Transcript Highlights:

• of planning sustainable development of planning sustainable development mainly<00:04:35.440>
• modifications to Housing Development modifications to Housing Development proposals<00:05:05.520
• really helps der risk the development really helps der risk the development process<00:05:49.479
• will be good to talk to the developers will be good to talk to the developers to<00:11:19.800>
• requirements for applicant developers requirements for applicant developers seeking<00:14:02.560

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of housing measures focused on streamlining approvals, reshaping financing programs, and expanding affordability requirements. SB 27 would exempt state-financed housing developments from County Council approval; SB 38 would bar county legislative bodies from changing housing proposals in ways that increase project costs; SB 25 would let counties reduce housing capacity in one area only if they offset it elsewhere with no net loss; and SB 379 would require perpetual affordability covenants for HHFDC projects and prohibit affordable housing in special flood hazard areas. SB 378 would create an HHFDC working group to identify mixed-use Maui properties for possible acquisition, SB 414 would authorize condemnation proceedings for a new Lānaʻi access road tied to disaster recovery, and SB 13 would eliminate the state income tax mortgage interest deduction for second homes. Testimony was mixed across the bills, with state agencies and housing advocates generally supporting faster permitting and more production, while county planners, NAIOP, Catholic Charities, and others raised concerns about local control, marketability, financing feasibility, and long-term affordability enforcement. A major portion of the hearing centered on the rental housing revolving fund. SB 70 would limit eligible applicants to government agencies or organizations that reinvest all surplus into additional housing; HHFDC said most developers would not object in principle but questioned how the surplus requirement would be enforced, while NAIOP and Catholic Charities opposed it as too restrictive and difficult to monitor. SB 71 would amend the fund’s preference criteria and eligibility rules, and SB 163 would require HHFDC to prioritize projects with the shortest repayment terms and highest unit production per dollar per year. HHFDC and some advocates supported the goal of faster recycling of funds, but NAIOP and Catholic Charities warned that shorter loan terms and narrowed preferences could burden developers and disincentivize projects, especially for lower-income tenants. The chair indicated SB 163 would be deferred and its concerns folded into amendments to SB 71. In decision-making, the committee voted to pass SB 27, SB 38, SB 70, and SB 71 with amendments, and SB 25 unamended. The chair said SB 27 would be amended to include projects with a state financing commitment and a report note that such projects still undergo 21-38 review; SB 38 would receive technical changes and language preventing county bodies from imposing cost-increasing conditions; SB 70 would add language addressing enforcement of the surplus requirement and a preamble citing the need to recycle taxpayer-financed housing value; and SB 71 would be amended to incorporate concerns raised in SB 163, including a broader preamble and revised priority criteria. SB 163 was deferred, while the other measures on the agenda were heard but no final action was described in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• or being developed?
• You know, they're developing their own data centers in their own country. ...developing their own data
• , and housing developments.
• these data center developers.
• Developers, not including our members. I know that— Developers, not including our members.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It might be noteworthy that... development um the value of that development um the value of that development
• <00:03:54.040> would<00:03:54.239> not development would not development would not occur
• <00:07:03.440> districts also uh Economic Development districts also uh Economic Development
• <00:18:35.360> or with a pay youo note the developer or with a pay youo note the developer
• no easy way to guarantee if a developer no easy way to guarantee if a developer is<00:32:34.919>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Minnesota Senate Taxes Committee met on February 6, 2025, and first approved the February 5 minutes. The main item was the Office of the State Auditor’s annual report on tax increment financing (TIF), presented by Jason Nord in place of Auditor Blaha, who was ill. Nord explained how TIF captures new property value to finance development, and reviewed statewide data for 2023 reported in 2024. The report said TIF was used by 382 authorities statewide, with 378 authorities reporting on 1,678 districts. Redevelopment and housing/economic development districts made up the vast majority of districts, with housing districts becoming especially common in Greater Minnesota. Of the $238 million in tax increment generated in 2023, 78% came from the metro area, and most dollars came from redevelopment districts. The report also noted $7.4 million in increment returned to counties, cities, and school districts, and described long-term trends showing early growth in TIF use, reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, a drop after 2002 property tax changes, and another decline after many older districts reached maximum duration. Committee members asked about uncodified districts, the location of the remaining pre-1979 district, whether the same cities continue using TIF over time, and how Minnesota compares with other states. Nord said the uncodified districts include housing replacement and special-law districts, the pre-1979 district is in Princeton, and the number of authorities starting or stopping use each year is usually small. He also said Minnesota differs from many states, including by allowing pooling. The presentation highlighted that TIF debt statewide is a little over $1.8 billion, mostly in pay-as-you-go notes rather than general obligation bonds, and that many districts decertify early—often years before their maximum term—supporting the chair’s interest in legislation to shorten redevelopment district duration and repeal renewal and renovation districts. No votes were taken on the report.

Transcript Highlights:

• University of Minnesota have developed University of Minnesota have developed new<00:04:07.319><
• <00:04:57.160> program is an uh an economic development program is an uh an economic development
• Facilities investment to develop Facilities investment to develop efficiency<00:13:39.480> will
• from the Workforce Development from the Workforce Development Fund<00:21:01.159> thank<00
• companies contribute to the development companies contribute to the development of<00:25:32.320>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But there's a lot of around development.
• But there's a lot more to development those development that we do in our agricultural operations.
• agency, wanting to hear what developers not being an open agency, wanting to hear what developers are
• We have enough developers. Thank you.
• development is is over represented.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's a developer doing that. right? So that's a developer doing that.
• permits for residential developments. permits for residential developments.
• this development. this development. Represent<01:43:39.920> Bolio.
• is not what can we do for developers? is not what can we do for developers?
• developments of 10 units or more. Okay. developments of 10 units or more. Okay.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?
• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?
• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?
• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?
• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You're still in pre-development stages, OK.
• So if it's 2 years old, I mean as these develop much mature with other phases or other developments come
• for Johnson Development Corporation.
• I work in housing and land development.
• We work with the developer and the governing agencies to identify the phasing for large developments

Transcript Highlights:

• The Destination Development Grant was funded $15 million during the 25 session.
• The development and tourism sectors from across the state.
• Dakota Development Fund's Child Care Loan Program.
• Historically, if you remember, the Development Fund was started as early-stage investment.
• Second is developing a future-ready workforce development system that anticipates emerging and evolving

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Budget Section’s Commerce and Legal Services Division met to review the Department of Commerce base budget for the 2027-29 biennium and to receive an update on Commerce programs. Legislative Council staff first walked the committee through the “blue sheet” base budget summary, explaining the major line items, the large share of federal grant authority in Commerce’s budget, and the continuing appropriations that support several Commerce funds. Members asked how grant funding is coordinated across agencies, and staff said collaboration varies by program but is strong in areas like UAS and LIHEAP. Commerce Commissioner Chris Schilken then presented on current activities, focusing heavily on grant administration, transparency, and economic development programs. Members questioned how grant applicants are selected, whether Commerce tracks applications and return on investment, and how long grant awards take to reach recipients. The commissioner said Commerce uses scoring criteria, outside reviewers, a minimum 30-day application window, and typically completes awards within two to three months. A lengthy exchange followed over whether Commerce should open some grants only to intended recipients versus running competitive application processes; Commerce said it follows best-practice grantmaking and that its attorney in the Attorney General’s office approved that approach. Commerce also highlighted the North Dakota Development Fund, citing long-term investment and job creation results, examples such as Red Trail Energy, Packet Digital, Valiance, Corvent Medical, child care loans, and the Automate ND program. Members asked about acceptable failures, lessons learned, regional economic development coordination, and the expansion of the fund into non-primary sectors. Workforce Director Katie Ralston Howell then outlined a statewide workforce ecosystem review, a new governor’s workforce sub-cabinet, and three task forces focused on simplifying entry, warm handoffs, and data integration. She discussed the in-demand occupations list, Workforce Pell, apprenticeships, and efforts to better connect students with employers and higher education. Commerce also briefly reviewed housing programs and a new housing sub-cabinet. No votes were taken; the committee simply received testimony, asked questions, and adjourned after setting up the next meeting to hear the Attorney General budget in June.

Transcript Highlights:

• nonprofit economic development nonprofit economic development organization<00:01:45.119> or
• > Development.
• Candyohigh County Economic Development. Candyohigh County Economic Development.
• Employment and Economic Development Employment and Economic Development supports<00:04:54.400>
• Development, and Rising Tide Capital. Development, and Rising Tide Capital.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• enable the development to occur. enable the development to occur.
• economic development districts. economic development districts.
• development districts outside the metro. development districts outside the metro.
• And so maybe development.
• developers would not go there. developers would not go there.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a homebuilder and developer from El Paso.
• It's not mandating a $3 million development.
• the unit development will shrink.
• They took it as the developments came along.
• or apartment development.

Bills: HB164

Keywords: HB 164, HB164, Texas Flood Recovery, Reimbursement, and Reconstruction Program, Texas Division of Emergency Management, TDEM, Hill Country floods, July 2025 floods, flood recovery, disaster relief, flood reimbursement, reconstruction grants, resiliency standards, floodplain, base flood elevation, FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, insurance denial, property damage, tenant assistance, rental property

Transcript Highlights:

• This is what this economic development bill does.
• This policy came to us through our work on economic development, workforce development, and through all
• Would that be a by-right type of development? Right?
• It's also a workforce development tool.
• This is why housing policy is economic development policy.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on Governor Healey’s economic development proposal, H. 5386, also referred to as the Mass Winds Act, focused on global investment, talent, innovation, housing, and business competitiveness. Governor Healey, Secretary of Economic Development Eric Paley, and Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorzkowicz described the bill as a response to federal uncertainty and global competition, building on the 2024 Mass Leads Act. They highlighted proposed investments in a Global Mass initiative, including a $50 million innovation access fund and $20 million for sites to help international companies locate or expand in Massachusetts, along with support for AI, quantum, robotics, defense innovation, climate tech, downtown revitalization, and creative/cultural economy projects. They also emphasized measures to lower business costs, including reducing the LLC filing fee, expanding the small business energy tax exemption, and streamlining housing and development rules. Committee members questioned the administration about non-compete reform, AI and data-center infrastructure, housing affordability, and whether the bill would help retain workers and companies in Massachusetts. The governor and secretaries argued that the non-compete changes would restore the original compromise by requiring any alternative to garden leave to be negotiated at separation, and they said the bill’s housing and workforce provisions are intended to help young workers stay in the state. They also said Massachusetts is already investing in AI training, an AI hub, and energy-related planning, while acknowledging that data-center growth will require careful attention to water, electricity, and ratepayer impacts. Several witnesses testified on specific sections. Northeastern University supported the internship tax credit, saying experiential learning helps students gain jobs and remain in Massachusetts. The Latino Empowerment Advisory Council supported the waiver of redundant English testing for internationally trained nurses, saying it would speed entry into the workforce without lowering clinical standards. Russell Beck opposed the non-compete changes, arguing they would undermine the 2018 compromise and could reduce other forms of employee compensation. The Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office opposed the LLC fee reduction, citing revenue loss and fraud concerns. Municipal and regional groups, including the MMA and the Metro Mayors Coalition, supported site plan review codification and downtown/arts investments, while urging continued municipal input. The AFL-CIO asked for trigger language to preserve labor protections if federal law changes, and business and industry witnesses generally supported the bill’s competitiveness and global investment provisions. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with written testimony invited after the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Local municipalities play a key role, and all developments will need to apply and develop the projects
• Our firm has been successful in developing Workforce Housing Development properties when the program
• market rate multif family developer market rate multif family developer located<01:05:02.680>
• Workforce Housing Development developing Workforce Housing Development properties<01:05:45.680> when
• that more Workforce Housing Development that more Workforce Housing Development can<01:10:19.040

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're entering into developer agreements with developers that have the capacity to do large developments
• We're entering into developer agreements with developers that have the capacity to do large developments
• We're entering into developer agreements with developers that have the capacity to do large developments
• developers can't the private Developers developers can't the private Developers really<02:23:50.680
• developers um develop water develop developers um develop water develop sewer<02:39:54.160> sewer

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• budget to encourage housing development budget to encourage housing development and<00:10:35.279
• This development tool will help developers overcome the costly infrastructure costs that might cause
• Within this housing development district, a developer can file an application for an approved project
• > once<00:14:20.079> again This development tool should once again This development tool
• c> in<00:14:22.560> multiple help encourage developers in multiple help encourage developers

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:04 Attendance Roll Call: 00:08 SB 141 Discussion 00:58 SB 141 Vote 07:03 SB 9 Discussion 09:10 SB 9 Vote 19:47 Adjournment: 21:20, 958, all

Summary: The Senate State and Local Government Committee first took up Senate Bill 141, sponsored by Senator Given, which revises Kentucky’s public notice laws. Senator Given said the bill was the product of negotiations among the Kentucky Press Association, the Kentucky League of Cities, and the Kentucky Association of Counties, aiming to balance transparency with the cost of publication. Testimony described changes to clarify which newspapers may publish legal notices, address publication errors, ensure fair and reasonable rates, update ad size requirements, and provide more practical hearing timelines. Committee members praised the compromise and the bill’s modernization, including expanded online access to public notices. SB 141 passed 10-0 with favorable expression. The committee then considered Senate Bill 9, sponsored by Senator Mills, and first adopted a substitute that addressed concerns from Farm Bureau and the Kentucky Bankers Association. Senator Mills said Kentucky faces a significant housing shortage and that the bill would give local governments two tools to encourage development without direct state cost: a residential infrastructure development district and a housing development district. He explained that the first tool would help finance infrastructure within a district through bonds repaid by special assessments, while the second would allow local governments to negotiate incentives and streamlined review for larger housing projects. Members asked about public participation, local control, infrastructure financing, and whether the bill required affordable housing set-asides; Mills said the bill leaves those decisions to local governments. SB 9 passed 9-0 with one pass and favorable expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• That does not mean that we are bullying the developer.
• That's what the plan developer wanted: tax restructuring.
• Fundamentally, this is absolutely a developer. The developer was there every step of the way.
• Alaska has never competed because development here is easy.
• Alaska that also worked for the developer.

Keywords: 905, all

Summary: The House met with a quorum, approved the journal, and received messages from the governor and Senate, including notice that the governor vetoed CSHB 16 and allowed HB 14 to become law without signature. The chamber then took up the conference committee report on HB 381, a major Alaska LNG-related bill that revises the project’s tax and regulatory structure. The conference report was explained as a compromise package that, among other things, changes required local contribution language, expands disclosure and notice requirements, adjusts foreign ownership reporting, extends the Phase 1 construction deadline, adds a $10 million workforce development/community impact fund, modifies project labor agreement provisions, and exempts the Alaska LNG project from the new pass-through entity tax while still requiring an informational tax return in 2027. The Speaker also announced the governor had issued a proclamation calling the legislature back into session on July 27, 2026, and said sine die would be moved after debate. Debate on HB 381 was sharply divided. Supporters argued the bill is necessary enabling legislation to improve the project’s financial viability, protect Alaska’s interests, and move the North Slope gas line toward final investment decision, while also adding transparency, foreign ownership safeguards, and labor and workforce provisions. Several members said the conference committee process was collaborative and that the bill reflects hard-fought compromise with the developer, AGDC, labor, and the administration. Opponents focused on the addition of the pass-through entity/S-corp income tax and related reporting requirements, arguing it is a separate tax policy issue that should have been considered in its own bill, creates uncertainty and litigation risk, could harm existing oil and gas and Cook Inlet production, and may discourage investment. Multiple members also criticized the process as rushed and insufficiently transparent, especially the limited opportunity for the minority and the absence of Department of Revenue testimony during conference. No final vote on the conference committee report is shown in the transcript excerpt. The debate continued with members alternating between support for the gas line project itself and opposition to the tax provisions and process used to advance HB 381.

Transcript Highlights:

• And within the rural development, I would like to see some economic development.
• One is spec development, is what I'll call it.
• We awarded funds for some single-family development there.
• economic development projects.
• Development Department.

Transcript Highlights:

• energy development, and this is... ...owners are engaged in oil development and energy development,
• And that makes sense for the development. And that makes sense where the development has occurred.
• We always develop talking points.
• We always develop talking points.
• there's a pilot project, letting developers know like If there's a pilot project, letting developers

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Energy Development and Transmission Committee met in interim session and approved the November 6 minutes. Chair Novak outlined the committee’s study agenda, including large energy users such as data centers, geothermal, landowner relations, wind and solar, and other energy topics across the state. The meeting was framed as informational only, with no bills or formal legislative action taken beyond the minutes approval. Testimony focused first on landowner relations. Oliver County Commissioner Dave Berger described the county’s energy history and local support for coal and related development. North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue emphasized proactive, face-to-face communication with landowners, respect for property rights, and the need for developers to be transparent about tradeoffs; he also discussed insurance and liability concerns tied to easements. Committee members asked about eminent domain, local versus state authority, and how communities can better understand the revenue and infrastructure implications of energy development. Department of Agriculture Deputy Commissioner Tom Bodine then described the department’s ombudsman programs for pipeline restoration and reclamation, wind restoration, and royalty oversight. He said the programs provide confidential, third-party assistance on reclamation and royalty disputes, but do not provide legal advice. Senators raised concerns about post-production deductions in royalty leases and whether the ombudsman can explain them; Bodine said the program can clarify statements and deductions but cannot resolve legal disputes. He also said the department has not received requests related to fiber lines. Representatives from Grid United and One Oak described their project development and landowner engagement practices. Grid United’s Brent Johnson discussed the North Plains Connector transmission project, its route selection process, voluntary acquisition approach, and efforts to avoid eminent domain by working closely with regulators, counties, townships, and landowners. One Oak’s Danette Welsh and Tom Giltner described the company’s midstream operations, extensive North Dakota footprint, and emphasis on direct landowner communication, consistent local regulation, careful construction practices, and post-construction reclamation. Members asked about setbacks, zoning consistency, invasive species prevention, outside advocacy groups, and eminent domain use; One Oak said it has not used eminent domain on its North Dakota projects, largely because most gathering lines are negotiated easements.

Transcript Highlights:

• infrastructure capacity needed to serve new development.
• the developer would pay for the on-site improvements.
• be in place or concurrent with the impact of that development.
• A developer would come in and say, we're going to develop a small subdivision, it's going to add 500
• and promote commercial development, right?

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.