Transcript Highlights:

• And so the longer we move forward, there are projects where that natural clock comes due and those projects
• And so the longer we move forward, there are projects where that natural clock comes due and those projects
• finance closings with those projects.
• So a project could not request or receive more than a $2 million investment per project.
• It is true debt, so we loan it to projects. The projects pay us back.

Summary: The committee met for a series of information sessions focused on housing stabilization, rental assistance, senior housing, and heat resilience. In the first panel, OHCS and NOAA described the state’s affordable housing preservation work, including the $35 million in 2025 stabilization funding used to reduce debt and keep distressed affordable rental projects operating, plus manufactured home park preservation efforts. OHCS said the portfolio remains under strain, with about a third of projects at debt coverage ratios of 1.0 or less and rising insurance and operating costs. NOAA urged faster closings on the stabilization awards, more funding in 2027, and broader rent assistance and process reforms. Committee members asked about the gap between current appropriations and need, and OHCS explained that the new Article 11-Q bond preservation program is structured differently and requires full refinancing rather than simple cash infusions. The committee then heard a detailed discussion of the state’s eviction prevention and rental assistance program, ORDAP. OHCS said the program is administered through community action agencies, prioritizes households at imminent risk of eviction, and is now funded at a much lower level than in the prior biennium, reducing expected service to about 8,200 households this biennium. The Oregon Law Center, a county community action agency, and Multifamily Northwest all agreed the program prevents homelessness and is effective, but they differed on whether assistance should be tied so closely to eviction court. Legal aid and community action witnesses said the current system is underfunded and that eviction filings are the clearest indicator of need, while Multifamily Northwest argued the process can push people into court unnecessarily and should be moved earlier when possible. Legislators raised questions about whether a pre-eviction model could be developed and about the costs of court involvement; one member shared a personal story about how rental assistance helped keep their family housed. Next, the governor’s office, OHCS, and OHA presented on the new senior housing initiative and healthy homes work. The governor’s housing director said Oregon is making progress on homelessness and housing production, with reductions in homelessness outside Multnomah County and an estimated 50,000 future units added to the pipeline through recent state actions. OHCS outlined the senior housing programs launched in May: a debt-financing program using elderly and disabled bond authority, an older adult housing development program funded through the senior property tax deferral revolving account, and a rehousing program for older adults that will use bridge funding and services to move at least 400 unsheltered older Oregonians into housing. OHA also described its Healthy Homes Grant Program, including $24.6 million already awarded, a new $5 million grant round for seniors and people with disabilities, and examples of home repairs and weatherization that help people remain safely housed. The final information session focused on home cooling and heat resilience. OHA presented data showing rising extreme heat days, more heat-related emergency visits, and likely undercounted heat deaths, especially among older adults, people with disabilities, low-income communities, and people without access to healthy homes. ODOE reviewed implementation of Senate Bill 1536, including a cooling needs study that found 58% of surveyed households in the studied housing types needed permanent cooling, with estimated statewide costs of $582 million to $1 billion. ODOE said its rental home heat pump and community heat pump programs have supported 4,638 installations so far, with a temporary reopening planned using remaining funds. The session ended with a remote presentation from a Community Action Partnership of Oregon representative, continuing the discussion of how community action agencies help deliver energy and anti-poverty services.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have $55 million in the bank on one project, $50 million in another project that's compatible, the
• We've got this project to the brink.
• And what is unique about this project is it is a bipartisan project, and it is rare in politics to not
• The governor supports this project. The governor supports this project.
• You to try and advance this project.

Summary: The hearing focused on the long-delayed Southern California Veterans Cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, with opening remarks from Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, Senator Tom Umberg, and Assemblymember Avelino Valencia emphasizing the project’s importance to Orange County veterans and families. Anaheim city leaders, including the mayor pro tem and council members, voiced strong support and described the city’s role in planning, utilities, and final approvals. Quirk-Silva reviewed the project history, including prior legislation, county and state funding commitments, and the recent federal determination that the site meets VA criteria for a state veterans cemetery. The first panel, representing the veterans community, included the American Legion, American Gold Star Mothers, and Valor. They argued that Orange County—home to a large veteran population—still lacks a local veterans cemetery, forcing families to travel long distances to Riverside or elsewhere. Testimony stressed the emotional and practical burden on aging veterans and grieving families, and called for immediate action and possession of the property. Some speakers were sharply critical of CalVet and the pace of the process, saying veterans have waited too long and that the project should move forward without further delay. The second panel, from Orange County, described the county’s and cemetery district’s support and the unique opportunity to develop a shared site for a public cemetery and a separate state veterans cemetery. County officials said the county has dedicated land and funding, and that shared infrastructure—roads, utilities, grading, and access—could reduce costs substantially if the two projects are coordinated. They also said the county is ready to transfer the property to CalVet when appropriate and that the project has already cleared major local approvals and litigation. The final panel from DGS and CalVet explained the state’s feasibility study and current planning work. DGS said the 2023 study estimated the state’s portion of phase one at about $126 million, largely driven by site work and grading, though that estimate may change as assumptions are updated. CalVet said it is working with DGS and the county on a revised concept plan to lower costs and refine the timeline, and that legislative budget action will be needed to authorize spending from the Southern California Veterans Cemetery fund. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational, and the main action was continued coordination among the state, county, city, and veterans groups, with public comment at the end overwhelmingly urging faster construction.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a project that's so beautiful—a project that half of it will honor our first responders and our
• We have $55 million in the bank on one project, $50 million in another project that's compatible, the
• We've got this project to the brink.
• And what is unique about this project is it is a bipartisan project, and it is rare in politics to not
• We, the Governor, supports this project. We support this project.

Summary: The hearing focused on the long-delayed Southern California Veterans Cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, with members of the Assembly, Senate, City of Anaheim, Orange County, CalVet, DGS, and veterans organizations discussing next steps. Chair Sharon Quirk-Silva reviewed the project’s history, including the earlier Irvine effort, the 2021 Anaheim support resolution, county and state funding commitments, and the recent federal determination that the site meets criteria for a state veterans cemetery. Speakers repeatedly emphasized the need for a local burial site for Orange County’s large veteran population and the burden on families who currently must travel to Riverside, San Diego, or Los Angeles. The first panel featured veterans advocates and Gold Star family members who strongly urged immediate action. The American Legion, Gold Star Mothers, and the Veterans Alliance of Orange County said the cemetery is overdue and stressed that older veterans and grieving families should not have to wait longer. Several speakers described personal losses and the hardship of long travel to existing cemeteries, while also calling for CalVet and state leaders to move faster and communicate more directly with veterans groups. Assembly and Senate members responded with support, noting the bipartisan nature of the effort and the importance of honoring veterans and their families. The second panel, with Orange County officials, described the county’s support and the unique shared-use arrangement with the Orange County Cemetery District. Supervisor Don Wagner said the county has dedicated land and $20 million, and county and district staff explained that the public cemetery and state veterans cemetery can share roads, utilities, grading, and other infrastructure to reduce costs. They said the county is ready to transfer property to CalVet when appropriate and that collaboration could save tens of millions of dollars. The third panel from DGS and CalVet explained that a 2023 feasibility study estimated the state’s portion at about $126 million under earlier assumptions, but that a revised concept plan is now being developed to lower costs and update the timeline. CalVet said it remains committed to the project, while legislators pressed for clearer answers on what is needed to begin construction and how budget action in the coming year could help. No formal vote was taken; the hearing ended with public comments, many of which echoed the call to begin construction immediately and criticized the pace of state action.

Transcript Highlights:

• the project and to complete utility relocations for the project.
• Projects yes, okay.
• That project started out over. 10 years ago as a $9 million project.
• Civil Works Project, one of the largest civil works projects in the United States.
• So we have three projects in our portfolio, the Orange County... project, the Port Arthur project, and

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• To better understand the range of requests, MMB staff visited some project sites and projects that had
• ><c> been</c><00:04:46.960><c> built</c> sites and projects that had been built sites and projects that
• > incarcerated</c> This project will give incarcerated This project will give incarcerated persons<00
• projects go to greater Minnesota.
• </c> really is for the most part project. it. really is for the most part project. it.

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• projects more efficient.
• projects, more efficient.
• process for housing projects.
• So we're drinking water projects and wastewater projects.
• This project includes culvert replacements, waterway project engineering, and permitting.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:23.239><c> we</c> timing or design of these projects we timing or design of these projects
• </c> projects County projects uh through projects County projects uh through these<00:08:31.639><c> uh
• That project is still ongoing.
• , local projects, airports as well.” projects that are in that same boat projects that are in that same
• </c><01:36:37.560><c> local</c> airports map projects local airports map projects local projects<01:36

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• 09.840><c> one</c><01:11:10.159><c> project</c> Projects under construction: one project in design, and
• </c> also part of this project. also part of this project.
• Currently, five projects are projects.
• These projects hospitality projects.
• Do you know uh all the projects? I are? Do you know uh all the projects?

Summary: The committee met jointly for State Government, State and Local Government, and Elections and Constitutional Amendments, approved the minutes from the September 23 meeting, and then took up discussion of Senate Bill 126, a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict the governor’s pardon power. Senator Chris McDaniel said the measure was prompted by concerns over pardons issued in 2019 and would bar pardons for 60 days before a gubernatorial election through the swearing-in of a new governor, leaving the power otherwise intact. Members who spoke generally supported the proposal as a way to increase accountability, and McDaniel said he intended to place it on the 2026 ballot. No vote was taken on the bill during the discussion. The committee then moved to House Bill 16 on water fluoridation. Representative Hart and Senator Greg Elkins said the bill would remove Kentucky’s fluoridation mandate and give local water districts the choice to add fluoride or not. They emphasized that the revised draft also adds immunity language to protect districts from civil litigation regardless of their decision. Dr. Jack Call, a Louisville dentist, presented against fluoridation, arguing that the main dental benefit is topical rather than from drinking water and citing studies and reports he said linked fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children and other health concerns. Cindy Batson, a nurse and parent, also supported the bill and said she had testified on the issue for years. During questions, Senator Rollins raised concerns about fluoride being an industrial byproduct and described fluoridation as forced medication. The discussion remained focused on the bill’s local-control and immunity provisions, with sponsors saying they were not trying to relitigate the broader science but wanted to remove the mandate. The transcript ends while questions and testimony on HB 16 were still underway, and no final committee action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• . project. project.
• And so the real benefit of project.
• But I large project funding.
• We look at projections for be.
• </c> of the project. of the project.

Bills: HB0078 , HB0087 , SF0070 , SF0068 , SF0017 , SF0043

Committee: Senate Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Projects, this is truly an honor.
• So we did not try to call the ball on exactly what those projects would look like.
• So we did not try to call the ball on exactly what those projects would look like.
• Other projects in mind?
• multiple years' worth of Chapter 90 allotments just to complete one project.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 4987, the administration’s transportation bond bill centered on Chapter 90 roadway funding and related capital programs. Administration officials described the bill as a roughly $5.5 billion package that would continue $300 million per year for Chapter 90 over four years, with part of the funding distributed by the traditional formula and an additional $100 million based solely on road miles to better support rural and smaller communities. They also highlighted authorizations for municipal pavement work, Shared Streets and Spaces grants, accelerated bridge and pavement repairs, MBTA rail modernization and reliability, housing-related transportation improvements, and a new DCR-focused PRISM program for parkways and related infrastructure. Officials emphasized that the bill is financed through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues, and said it would help municipalities plan more predictably, speed project delivery, and support housing, safety, and climate goals. Committee members and witnesses discussed the bill’s broader scope beyond traditional Chapter 90, especially the $200 million for transportation projects that support housing development and the $200 million for MBTA modernization and rail reliability. Members asked about the rationale for a four-year authorization amid fiscal uncertainty, federal funding volatility, and the status of commuter rail electrification. Administration officials responded that the capital authorization is backed by dedicated transportation revenues rather than the operating budget, and said multi-year certainty helps cities and towns make better long-term repair decisions. They also said the MBTA’s rail modernization funds would support locomotive procurements, including battery-electric and Tier 4 diesel locomotives, as part of a longer-term regional rail and electrification strategy. Municipal officials and regional advocates strongly supported the bill. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, along with town and city officials from Sherborn, Conway, and Yarmouth, said the increased Chapter 90 funding and road-mile-based distribution are especially important for small and rural communities with limited local revenue capacity, and that multi-year funding would let them bundle projects, bid at better prices, and address backlogs more proactively. A Better City and MAPC also supported the bill but urged the committee to treat it like a traditional bond bill by adding policy provisions and considering new transportation revenue tools, such as TNC fee changes, road pricing, parking taxes, and other mechanisms. The committee took no vote during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Regardless of the size, the complexity, Projects, this is truly an honor.
• So we did not try to call the ball on exactly what those projects would look like.
• And that turns into, depending on the size of the project, between 90 and 180 days.
• Other projects in mind?
• multi-year's worth of Chapter 90 allotments just to complete one project.

Bills: H4987 , S2905

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Keywords: transportation bond bill, municipal roads, municipal bridges, Chapter 90, road aid, highway funding, bridge repair, pavement, MassDOT, MBTA, rail reliability, commuter rail locomotives, Fair Share surtax, Commonwealth Transportation Fund, infrastructure financing, bond authorization, deferred maintenance, climate resilience, parkways, DCR

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> conducting oversight of those projects conducting oversight of those projects once<00:04:41.120>
• , as applicable to that project.
• </c> generated by funding projects. generated by funding projects.
• </c> of the Public Policy Project. of the Public Policy Project.
• So, they are vetted now projects.

Bills: HF3426 , HF3428

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Keywords: natural resources, environment, sustainability, conservation, outdoor recreation, land acquisition, real property, trust fund, commissioner approval, Department of Natural Resources, DNR, conservation easement, land purchase, state land, public lands, property acquisition, value assessment, tax assessed value, Metropolitan Council, Board of Water and Soil Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• is a just one-building project.
• is a just one-building project.
• is a just one-building project.
• is a just one-building project.
• one-building project.

Summary: The committee took up several measures related to appropriations and school facilities. House Bill 537 was explained as a technical fix to Kentucky’s opioid abatement settlement framework so the state can accept funds from national bankruptcy settlements under the allocation structure now used by the courts; the bill was supported by the Attorney General’s office and local government groups and received a favorable recommendation. House Joint Resolution 34 authorized release of previously appropriated KCTCS funds for three projects, and members discussed whether KCTCS facilities could be used more broadly for community needs such as public health, workforce, and other services. KCTCS officials said they were open to that idea, and the resolution also received a favorable recommendation. House Joint Resolution 30, concerning the Waters program and release of funds for projects that had remained in design, was adopted by committee substitute and passed favorably. The committee then heard extensive testimony on House Joint Resolution 32, which concerns school facility gap funding for districts with low bonding capacity. The chair and sponsor explained that the General Assembly had previously asked the auditor and Blue & Co. to analyze district data because of disputes over project costs and bonding capacity. Superintendents from Marion County, Augusta Independent, Williamstown, and Walton Verona described their projects and financial constraints. Marion County and Augusta argued that full gap funding is necessary for new school or multipurpose facility projects that cannot be phased in; Augusta emphasized its old building stock, high poverty rate, and the need for a gymnasium/multipurpose space used for school and community functions. Williamstown described a STEM center and field expansion, saying the project would be delayed for years without full funding. Walton Verona described rapid growth, overcrowding, and an intermediate school project that had risen sharply in cost from the original estimate. Members asked questions about the accuracy of cost estimates and the scope of the projects, including why some estimates differed from the auditor’s figures and whether the funding requests covered only parts of larger phased plans. The testimony generally supported full funding for the listed districts, with the districts arguing that the projects are necessary for safe, modern learning environments and that local tax effort has already been substantial. Each of the measures considered during the meeting was reported out favorably, with the chair voting no on the resolutions and bills before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not just an important project for the city, but it's a destination project for the state as well
• The city will use a the project.
• A project like this um is of of that.
• Um so, this project is still in youth.
• state</c> it's a destination project for the state it's a destination project for the state as<00:05:

Summary: Representative Clardy introduced House File 4238, seeking a $5 million state general obligation investment for roads and infrastructure in Inver Grove Heights tied to the planned Minnesota Hockey Hall of Fame project, along with a separate requested $20 million cash appropriation for the facility itself. He described the bill as having statewide value and asked to focus first on the $5 million GO request. Mayor Brenda Dietrich and Community Development Director Jason Ziemer testified in support, calling the Hall of Fame a once-in-a-lifetime, transformative project for the city, the Twin Cities region, and the state. They said Inver Grove Heights expects to invest $14 million to $17 million locally for land acquisition and site improvements, and that the state funds would help pay for roads, utilities, stormwater work, grading, and right-of-way needs. They also emphasized that the public investment would support broader economic development in the area and accommodate a future I-494 interchange. Members asked about long-term ownership and maintenance, and were told the facility would be privately owned, with a developer owning about half and the Minnesota Hockey Hall of Fame nonprofit owning the ice arena portion. Another question raised whether the project would compete with the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame; testifiers said it would instead work in tandem, with collaboration on exhibits and a potential benefit to the Eveleth institution. No vote or formal action was taken in the portion of the meeting shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is going to speed up the city's projects as well.
• project or a public works project occurs, the relocation of those utilities is a major cost.
• What about any other projects?
• Most transportation projects, as we've noted, have a long lead time.
• I note that we have a pretty long lead time on major projects.

Bills: HB3713 , HB3953 , HB4055 , HB4272

Committee: House S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband

Keywords: telecommunications, local exchange companies, universal service fund, rate maintenance, business expansion, broadband access, internet service, multiunit residential properties, urban areas, affordability programs, fiber-optic cables, public land, construction permits, environmental impact, notification requirements, municipal projects, infrastructure, facility relocation, public right-of-way

Transcript Highlights:

• We have two IT projects and one facilities project.
• This project is a 10-year project. We're at year five.
• One project was the um Conent projects.
• </c> budget the Conant project at 18.5. budget the Conant project at 18.5.
• <c> project.

Committee: Senate Capital Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• If this project kind of a test project.
• I think this Stanford Carr project plus the Castle & Cooke project.
• I think this Stanford Carr project plus the Castle & Cooke project.
• </c> this project a reality. Thank you. this project a reality. Thank you.
• </c> towards commercial projects. towards commercial projects.

Bills: HB1604 , HB1713 , HB1722 , HB2270 , HB2401 , HB2515 , HB1979 , HB1593 , HB1743 , HB2122 , HB1756 , HB1837 , HB1729

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1604, which would create an agricultural workforce housing group within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to address shortages of farmworker housing. The department said it supported the bill’s intent but emphasized that the group’s early work should focus on gathering data and surveying farm operators to assess actual demand, to avoid “mission creep.” Testimony from the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Housing Hawaii’s Future, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce was in support, with one witness suggesting a housing advocacy nonprofit be added to the working group for balance. The committee then discussed HB 1713 on school impact fees, which would clarify exemptions for certain affordable housing projects and exempt new residential developments of fewer than 100 units. The Attorney General’s office said the bill should define “low to moderate income households” because that term is not defined in chapter 302A. HHFDC, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and others supported the measure, arguing it would reduce administrative burden and remove barriers to housing. Members questioned whether the bill should instead repeal the school impact fee entirely; supporters said they also favored full repeal but viewed this bill as a more feasible step. The School Facilities Authority also explained that about $28 million in school impact fees had been collected across four districts and none had yet been spent, and discussed how recent nexus requirements limit how the funds can be used. HB 1722, relating to residential condominiums, drew extensive testimony and questioning. HCDA supported the bill and explained that it amends the 99-year leasehold pilot program created by Act 97 of 2023 by reducing owner-occupancy restrictions from 100% of units to 60%, allowing some rental or subleasing flexibility for the owner-occupied units, and permitting up to 40% of units to be sold to qualified residents after being on the market for more than 60 days. HCDA said the original restrictions, combined with rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and competition from nearby projects, made the pilot project difficult to market and finance; it said the changes are needed to make the project feasible and competitive. Supporters including AP Hawaii, Kila LLC, and project representatives said the amendments would help make the demonstration project in Kakaʻako viable. Some members raised concerns that the changes could weaken long-term affordability and questioned why certain ownership language was being deleted if rentals would still be restricted. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• after the project has passed the 90% design threshold.
• projects are typically overly subscribed.
• know of any cities that don't want projects like this to occur.
• making these projects even less feasible.
• up, or the potential of projects are coming up.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government heard several bills focused on housing, utility billing, permitting, oversight, disaster recovery, and traffic safety. AB 2058, by Assemblymember Harropetian, would streamline inspections and fees for factory-built housing by reducing duplicative local review and allowing third-party inspections; supporters said it would cut costs and delays, while the author noted local land-use authority would remain intact. AB 1945, by Assemblymember Hodgwick, would let Lassen Municipal Utility District offer voluntary prepaid electricity accounts without deposits or start-service fees, with consumer protections and electronic notices; municipal utility and power agency representatives supported it. AB 2418, by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, would set timelines for commercial plan review and allow third-party plan checkers for delayed tenant improvement projects; business and property groups supported it, and the bill was narrowed by amendments. AB 2433, by Assemblymember Alvarez, would expand density bonus incentives for for-sale affordable housing; supporters said it could help produce more homeownership opportunities, while labor and local government concerns led to amendments removing ministerial/by-right provisions. AB 2760, by Assemblymember Sharpe Collins, would allow counties with an Office of Inspector General to extend oversight to probation and animal control in San Diego County; the author and county supervisors supported it, but probation officials opposed it as duplicative. AB 2385, by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, would clarify local authority to plan for disaster recovery and create local reconstruction agencies; cities and other supporters said it would improve post-disaster rebuilding. AB 1976, by Assemblymember Hitt, would limit late-stage public process for pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic calming projects and exempt pedestrian malls from CEQA; supporters framed it as a safety streamlining measure, while local government groups raised concerns about reduced community engagement. The committee also adopted the consent calendar for AB 2118 and AB 2728. Final votes were taken after quorum was established: AB 1945 passed 6-0 to the Senate floor; AB 1976 passed 5-1 to the Committee on Transportation; AB 2058 passed 7-0 to Appropriations; AB 2385 passed 6-1 to Emergency Management; AB 2418 passed 7-0 to Judiciary; AB 2433 passed 7-0 to Housing; AB 2760 passed 5-2 to the Senate floor; and the consent calendar was adopted 7-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have 62 of those 495 projects that have been completed. These are shorter-term projects.
• We have a deadline for June 1 of 2026 that all projects must meet a demonstration. projects must meet
• Now, if you'll take your programs right here, we'll go project by project.
• The project has not been. 100%. The project has not been completed.
• Project design completed at 74.59%. The percent of the project construction completed is 33.27%.

Transcript Highlights:

• or fund private or public projects or agencies to build their own projects, or they can be what we call
• for project proposals.
• The construction exemption does not apply to projects on lands covered by water or projects that require
• I'm pretty proud of that project.
• The Local Project Review Act defines a project permit.

Summary: The Local Government Committee met in work session and heard a series of presentations on SEPA, permitting reforms, and building code implementation. Department of Ecology staff gave an overview of the State Environmental Policy Act, explaining its role in state and local decision-making, common exemptions, planned actions, and recent housing-related statutory changes such as transit-oriented development exemptions and SEPA appeals protections for certain local ordinances. Committee members asked about repeated SEPA reviews, cultural and historic resource review, and how SEPA relates to NEPA; Ecology responded that repeated reviews usually occur when proposals change and that programmatic EISs can help front-load analysis. Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections described how recent SEPA exemptions reduced residential review volume and supported more housing permits, and said the city is considering raising thresholds further. The State Building Code Council provided an update on code adoption timelines and legislative tasks tied to the 2024 codes, including single-stair housing, multiplex housing, dwelling unit size, and temporary emergency shelter standards. Council staff said the content of the codes is largely set, but administrative timelines have been delayed, prompting a motion to postpone final adoption while pursuing ways to preserve the planned implementation schedule. Members asked about the timing of code changes and the impact on housing costs, and staff said the legislative topics remain on track for inclusion in the 2024 code package. Committee staff then reviewed recent permitting legislation, including SB 5290’s permit decision deadlines and fee-refund provisions, later bills limiting pre-application meetings and clarifying that building permits are excluded from those timelines, and project-specific changes affecting middle housing, ADUs, lot splits, passive house projects, self-certification, transit-oriented development, and parking requirements. Commerce’s Dave Anderson reported on SB 5290 implementation, including guidance on permit fees, studies on staffing and statewide permitting systems, grants to local governments, and the first annual performance report, which showed mixed results and highlighted the importance of digital tools, clear checklists, staff training, and coordination across departments. Local officials from Issaquah and Kitsap County described their own process improvements, including code updates, optional pre-application meetings, new staffing, reporting systems, and a phased “Two by Six” review model in Kitsap, while also noting challenges from staffing shortages, agency coordination, and the burden of implementing multiple new mandates.