Transcript Highlights:

• Having sat on the Economic Development Committee, I'm...
• Yeah, no, that's in the Economic Development Committee.
• or putting guardrails on the development necessarily preventing the development or putting guardrails
• on or not guardrails on the development of hindrances on the smaller companies that are trying to develop
• And we hope that this gets added to the economic development bill.

Summary: The House Bonding Committee met to hear testimony on H. 5527, the Mass Wins Act, with Secretary of Economic Development Eric Paley opening by describing the bill as a follow-on to Mass Leads. He said the proposal includes $305 million in bond authorizations, with $180 million for new programs and $125 million to expand existing ones, plus $140 million in deauthorizations of unused or redundant authorizations. He highlighted investments in applied AI and quantum, robotics, business expansion capital, defense innovation, global business attraction, ag tech and food science, downtowns, and the creative economy, and said the bill is intended to support geographic equity and small business growth across the Commonwealth. Committee members questioned the administration on several policy sections, including the MassCEC climate-tech certification language, housing-related provisions tied to 40B compliance and site plan review, the removal of the LCSW exam, AI transparency and federal preemption concerns, and the effect of lower LLC filing fees. Paley generally said some contested sections were added by the Economic Development Committee rather than the administration, defended the MassCEC discretion language as necessary for climate certification, and said the administration would follow up on committee-added provisions. He also said the bill’s housing provisions were meant to help address the state’s need for more homes and that the deauthorizations were housekeeping measures that did not affect current capital plan projects. Public testimony covered a wide range of topics. AARP and local advocates urged a statewide ban on cryptocurrency ATMs, arguing they are heavily used in scams, impose high fees, and drain money from seniors and local economies. Housing groups supported codifying site plan review and adding parking reform and YIGBY-style housing on faith-owned land. Building trades asked to include off-site fabrication in prevailing wage law. The Massachusetts Public Banking Campaign backed the bill and urged inclusion of a public bank concept. Several witnesses supported Section 106, the Transparency and Frontier AI Act, as a way to require safety plans, audits, incident reporting, and whistleblower protections for the largest AI companies, while an AI startup group argued the section would overregulate smaller firms and should be separated from the bond bill. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the voters this fall in an attempt to stop the development.
• We do speak to developers and it's just part of the process.
• We do speak to developers and it's just part of the process.
• as well as infrastructure development in rural communities.
• I'm from California Housing and Community Development.

Summary: The committee held an outcomes review hearing on AB 457 and related farmworker and rural housing policy, with members and witnesses discussing whether recent streamlining laws are actually increasing production. Chair Haney, Assembly Members Soria and Pellerin, and others described the purpose of AB 457 and its predecessor bills AB 1783 and AB 3035: to make farmworker housing easier to build through ministerial approval and other reforms. Witnesses emphasized that farmworkers face severe overcrowding, high rents, long commutes, and limited access to housing in both rural and coastal agricultural regions. The first panel focused on practical barriers and local models. Napa County described its county-owned farmworker centers, which provide nightly lodging, meals, and services, funded by lodger fees, a grower assessment, and state support. Testimony stressed that these centers function as navigation hubs rather than permanent housing, and that stable, inflation-adjusted operating funding, language access, transportation, and local set-asides are critical. United Farm Workers urged that local farmworkers be prioritized over H-2A workers and warned against displacing long-term resident workers. Several witnesses said the biggest barriers remain infrastructure, land costs, local opposition, and insufficient subsidy rather than approval streamlining alone. The second and third panels addressed AB 457’s implementation and broader state funding issues. Santa Clara County said the bill could help on a county-owned Gilroy site, but financing remains the main obstacle. Self-Help Enterprises said AB 457’s expanded geography and project-size rules may help future sites, but rural projects still struggle with water, sewer, and environmental review costs, and with the state’s Super NOFA process, which tends to favor deeper-income projects that do not match farmworker household incomes. HCD reported that CERNA and other programs have increased farmworker housing production in recent years, but witnesses argued that rural regions still receive too little funding, that infrastructure dollars are too fragmented, and that more rural-specific set-asides, local funding incentives, and predictable allocations are needed. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> for the development. for the development.
• It can't be the developer.
• Uh obviously give a the development.
• </c> probably roughly 8% if if a developer probably roughly 8% if if a developer was<00:12:50.959><c>
• . development. development. um<00:15:29.600><c> donated</c><00:15:30.160><c> land</c><00:15:31.120><c

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:03 Roll Call 00:00:08 Discussion of Indiana Residential Infrastructure Fund 00:01:27 Discussion of Affordable Housing Trust Fund 00:33:30 Discussion of Urban Infill 01:12:37 Approval of Minutes from July Meeting 01:39:00 Adjournment 01:39:42, 958, all

Summary: The Housing Task Force heard a presentation from Anita Sanford of the Homebuilders Association of Kentucky and Sheri Cybert of Indiana’s Residential Infrastructure Fund about Indiana’s low-interest loan program for local housing infrastructure. They described the program as a voluntary, locally driven model that helps communities finance roads, sewers, sidewalks, traffic lights, turning lanes, and other infrastructure needed for new housing development. Sanford emphasized that infrastructure and regulation are major drivers of housing costs, citing estimates that infrastructure can account for up to 30% of a home’s cost and regulations another 25%, and said the association is studying Kentucky-specific regulatory costs. She also noted that every $1,000 added to new home construction can price out about 2,000 Kentucky households. Cybert explained that Indiana’s program, administered through the Indiana Finance Authority, began in 2023 with $75 million appropriated over two years and has since closed 17 loans totaling $60.7 million, with more than 2,700 projected housing units. The program reserves 70% of funds for rural communities and 30% for urban communities, requires applications from local governments rather than developers, and asks communities to show need through a market study, describe the infrastructure and housing to be built, and provide preliminary engineering plans and a repayment source. She said the loans currently carry an interest rate around 3.5%, reset quarterly, and that the program has generated about $25 million in savings to communities compared with private borrowing. She also described recent Indiana legislative changes that encourage higher density and other zoning reforms, and said a majority of those local ordinance changes must be adopted for an application to be fundable. Members asked about the ordinance requirements, the funding split between rural and urban areas, repayment mechanisms, and whether there were caps on project size. Cybert said repayment is worked out case by case, often through existing or project-specific TIFs, temporary tax agreements, or letters of credit, and that the program has no cap on request size or income/affordability restrictions. She said the largest request funded was $19 million for a 700-unit project. Co-chair Mills and others discussed whether Kentucky could adopt a similar model and what it would cost, while Sanford and Cybert said they were still refining budget estimates. Later, Scott Welch, president of the Homebuilders Association of Kentucky, testified that upfront infrastructure costs are a major barrier in his projects, citing a $1 million pump station and road-widening and utility relocation costs as examples, and said an infrastructure fund would help get projects off the ground.

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
• </c> market rate multif family developer market rate multif family developer located<01:05:02.680><c>
• Workforce Housing Development developing Workforce Housing Development properties<01:05:45.680><c> when
• </c> that more Workforce Housing Development that more Workforce Housing Development can<01:10:19.040

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This housing community is a collaborative partnership between Atlantic Development, a private developer
• But LI-Tech developments often cost far more than comparable market-rate developments.
• , but for market-rate developers too.
• or a low-income developer, right?
• So in terms... ...whether it's a market-rate developer or a low-income developer, right?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The other development is in progress.
• with all types of economic development policies.
• Yeah, so it's a great answer for the developer.
• As a developer, you want to be quick about it.
• And then does MTC sit under economic development?

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The other development is in progress.
• Yeah, so it's a great answer for the developer, but when a developer on a large project, you know, call
• And I'll have the developer go into more depth on how that all functions, but on large developments,
• It's a higher-end development.
• It's a higher end development.

Summary: The Commerce Committee met in executive session and unanimously voted do pass on House Bill 1707, House Bill 2927, and House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2057. The committee then moved into public hearing on House Bill 1664, which would extend the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims from age 26 to age 41. Representative Brian Sites presented the bill as a needed step for survivors, and multiple witnesses and organizations testified in support, including survivors and advocacy, tort reform, chamber, and insurance groups. No opposition was heard, and the hearing concluded without a vote. The committee also heard House Bill 1845, a startup and angel investor tax credit proposal sponsored by Representative Gallick. The bill would create incentives for Missouri-based startups under $5 million in revenue, with higher credits for rural investment, annual caps, oversight by the Missouri Technology Corporation, and a sunset in 2033. Members questioned what taxes the credit would apply to, how it would work if Missouri changes its income tax structure, and what safeguards would prevent businesses from leaving after receiving credits. Business and economic development groups testified in support, saying the bill would help fill an early-stage capital gap and keep investment in Missouri. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 3231, a broad economic development and “Missouri Innovation Zone” proposal sponsored by Representative Brad Christ. The bill would let cities opt in to create innovation zones with local permitting and governance changes, tax incentives, office-to-residential conversion tools, and reinvestment of net new revenues into public safety, infrastructure, and a rural development fund. Members and witnesses discussed local control, prevailing wage, revenue diversion, and implementation concerns, especially from the City of St. Louis and labor groups, while chambers, developers, municipal groups, and historic revitalization advocates generally supported the concept. The hearing ended with no opposition testimony and no committee vote on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're here to talk about developing New Mexico's geothermal energy as economic development.
• While we develop and promote the longer-term development of advanced geothermal electricity, that final
• We also want to develop this further.
• A geothermal roadmap, kind of a cookbook, so to speak, will be developed to help geothermal developers
• To really give us these detailed answers, particularly in the realm of economic development and development

Transcript Highlights:

• Water Development Board Representative: Well, the process is Water Development Board Representative:
• Water Development Board Representative: We affectionately refer Water Development Board Representative
• And sometimes the models are developed by the Board, sometimes they're developed by the Board through
• Is that Water Development Board?
• The Water Development Board has developed a new model for the Southern Trinity Aquifer.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So they could have an RFP in order to let the private market bid and develop that, or they can develop
• that, or they know, bid and and develop that, or they can<00:08:15.200><c> develop</c><00:08:15.520>
• ,</c><00:20:58.880><c> a</c> influence in framework development, a influence in framework development
• </c> transit-oriented development transit-oriented development requirements<00:21:10.320><c> before</
• And so, by setting clear development.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I am the CEO of Coz Development, a mission-rich workforce housing developer focused solely on serving
• nonprofit housing developer and provider of social services and workforce development.
• I work with a nonprofit development consultant that works statewide, Beacon Development Group.
• Our core business of issuing bonds, Development among other needs.
• Loan fund for mixed-income affordable housing development.

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on a series of housing, education, workforce, and court-related bills. On Substitute Senate Bill 5884, staff described changes to a sales and use tax deferral for redeveloping vacant or underused land into affordable housing, including broader eligible property definitions and lower affordability thresholds in designated areas. Testimony was mixed: builders opposed language they feared could encourage project labor agreements, while Spokane and Kent representatives supported the bill but asked for flexibility on affordability mix requirements. On Senate Bill 6256, which expands a property tax exemption for nonprofit low-income rental housing to include certain co-located community uses during construction and extends the pre-construction exemption period, testimony was strongly supportive from housing nonprofits and local housing partners, with questions focused on clawback provisions. The committee also heard Substitute Senate Bill 6027, which expands allowable uses of local housing and supportive housing sales tax revenue, adjusts a REET exemption timeline, broadens emergency housing definitions, and changes use of the Affordable Housing for All account. County, housing, and nonprofit witnesses said the bill would help preserve housing and services amid federal funding uncertainty, though Snohomish County asked for an amendment to allow rental assistance. Substitute Senate Bill 6018 would revise the Housing Finance Commission’s authority, including direct lending and bond counsel terms; commission staff said it would modernize outdated restrictions and improve financing flexibility. Substitute Senate Bill 6028 would create a revolving loan fund for mixed-income homeownership projects; supporters said it would help smaller infill projects pencil, while staff noted the loans would be subordinate and carry some risk. Later, the committee heard Senate Bill 6275 on the community reinvestment program, which would require periodic plan updates, reporting, and a WSIPP study, while also expressing legislative intent to continue at least $100 million annually in the account. Advocates, workforce groups, legal aid providers, and small business owners testified that the program supports communities harmed by past disinvestment and should be made permanent and more accountable. Substitute Senate Bill 5961 would move the Imagination Library program from DCYF to OSPI; early literacy advocates and local partners supported the transfer as better aligned with school readiness. Substitute Senate Bill 5969 would integrate IEP transition plans with high school and beyond plans, and a prior critic said amendments addressed her concerns. Second Substitute Senate Bill 5292 would shift PFML premium rate-setting to the annual actuarial report and raise the reserve target; labor and industry witnesses supported the change, while a policy group opposed the program’s costs. The committee also heard Senate Bill 5868 to add one superior court judge each in Skagit and Yakima counties. Judges and county officials testified that caseloads, population growth, and backlogs justify the additions, and county leaders said they had already budgeted for their share. Finally, Substitute Senate Bill 5827 would allow service members to use pre-discharge certification to claim veterans’ civil service preference; the sponsor said it would solve a timing problem for transitioning service members. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the transcript, as the meeting consisted of bill briefings and public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• the Border Development Act to better capture what's in the Trade Ports Development Act. is how the public-private
• Thank you all so much for your commitment to developing the border.
• But I'm talking about more around tax and economic development.
• Developers, as you know, drive a lot of what goes on.
• Designated as development poles for well-being, Polos del Bienestar.

Transcript Highlights:

• You need at least the GC or the architect or the developer, right?
• And we developed two different unique products.
• And we developed two different unique products.
• through construction, pre-development through construction loans to incentivize developers to adopt
• , typical developers, are not willing to take a risk?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That means investing in people to make sure that they're able to develop the skills and develop new skills
• That means investing in people to make sure that they're able to develop the skills and develop new skills
• That means investing in people to make sure that they're able to develop the skills and develop new skills
• </c><00:05:00.160><c> new</c> develop the skills and develop new develop the skills and develop new skills
• </c> development, a new housing development development, a new housing development and<00:08:37.919><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

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:

• 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
• </c> developers can't the private Developers developers can't the private Developers really<02:23:50.680
• </c> developers um develop water develop developers um develop water develop sewer<02:39:54.160><c> sewer

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Develop Finance and Policy Committee. Develop Finance and Policy Committee.
• And then you economic development.
• :10:12.320><c> labor</c> economic development and labor economic development and labor conference<00:
• </c> for the emerging developer fund program. for the emerging developer fund program.
• </c> for the Asian Economic Development for the Asian Economic Development Association,<00:15:07.120>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> labor to business to housing developers labor to business to housing developers to<00:08:34.200>
• </c><00:32:31.080><c> do</c> element of the bill but developers do element of the bill but developers
• But the problem is that this type of development and affordable developments are not happening today.
• </c> a park to be built in a development a park to be built in a development basically<00:57:52.200><
• </c> that uh when it comes to development that uh when it comes to development they<00:58:50.359><c>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1987, the Minnesota Starter Home Act, and first adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which made minor cleanup changes, removed sections two and three, adjusted ADU language, and tweaked density language. The bill authors described the measure as a bipartisan effort to address Minnesota’s housing shortage by allowing more starter homes, duplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, while also limiting some local zoning barriers and preserving city protections in certain sensitive areas. They emphasized that the state has a large housing gap, rising home prices, and that the bill is intended as one part of a broader housing package. Supportive testimony came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Housing First Minnesota, Habitat for Humanity, AARP Minnesota, and Americans for Prosperity. These witnesses argued that workforce and starter-home shortages are hurting families, employers, and economic growth; that restrictive zoning and lengthy approval processes raise costs; and that more middle housing and ADUs would expand options for older adults, caregivers, working families, and people seeking homeownership. Several supporters said the bill would reduce regulatory barriers, lower development costs, and help communities add needed housing supply. Opposition or cautionary testimony came from city and municipal representatives, including officials from Cambridge, Eagan, and Mankato, as well as the League of Minnesota Cities and related groups. They argued that local governments already are approving substantial housing growth and need flexibility to manage zoning, parking, infrastructure, stormwater, and community input. They warned the bill could weaken local control, remove practical standards, and create unintended impacts such as more rental conversion in some neighborhoods or development without adequate infrastructure. No final vote on the bill itself was shown in the transcript beyond adoption of the A1 amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Dominium is a national developer, manager, and owner of income- and rent-restricted housing developments
• developers don't.
• This is just for developments that would be going forward.
• We as a developer or a manager cannot set the rents.
• Does your development, does your company then also develop non-affordable housing units from which, money

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those towers are more skinny and smaller and on smaller development sites.
• First, some background: before developing land, a developer must obtain permits from the county or city
• with jurisdiction over the land allowing the development.
• I had stakeholders from the Housing Development Consortium, affordable housing developers, and city staff
• I'd and being open to feedback as the policy develops.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on several housing, building code, and permitting bills. HB 2228 would direct the State Building Code Council to convene a technical advisory group to recommend code amendments allowing scissor stairs in buildings with more than two dwelling units. Supporters, including architects, builders, and housing advocates, said scissor stairs could improve safety, reduce corridor and stair footprint, lower costs, and allow more efficient and denser housing layouts. The bill was then closed to public hearing. HB 2381 would create a performance-based code pathway for low-rise residential buildings and allow recognition of third-party certifications. The chair described it as a move from prescriptive to performance-based standards, with flexibility for builders and potential alignment with clean building goals. The Building Industry Association of Washington opposed the bill as written, saying the main need is a performance pathway in the energy code rather than the IBC, while FutureWise supported the concept but urged caution about the complexity and timeline of converting code to performance-based standards. The public hearing on HB 2381 was closed after testimony. HB 2418 would change permit review processes, including vesting rules for residential project permits in urban growth areas, pausing review clocks in certain circumstances, extending timelines to other fee-charging reviewing entities, and requiring a single permit responsible official and point of contact by 2027. Builders, developers, and housing advocates generally supported the bill’s coordination and timeline provisions, saying they would reduce delays and costs, though several groups raised concerns about the vesting section and completeness definitions. FutureWise and county representatives warned the vesting changes could create litigation or records issues, while the sponsor said the vesting portion might be reconsidered. The committee also heard HB 2273, which would require embodied carbon reduction standards for larger building projects through reuse, product-based reductions, or whole-building life-cycle assessment. Support came from architects, Commerce, and environmental justice advocates, who said the bill would reduce climate impacts and encourage innovation; opponents from the concrete and aggregate industry and a taxpayer group raised concerns about costs, supply-chain issues, conflicts with other legislation, and exemptions such as for schools. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after closing the public hearings.