Transcript Highlights:

• So that's a developer doing that. right? So that's a developer doing that.
• permits for residential developments. permits for residential developments.
• this development. this development. Represent<01:43:39.920> Bolio.
• is not what can we do for developers? is not what can we do for developers?
• developments of 10 units or more. Okay. developments of 10 units or more. Okay.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But there's a lot of around development.
• But there's a lot more to development those development that we do in our agricultural operations.
• agency, wanting to hear what developers not being an open agency, wanting to hear what developers are
• We have enough developers. Thank you.
• development is is over represented.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?
• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?
• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?
• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?
• So couldn't a new developer just pay the old developer?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You're still in pre-development stages, OK.
• So if it's 2 years old, I mean as these develop much mature with other phases or other developments come
• for Johnson Development Corporation.
• I work in housing and land development.
• We work with the developer and the governing agencies to identify the phasing for large developments

Transcript Highlights:

• The Destination Development Grant was funded $15 million during the 25 session.
• The development and tourism sectors from across the state.
• Dakota Development Fund's Child Care Loan Program.
• Historically, if you remember, the Development Fund was started as early-stage investment.
• Second is developing a future-ready workforce development system that anticipates emerging and evolving

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Budget Section’s Commerce and Legal Services Division met to review the Department of Commerce base budget for the 2027-29 biennium and to receive an update on Commerce programs. Legislative Council staff first walked the committee through the “blue sheet” base budget summary, explaining the major line items, the large share of federal grant authority in Commerce’s budget, and the continuing appropriations that support several Commerce funds. Members asked how grant funding is coordinated across agencies, and staff said collaboration varies by program but is strong in areas like UAS and LIHEAP. Commerce Commissioner Chris Schilken then presented on current activities, focusing heavily on grant administration, transparency, and economic development programs. Members questioned how grant applicants are selected, whether Commerce tracks applications and return on investment, and how long grant awards take to reach recipients. The commissioner said Commerce uses scoring criteria, outside reviewers, a minimum 30-day application window, and typically completes awards within two to three months. A lengthy exchange followed over whether Commerce should open some grants only to intended recipients versus running competitive application processes; Commerce said it follows best-practice grantmaking and that its attorney in the Attorney General’s office approved that approach. Commerce also highlighted the North Dakota Development Fund, citing long-term investment and job creation results, examples such as Red Trail Energy, Packet Digital, Valiance, Corvent Medical, child care loans, and the Automate ND program. Members asked about acceptable failures, lessons learned, regional economic development coordination, and the expansion of the fund into non-primary sectors. Workforce Director Katie Ralston Howell then outlined a statewide workforce ecosystem review, a new governor’s workforce sub-cabinet, and three task forces focused on simplifying entry, warm handoffs, and data integration. She discussed the in-demand occupations list, Workforce Pell, apprenticeships, and efforts to better connect students with employers and higher education. Commerce also briefly reviewed housing programs and a new housing sub-cabinet. No votes were taken; the committee simply received testimony, asked questions, and adjourned after setting up the next meeting to hear the Attorney General budget in June.

Transcript Highlights:

• At our developers in the community.
• variance in the plan unit development. variance in the plan unit development.
• We agreed with the developer. The developer said, "You're the experts.
• impose on a development like parking. impose on a development like parking.
• support the development moving forward. support the development moving forward.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• nonprofit economic development nonprofit economic development organization<00:01:45.119> or
• > Development.
• Candyohigh County Economic Development. Candyohigh County Economic Development.
• Employment and Economic Development Employment and Economic Development supports<00:04:54.400>
• Development, and Rising Tide Capital. Development, and Rising Tide Capital.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• enable the development to occur. enable the development to occur.
• economic development districts. economic development districts.
• development districts outside the metro. development districts outside the metro.
• And so maybe development.
• developers would not go there. developers would not go there.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• times where developers could build.
• The reality is, as a developer, developers borrow our money just like you and I do to buy our own house
• in the reality is is uh as a developer in the reality is is uh as a developer developers<00:05:02.720
• working and if you can't get developers working and if you can't get developers to<00:05:24.120>
• Development through infill development and a two- to three-block area for factory-built homes.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• incentives for infill development in urban areas.
• creates some development incentives for um<00:16:01.639> infill<00:16:02.600> development<
• using some new schemes for development using some new schemes for development approval<00:16:51.079
• This doesn't stop you from doing density development.
• and the types of development that we're going to have.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:15 Roll Call 00:25 HB 403 Discussion 02:11 HB 403 Vote 03:08 HB 555 Discussion 04:55 HB 555 Vote 08:42 HB 321 Discussion 10:55 HB 321 Vote 13:22 HB 18 Discussion 15:21 HB 18 Vote 35:10 HB 85 Discussion 39:08 HB 85 Vote 46:40 HB 371 Discussion 49:22 HB 371 Vote 52:03 Adjournment 53:48, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Local Government met with a quorum and took up several bills, mostly focused on local planning, zoning, and municipal administration. House Bill 403, a simple measure giving coroners a six-month grace period to complete continuing education, was presented by Rep. Deanna Gordon with testimony from Madison County Coroner Jimmy Cornelson and received unanimous support. House Bill 555, a technical bill affecting audit deadlines and flexibility for small cities and certain expo center audit arrangements, was explained by JD Cheney of the Kentucky League of Cities; he said it would help about 97 cities comply with audit requirements and allow more flexibility when municipalities are making good-faith efforts. The committee approved HB 555 on a roll call vote, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee and others in favor, and reported it favorably to the House floor. House Bill 321, also presented with JD Cheney and Rep. DJ Johnson, would expand the time for planning commission and board of adjustment members to complete orientation and continuing education, with a focus on housing supply and accessibility. Supporters said it would help recruit more members and concentrate training on land-use impacts on housing; Rep. Roarx and others discussed Louisville Metro’s planning process, while Rep. Brown and Rep. Fleming raised concerns about infrastructure and long-range planning. The committee passed HB 321 favorably after roll call, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee. House Bill 18 drew the most extended debate. Sponsor Rep. John Hodgson said the committee substitute would create incentives for infill development in urban areas and extend a moratorium on zoning district classification changes for two more years, arguing that local elected officials should have more control over major density changes and that unelected boards were approving projects without adequate infrastructure review. Opponents, including Liam Gallagher of Americans for Prosperity Kentucky and several members, argued the bill would restrict housing development, interfere with property rights, and limit Louisville Metro’s ability to update its Land Development Code; supporters countered that the bill would not stop development but would require elected officials to weigh in and address traffic and infrastructure concerns. After discussion, the committee approved HB 18 as amended by the substitute and reported it favorably to the House floor, with several members explaining their votes and some opposing the moratorium on local zoning changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a homebuilder and developer from El Paso.
• It's not mandating a $3 million development.
• the unit development will shrink.
• They took it as the developments came along.
• or apartment development.

Bills: HB164

Keywords: HB 164, HB164, Texas Flood Recovery, Reimbursement, and Reconstruction Program, Texas Division of Emergency Management, TDEM, Hill Country floods, July 2025 floods, flood recovery, disaster relief, flood reimbursement, reconstruction grants, resiliency standards, floodplain, base flood elevation, FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, insurance denial, property damage, tenant assistance, rental property

Transcript Highlights:

• to really see if it would match the economics of development of a site, so that we didn't develop rules
• In addition to that, we developed what's called a regulating plan.
• It has been helpful to see new development happen within the district.
• The sewer and water standards were also developed in 2008.
• specifically warranted by the need of that development or not.

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:

• <00:24:03.480> to single family housing developments to single family housing developments
• And when you look at what a developer examines, and putting on my developer hat, these pro-housing projects
• And when you look at what a developer examines, and putting on my developer hat, these pro-housing projects
• <00:32:02.080> hope of redwing on their development hope of redwing on their development hope
• hurdle and be able to not only develop hurdle and be able to not only develop housing<00:40:06.200

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So the the developers are development.
• <00:38:38.000> that's<00:38:38.400> developing contract the developer that's developing
• thereafter on the new developments. thereafter on the new developments.
• We got to rely on developers.
• Um you know there's developers.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Act 279 working group met for an informational briefing with DHHL on its use of the $600 million appropriation and progress on the department’s implementation plan. The chair reviewed the working group’s oversight role, noting that it was created to monitor expenditures, project development, and progress toward reducing the Hawaiian Homes waitlist, and that the group must submit a progress report before the 2026 session and a final report before the 2027 session. DHHL said it had provided an updated booklet reflecting the Hawaiian Homes Commission’s February 2024 recommendations and a detailed accounting of encumbrances and project progress across the islands. DHHL highlighted several implementation themes: innovative financing and construction methods, land acquisitions and exchanges, technology, beneficiary services, and partnerships with counties and private entities. The department described a “project lease” model that gives beneficiaries access to a project rather than a specific lot, with options such as turnkey homes, owner-builder, self-help, or rent-to-purchase arrangements depending on financial qualification. Officials said this approach is intended to serve lower-income beneficiaries, expand access for people on the waitlist, and allow beneficiaries to receive support services such as financial literacy and down payment assistance. The department reported that roughly $511 million had been encumbered for infrastructure, about $152.8 million for acquisitions, financing, and beneficiary services, and about $36 million in other covered costs, with about $588.9 million encumbered as of December 31 and about $120 million expected to be spent by that date. Officials said the original implementation plan covered about 2,722 units, while the updated plan projects roughly 6,000 to 7,000 leases and 2,472 lots to be occupied. They also described phase-two needs for additional funding, including projects on Hawaiʻi, Maui, Kauaʻi, and Oʻahu, and said they would need continued legislative support, including possible bonding and private activity bond set-asides, to complete remaining projects. Members discussed the distinction between encumbered and spent funds, and DHHL explained that encumbrances reserve money for specific contracts while construction spending occurs over time through progress payments. The department also showcased examples of innovative projects, including a high-rise project in urban Honolulu financed through a mix of private activity bonds, tax credits, and state funds, and an acquisition-based project in Kapaʻa, Kauaʻi using multiple funding sources. DHHL emphasized partnerships with the City and County of Honolulu and Maui County, and said it is still assessing future projects to keep infrastructure costs manageable and ensure homes are safe and affordable for beneficiaries.

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.
• This is why housing policy is economic development policy.

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:

• for the development. for the development.
• It can't be the developer.
• Uh obviously give a the development.
• probably roughly 8% if if a developer probably roughly 8% if if a developer was<00:12:50.959>
• . development. development. um<00:15:29.600> donated<00:15:30.160> land<00:15:31.120>

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:03 Roll Call 00:00:08 Discussion of Indiana Residential Infrastructure Fund 00:01:27 Discussion of Affordable Housing Trust Fund 00:33:30 Discussion of Urban Infill 01:12:37 Approval of Minutes from July Meeting 01:39:00 Adjournment 01:39:42, 958, all

Summary: The Housing Task Force heard a presentation from Anita Sanford of the Homebuilders Association of Kentucky and Sheri Cybert of Indiana’s Residential Infrastructure Fund about Indiana’s low-interest loan program for local housing infrastructure. They described the program as a voluntary, locally driven model that helps communities finance roads, sewers, sidewalks, traffic lights, turning lanes, and other infrastructure needed for new housing development. Sanford emphasized that infrastructure and regulation are major drivers of housing costs, citing estimates that infrastructure can account for up to 30% of a home’s cost and regulations another 25%, and said the association is studying Kentucky-specific regulatory costs. She also noted that every $1,000 added to new home construction can price out about 2,000 Kentucky households. Cybert explained that Indiana’s program, administered through the Indiana Finance Authority, began in 2023 with $75 million appropriated over two years and has since closed 17 loans totaling $60.7 million, with more than 2,700 projected housing units. The program reserves 70% of funds for rural communities and 30% for urban communities, requires applications from local governments rather than developers, and asks communities to show need through a market study, describe the infrastructure and housing to be built, and provide preliminary engineering plans and a repayment source. She said the loans currently carry an interest rate around 3.5%, reset quarterly, and that the program has generated about $25 million in savings to communities compared with private borrowing. She also described recent Indiana legislative changes that encourage higher density and other zoning reforms, and said a majority of those local ordinance changes must be adopted for an application to be fundable. Members asked about the ordinance requirements, the funding split between rural and urban areas, repayment mechanisms, and whether there were caps on project size. Cybert said repayment is worked out case by case, often through existing or project-specific TIFs, temporary tax agreements, or letters of credit, and that the program has no cap on request size or income/affordability restrictions. She said the largest request funded was $19 million for a 700-unit project. Co-chair Mills and others discussed whether Kentucky could adopt a similar model and what it would cost, while Sanford and Cybert said they were still refining budget estimates. Later, Scott Welch, president of the Homebuilders Association of Kentucky, testified that upfront infrastructure costs are a major barrier in his projects, citing a $1 million pump station and road-widening and utility relocation costs as examples, and said an infrastructure fund would help get projects off the ground.

Transcript Highlights:

• That became a marquee project in the workforce development arena for us in economic development. ...and
• You have mentioned some key words: workforce development pathways, which is important when you develop
• “You have mentioned some key words, workforce development pathways, which is important when you develop
• Additionally, the bill prohibits a municipality from assessing a development fee on the development of
• So we're in development, when towns allow developers to actually build homes, homes are becoming smaller

Bills: HB2107, HB2588, HB2946, HB2950

Keywords: SNAP, nutrition assistance, fast food, vitamins, waiver, food policy, municipal planning, homeowner association, building permits, single-family home, property rights, design standards, development fees, municipalities, infrastructure, public services, annual reporting, property development, tourism improvement area, TIA

Summary: The Rural Economic Development Committee first took up HB 2950, which would allow governing bodies to approve tourism improvement areas to promote lodging and tourism as an economic development tool. Supporters from the Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association, Visit Yuma, and Visit Phoenix said tourism is a major economic driver, especially in rural communities, and argued the bill would give local areas a voluntary, industry-led way to market themselves, attract visitors, and support jobs without raising taxes on residents. Members discussed tourism in places such as Yuma and other rural destinations, and the committee voted 7-0 to give HB 2950 a do pass recommendation. The committee then heard a presentation on rural economic development centered on Lucid Motors’ investment in Pinal County and its partnership with Central Arizona College. Speakers from the Arizona Commerce Authority, Central Arizona College, and Lucid described workforce training programs, including the Drive48 accelerator, which they said has helped train workers for advanced manufacturing jobs and raised local incomes. The committee read proclamations recognizing both Lucid Motors and Central Arizona College for their contributions to job creation, workforce development, and economic growth in rural Arizona. Finally, the committee considered HB 2946, which would revise development fee requirements, including changes affecting the timing and administration of fees and a prohibition on charging development fees for accessory dwelling units. The sponsor and housing advocates said the bill was intended to help address housing affordability and give developers more predictable costs, while city and league representatives opposed it, arguing it would shift costs from growth to existing taxpayers and interfere with local infrastructure planning. After adopting an amendment that removed county-related provisions and made clarifying changes, the committee passed HB 2946 on a 4-1 vote with two members present, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not really the city's development strategy. It's really developer strategy.
• The city's development strategy, it's really developer strategy that looks for plots based on demand
• They can expand the cemetery. the city's development strategy, it's really developer strategy that looks
• I'm a developer. I've been a developer in the county for over 40 years, 45, I guess...
• development.

Bills: HB447, HB897, HB993, HB2673, HB3671, HB3680, HB3897, HB4506, HB4753, HB4812, HB4894, HB5148, HB5437, HB5650, HB5652, HB5654, HB5656, HB5661, HB5665

Keywords: traffic impact studies, municipal utility district, bonds, road projects, eminent domain, HB 897, Texas land sale, state property, Austin real estate, Travis County, General Land Office, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state records facility, archives building, library funding, capital improvements, lease of state land, public land disposition

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of land use, housing, and local government bills. House Bill 447, relating to TIA requirements for certain MUD bond issuances, drew opposition from a witness who argued it would duplicate work already done, strain agency resources, and delay development; after the author’s closing, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. The committee then voted out Senate Bill 1202 (third-party review of home backup power installations), House Bill 2494 (disannexation for failure to provide services), House Bill 1835 (removing barriers to HUD co-manufactured homes), and Senate Bill 15 (lot size and density limits in certain municipalities), with House Bill 1835 receiving one no vote and the others passing unanimously. House Bill 897, authorizing sale or lease of two state-owned Austin properties, was laid out and left pending after brief questions and no public testimony. The committee also heard and left pending several MUD creation bills for Montgomery and Fort Bend counties, including House Bills 5652, 5654, 5661, and 5656, each presented as template district bills with local support and no opposition recorded at the table. A major portion of the meeting focused on House Bill 2673, which would restore prior restrictions on new cemeteries near growing urban areas by repealing changes made last session. Representative Lujan and supporters argued the current law created unintended consequences, including loss of developable land, tax-exempt property in urban cores, and conflicts with infrastructure planning; they said cities already have authority to establish their own cemeteries if needed. Opponents, including a funeral services industry representative, argued the 2023 change was intended to let communities decide and that the bill would take local decision-making backward. After extensive testimony from both sides, the bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 3680, which would create a Cameron County-specific process allowing local discretion under the model subdivision rules. Supporters said the bill would preserve colonia protections while reducing costly platting and replatting burdens on families trying to sell or pass down land; county officials and realtors testified in favor. The bill was left pending after closing. House Bill 4812, a clarification to the Texas Uniform Condominium Act to prevent counties from imposing subdivision platting requirements on condominiums, received support from builders and a condominium attorney who said current county practices create duplicative hurdles and higher costs; it too was left pending. Finally, House Bill 5148, which would allow certain single-stair apartment buildings up to six stories, generated the most detailed policy debate. Supporters, including housing advocates and architects, said the bill would lower costs, improve unit design, and expand affordable, family-friendly housing while maintaining safety through sprinklers and other safeguards. Fire officials from Corpus Christi opposed the bill, warning that a single stairwell could hinder firefighting and occupant evacuation, especially if sprinklers fail or smoke spreads. The author said the bill was aimed at new construction only and was part of a broader effort to reduce outdated housing regulations; the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending at adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a builder and developer from El Paso, Texas.
• This is not us, developers.
• It's not mandating a $3 million. development.
• we didn't have anything correlating in. development.
• You're going to shrink the number of developments, but it does not follow that the unit development will

Bills: HB164, HB411, HB627, HB 1226, HB1677, HB1865, HB1997, HB2985, HB3462, HB4188, HB4685, HB4840, HB5370, HB5424, HB5466, HB5509, HB5660, HB5673, HB164

Keywords: migrant labor, housing regulations, civil penalties, complaints, occupants' rights, remediation, education, retaliation, housing, rental regulation, municipal authority, local government, leasing, housing regulation, local control, rental properties, leasing laws, landlord, tenant rights, municipal regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• Local municipalities play a key role, and all developments will need to apply and develop the projects
• Our firm has been successful in developing Workforce Housing Development properties when the program
• market rate multif family developer market rate multif family developer located<01:05:02.680>
• Workforce Housing Development developing Workforce Housing Development properties<01:05:45.680> when
• that more Workforce Housing Development that more Workforce Housing Development can<01:10:19.040

Keywords: 1183, house