Transcript Highlights:

• Multi-fee payers fee schedule. Thank you.
• That's a small mailer fee program, and this proposal has no impact on those existing fees. fees.
• Again, it's the application and site readiness review fees, which are one-time fees, and then a fee associated
• I'm concerned about the 1% fee that DHCS is recommending for the annual maintenance and operation fees
• So I have deep concerns both. with the sanctions, the administrative fees, and the operating fees, and

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><00:22:59.880> adequately developer in a development is adequately developer in a development
• and legal fees.
• and legal fees.
• and legal fees.
• and legal fees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• fee schedule.
• fee schedule.
• fee schedule.
• fee schedule.
• develop a development with an HOA, should be private property rights.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 995, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• to really see if it would match the economics of development of a site, so that we didn't develop rules
• Impact fees, I think we've heard some of these on this list already today, but impact fees.
• impact fees.
• Throughout our work with other developments, impact fees in general continue to come up.
• And those who develop now pay a late-comer fee for those improvements.

Summary: The committee held a work session on form-based codes, child care facility siting, and street standards/frontage improvements. On form-based codes, Commerce’s Dave Anderson explained that these codes emphasize building form, orientation, and the public realm more than traditional use and density tables, and that they are typically applied in specific districts rather than citywide or statewide. Lacey’s Vanessa Dolby described the city’s Woodland District code, developed through community charrettes, fiscal and market analysis, and subdistrict-specific standards to create a walkable downtown. She said the approach has helped produce a more desirable built environment and more flexibility in permitted uses, but also noted it can be less user-friendly for applicants and still requires some use restrictions; both presenters said a hybrid approach is often best. The committee then heard from DCYF and multiple providers about barriers to opening child care facilities. DCYF officials said Washington has more than 6,500 licensed providers and that a new pre-licensing support team is helping applicants navigate licensing, but local zoning, building, fire, parking, utility, and occupancy requirements still create delays and confusion. Testifiers described long permitting timelines, inconsistent local interpretations, costly upgrades, and utility hookup delays; one Yakima provider said county requirements, a floodplain-related elevation certificate, and a private well issue stopped her in-home child care proposal, while others described traffic impact fees, parking mandates, and zoning barriers that made projects infeasible. Enterprise Community Partners highlighted examples of successful local reforms, including fee waivers, expedited permitting, and zoning changes in several cities, and DCYF said it is working toward a 2026 action plan and a resource guide for providers. In the final section, planners and developers discussed how street standards and frontage improvement requirements can undermine infill and middle housing. Poulsbo’s planning manager said current standards were designed for greenfield subdivisions and often force costly curb, gutter, sidewalk, stormwater, and utility upgrades on small infill sites, sometimes adding tens of thousands of dollars and causing projects to be abandoned. A Seattle-based developer made similar points about small middle-housing projects being burdened by frontage work, curb ramps, buried standards, and EV-ready parking requirements that can trigger expensive undergrounding. Committee members asked about possible state-level changes, including whether child care should be treated as an essential public facility and whether parking requirements had already been reduced; one senator noted that minimum parking requirements for child care facilities were eliminated in prior legislation, with implementation phased in over the next few years.

Transcript Highlights:

• financing, add costs to development. financing, add costs to development.
• fees that we see having been developed fees that we see having been developed in<00:04:51.360>
• for this kind of development?"
• for this kind of these kind of fees for this kind of development?"
• bring these costs of these fees down. bring these costs of these fees down.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , you're still allowed to do new fees.
• new fees.
• a fee or exactions.
• Because transfer taxes reduce housing development, they can also reduce the development of affordable
• Specifically, this bill increases the first-page fee on recorded documents from $10 to $15 and the fee

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• the fee fair to make sure that the fee the fee fair to make sure that the fee is<02:44:29.359>
• That distinction is very clear: bonds, user fees, and taxes versus user fees.
• And the difference between a tax and a fee is that a fee directly benefits the person paying the fee.
• And the difference between a tax and a fee is that a fee directly benefits the person paying the fee.
• And the difference between a tax and a fee is that a fee directly benefits the person paying the fee.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Next up, we have the Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi. fees in one of the polls a visitor was fees in one of
• positively on the additional impact fees positively on the additional impact fees that<00:24:59.600
• <00:26:52.360> and progressive tax rental car fees and progressive tax rental car fees and
• assessed parks and other taxes and fees assessed parks and other taxes and fees assessed on<00
• it wouldn't impact a resort fee it wouldn't impact a resort fee collected<00:40:09.520> at

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the House Committees on Tourism and Water and Land was held on March 20, 2025, on SB 1396 SD3 HD1, which would raise transient accommodations tax revenues beginning in 2027, impose a $20 per-night tax on stays booked through loyalty or rewards points, and dedicate funds to DLNR for natural resource protection, management, and restoration. The Office of the Governor, DLNR, DBEDT, the Hawaii State Energy Office, Tax Department, Hawaiian Home Lands, HI-EMA, the Climate Advisory Team, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, HCDA, the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force, Resource Legacy Fund, KUA, and the Hawaii Tourism Authority all testified in support or with comments, generally emphasizing the need for dedicated funding for environmental stewardship, resilience, wildfire and climate preparedness, and community-based projects. Several supporters cited polling showing broad visitor willingness to pay additional fees to protect Hawaiʻi’s resources, and DLNR and the Attorney General noted the bill aligns with broader state land-management and fire-safety priorities. Opposition came from the Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi and the Maui Chamber of Commerce, which argued the bill unnecessarily raises the TAT, places more burden on visitors and visitor-dependent businesses, and could harm Maui’s still-recovering economy. The Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaiʻi initially marked opposition but then said it had misunderstood the bill’s relationship to another measure and asked to resend testimony. Expedia Group did not oppose the TAT increase itself but raised operational concerns about the new tax on loyalty-point redemptions, calling it novel and difficult to administer. The American Hotel Lodging Association and Hawaiʻi Hotel Alliance were listed as having no comments present. Testifiers also suggested amendments, including dedicating the revenues to a special fund, ensuring community grants, and clarifying administrative provisions. One testifier urged the bill be used to fund hurricane shelters and stronger building standards, while another emphasized that the measure should support people and disaster resilience as well as environmental protection. During questions, members asked for the polling methodology and for a breakdown of current TAT allocations; staff indicated they could share the survey memo and began identifying existing statutory remittances. No vote or final committee action was taken during the excerpted portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Fees will be annual. The CCB may prorate fees over a longer period of time.
• Development Authority. Development Authority.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate Bill 323, suspending the rules to consider it immediately. The bill was described as a broad agricultural measure with committee amendments and fiscal implications, and it was reported favorably by the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee, Ways and Means, and Appropriations. Members outlined sections dealing with milk market corrections, farm-to-school language, repeal of the obsolete pest control compact, pesticide applicator licensing changes, seed law updates, the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program, hemp regulation, and CAFO-related provisions. The Agriculture committee reported the bill out 7-0-1, and the effective date was described as July 1, 2026, except for the hemp provisions, which would take effect upon passage. Much of the discussion focused on the hemp sections. Supporters said the bill updates Vermont law to reflect federal changes and shifts hemp oversight from the Agency of Agriculture to the Cannabis Control Board. The hemp provisions would create registration and licensing requirements for hemp producers, processors, and certain hemp products; set fees; authorize testing, inspections, stop-sale orders, and administrative penalties; and allow rulemaking on product standards, labeling, insurance, additives, and age restrictions. Speakers said the changes were intended to help Vermont’s hemp industry maintain access to banking, insurance, and interstate commerce while improving consumer safety and regulatory clarity. Other agricultural provisions were also explained in detail. The bill would clarify milk producer hearing rights, update farm-to-school grant/contract language, remove outdated pest-control compact language, and adjust pesticide applicator exam and fee rules, including removing the limit on retakes and eliminating certain government applicator fees. It would also modernize seed labeling and definitions, transfer the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program into a new statutory structure under VEDA, and make conforming cross-reference changes in tax and cannabis fund statutes. The final sections would add a CAFO permit working group and require consultant training for state agencies on CAFO inspections, with those provisions contingent on future funding. Ways and Means noted the bill’s fee changes could affect state revenues, including an estimated hemp-related impact of roughly $10,000 to $90,000, though the exact effect was uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then there is a percentage fee that, say— Across it, and then there is a percentage fee that, say
• 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.
• A lot of entities use system fees, like Lane County, where it's kind of a tack-on: they develop a disposal
• 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:

• These changes to the hazardous waste generator fee have had a significant impact on development and have
• The hazardous waste generator fee have had a significant impact on development and have increased costs
• delays in the development process.
• In some cases, developers had to pay the fee twice, stopping projects in their tracks.
• The issue is not simply the fee, but the unanticipated increase in fees without a cap.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation heard several bills focused on transit funding, veterans’ tax relief, clean energy incentives, housing development costs, and tax conformity. SB 63 would authorize a Bay Area regional sales tax measure for transit agencies facing fiscal shortfalls; supporters said it was needed to avoid major service cuts, while the California Taxpayers Association opposed it on Proposition 13/218 concerns. SB 56 would exclude veterans’ disability compensation from income calculations for the disabled veterans’ property tax exemption, and SB 296 would expand property tax relief for 100% disabled veterans and certain surviving spouses; both drew broad veterans’ support. SB 86 would extend and expand the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority sales and use tax exemption program, including fusion energy, and SB 302 would conform state tax law to federal clean energy credit monetization provisions; both were backed by industry, labor, and clean energy advocates. SB 328 would cap Department of Toxic Substances Control fees on contaminated-soil remediation for infill and master-planned housing projects, with housing groups arguing the current fee structure can make projects infeasible. SB 711 would update California’s tax conformity date to January 1, 2025 to reduce complexity and inconsistencies with federal law, and was supported by tax professionals and business groups. Several bills were held or sent to suspense, while others advanced with amendments. After quorum was established, SB 63 passed the committee 4-2 and SB 86, SB 302, SB 328, and SB 711 were referred to suspense, with SB 86 and SB 302 later approved out of suspense with amendments. SB 56 was held in committee, SB 296 was made a two-year bill, and SB 284 and SB 723 were held. The committee also approved a number of additional suspense-file bills, including SB 293, SB 359, SB 419, SB 587, SB 603, SB 663, SB 710, and SB 785, while SB 591 was approved with amendments and SB 353 was made a two-year bill. The hearing concluded with the committee adjournment after final roll calls and bill actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:30:27.679> G Balden um the Community Development G Balden um the Community Development
• and we're happy to work with developers and we're happy to work with developers<00:42:04.640> to<
• <00:42:50.240> would accommodated um many developers would accommodated um many developers
• resident asked about the adjuster's fee resident asked about the adjuster's fee he<01:26:21.520>
• <01:29:49.679> high up ho fees HOA fees to historically high up ho fees HOA fees to historically

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You mentioned the fees.
• That’s a separate fee, interchange... ...That’s a separate fee.
• , not the processor fee, not the acquiring fee, just that.
• They publish fee schedules, which have hundreds of categories of fee rates for interchange fees.
• other fee that they charge—interest rates or late fees or things like that—each bank sets its own fee

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on several bills focused on financial security, banking regulation, and payment-card fees. Treasurer Deborah Goldberg supported the Massachusetts baby bonds proposal (H. 48) and also endorsed bills on matched savings (H. 1158/S. 737) and retirement planning/Secure Choice (H. 1143/S. 722), arguing these measures would help address wealth inequality, build assets, and improve retirement readiness. Supporters of baby bonds included policy experts and health advocates from Children’s Health Watch and Boston Medical Center, who said early-life asset building could improve long-term economic and health outcomes for children in low-income families. AARP also urged passage of the retirement planning bill, citing the large share of private-sector workers without access to an employer retirement plan. Representative Donato testified for H. 1143, describing it as a voluntary retirement-savings opportunity for workers at small employers. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3933, concerning the Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance Corporation, from former Bank Commissioner Mike Hanson, who defended the state’s full deposit insurance system for credit unions and savings institutions as a longstanding consumer-protection model. The Massachusetts Bankers Association raised concerns about the bill’s technical provisions and broader credit union/bank competitive issues, while the Cooperative Credit Union Association supported related legislation allowing modest compensation for credit union directors (S. 821/H. 1338) and flexibility for state financial institutions to grow through partnerships (S. 723). Bankers opposed those credit union bills, arguing they would upset a level playing field and blur long-standing distinctions between banks and credit unions. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1259/S. 688, which would prohibit card interchange fees on the tax and gratuity portions of restaurant transactions. Restaurant owners and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association testified in favor, saying the fees are a significant and growing expense, especially as most customers now pay by card; they argued the bills would save restaurants money without affecting state revenue. Credit union, banking, and payments-industry representatives opposed the bills, saying interchange helps fund fraud protection and payment infrastructure, that the proposal would create compliance burdens and likely litigation, and that it would mainly affect Massachusetts-chartered institutions while national banks could be preempted. Committee members noted that a commission on payment-card fees is being established and said the issue would be studied further. The hearing also included support for a separate bill on virtual credit cards for dental providers, with dentists saying automatic virtual-card payments impose hidden processing fees and fraud risks.

Transcript Highlights:

• should be assessed on, how to calculate the fee amount, the process for collecting the fee, and where
• The report outlines a range of options associated with the fee.
• And then we also plan that if there was a fee, any fee collected would be distributed as grants.
• It says that the fee may not have a direct nexus between the fee and the service received in each system
• As we're developing this unified water infrastructure plan, we are in the process of developing a ranking

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When state funds for new public housing developments ceased to exist in the early 1990s, we developed
• Longer development timeframes mean longer gaps in developer fees.
• We're encouraged about brokers' fees being banned, but want to continue to see other junk fees being
• late fees, renewal fees, to pay online when there is no other option.
• We also support the real estate transfer fee. We strongly support that fee.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held its second introductory hearing to frame the session’s housing agenda. Chairs Cyr and Haggerty described the hearing as a chance to hear a wide range of perspectives on Massachusetts’ housing crisis, including underbuilding, zoning and permitting barriers, rising costs, and the need for both state and local action. The committee heard from court, municipal, advocacy, and regional housing leaders, with recurring themes of increasing supply, preserving existing housing, preventing displacement, and expanding resources for renters and homeowners. Chief Justice Diana Horan of the Housing Court said the court is handling more than 40,000 new filings annually with only 15 judges, and estimated the court would need about 21 judges to meet demand. She described complications from RAFT-related stays, mental health and guardianship issues, aging housing stock, and the new eviction sealing law, which she said was being implemented smoothly but may require additional resources if filings continue to rise. The Massachusetts Municipal Association and MAPC emphasized that municipalities need flexibility, funding, and better tools such as MassWorks, Housing Works, H-DIP, 40R reforms, inclusionary zoning changes, and a local option transfer fee; they also said local control concerns and long permitting timelines remain major barriers. MAPC and others stressed that supply growth alone will not solve the crisis and urged continued support for subsidized housing, access to counsel, and modular/off-site construction. Advocates and housing providers focused on displacement, preservation, and tenant protections. Homes for All Massachusetts and Mass Law Reform Institute called for rent stabilization, stronger tenant protections, foreclosure prevention, elimination of junk fees, continued funding for RAFT and HomeBASE, and expanded access to counsel. Mass Union of Public Housing Tenants said the state needs far more extremely low-income housing, more operating subsidy, and major investment to repair public housing, while also supporting tenant technical assistance during redevelopment. Franklin County’s housing authority warned that rural communities are being left out of many state programs and asked for a rural LIHTC set-aside, a permanent rural credit boost, and a review of housing choice programs. A Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation researcher presented findings that communities that add housing generally see stronger municipal finances, and that housing growth can improve property tax and state aid outcomes. Seasonal community representatives from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket described extreme affordability pressures and the need for tailored tools. Nantucket’s housing trust chair said the island has made progress through local funding, inclusionary zoning, and deed-restricted units, but still needs a real estate transfer fee and faster ways to preserve year-round housing. Across the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly returned to the need for a mix of production, preservation, tenant protections, and local flexibility, rather than relying on any single policy solution.

Transcript Highlights:

• Did you collect fees from that property? No. Why not?
• Yet, those landowners and/or business owners do not pay a fee similar to the fee demanded by the local
• HB 1917 facilitates the largest economic development investment in... ...the largest economic development
• So when we talk about a fee, there are two different fees or payments in this scenario.
• So when we talk about a fee, there are two different fees or payments in this scenario.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ... great economic development into the workforce system.
• to pay an assessment or a fee? That number is pretty low.
• Association's fee, you know, so that's good to learn that. The fact is...
• And some of those fees do really add up.
• My name is Matt Abel with the Texas Economic Development Council.

Bills: HB406

Keywords: local economic development, notification, workforce development, municipal agreements, county contracts, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This proposal aims to reduce local development impact fees on state-funded affordable housing projects
• First, it prohibits local governments from charging development impact fees on the specific affordable
• And then, secondly, it incentivizes local governments to reduce or waive development impact fees by considering
• So this really clarifies that land donations, fee waivers, fee deferrals, all of those things can be
• If you're a developer in a low resource community, could you be questions if you're a developer in a

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a series of May Revision budget items, beginning with the State Controller’s Office. SCO described requests for Fiscal Book of Record stabilization, payroll system implementation, ACFR reporting support, and unclaimed property outreach funding. Members focused on the Fiscal system’s July go-live, the improved timeliness of the ACFR, and the unclaimed property program’s roughly $15 billion balance and outreach efforts. The Department of Finance and LAO raised no major concerns, and the item was closed after discussion of how the new outreach funding would be used. The committee then considered several revenue proposals. Finance presented a proposal to tax pre-written digital software and SaaS, with estimated General Fund gains of $450 million in 2026-27 and $900 million ongoing; LAO suggested broader digital tax changes and a business-use exemption, while industry groups opposed the measure as a tax on essential digital tools. CDTFA also presented an administrative request tied to the software tax, and later a $10 million budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs. The committee then heard a federal conformity proposal for new children’s tax-deferred accounts, which LAO supported, and a proposal to cut the first-year LLC/LP minimum tax from $800 to $400, which Finance said would aid small business formation but LAO argued was poorly targeted and would reduce revenue. Another major item was a permanent business tax credit limitation beginning in 2027, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability. Finance said it would raise about $850 million in 2026-27 and more in later years, while LAO noted it would mainly affect large firms using the R&D credit and could also touch California Competes and other programs. Public testimony split sharply between business groups opposing the cap and advocates supporting it as a progressive revenue measure. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment proposal, which would retain a smaller staff to continue improving the free filing system and return most of the prior funding to the General Fund. The hearing concluded with the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which brings in about $221,000 to $266,000 annually for arts grants and teacher stipends. Members and advocates supported the item but also urged larger arts funding, including the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development then presented proposals for the California Civic Media Program, CA RISE reappropriation, and a reversion of unused Chips for America facility funds; LAO supported the latter two but was cautious about new civic media spending. Members raised concerns about the civic media program’s scope, including the exclusion of broadcast and the lack of a specific ethnic media set-aside, while GoBiz said funds would begin going out in the fall if approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• an over $7 million surplus this year for this program. maybe the $10 per fee lot fee should be suspended
• There is a modest fee increase, developed in consultation with mobile home resident input, that will
• And even when developers win their cases, they do not collect attorneys' fees.
• And even when developers win their cases, they do not collect attorney's fees, which means that most
• developers to pay for their legal fees incurred by the public agencies to defend these laws they have

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard a long agenda of housing-related bills, beginning with AB 518 on low-impact camping areas. The author and supporters said the bill would streamline permitting for small rural camping operations on private land, expand outdoor access, and support rural economies, while opponents from campground associations and counties warned it could undermine existing regulation, create enforcement problems, and allow advertising of unpermitted sites. Members raised concerns about fire safety and local control, but the bill was ultimately passed as amended on an 8-0 vote. The committee then approved AB 635, which would require HCD to refer up to 25 of the most serious mobile home residency law complaints to the Attorney General. Supporters said mobile home residents need stronger enforcement against egregious park-owner violations, while opponents argued the existing program is underused, costly, and should remain subject to a sunset. After discussion of the program’s surplus and enforcement role, the bill passed 9-1. AB 893, which expands ministerial approval for mixed-income housing near college campuses and broadens eligibility for affordable units to students, faculty, and staff, also drew strong support from student advocates and housing groups and respectful opposition from the League of California Cities over local control and height limits; it passed 10-0. AB 925, the Mobile Home Emergency Safety Act, would require stronger emergency preparedness measures in mobile home parks, including accessible exits, working fire hydrants, and gas shutoff access, with a fee increase to fund enforcement. Supporters framed it as a life-safety measure in disaster-prone areas, while opponents argued the bill duplicates existing requirements and imposes an unnecessary fee increase. The committee voted 6-1 to send it to Appropriations, with the bill left on call. The consent calendar, including several other housing and local government bills, was approved 8-0. The committee also heard AB 712, which would increase penalties and attorney-fee protections for applicants enforcing state housing laws against public agencies; supporters said it would improve compliance, while special districts opposed the bill as overly broad and unclear. Members discussed indemnification and timing issues, and the bill was advanced with amendments to Judiciary.