt fires and whether they've responded to your office's push to increase coverage limits. The board met last week. Do you know what they did at that meeting and whether that will affect the legislation going forward? They've made a proposal. We're still evaluating the proposal, and there's some components we have questions on. Also, we are very interested in making sure we have expertise in certain areas on the board, because of these huge changes in liability and in climate shifts. Because of that, we really need to make sure that whoever is sitting on the board has a lot of that information that they can share, and really analyze what we're doing with premiums and coverages and all of that stuff. So right now we're looking at what the proposal is, and we do have some questions that we'd like to pose, and we still need the legislation to continue its process, because it does have some other things in there that we'd really like to make sure are part of it. Is the Fair Plan Board's proposal public? I don't know. Why isn't that board's meeting subject to the Open Meetings Act? Statute. And does your proposed reform make FAIR Plan board meetings public? No, not yet. Why Not? I don't know. That is a wonderful question.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rhoden has signed 43 bills into state law
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — Governor Larry Rhoden has signed eight more bills into state law, per an announcement from his office on Tuesday. KELOLAND News wrote earlier this month about the 34 bills already signed by Rhoden at that point. How many states have older prisons than South Dakota? Between then and Tuesday, Rhoden signed SB81, a bill prohibiting the use of a firearms code for transactions involving firearms, accessories, components, and ammunition. On Tuesday, Rhoden added eight more to the pile, totaling 43 bills signed so far. These latest bills are: SB33 makes appropriations for water and environmental purposes and declares an emergency; SB47 clarifies eligibility for licensure as a video lottery operator; HB1047 makes an appropriation to reimburse health care professionals who have complied with the requirements for rural recruitment assistance programs and declares an emergency; HB1056 prohibits the preparation, sale, and distribution of certain kratom products and provides a penalty therefor; HB1072 modernizes provisions relating to water development districts; HB1074 modifies the individuals eligible to sign an affidavit of homelessness for purposes of obtaining a free copy of a birth certificate; HB1075 modifies the persons eligible to sign an affidavit for proof of homelessness for purposes of waiving the fee for a nondriver identification card; and HB1125 creates a share the road bicyclist safety emblem for use on an emblem specialty plate. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Lively debate erupts over fluoride in drinking water systems
A Senate committee Thursday moved to advance a controversial fluoride bill after hearing from supporters and opponents and from those who assert system-wide injection of fluoride into drinking water violates bodily autonomy and self-will. Sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, the measure would prohibit the introduction of fluoride into public drinking water systems in Utah, but allow prescriptions for the substance by pharmacists. Two counties, Salt Lake and Davis, put fluoride in their water, as does Brigham City in Box Elder County. The 5-1 vote before the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee on SB81 now delivers the bill to the full Senate, with Sen. Dave Hinkins, R-Orangeville, emphasizing the issue has attracted so much attention it should be heard by the full body. Under her bill, Gricius said those who want fluoride for their dental health would be able to get it from a pharmacy, while those who don't would not have to be exposed to it in their drinking water. 'So this bill is fairly simple. It simply removes the addition of fluoride, hydrofluoric acid, from our public water systems. It also deregulates the prescription so that anyone in the state of Utah who wants to have fluoride can go into a pharmacy and get a prescription from the pharmacist without having to go to a doctor or a dentist,' she said. In her introduction of the bill, Gricius had Max Widmaier, 17, sit by her and explain the medical nightmare he suffered — and still has to cope with to this day — due to what he said was the Sandy overfeed of fluoride that happened in 2019. 'I remember my first snowfall in fourth grade. And in sixth grade, I remember sleepovers with my new best friends. In eighth grade, I remember crafting my first successful speech, one that led me before you today,' he said. 'But I don't remember fifth grade. That year, it's just a gaping hole where memories should be. That is because I drank the fluoridated water on that day Sandy City broke its line into the public water.' Widmaier went on to describe the other adverse effects he attributes to the overfeed. 'I didn't realize it then, but I later learned that I had come home that day with a sick stomach and had told my parents the water tasted metallic. I was so sick to my stomach that I didn't even want to go to the district science fair — something completely unlike me. I remember a strange soreness in the corners of my eyes. What I don't remember is blacking out, but my parents do. They remember my head dropping over and over, my face seizing up every 45 seconds.' The teenager ended up in the emergency room, subject to a vast number of tests. 'It is something I barely remember because for three months I was gone. When I came back, I wasn't the same.' He said his hands still shake when he holds them up, the corners of his eyes feel strained and the 'tick' in his body returns if he drinks any tap water or even food cooked with tap water. 'That glass of water cost my family $26,000. That was the economic cost, but the price of that drink wasn't just physical. It took a mental and spiritual toll on us all. It cost us time as a family. We paid in stress, grief and betrayal. I was 12 and I suffered catastrophic heavy metal poisoning.' Several dentists, joined by the Utah Medical Association, argued against the bill, saying they have witnessed firsthand the positive impact on children who live in communities with fluoridated water. Dr. Brent Larson, a dentist in Salt Lake City, said the difference he sees in his young patients who drink fluoridated water is astounding. 'The difference in my experience was astronomical. We used to see kids come in with four, six, eight cavities. We almost never saw someone come in with no cavities in their fillings in their mouth. Once we started fluoridating the water, that all changed. We now see lots of kids with no fillings, no cavities, some will have one or two. This is not a unique experience to me.' Larson asserted the benefits of fluoridated water is 'settled.' Dr. Boyd Simkins, another dentist and the public policy advocate for the Utah Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and an oral health advocate for the Utah Academy of Pediatrics, also extolled its benefits. 'The No. 1 reason for missed schools is dental caries. The No. 1 reason for missed hours of work is dental caries (cavities or tooth decay). Anything we can do at a public policy level to reduce this is advantageous, especially when the research shows that it is safe.' But Elaine Oaks, a trustee with the South Davis Water District, said it is a matter of choice. 'I do not refute that fluoride helps strengthen teeth with the appropriate concentration,' she said. 'It is neither the role of government, nor is it proper for a majority of people to determine that the entire population require medication in publicly provided drinking water. It is incumbent upon each individual and the rights of parents in determining what medical treatment is best for them and their children.' Hydroflurosilicic acid as a concentrate in its undiluted form is classified as a hazardous, poisonous material. While it contains fluoride, it also contains arsenic, lead, copper, manganese, iron and aluminum. It is a byproduct from phosphate mining operations. Several system operators testified for the bill, with one man asserting he was gassed by the acid in its undiluted form from faulty hoses. 'I spent six hours in the emergency room. I spent weeks after that going to the health department, Davis County and back, trying to figure out what they could do for me, what could be done,' said J.D. Watt. 'Nothing. As of this day, they don't know what they can do for me. At the site during the accident, the fire department didn't know what to do, the emergency room didn't know what to do. I sat there on oxygen for 6½ hours, and to this day, I still can't go into a public pool because of the chlorine that's high in the area affects my lungs.' Members of the medical community countered that too much of anything can be harmful. .
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
5 bills on firearm legislation in South Dakota
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) – Five bills relating to gun regulations and restrictions in South Dakota have been introduced during this year's legislative session. They range from prohibiting firearm restrictions on college campuses and allowing them for employees in government buildings. Here's a breakdown of the bills and where they are at: SB 100 prohibits the restriction of carrying concealed pistols on college campuses. If passed, no Board of Regents or public technical education institutions could restrict the lawful carrying of a concealed pistol, stun gun or pepper spray. The bill's prime sponsor, Sen. Mykala Voita, has proposed two amendments to the bill, although they haven't been voted on yet. The first amendment would require that the individual carrying a concealed pistol has an enhanced or restricted enhanced permit. The second would amend the bill to limit restrictions rather than prohibit them: Board of Regents or public technical education institutions could restrict concealed pistols in a designated portion of the building only if: Significant hazardous materials, more than 55 gallons of flammable liquid, or cylinders containing corrosive gasses are present A room is used for scientific research or manufacturing and has concentrated airborne particles Areas where federal security clearance is required During a special event where metal detectors are present SB 100 passed with a 7-2 vote in the Senate State Affairs Committee and is scheduled for debate on the Senate floor February 12. SB 81 would prohibit financial institutions from using firearms codes to flag transactions involving firearms, ammunition and other accessories. A firearms code is an indicator that financial institutions such as banks put on a transaction that identifies whether the seller is a firearms dealer or whether the transaction was for firearms or ammunition. The bill also says no government agency or person can keep a record of privately owned firearms except its owner. The exception is records kept during a criminal investigation. If a financial institution is found using firearms codes, they may be subject to a civil penalty of $25,000. Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff introduced the bill and worked with financial institutions, the National Rifle Association and retailers in the state to create the legislation. SB 81 passed through the Senate as well as the House and Senate Commerce and Energy Committees with little opposition. It heads next to the House and if passed, will go to Gov. Larry Rhoden's desk. HB 1222 expands who is allowed to carry a gun on school grounds. Currently, anyone who carries a weapon onto school property is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The exceptions include law enforcement officers, a starting gun for sporting events, supervised firearm training, and individuals who hold an advanced concealed carry permit and have written permission from the principal. HB 1222 aims to include individuals with a concealed carry permit who could then carry on school property, but not in buildings used for class instruction. The bill is scheduled for its first hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on February 12. Republican Rep. Kaley Nolz introduced the bill. Under HB 1218, county commissioners, township supervisors or government municipalities wouldn't be allowed to prohibit or restrict a county, township or municipal employee, officer or volunteer from lawfully carrying a concealed firearm in a government building. Republican Rep. Aaron Aylward from Lincoln County introduced HB 1218. It was referred to the House Local Government Committee, but does not have a hearing date set. HB 1080 would void any agreements that prohibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms and ammunition. A 'covenant running with the land,' per the language in the bill, is an agreement that transfers to future owners of the same property. For example, there may be a covenant requiring certain yard maintenance; these agreements are common in home owners associations (HOAs). In this instance, if a covenant was made that restricted future land owners from the types of firearms used on that land, those agreements would be void if the legislation becomes law. 'I as a land owner cannot write a covenant on the land I own to tell an owner years or decades or centuries from now, 'They can't hunt on that land or have a gun in their house to protect themselves and their families,'' said the bill's prime sponsor, Republican Rep. Drew Peterson, in a committee hearing. The bill unanimously passed in House Judiciary and had one 'nay' vote on the House floor. It now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
