Transcript Highlights:

• I'm with Jacobs Engineering Group.
• Denver, Ithaca, and Syracuse have a sidewalk fee. Hillsboro, Oregon, has a sidewalk utility fee.
• Would it be like a sewage fee, a water fee?
• Would it be like a sewage fee, a water fee, that kind of thing, or would it be included in their property
• My name is Aaron Simmons, Douglas County Engineer.

Summary: The committee first heard an update on the Joint Transportation Committee study of transportation impacts if the Lower Snake River dams were removed. WSDOT and Jacobs described the study’s phases, including current work on geology, infrastructure risk, and a total logistics cost model. They explained that the study is examining how freight now moved by barge—especially wheat, fertilizer, and wood—could shift to rail and roads, and they outlined several scenarios ranging from no-dam future conditions to new unit-train terminals, short-line rail options, and a combined “many solutions” scenario. Members asked about irrigation, impacts in Idaho and Oregon, port capacity, emissions, competition, EV trucks, and whether the model could estimate transportation effects if grain volumes decline. The presenters said the study assumes current production levels continue, does not model irrigation changes or broader farm-economics impacts, but does account for transloading costs and can estimate transportation impacts under different volume assumptions. WSU’s independent review team said the model has improved substantially but still needed refinement, especially in routing, road data, and spatial detail, and that stakeholder engagement had been strong though delayed by model development. No votes were taken. The committee then received a presentation on the alternative sidewalk funding study. Staff and consultants said the study is exploring ways local governments could sustainably fund sidewalk maintenance, repair, and new construction, using a statewide survey, interviews, national research, and case studies in eight jurisdictions. They noted sidewalks are important for pedestrian safety and connectivity, but there is no dedicated funding source in Washington, and existing grants and local revenue tools are highly competitive or limited. The consultants highlighted sidewalk fees or utility-style charges as the most promising option to study, while a parcel tax was largely set aside because of state property-tax uniformity concerns. Members asked whether the study would duplicate existing funding or add to current taxes, and how a sidewalk fee would be collected; the consultants said the goal is to expand local options, not mandate adoption, and that fees would likely be billed through utilities rather than property taxes. A preliminary draft report is due December 15, with a final report due in mid-June. Next, staff gave a brief update on the ocean-going vessels study, which is examining shore power and emissions rules for vessels at berth. The presenter explained that federal Clean Air Act rules and California waiver authority create legal limits on how far Washington can go if it wants to adopt similar standards, and that deviations from California’s approach can increase litigation risk. The report will summarize stakeholder outreach and will be presented in draft form at the next JTC meeting. Finally, county engineers from Chelan and Douglas counties began a presentation on county transportation challenges, with the association’s director emphasizing collaboration with state agencies and local partners on issues such as fish passage barriers and infrastructure needs. The county presentation was only beginning when the transcript ended, and no committee action or votes were recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• This also has a fee increase tied to it.
• This account tied to the fee increase.
• There is the Senate park fee increase.
• The Senate proposal does fee increase.
• Um uh to increase the AIS boat fee.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to warships.
• Army Corps of Engineers, Engineers developed credible plans to mitigate future water shortages; they
• Army Corps of Engineers doing a feasibility review of that project.
• Army Corps of Engineers doing a feasibility review of that project.
• I think the reality is the canal is an economic engine; it is also a national security engine.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees by 50%, and alteration of terrain fees are going up 100%.
• as the fees go um they would these fee as the fees go um they would these fee increases<00:36:07.800
• I can't speak to the fees. We haven't raised those fees in some time.
• The bureau that administers the fee does not receive any proceeds from the fees.
• They wanted to do a 10% fee increase, and this is currently a 50% fee increase.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the Department of Environmental Services on proposed changes in House Bill 2 and related technical changes in House Bill 1 tied to the governor’s permitting realignment initiative. The proposal would move environmental review staff from Fish and Game and DNCR to DES to create a more centralized “one-stop shop” for applicants needing DES permits, especially for wildlife and natural heritage reviews. DES said the goal is to speed permitting, support a 60-day review clock, and improve coordination among agencies while keeping the substantive review work in place. Members asked about staffing impacts, the scope of the transferred duties, and whether the change would create redundancy or weaken the other agencies. DES said most of the affected staff work primarily on these reviews, though Fish and Game staff also handle other state and federal reviews, which is why the proposal was adjusted to keep one of the four Fish and Game positions there and move three to DES, along with two positions from DNCR. DES also described a new supervisory position in HB 2 to manage the transferred staff within its land resources bureau. Officials said the reviews would still be done by specialists, but under DES supervision, and that the agencies would continue to coordinate recommendations on species impacts and mitigation. The committee also discussed fee increases intended to offset costs, including a 50% increase in wetlands fees and a 100% increase in alteration-of-terrain fees, with the department saying the changes would cover the new positions. Members raised concerns about impacts on private homeowners, possible incentives to work without permits, and whether fines should be used more as a revenue source or for mitigation. DES said wetlands permits are roughly split between homeowner-related and commercial projects, that permit-by-notification already creates a two-tier structure for smaller projects, and that enforcement relies partly on public complaints and online permitting systems. The department also said most fines currently go to the general fund and vary widely year to year, with about $75,000 budgeted, and that the proposal would also create permit-by-notification authority for alteration-of-terrain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet, mirroring language in Senate Bill 110. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am WSDOT State Design Engineer. My name is Mark Gaines. I am WSDOT State Design Engineer.
• have high transportation impact fees.
• An OGV typically has two engines. The first is the main engine, and that propels the vessel.
• An OGV typically has two engines. The first is the main engine, and that propels the vessel.
• But that engine is turn. main engine, and that propels the vessel.

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from WSDOT on balancing uncertainty in capital program estimates and cash flow management. WSDOT explained the differences between design-bid-build and design-build delivery, its tiered risk-assessment process by project size, and how it uses base estimates, inflation, and risk modeling to set budgets. Staff said design-bid-build estimates are generally accurate within about 1% across the program, while design-build projects carry much wider uncertainty and are better communicated as ranges; they cited a P85 budget approach and noted that large, complex projects can be affected by market competition and long procurement timelines. Members asked about the Columbia River Bridge cost growth and about value engineering, and WSDOT said it uses value engineering but has limited scope to cut costs because of project requirements and policy mandates. Troy Swing also discussed cash flow, noting that a few large projects can significantly affect biennial funding needs, and said a risk pool would not reduce overall program risk but could help manage timing if paired with appropriation and cash-flow controls. The committee then received the final presentation in the WSDOT Project Delivery and Innovative Practices study from HKA Global. The consultant said WSDOT’s estimating practices are generally robust and recommended improving transparency by presenting budget authorizations as ranges or estimate classes, better tracking estimate growth over time, and adjusting advertisement timing to avoid competing lettings. The report also discussed surety bonding, suggesting the legislature consider restoring authority for reduced bonding on select large design-build projects or using phased bonding and alternative securities. On indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting, the consultant said current job order contract rules are restrictive and recommended legislative changes to make such tools more usable, especially for smaller tasks and to help use unspent funds more flexibly. The committee also heard a follow-up presentation on transit-oriented development policy recommendations tied to HB 1491. The Urban Institute’s Yona Freemark said Washington has been a national leader on TOD but that housing construction, especially in the Puget Sound, has slowed sharply since 2022. He said rising construction costs, high financing costs, and local tax and rent conditions are making many TOD projects infeasible, and recommended that the state fill infrastructure funding gaps around stations, revisit MFTE affordability requirements, consider minimum rather than average density requirements near transit, and create a statewide system to track TOD outcomes such as affordability, gentrification, and transit access. Members questioned the study’s developer interviews, the role of rent control and crime, property tax assumptions, and parking needs; the presenter said the study included five private developers, that rent control was not part of the study scope, and that parking was included in the model assumptions. Finally, the committee began a presentation on regulating emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth. Staff and consultants described California-style at-berth rules, which require shore power or equivalent emissions controls so ships can shut off diesel auxiliary engines while docked. The study is examining vessel traffic, emissions reductions, implementation costs, labor and operational needs, and possible effects on port competitiveness and cargo diversion. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not an engineer.
• Consider Carnegie Mellon’s National Robotics Engineering Center, NREC, in Pittsburgh.
• Our engineers sort of looked at this. We'd like to collaborate on this.
• We put a $5 per year cap on the fee.
• maximum fee that a facility would have to pay.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 2265, which would provide the Fargo National Cemetery with up to a $3 million line of credit to help fund improvements such as indoor bathrooms, parking, a family gathering area, an office, a hearse garage, and a veterans gallery. Supporters said the cemetery has expanded rapidly since 2019, has already conducted about 1,000 burials, and needs better facilities for families and the Honor Guard; they also said the project would be subject to federal VA approval and, once completed, would be taken over by the VA. Members raised questions about the project’s cost, timing, funding sources, whether the bill should be a grant instead of a line of credit, and whether a chapel should be specifically included. No vote was taken on SB 2265 during the excerpt. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2230, which would have the Secretary of State mail active voters a guide on ballot measures at least 45 days before an election, with objective summaries, fiscal impacts, and arguments for and against each measure. Secretary of State Michael Howe said the office already receives many questions about ballot measures and would post the same information online and at polling places, while emphasizing the need to keep the material objective and consistent with election-law restrictions. Members generally supported the idea as a voter-education tool, and the committee adopted a due pass motion on SB 2230 by a 19-0 vote. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2256, which would provide one-time state support for the NDSU Research and Technology Park in Fargo to expand its role in commercialization, robotics, precision agriculture, and defense-related technology. Park CEO Brenda Weiland explained that the park is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit spun out of NDSU, governed by a board with both university and industry representation, and that the new model is intended to bridge the gap between research and market-ready products without competing directly with private industry. Members asked about ownership, intellectual property, the planned partnership with Carnegie Mellon’s robotics center, and how the park would use the funding; the discussion focused on contracts, licensing, and the park’s intent to build technical capacity and attract companies. The excerpt ends before any vote on SB 2256.

Transcript Highlights:

• according to a tiered fee structure. according to a tiered fee structure.
• These fees would be lower than those in the current fee structure.
• existing tiered fee schedule.
• than the current fee of $13,500. than the current fee of $13,500.
• engineer consultant. engineer consultant.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House returned from recess and took up S. 208, a bill on standards for law enforcement identification. The House Judiciary Committee explained that it had rewritten the bill into a model-policy approach focused on Vermont state and local agencies, rather than imposing direct requirements on all law enforcement, because of constitutional and preemption concerns raised by a recent Ninth Circuit decision. The amended bill would direct the Law Enforcement Advisory Board to develop a statewide policy on officer identification and facial coverings by July 2027, require agencies to adopt a consistent policy by October 1, 2027, and deem agencies to have adopted the model policy if they do not act. The committee reported the bill favorably on a 6-5 vote. Members then debated an amendment offered by Representatives Berbeco and McGill to restore federal officers to the bill. Supporters argued that public authority should not be anonymous, that visible identification is necessary for transparency, accountability, and public trust, and that the bill should apply to federal agents as well as state and local officers. They said the amendment included exemptions for undercover work, tactical teams, protective equipment, and safety concerns, and argued Vermont should not wait for courts to resolve every constitutional question before acting. Opponents on the Judiciary Committee said the language remained likely unconstitutional and could jeopardize the bill’s passage; the committee had found the amendment unfavorable on an 8-1 vote. The floor debate continued with several members speaking in favor of the amendment, including arguments that other states have adopted similar requirements and that Vermont should lead on the issue. One member raised a point of order that was not sustained, and the Speaker ruled federal authority relevant to the question. The transcript ends while debate on the amendment was still underway, after a request for a roll-call vote was granted, with no final floor vote on the amendment shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and especially why there's so much variability across the state in what you charge for a fee.
• And it had to be engineered. There's not a water source around. And it was a really...
• It had to be engineered.
• Additional measures to avoid fee refunds: we have reasonable fees.
• And then there’s a base hourly rate that we use to establish those permit fees.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Army Corps of Engineers. Page 7.
• We have special counsel on Army Corps of Engineers contracts. engineers who are working on the design
• It's to complete the engineering design of a certain segment.
• And I don't consider an engineer a consultant. That's a little different.
• We would lower some fees for those licensed.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They're also economic engines, job creators, workforce pipelines for our state.
• They are the engines of opportunity and innovation.
• And the last thing I will say that was brought up as well: the pressure on fees.
• We have architects, engineers, construction managers.
• He's trying very hard not to raise fees. There's a different model.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its second public hearing of the 194th General Court on capital investments in higher education, focusing primarily on H.54, the Bright Act, along with H.1426/S.949 on green and healthy public colleges and universities and deferred maintenance, and H.1424 on capital investment in Gateway Cities. Chairs and administration officials framed the hearing as a response to aging campus infrastructure, climate goals, workforce needs, and federal pressures on higher education, and explained that testimony would be taken from pre-registered speakers in person and virtually. University of Massachusetts leaders strongly supported the Bright Act, describing large deferred maintenance backlogs, aging buildings, and the need to decarbonize campuses while modernizing research and teaching facilities. UMass officials said the bill would help keep tuition and fees lower by reducing the need for campuses to finance capital work themselves, and argued that the investments would improve competitiveness, support research, and create construction jobs. Governor Healey, Lieutenant Governor Driscoll, Secretary of Education Tuttweiler, and Secretary of Administration and Finance Gorzkowicz also backed the bill, saying it would leverage Fair Share surtax revenues for a proposed $2.5 billion in campus investments plus additional targeted grants, and that it would support affordability, economic growth, and climate resilience. Committee members asked about the balance between deferred maintenance and decarbonization, the role of grant programs versus direct spending, the impact on tuition and fees, and how the plan would help campuses respond to federal cuts such as NIH and NSF funding. Administration officials said the proposal was designed to be phased in quickly, with some projects ready to start immediately and others taking longer, and that the grant programs would be structured to include all campuses equitably. They also said the plan would build on an existing financing model similar to the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and could help campuses avoid future tuition increases tied to capital costs. Additional testimony came from MassBay Community College, where President David Podell and recent nursing graduate Deanna Cavazos described the benefits of a new Framingham campus building and said community colleges need modern labs, better planning capacity, and deferred maintenance support to serve the enrollment growth from MassReconnect and MassEducate. State university leaders, including President Mary Grant, President Linda Thompson, and President John Keenan, said their campuses face outdated classrooms, insufficient electrical capacity, and aging facilities, and urged passage of the Bright Act as a long-overdue investment in student success and workforce preparation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We want to know that the water and sewer tap fees, the sewer fees, the stormwater runoff fees, those
• Impact fees. Wow.
• And so they are charged—it’s called a GRP fee, a groundwater reduction program fee.
• One's a base fee and one's a volumetric fee.
• On the wastewater side, you see your wastewater fee, you see your surface water fee.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Beside state appropriations in tuition and fees.
• If we were to look at increasing out of state fees.
• Potential changes to many of the student fees are also dictated by laws relative to how much a fee can
• While fees over offi budgets could remain the same.
• As I mentioned, if one fee were increase while another fee was decrease while we have this authority

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then Corps of Engineers, if you've got a body of water.
• And to touch on engineers, that is a challenge as well.
• I think we've seen a decrease in people going into engineering.
• But here in the Tri-Cities, finding engineering workforce is a very large concern.
• That said, we are still concerned that there are some conditions in which impact fees and other fees

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then there is a percentage fee that, say— Across it, and then there is a percentage fee that, say
• to borrow for the engineering and planning and so on at once. they have their projects engineered and
• Counties and cities could decide what that fee could be. I mean, it could be a fee on haircuts.
• Counties and cities could decide what that fee could be. I mean, it could be a fee on haircuts.
• fee, and then they put a system fee on top that they kind of glean off of that.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• We have an engines manufacturing operation in Huntsville, Alabama.
• We have engines manufacturing. We manufacture engines for United Launch Alliance, New Shepard.
• We have a whole family of engines.
• Yes, senators, we test rocket engines right here in Washington.
• It is a statewide economic engine. Next slide.

Summary: The committee first heard a work session on cryptocurrency kiosks from the Department of Financial Institutions and Spokane City Councilmember Paul Dillon. DFI described crypto kiosks as licensed money transmission terminals that allow cash purchases of virtual currency, and said the main concern is fraud: scammers often pressure victims, especially older adults, to deposit cash into kiosks and send it to wallets controlled by organized crime. DFI cited a sharp increase in kiosk volume, nationwide fraud complaints and losses, and said Washington currently has licensing and disclosure rules but lacks transaction and fee limits. The department said it is seeking stronger disclosures, a $1,000 daily transaction limit, and a fee cap. Spokane described its unanimous ordinance banning new kiosks and removing existing ones after local scam reports, and members asked about how the machines work, whether the fraud is in the hardware or the transaction, and whether stronger warnings or screening could help. The committee then reviewed home equity sharing agreements, or CHISAs, based on a report by Mariana Amaram and testimony from DFI and industry representatives. The report found that CHISAs provide homeowners a lump sum in exchange for a share of future home value or appreciation, with no monthly payments, but that consumers often struggle to understand the products and settlement calculations. The report said the market has grown quickly in Washington, that costs can be hard to predict, and that early uncapped contracts could produce very high settlement amounts, especially during periods of rising home prices. DFI said it views these products as mortgage loans and is moving forward with rulemaking, including counseling and clearer disclosures, while industry witnesses said the products are equity-based rather than debt-based and asked for tailored regulation. Members discussed the need for better consumer education, clearer payoff schedules, and whether the products should be treated as mortgages or a separate category. The final panel focused on Washington’s space economy, with presentations from Amazon Leo, Blue Origin, Stoke Space, Space Northwest, and Green River College. Speakers highlighted major in-state investments in satellite manufacturing, launch systems, and workforce training, including Amazon Leo’s Redmond and Kirkland facilities, Blue Origin’s Kent headquarters, and Stoke Space’s Kent manufacturing and Moses Lake test site. Space Northwest presented data showing the sector’s growing economic footprint, high-wage jobs, and regional clusters in Kent and Redmond, and urged more workforce programs, incentives, infrastructure support, and a state space commission. The companies emphasized local hiring, apprenticeship and certification programs, and the role of Washington’s aerospace supply chain in supporting the broader space industry. No votes were taken during the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• and also support cruise industry. green fee and climate u mitigation, green fee and climate u mitigation
• <00:22:18.720> is these issues that the green fee is these issues that the green fee is trying
• this revenue to align with the green fee this revenue to align with the green fee objectives<00:
• fee, and we collect those revenues.
• 00:29:02.320> to<00:29:02.559> our fee which is the fee to tie up to our fee which is the

Bills: SB2816

Keywords: enterprise zones, economic development, innovation enterprise, job creation, Hawaii, 910, house, all

Summary: The committees heard House Bill 2195, HD1, which would replace the existing transit accommodations tax on cruise ships with a per-passenger infrastructure fee collected by the Department of Transportation and deposited into a new cruise ship special fund. Testimony included support from Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings and comments from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii warning that the bill should remain narrowly tied to harbor-related uses to avoid potential Tonnage Clause issues. The Department of Transportation testified that cruise-related harbor work includes pier repairs, dredging, terminal upgrades, and shore power, and said a dedicated revenue stream would help prioritize cruise infrastructure needs. The Attorney General’s office said it had submitted written comments but did not address questions about the litigation or constitutional background. Members questioned whether the new special fund was necessary when the existing harbor special fund already finances similar improvements. DOT said the funds overlap and suggested the bill could be amended to use the harbor special fund with a separate cruise subaccount, while still preserving a dedicated revenue stream and separate accounting. DOT also said it currently collects port entry, dockage, and per-head passenger fees from cruise ships and that existing cruise-related expenditures from the harbor special fund have not been challenged. The chair ultimately recommended moving HB 2195 forward as introduced, while continuing discussions about the fund structure and awaiting further clarity from the Attorney General and DOT. In decision-making, the committees voted to pass HB 2195, HD1, as is. They also voted to pass House Bill 916, HD1, relating to the low-income housing tax credit, which would allow certain state low-income housing tax credits to offset state transient accommodations taxes in the same county and make Act 129 of 2016 permanent. Both the Committee on Tourism and the Committee on Economic Development and Technology adopted the chair’s recommendation to pass HB 916, HD1, unamended. The hearing was then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The inspection, reinspection flat fee would be a cost per trip, and then the fees established by the
• , and it is a fee-for-service.
• It is a fee-for-service.
• , fees, fees.
• Permit fees were within 10 or 15%. I.E., a $200,000 building, the permit fee was really close.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Labor Committee heard Senate File 560, a bill to require the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to establish a cost-per-square-foot valuation for residential building permits. Senator Dornink said the measure is intended to make permit fees more fair, reasonable, transparent, and predictable, and to reduce housing costs by limiting large differences in permit fees between municipalities. He said the bill would be sent to the Housing Committee without recommendation, and members discussed but did not act on a related amendment that would have shifted plan review and inspection fees to hourly and trip-based charges and made fee information publicly available. Testimony from Housing First Minnesota supported the bill’s goal, arguing that Minnesota’s housing shortage and high new-home prices make it important to reduce inefficiencies in the permitting system. The witness said permit valuations are often increased by cities, leading to higher costs for homebuyers, and cited examples of large fee differences between municipalities and claims of overcollection. He said some other states, including Texas and Wisconsin communities, use square-footage-based approaches. A League of Minnesota Cities representative opposed the amendment language and cautioned that trip charges and hourly billing would make fees less certain, could raise costs, and would be especially burdensome in Greater Minnesota; he said current valuation-based fees better reflect the actual cost and complexity of service and can be appealed if disputed. A representative of the Association of Minnesota Building Officials also raised concerns about the amendment, saying building departments provide consultations, inspections, plan review, and other services beyond a single trip, and that trip charges would not fit a responsive fee-for-service model. He said the current valuation system helps cover the full range of permitting work, though he acknowledged that a consistent square-foot valuation standard could improve transparency and reduce disputes over project value. Committee members asked about other states’ approaches and the scope of the bill, and the discussion emphasized that the proposal applies to one- and two-family dwellings.

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes an inspection and supervision fee, as well as application fees.
• Currently, utility fees go into the general fund.
• And right now you said that the fees that you are.
• The fees would go into the fund.
• Thank you, State Engineer Anderson.

Transcript Highlights:

• The engineering fee on it is 10.77%. So, it works out to be almost a million, 820,000.
• The engineering<00:21:01.840> fee<00:21:02.159> on<00:21:02.320> it<00:21:02.559
• engineering fee on it is 10.77%. engineering fee on it is 10.77%.
• fees but often times the the engineering fees for<00:21:37.760> projects<00:21:38.480> like
• <00:22:14.640> fees would look like the engineering fees would look like the engineering fees

Keywords: 00:01 Call to Order and Roll Call 01:49 Approval of Minutes 02:06 Information Items 03:48 Project Rpt from Finance and Admin Cabinet 14:38 Lease Rpt from Finance and Admin Cabinet 18:50 OFM – Ky Infrastructure Authority 26:40 OFM – Cabinet for Economic Development 31:50 Office of Financial Management 40:40 Remaining 2025 Meeting Dates 41:25 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The meeting opened with prayer and a quorum call, then the committee approved the prior meeting minutes. Staff reported several informational items, including University of Kentucky medical and research equipment purchases, school district debt issues, leasehold improvements, and Kentucky Community and Technical College System bond allocations. The committee then approved a line-item appropriation increase of $350,000 in federal funds for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources’ Cumberland Forest Conservation Program, along with two Department of Military Affairs projects: the Ashland Readiness Center window replacement and the MATES HVAC replacement at Fort Knox. It also approved four larger maintenance-pool projects without further action: HVAC and smoke evacuation work at the Kentucky State Penitentiary, HVAC and hot water tank replacements at Oakwood, a Green Bank energy-savings performance project across state facilities, and roof replacement at Lake Barkley Lodge. Members asked about the prison project, the roof procurement process, and whether minority-owned firms receive special bidding preference; staff said capital projects are awarded through open low-bid procurement with qualification and warranty requirements, and that minority participation is preferred but not a bidding criterion. Two lease modifications were approved for Franklin County agencies: an expansion and renovation for the Auditor of Public Accounts and a downsizing and renovation for the Kentucky Workers Compensation Funding Commission. The committee also approved Kentucky Infrastructure Authority items, including a Monticello sewer loan, several Cleaner Water Program grants and reallocations, and a House Bill 1 water grant that required no action. Members questioned engineering costs and were told the KIA board reviews technical details and anomalies before approval. Finally, the committee approved six economic development grants: one EDF grant for V Simple in Jefferson County and five KPDI EDF grants for projects in Breckinridge, Erlanger, Todd, and Washington counties. The last action item was approval of Western Kentucky University’s up-to-$10 million general receipts revenue bond issue for athletic facilities. An informational Kentucky Housing Corporation multifamily bond item prompted concern from members about rising per-unit costs for affordable housing, and they requested further explanation from the housing corporation at a future meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like our traffic engineer position and our assistant traffic engineer.
• Engineers.
• The PPL fee, Petroleum Delivery Fee, something like that.
• Chair, Representative David Quintana, Chief Engineer, DOT.
• I'm a District 3 Engineer. So...