Transcript Highlights:

• It was also very costly, not just the permit fee, but the consultant fees.
• They have a greater permit fee; however, if you spread that permit fee over five years, it provides greater
• They have a greater permit fee.
• And, you know, we are one of the first permits in the five-year permit process.
• permits made the process a lot smoother.

Committees: House Water, Parks and Wildlife , House Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Transcript Highlights:

• So while DTSC is focused on the permit renewal process for Buttonwillow landfill, On the permit renewal
• It's been a number of years since DTSC began reforms on its permitting processes.
• You'll recall SB 158 altered the timelines for beginning the permitting process, really to, for one,
• , but also the permitting process fees, as well as the compliance and implementation-related costs associated
• The regulatory process is very time-consuming and costly, and the permits take forever to get.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on DTSC’s implementation of SB 158 reforms, including enforcement, community engagement, fee stability, the hazardous waste management plan, permitting backlogs, and the Safer Consumer Products program. Senators and Assembly members emphasized protecting overburdened communities and asked how DTSC and the Board of Environmental Safety are using their authority to improve accountability, reduce delays, and address hazardous waste facilities and consumer product chemicals. The hearing also included discussion of extended producer responsibility programs and whether DTSC can support them more efficiently, including through coordination with CalRecycle. DTSC Director Katie Butler said the department is now more transparent, accountable, and fiscally stable, citing stronger enforcement actions, an interactive inspections map, expanded community outreach, and emergency response work on the Los Angeles wildfire cleanup. She said DTSC has made progress on fee reform, the hazardous waste management plan, cleanup grants, permit renewals, and safer consumer products rulemaking, including adding microplastics to the candidate chemical list. Board Chair Andrew Rakestraw said the board has held multiple public meetings and hearings, is working on fee rates and performance metrics, and is revising the hazardous waste management plan after public comment, including removing a proposal to send certain contaminated soil to municipal landfills. He also noted remaining concerns about fee structure, permit delays, and the pace of the safer consumer products program. Public witnesses offered sharply different views. A representative of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance said SB 158 reforms have improved permitting and transparency, but urged more attention to risk-based decision-making, reduced duplication, and possible General Fund support for plan implementation rather than relying only on fees. Earthjustice argued DTSC remains too slow and that communities continue to suffer from long-delayed permits and weak protections, urging the Legislature to take a more active role and to prioritize eliminating hazardous substances rather than minimizing costs. Committee members pressed the witnesses on permit renewals, community impacts, and the pace of the safer consumer products program, while DTSC defended its progress and said further legislative collaboration may be needed on hazardous waste management and emerging waste streams.

Transcript Highlights:

• that they do things other than process our permits.
• that they do things other than process our permits.
• </c><00:49:39.119><c> permitting</c><00:49:39.640><c> processes</c> types of permit permitting processes
• </c> process and do better with permitting process and do better with permitting across<01:15:43.080>
• </c><02:06:24.400><c> you</c> permitting process at the department you permitting process at the department

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:

• The process is initiated with the permit.
• The fire department is a small part of the whole permitting process. They do charge a fee, yes.
• The fee process in the community development and building department, the permit fee, I'm not completely
• What Chief Lorenz said, the fee process in the community development and building department, the permit
• I've applied for permit fees personally.

Committee: Joint Government Finance Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> increase water use permit fees. increase water use permit fees.
• to speed up the permitting process, which is not what this says.
• But, you know, all in all, I do not like the fee increases that are in here and the process.
• But, you know, all in all, I do not like the fee increases that are in here and the process.
• But, you know, all in all, I do not like the fee increases that are in here and the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• The permit restaurant process will cost expensively more.
• Statewide permit fee schedules are not new.
• staff and lower permit fees.
• This is already the law for solar installation permit fees.
• . ...our permitting processes and fees are streamlined so we can meet the state's clean air and clean

Summary: The committee heard several local government-related bills, with testimony focused on permitting, transportation funding, EV infrastructure, and commercial revitalization. AB 1578 by Assembly Member Jackson would require elected local and state officials to take anti-hate speech training through existing sexual harassment training. Supporters said elected officials should understand the impact of their words on hate and democracy; opponents argued the bill lacked a definition of hate speech and could chill protected speech, especially around sex-based issues. AB 2083, also by Jackson, would authorize a regional child care special district serving Moreno Valley and Paris to expand child care facilities and programs for five years. The California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions opposed the bill’s mechanism but said it was working with the author. AB 1693 by Assembly Member Suber would streamline retail tenant improvement permits by extending a process similar to a prior restaurant permitting law, with qualified professional certification and tighter local review timelines. It drew broad support from retail, business, and property groups and no opposition. Assembly Member Gonzalez presented AB 1679, which would create a temporary commercial activation permit for pop-up businesses to operate in vacant storefronts for up to 120 days. Supporters said it would help fill vacancies and lower barriers for small businesses; there was no opposition, and the bill advanced. Gonzalez also presented AB 2418, which would set timelines for nonresidential plan checks and inspections and allow private plan checkers after excessive delay. Business groups supported it as a way to reduce costly delays, while local government groups had no position but continued discussions with the author; the bill advanced with amendments. Assembly Member Shevlin presented AB 1820, which would cap local permit fees for EV charging installations and create a statewide fee schedule. Supporters said fees vary too widely and can deter charger deployment, while cities and counties argued existing law already requires reasonable cost recovery and that the bill could undercut local budgets and public safety review. Assembly Member DeMaio presented AB 1783, which would prohibit state and local mileage taxes or road user charges. Supporters framed it as a defense against a new tax burden, while opponents said studying road user charges is necessary to address declining gas tax revenue and future transportation funding needs. AB 1693, AB 1679, and AB 2418 were moved forward with motions and roll calls; AB 1783 was taken up with a motion and roll call left open, and AB 1820 remained under discussion at the end of the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's there's multiple layers of this particular permitting process and understanding your bill as
• How much time should they think, or put into play, this permitting process to take?
• through the permitting process.
• Thank you so much for educating us all about Yale's permit process.
• Having folks regulate under your permitting process.

Bills: HB1520 , HB1525 , HB1530 , HB1535 , HB2068 , HB2091 , HB2347 , HB2372 , HB2805 , HB2815 , HB2867 , HB3154 , HB3482 , HB3483 , HB3663 , HB3781 , HB3901 , HB3915 , HB4135 , HB4153 , HB4158 , HB4329 , HB4331

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• The permit restaurant process will cost expensively more.
• Statewide permit fee schedules are not new.
• Statewide permit fee schedules are not new.
• staff and lower permit fees.
• This is already the law for solar installation permit fees.

Committee: House Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• The process is initiated with the permit.
• But the city does charge a permitting fee from my understanding. I can't tell you what that fee is.
• pay those fees for permitting and plan reviews?
• The fee process in the community development and build What Chief Lorenz said, the fee process in the
• I've applied for permit fees personally.

Committee: Joint Government Finance Committee

Summary: The committee first received a general fund and revenue update from the Office of Management and Budget. Staff reported that the state started the biennium about $176 million above prior estimates, but year-to-date revenues were now running below legislative forecast, mainly due to lower individual income tax and sales tax collections. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap, the legacy fund continued to grow, and oil revenues were slightly above forecast overall. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing variability, and OMB said agencies would be asked to address potential federal reductions case by case during budget preparation. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analysis materials, followed by a bill draft for a fixed-route city transportation grant program. Testimony from transit officials in Fargo and Minot supported the proposal, saying state aid would help match federal transit funds and support operations, but members raised questions about the funding source, fare structures, and whether the program should be limited to the current four fixed-route cities or allow future eligible cities. Several members asked for more time to study the formula and possible funding options before moving the bill forward. Next, the committee approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to a proposed North Dakota-South Dakota bi-state authority. Staff explained the provision had been unused for about 30 years and that existing law likely already allowed joint powers agreements without the specific language. The committee voted to adopt the repeal bill draft. The Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site then provided an update on uncrewed aircraft system initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and future revenue models. Officials said North Dakota had received FAA approval to operate the radar data pathfinder, had begun replacing non-compliant drones from restricted foreign sources, and was working on phased procurement and cost-recovery plans. Members asked about deadlines, funding, supply-chain issues, and how the system would be used; staff said the federal restrictions were already in effect and that Vantis was being positioned as infrastructure for future beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. Finally, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and on a reentry housing task force. The new facility is planned for the penitentiary grounds, with a reduced estimated cost of about $263 million, 600 beds initially, possible expansion to 732 beds, and completion projected around 2031 if funded in 2027. The reentry housing task force described a data-driven effort to identify housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with the goal of reducing homelessness and recidivism through targeted housing support and possible subsidies. Members asked about staffing, site selection, housing duration, and whether employment and transportation needs would be included in the assessment.

Transcript Highlights:

• inspections; and three, the process for permits that go through the third-party review process.
• or building permit process.
• That means they are exempt from the permitting process.
• On page 10, we show the 12-step process to adopt and the nine-step process to amend an impact fee.
• In terms of impact fees, we have a very long process that David had just mentioned.

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Transcript Highlights:

• We will have tables with permitting fees.
• In our fee process to develop the fees, we are looking at both application fees and annual fees if the
• The fees are roughly split between general permits and individual permits.
• All states with NPDES primacy have permit fees.
• Lemon mentioned, of the 47 other states with permit fees, NPDES program permit fees, the vast majority

Committee: House Water & Natural Resources Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The process is initiated with the permit.
• But the city does charge a permitting fee from my understanding. I can’t tell you what that fee is.
• The fee process in the community development and building department, the permit fee, I’m not completely
• The fee process in the community development and build What Chief Lorenz said, the fee process in the
• I've applied for permit fees personally.

Summary: The committee began with roll call, introductions of a new fiscal analyst and a new member, and approval of the March 19 minutes. The first major presentation was from the Office of Management and Budget on the state’s general fund and special fund status through May. OMB reported general fund revenues were running below the legislative forecast by about $76 million, driven largely by weaker individual income tax and sales tax collections, though the projected ending balance remained positive and above the budgeted level. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap and would transfer excess earnings to the general fund, and the legacy fund balance continued to grow. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing revenue variability. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analyses, followed by discussion of a bill draft for the fixed-route city transportation network study. The draft would create a $15 million general fund grant program with a formula-based distribution to eligible fixed-route transit cities, intended to support operating and capital needs and help match federal transit funds. Transit officials from Minot and Fargo testified in support, explaining local fare and match structures and the difficulty of replacing aging buses and securing federal matching dollars. Several members questioned whether the program should be limited to the current four cities or broadened to future eligible urban areas, and whether local funding sources should be explored further. The committee did not finalize the bill draft at that point and planned to continue discussion at a later meeting. The committee also approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to approval of a bi-state authority with South Dakota, after staff explained that no agreements had ever been implemented and the provision appeared outdated. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried. Later, the Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site presented updates on uncrewed aircraft systems initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and efforts to build a revenue model for Vantis. Test site officials said FAA approval had been secured for the radar data program, replacement of noncompliant drones was underway, and future revenue could come from state and external users once pricing and intellectual property arrangements are finalized. Members asked about Chinese-made drones, supply chain issues, automation, and how the system would manage beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation then presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and a reentry housing study. Officials said the proposed facility would relocate the minimum-security prison to the penitentiary campus, reduce costs from an earlier estimate, and provide more beds and programming space, with construction potentially beginning in 2027 and opening around 2031. They also described staffing needs, the planned move of women to the New England facility, and possible expansion of men’s housing there. The parole and probation chief described a reentry housing task force studying housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with a goal of developing data-driven recommendations for subsidies and support services; a representative from Protection and Advocacy closed by expressing general support for fixed-route and paratransit funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• , planning, and zoning process.
• and hearing process.
• process between the landowner and the county when applying for a development permit.
• for impact fees.
• We recognize the need for a more streamlined refund process for impact fees, and we would like to work

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and heard a series of bills, mostly local claims and growth-management or permitting measures. SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24 were uncontested claims bills providing relief for injuries or damages involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County; each was described as settled or favorably reported by a special master, and each was reported favorably without debate. SB 288, a negotiated bill on rural electric cooperatives, was presented as a clarification to protect co-op authority over generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections; it drew support from industry stakeholders and was reported favorably. SB 830 created a public-records exemption for certain local administrators and their families’ personal information, citing threats against city managers, and it also passed favorably. The committee also considered several land-use and permitting bills. SB 1138 would create a registry of qualified professionals to conduct pre-application review for plats and development, aiming to reduce delays and backlogs; local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, but the bill passed favorably with one no vote. SB 168 expanded public nuisance law to include gambling houses, increased penalties, and authorized attorney’s fees and foreclosure of unpaid fees; it was reported favorably. SB 686 revised the agricultural enclave statute to create a public-hearing process for certain residential projects in urban service areas, with a sunset date later amended to June 30, 2026; conservation and planning groups raised concerns about local planning authority and public participation, but the bill passed favorably. SB 548, a growth-management and impact-fee cleanup bill, clarified plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for impact fees. Local government and development stakeholders testified that it would improve predictability while preserving flexibility, though some sought further refinement on fee increases and refunds; the bill was amended and then reported favorably. SB 1234 addressed building permits and inspections, including permit validity, small-project exemptions, temporary hurricane protection, standardized permit forms, and expanded use of private providers; county officials objected to reduced oversight, while builders and private-provider advocates supported the measure. After testimony and debate, the bill was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, Senator Jones requested to be recorded on several votes, and the committee adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Things like just garden-variety building permits or construction permits are not part of the 5290 process
• It also saves permit fees because builders do not have to pay for plan review.
• and also the permit review stage of the process.
• and also the permit review stage of the process.
• and also the permit review stage of the process.

Committee: Senate Housing

Summary: The committee heard presentations on several housing finance and permitting tools. Chattanooga described its payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) affordable housing program, which ties property tax abatements to the number and affordability level of units provided, using a calculator based on market rents and HUD affordability levels. Senators asked about the 15-year term, auditing, and whether the program was attracting private market-rate developers; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would include 278 units with 42 affordable units and that annual compliance monitoring is conducted. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary housing approach, emphasizing that longer 20-year exemptions helped make projects pencil out and that most recent development has clustered around light rail station areas; city staff said they will study whether the program should be adjusted further and noted the importance of the new state inclusionary housing law. The Department of Commerce and MRSC discussed tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and the CHIP program. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, parks, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, but jurisdictions should only use it when development is likely to occur and the public benefit justifies the investment. On impact fees, Commerce said fees should be proportional to the actual infrastructure demand of a project and based on capital facility plans; it also noted that fee reductions for affordable housing must be backfilled through CHIP. Senators asked for more information on CHIP funding levels, project selection, and how much of it supports affordable housing. Commerce also presented the first annual permit-timelines report under the 2023 permitting reforms, saying 2024 data showed timelines still exceeding statutory goals and that future reports will examine factors such as paper versus electronic processing and local reform efforts. Auburn and Bellevue highlighted local permitting innovations. Auburn said it has moved to fully electronic review, uses MyBuildingPermit.com, has internal performance standards, and offers a stock-plan program that can cut later review to about a week; staff said most stamped plans still require at least two review cycles and that the city is watching how middle-housing code changes affect development. Bellevue described a pilot with GovStream AI to use artificial intelligence for pre-application assistance, document triage, and plan-review support, with the goal of reducing back-and-forth and improving application quality. Finally, Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would finance, build, and manage backyard ADUs for homeowners, with the owner eventually buying out the partner; senators raised questions about rent-setting, management fees, liability, and what happens if a homeowner sells early. The committee also heard from community land trust representatives, who explained how ground leases and resale restrictions keep homes permanently affordable and allow public subsidies to serve multiple generations.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also addresses duplicative permits and fees by. sound permits for restaurants that are simply
• . because they're charging a duplicate fee for the same permit.
• a duplicate fee for the same permit.
• You've got to go through the permitting process inspection process with the municipality And you also
• by streamlining the permitting process. process, SB 1202 speeds up the installation of backup power

Bills: SB264 , SB542 , SB924 , SB1008 , SB1029 , SB1036 , SB1057 , SB1058 , SB1185 , SB1202 , SB1358 , SB1364 , SB1376 , SB1569 , SB1664 , SB1697 , SJR50

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• , planning, and zoning process.
• and hearing process.
• process between the landowner and the county when applying for a development permit.
• We recognize the need for a more streamlined refund process for impact fees.
• We recognize the need for a more streamlined refund process for impact fees, and we would like to work

Bills: S0014 , S0016 , S0024 , S0168 , S0288 , S0548 , S0686 , S0830 , S1138 , S1234

Committee: Senate Community Affairs

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and took up a series of local claims, public records, growth management, permitting, and nuisance bills. It first heard and approved SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24, all uncontested claims bills providing relief related to injuries or settlements involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County. The committee also approved SB 288 on rural electric cooperatives, which narrows statutory language to protect co-op decisions on generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections, and SB 830, which creates a public records exemption for certain personal information of county and city managers and their families due to reported threats against local officials. Members then considered SB 1138 on qualified contractors and development review, which would create a registry of licensed professionals to help local governments process pre-application reviews and plats more quickly. Local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, while private-provider supporters backed the bill; Senator Sharief voted no, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 168, expanding public nuisance law to include gambling houses and increasing penalties, and SB 686 on agricultural enclaves, which revises the enclave process, adds a public hearing path, limits it to certain residential projects in urban service areas, and was amended to change a date to June 30, 2026 before being reported favorably. The committee next approved CS for SB 548 on growth management and impact fees, which clarifies plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for improper fee collections. Testimony reflected support for clearer standards but also concerns about fee increases and refund administration. Finally, SB 1234 on building permits and inspections was reported favorably; it would extend permit validity, exempt some low-value work from permitting, create a statewide residential permit form, speed review timelines, and expand private-provider use, drawing opposition from a Miami-Dade building official who argued for continued local oversight and support from private-provider advocates. Senator Jones requested to be recorded as voting affirmatively on several tabs and negatively on tab 9, and the committee adjourned after all bills were disposed of.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is on liquefied natural gas permit process. The committee substitute for Senate Bill 2037.
• fees and authorize the Railroad Commission to collect permit application fees ranging from $500 to $3,000
• The fee for a waste hauler permit is $100 annually, and so they have to pay $250. $50, $100 fee, and
• So every year they file a $250 fee plus surcharge, and we process their permit, and they're allowed to
• So the intent was to have permit fees to be able to cover that cost. I can appreciate that.

Bills: SB2122 , SB2050 , HB16

Committee: Senate Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• , planning, and zoning process.
• and hearing process.
• process between the landowner and the county when applying for a development permit.
• for impact fees.
• We recognize the need for a more streamlined refund process for impact fees, and we would like to work

Bills: S0014 , S0016 , S0024 , S0168 , S0288 , S0548 , S0686 , S0830 , S1138 , S1234

Committee: Senate Community Affairs

Keywords: negligence, settlement, police conduct, municipal liability, personal injury, compensation, injuries, Miami-Dade County, rural electric cooperatives, energy production, Florida law, energy tariffs, regulation, impact fees, transportation capacity, local government, interlocal agreements, growth management, community planning, extraordinary circumstances

Transcript Highlights:

• Things like just garden-variety building permits or construction permits are not part of the 5290 process
• This also saves cost on permit fees, as they do not have to pay for plan review.
• This will include AI features to speed up and improve our permit process.
• and also the permit review stage of the process.
• For jurisdictions, it makes permitting easier because the process and the product are predictable.

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard presentations on a range of housing finance, permitting, and affordability tools. Chattanooga described its affordable housing PILOT program, which uses a per-unit property tax abatement tied to the rent loss from providing affordable units, with a 15-year term and annual compliance monitoring. Committee members asked about the program’s structure, whether it had been used elsewhere, and who was participating; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would bring 278 units with 42 affordable units and that the model was attracting private market-rate developers. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary zoning approach, emphasizing that longer tax exemption periods and station-area zoning changes had helped spur development, with most current pipeline projects concentrated near light rail stations. The committee also heard from the Municipal Research Services Center and the Department of Commerce on tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and permit timelines. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, while proportional impact fee guidance is intended to help jurisdictions charge fees more closely aligned with actual project impacts. On permit timelines, Commerce presented its first annual report under recent law changes, using 2024 as a baseline year and noting that reported timelines were generally longer than statutory goals; members asked about outliers, paper versus electronic processing, and whether back-and-forth between applicants and staff was driving delays. Commerce said it would follow up with more data, including on CHIP funding and permit reform practices. Several local governments then shared permitting process improvements. Auburn reported relatively short review cycles and described its move to fully electronic permitting, internal performance standards, and a stock plan program that speeds review for repeated home designs. Bellevue described an AI permitting pilot with a local startup to help with pre-application questions, document triage, and plan review, aiming to reduce incomplete applications and revision cycles. Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would help homeowners split lots, finance, build, and manage ADUs, with the homeowner eventually buying out the partner and retaining ownership; committee members asked about rent setting, management fees, and default risk, and staff said they would follow up. The committee also heard brief overviews of community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives as permanent affordability models, with presenters urging continued state and local funding support and policy recognition for these approaches.

Transcript Highlights:

• Look, you've got so many fees and permits and..." "I'm talking about throughout the agency.
• Look, you've got so many fees and permits.
• the various permit fees and permit types that are housed within that function and sought to make informed
• it all into one fee paid on the actual emissions from the permitted air facilities.
• Hopefully the session, we get the legislative authority to increase those permit fees.

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The committee first heard the FY27 executive budget review for Louisiana Economic Development (LED). House Fiscal outlined a $59.4 million LED budget, with major funding from state general fund, self-generated revenue, federal funds, and a marketing dedication, and explained reductions tied largely to the removal of one-time funding and carryforwards. The Secretary highlighted recent economic development results, including major capital investment announcements, job creation, the high-impact jobs program, Louisiana Fast Sites, and efforts to support existing businesses and small business growth. Members repeatedly asked for clearer public-facing materials on the tax and economic benefits of incentives, the use of the entertainment development fund, the structure of the high-impact jobs and Fast Sites programs, and how LED competes with other states. LED also discussed its Storyteller Initiative, regional project distribution, and the role of major events and film-related incentives. The committee then reviewed Louisiana Works’ FY27 budget of $352.7 million. Staff explained that the budget is driven mainly by federal funds and statutory dedications, with changes largely attributable to the One Door to Work Act and the transfer of workforce functions and positions into the department. The Secretary noted a planned $5 million move for the Louisiana STEM Council and a small request for elevator repairs, and members discussed the unemployment insurance trust fund’s improved balance, which lowered employer tax rates and increased benefits. Questions focused on workforce shortages, coordination with LCTCS and other training partners, the new Louisiana Talent Accelerator and workforce modernization efforts, the need for marketing to attract workers back to Louisiana, and remaining gaps in funding for rehabilitation services and disability employment programs. Finally, the committee took up the Department of Conservation and Energy’s FY27 budget of $201.3 million. Staff described decreases tied to the end of the Solar for All grant, lower orphan well spending as prior balances were drawn down, and reductions in some one-time funding and interagency transfers. The Secretary said the department’s reorganization is now largely complete and emphasized a focus on eliminating duplicative functions, strengthening enforcement and permitting, and using available funds more efficiently. Members questioned the reduction in orphan well funding, the impact of the Solar for All repeal, the use of settlement dollars, and the department’s plans for AI-assisted permitting and modernization of the Sunrise database. They also discussed ongoing work on seismic activity in Red River Parish, commercial fishermen’s claims for gear damaged by energy infrastructure, and efforts to improve financial security requirements for operators so future orphan well liabilities are better covered.