Transcript Highlights:

• So the process for local government permitting is there's a shot clock.
• So the process for local government permitting is there's a shot clock.
• So the process for local government permitting is there's a shot clock.
• don't require a permit.
• You know, there is a process in place, and to the extent that we're all following that process, Process

Summary: The Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee met with a quorum present and first heard HB 11 from Representative Robinson. The bill would address an unintended consequence in Florida’s municipal utility surcharge law by requiring the same water/utility rate for residents when a utility facility is physically located within one municipality but owned by another, rather than allowing the owning municipality to impose a 25% surcharge. The sponsor and several members described it as a fairness issue affecting residents who do not receive local tax support for the facility but still bear the surcharge. Public testimony included support from AARP and Miami-Dade County and opposition from North Miami Beach. The bill was reported favorably on an 18-0 vote. The committee then held a panel discussion on utility use of public rights-of-way and utility relocation. Panelists from FDOT, county government, gas, water, electric, and communications sectors described the permitting process, noting that FDOT uses a detailed utility accommodation manual and that local governments may use permits, franchise agreements, or ordinances depending on the utility type. They emphasized that utilities often must coordinate early with agencies using long-range work programs and project plans, and that the process differs by utility and jurisdiction. Communications witnesses discussed Chapter 337 and the 60-day local permitting shot clock, while others noted the role of Sunshine State One Call in locating facilities before excavation. A major focus was who pays for relocations when road or infrastructure projects require utilities to move. FDOT and several panelists said utilities generally bear the cost when they are in public right-of-way, with exceptions such as certain interstate/interchange projects and easement impacts. Utility representatives said relocations are often effectively new builds, can be costly, and are ultimately reflected in rates or customer costs. Members also asked about easements versus right-of-way, damage and disputes during construction, broadband workforce needs, and whether legislation could improve coordination. Panelists largely said the existing process works best when agencies, contractors, and utilities communicate early and continuously, and that more legislation may not be necessary compared with better planning, staffing, and use of technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are certain things which DES has very well under control in the permit process.
• <00:04:19.440> There<00:04:19.600> are<00:04:19.640> other the permit process
• There are other the permit process.
• get all of the permit processes get all of the permit processes get uh uh uh completed<00:12:
• But if uh if there is a permit<00:12:58.960> in<00:12:59.080> process permit in process

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• permit submittal is not complete until the historic preservation review process is completed, which
• permit submittal is not complete until the historic preservation review process is completed, which
• Normally, for SMA permits, they are approved on Maui by the Planning Commission, and that process can
• DNR, Dar, is now... processes long standing processes and uh processes long standing processes and uh
• and the permites and dlnr that permits and the permites and dlnr that permits are<01:40:57.560><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 946 on wastewater management, which would clarify that the ban on discharging wastewater or raw sewage into state waters after 12/31/26 applies to treatment plants. Testimony was in support from the Department of Health, Maui County Council, Mayor Bisson, and individuals, and no one testified in opposition. SB 849 on wildlife conservation would prohibit intentional taking, harming, or killing of the Hawaiian hawk (ʻio) and increase penalties for taking native aquatic life, wildlife, and land plants; DLNR supported the bill, noting the ʻio was delisted federally in 2020 and that the measure also updates penalties and adds a rehabilitation/community service option. No questions were raised, and the bill drew support testimony only. For SB 330 on invasive species prevention, the Attorney General raised a supremacy clause concern with language requiring state enforcement of federal quarantines and recommended reverting to a prior version with a catchall for federal regulation. The Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species supported the bill as a way to close a biosecurity gap, while the Department of Agriculture said it supported the intent but wanted to avoid acting without a cooperative agreement with USDA and suggested deleting the portion allowing action without such an agreement. The committee also heard SB 1393 on public land use, which would require the School Facilities Authority to consult with DOE and other agencies before land conveyances or leases and repeal a requirement that DOE transfer title upon request; both SFA and DOE supported the measure, with DOE emphasizing the need for early communication and consultation, and members asked about possible disagreements or stalemates. The committee then heard SB 321 on private roads and ways, which would deem certain privately owned roads and similar ways transferred to adjacent owners or community associations if conditions are met. The Hawaii Land Title Association said the bill as drafted would create uncertainty and proposed a court process to clarify ownership and create a recordable order; written support came from the Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii, Hawaii Financial Services Association, and one individual. SB 66 on housing permitting would require permit decisions within 60 days for certain housing projects and deem permits approved in some circumstances; DLNR’s historic preservation office supported the intent but noted county historic preservation roles, OHA suggested amendments to clarify county duties, and DPP opposed the time limits as risky for health and safety reviews, warning about back-and-forth review cycles and possible mismatches between approved plans and field work. Realtors, NAIOP, Hawaii Food Industry Association, Hawaii YIMBY, and the Maui Chamber supported the measure, while Lahaina Strong, Hawaii Good Neighbor, and two individuals opposed it. Finally, the committee heard SB 1170 on expeditious redevelopment of affordable rental housing, which would speed permits for rebuilding permanently affordable multifamily rental housing damaged by natural disasters and exempt certain projects from EIS requirements. HHFDC supported the bill, citing the Front Street Apartments rebuild and the long SMA permit timeline on Maui, and the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development supported the intent while suggesting technical placement of amendments. Testimony in support also came from the Maui Chamber of Commerce and Joe Blanco, who described difficulties rebuilding a project originally developed under older statutory requirements and said the bill’s added language addressed those issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• She noted that the handout says permitting reform will be good for the process for businesses and local
• Kind of as a follow-up to that, the Smith Foundry permit had been in process of being analyzed for, I
• that permitting process for those permits that have been under review for so long?
• applicants to make sure uh uh permit applicants to make sure uh that<01:34:30.320> process<01
• efforts to update Minnesota's permitting efforts to update Minnesota's permitting process.<01:36

Bills: HF1587, HF2293, HF2218, HF1208, HF1482

Keywords: HF1587, Cass County, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR, condemnation, eminent domain, state land, surplus land, public waters, tribal land transfer, federally recognized Indian Tribe, tribal ownership, land conveyance, no consideration, land appropriation, natural resources, U.S. Highway 2, Section 27 Township 145 North Range 28 West, land return, Tribal sovereignty

Transcript Highlights:

• process, which can add an additional 6 to 12 months to the permitting timeline.
• I wanted to just ask you a couple of questions about the, about the permitting process.
• The agency, um, and this bill, there is an expedited air permitting process, air permitting process right
• of the process, which is getting the draft permit.
• Again, we don't have huge concern with the expedited permitting part of the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like, for example, when we were talking about a staggered process where a permit could allow for... recognize
• talking about um a staggered process talking about um a staggered process where<00:10:53.959>
• /c><00:18:08.559> taking permit and their permit is taking permit and their permit is taking hundreds
• permitting process after they left the state.
• state to so-called reform the permitting process doesn't really fit in this scenario.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard extended discussion on House File 8, a bill aimed at changing Minnesota’s permitting and environmental review process. Supporters said the bill is intended to help small and medium-sized businesses and projects that face long delays, and argued that the proposal does not lower environmental standards. They described the bill as modeled in part on provisions used in other states, including a staggered permitting process and an expedited option, and said the goal is to improve transparency, reporting, and real-time public access to permit information. Members raised concerns about whether the bill could also benefit large corporations and major industrial projects, including mining and other large facilities, rather than just smaller businesses. Several lawmakers questioned the use of county-based public input, the lack of tribal consultation, and how the bill would interact with treaty rights and communities outside the affected county. Others argued that the bill could create risks by speeding permits for bad actors or by allowing larger entities to pay for expedited treatment. Testimony also referenced examples from the Minnesota Chamber’s report, with a witness disputing the claim that permitting alone drove companies out of Minnesota and saying those cases involved more complex facts. The committee first considered a motion to lay the bill on the table, but that motion failed on a 5-7 roll call. The committee then voted on a motion to re-refer House File 8, as amended, to the Labor and Workforce Development Committee. That motion passed 7-5, and the bill was sent on to that committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• And in addition, I think it would also be the rulemaking process would permit an opportunity for us to
• of<01:43:55.920> our to our permitting process not all of our to our permitting process not
• They have their own permitting process that they go through, which is rather rigorous.
• They have their own permitting process that they go through, which is rather rigorous.
• So this process permits us the opportunity to make rulemaking and conduct it in a public process.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. On HB 211 relating to stream maintenance, DLNR supported the intent but requested amendments to clarify that responsibility for removing abandoned property rests with the entity that has jurisdiction or ownership of the stream, and asked for appropriations to help cover cleanup costs. Members discussed existing county authority to clean streams and then seek reimbursement from private owners, and the City and County of Honolulu’s written testimony was noted as arguing the bill conflicts with a federal court stipulation requiring notice and storage of personal property before disposal. On HB 502 relating to land use, OPSD and the Land Use Commission supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about the short timeline and the need for rule changes, with OPSD recommending a more permanent county plan-based district boundary amendment process instead of a temporary one. The Department of Agriculture asked counties to make concurrent revisions to ordinances and rules affecting agricultural land partitioning. Testimony also noted the bill is aimed at legacy agricultural subdivisions and would require Land Use Commission rulemaking. On HB 510 relating to declaration of water shortage and emergency, DLNR and the Board of Water Supply strongly supported the measure, saying it would give CWRM a more timely tool to respond to emergencies outside designated water management areas and would require rulemaking, permit classifications, and criteria for declaring shortages. In response to opposition concerns from the Land Use Research Foundation and the Hawaii Farm Bureau, DLNR said the rulemaking process would allow public input and that permit classifications could help balance agricultural and other water uses. On HB 511 relating to public lands, DLNR, the Department of Agriculture, and Hawaii Farm Bureau supported removing the survey requirement before setting aside public lands between state agencies, saying it would speed Act 90 transfers and save time and money, though one testifier cautioned against misuse of agricultural lands. No votes were taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Things like just garden-variety building permits or construction permits are not part of the 5290 process
• This will include AI features to speed up and improve our permit process.
• and also the permit review stage of the process.
• process, without having to understand... ...construction loan, without having to go through the permitting
• 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:

• <00:36:07.359> process keeping the building permit process keeping the building permit process
• where we can process permits. where we can process permits.
• <00:48:50.240> how permitting process because no matter how permitting process because no
• So all of that building permit process.
• improving the building permit process. improving the building permit process.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• processes and the need to apply for permits for both existing and new uses on the system.
• processes and the need to apply for permits for both existing and new uses on the system.
• <01:13:19.719> processes<01:13:20.320> and<01:13:20.440> the substantial permitting
• processes and the substantial permitting processes and the need<01:13:20.800> to<01:13:21.000
• um they still don't have their process um they still don't have their permits<01:32:48.040> back<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on several measures, beginning with HB 347 relating to goats. The Department of Land and Natural Resources offered comments and said its Division of Forestry and Wildlife was available to answer questions. Testimony on the bill was largely opposed, with speakers arguing it would amount to a “free-for-all” rather than game management and urging deferral. DLNR responded that bag limits can be adjusted by area and game management unit under adaptive management rules, and that hunters typically take out their catch. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 1278, on which DLNR testified in support. The record in the excerpt does not include discussion of the bill’s substance beyond the department’s support, and no action or vote is shown. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on HB 144, relating to the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority and proposed exemptions from Sunshine Law requirements during the transition period. The authority’s vice chair testified that the body is a startup agency with a complex transition from the University and needs to be able to discuss strategic planning, operational formation, and other day-to-day matters with more than two members present. Opponents, including the Public First Law Center, Hawaiʻi Environmental Alliance, and community members, argued the bill would cut the public out of the deliberative process, allow decisions to be hashed out in private, and set a poor transparency precedent. One testifier also raised cultural and environmental concerns about Mauna Kea. Committee members questioned whether existing law and narrower guardrails could address the authority’s concerns, and the authority said it had already proposed a narrower alternative but the bill returned in similar form. The excerpt ends before any final committee action on HB 144 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The recent executive order two-stage permitting process for qualifying projects is probably the largest
• The recent executive order two-stage<01:16:01.199> permitting<01:16:02.000> process<01:
• 16:02.400> for two-stage permitting process for two-stage permitting process for qualifying<01
• Thank you. permitting process. As a brief reminder, permitting process.
• Um, so 23 to 25 is only two years difference, and you went from processing 1,300 permits down to 373.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

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:

• process.
• <00:36:42.800> issued permits but any temporary permits issued permits but any temporary permits
• permit three years to get an actual permit that's established through the rulemaking process.
• It's more about we have a temporary permit system in place to try to expedite that process and get them
• It's not a temporary permit that's a permanent permit.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But the question remained, how can we make water and wastewater permitting process simpler and easier
• But the question remained, how can we make water and wastewater permitting process simpler and easier
• But the question remained, how can we make water and wastewater permitting process simpler and easier
• But the question remained, how can we make water and wastewater permitting process simpler and easier
• But the question remained, how can we make water and wastewater permitting process simpler and easier

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Public outreach and hearings have to happen as part of those processes, including getting the permits
• investigation of community concerns and addressing community concerns, whereas this special permit process
• So, I guess I'd have to say we haven't made that decision yet about which permitting process we would
• <00:57:41.680> go which permitting uh process we would go which permitting uh process we would
• the permitting process we've built the permitting process we've built the building<01:15:59.719><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The informational briefing focused on the City and County of Honolulu’s effort to site a replacement landfill for Oahu before the Waimanalo Gulch landfill closes in 2028. Chair Nicole Lowen and other legislators opened the meeting by framing the issue as important statewide and encouraging recycling, composting, and proper use of the curbside bins. The city’s Department of Environmental Services, led by Director Roger Babcock and Deputy Director Mike O’Keefe, then presented the background and siting process. ENV explained the legal and technical constraints that shaped the search, including the 2019 Land Use Commission decision requiring closure of Waimanalo Gulch by March 2, 2028, and the 2020 Act 73 restrictions on landfill siting near residences, schools, hospitals, conservation districts, airports, and tsunami inundation areas. They said a landfill advisory committee reviewed six candidate sites in 2021-2022 and rejected them because they fell within the Board of Water Supply’s no-pass zone. After further evaluation and an extension of the naming deadline, the city selected a site in central Oahu near Wahiawa, on agricultural land currently used as a Dole pineapple field. City officials said the selected site was chosen as the best of the evaluated options and, in their view, could be permitted under state and federal law. They described planned environmental protections, including a modern sanitary landfill design with double liners, leachate collection systems, monitoring wells, and post-closure monitoring, and said the existing Waimanalo Gulch landfill has operated for 35 years without leachate leaks. They also emphasized that the site would still require a special use permit, Department of Health approvals, an environmental impact statement, and other public permitting processes, and that public engagement would continue over the next several years.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, you know, we've talked a lot about delays and not enough information coming in the permit process
• So it might end up slowing down the permitting process.
• Crapo, are all letters that are going out as part of that permitting process captured on one stop?
• Crapo, are all letters that are going out as part of that permitting process captured on One Stop?
• permitting process captured on one stop? permitting process captured on one stop?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 74, which would require agencies issuing certain real-property-related permits to track and report how many permits they issue and how long the process takes. Representative Carol McGuire introduced the bill and said the goal is to gather data on permit timing and fees, especially for DES and DOT permits involving wetlands, alteration of terrain, driveway permits, and similar approvals. Supporters argued the state needs better visibility into permitting delays and whether statutory deadlines are realistic; they also noted the bill had passed the House on a voice vote with no debate. Adam Crapo of the Department of Environmental Services said DES is generally supportive of the reporting concept but warned that the agency’s data are spread across many separate, partly manual databases. He said DES can already do this for some land resources permits through its new system, but not across all of its more than 90 permit types without additional help. DES estimated it would need two part-time positions to compile the reports, especially for waste management and water programs, and said otherwise existing permitting staff would have to do the work, potentially slowing permit processing. He also said the agency is already working to simplify rules and move more permits onto a new online platform, but could not meet the bill’s 2026 reporting deadline with current staffing and systems. Committee members questioned whether delays are often caused by incomplete applications rather than agency inaction, and Crapo said that is frequently the case. He said DES already tracks timelines to some extent for management and statutory compliance, but not at the individual-permit detail the bill would require. He also said some letters and records are captured in One Stop, but not all are. Members expressed support for the bill’s transparency goals while also worrying about added workload and possible slowdowns. The discussion then moved to DOT, where Susan Clawson said DOT is neutral on the bill because it recently implemented Salesforce and now has good data for reporting; DOT’s fiscal note reflects software-related costs, but the agency can already track the required information in its system.

Transcript Highlights:

• temporary permite to receive a permit temporary permite to receive a permit under<00:41:03.560><
• <00:45:08.640> if permitting process for gas production if permitting process for gas production
• in process.
• in process.
• in process.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• To discuss the desalination permitting processes at the agency, and we will cover permits and authorizations
• status, and flowcharts showing the permitting process.
• And their permitting status, and flowcharts showing the permitting and authorization processes for seawater
• TCEQ strives to expedite permits for desalination projects under standard processes.
• One of these barriers is the permitting process.

Summary: During the meeting, legislative members discussed the practice of municipalities diverting water and sewer revenues to their general funds, which impacts infrastructure maintenance and project delays. Vice Chair Sparks proposed limiting public testimony to two minutes, which was adopted without objection. The committee heard from various witnesses, including Perry Fowler from the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, who emphasized that utility revenues should primarily support water services and that transfers should be transparent and justified. He noted that many utilities face financial pressures that could hinder infrastructure projects. Larry French from the Texas Public Policy Foundation highlighted the significant financial impact of water loss and general fund transfers, estimating the annual loss at $1.5 billion. He argued that these transfers can create disincentives for municipalities to address water loss issues. Brian Butcher, Assistant City Manager of Sugar Land, defended the city's cost allocation model for general fund transfers, asserting that they are necessary for equitable service provision and operational efficiency. The committee also discussed the implications of rising construction costs and the need for better procurement processes to ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars. The second part of the meeting focused on the New World Screwworm and the state's preparedness to manage potential infestations. Dudley Hoskins from the USDA outlined the federal response efforts and the importance of collaboration with state agencies. He emphasized the need for ongoing surveillance and the production of sterile flies to combat the pest. Dr. Philip Kaufman from Texas A&M discussed the historical context of the screwworm and the challenges posed by its potential reintroduction, urging proactive management strategies among livestock producers. The committee acknowledged the need for increased resources and research to effectively address the threat of the screwworm.

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

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:

• He also raised the issue of when permits expire, what happens if a permit expires and does not get renewed
• Michigan's process so I'm I'm interested Michigan's process so I'm I'm interested in<00:10:26.120>
• /c><00:18:20.559> taking permit and their permit is taking permit and their permit is taking hundreds
• permitting process after they left the state.
• was slower than the Minnesota process was slower than the Minnesota process the<00:21:33.480>

Keywords: 1183, house