Transcript Highlights:

• And then there's a licensing fee.
• These fees could be levied as a flat rate per vehicle.
• However, registration fees are a poor proxy for a user fee for the road, since they do not capture the
• They have a flat registration fee, often capped at the amount of that registration fee, which means it
• Even registration fee-based taxes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sections 2 through 46 reflect the department's construction codes and licensing fee alignment proposal
• These are the result of a proposed construction codes and licensing division fee adjustment that's included
• These are the result of a proposed construction codes and licensing division fee adjustment that's included
• These include the construction codes and licensing fee alignment proposal, which will enable the department
• So, we don't have opposition to any of the proposed construction codes and licensing fees.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's new road construction down Santa Teresa.
• The construction costs for that is $45.2 million.
• That is a... total construction cost of $27.3 million.
• It is a construction cost of $20 million.
• And then you'll see here the centerline miles, construction crews, construction offices, great footprint

Transcript Highlights:

• Or is that only construction of... projects. It's only construction and lighting of projects. Okay.
• That includes construction of new projects.
• Constructing a highway, the percent for engineering is pretty small compared to the overall construction
• When we're talking about user fees, the common discussion is how do you maintain the user fees?
• I do know that they have one project under construction right now. and how many do you have under construction

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My house isn't a home any more than we constructed.
• Without burdensome fees and redundancy.
• Impact fees, I think we've heard some of these on this list already today, but impact fees.
• Impact fees, especially those around traffic impact fees specifically, can make costs rise dramatically
• Impact fee waivers: I mentioned already waiving impact fees in Mountlake Terrace for child care facilities

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:

• of decreasing revenue from construction of decreasing revenue from construction will<00:04:51.600
• , but long after construction ends.
• Thank you. long after construction ends. Supporting long after construction ends.
• Collecting fees at registration fee.
• in addition to the $175 per year EV fee and $75 hybrid fee.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and more fees.
• and more fees.
• fee does.
• the DVS way just like every other fee the DVS way just like every other fee does.<00:59:22.200><
• <01:19:05.360> Um construction season. Um construction season.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Development fees and other construction requirements can make up a significant portion of building costs
• So the Mitigation Fee Act governs how local jurisdictions impose impact fees, and to charge an impact
• fee, there must be a reasonable relationship between the fees, use, and the project on which it is being
• In addition to this new private right of action, they can collect attorney fees and expert fees associated
• And collect attorney fees and expert fees associated with that.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a long series of housing, land use, infrastructure, and local governance bills, beginning without a quorum and briefly operating as a subcommittee until members arrived. SB 1003 by Senator Grayson would create an Infrastructure Partnership Financing Program to help local governments and developers fund infill housing infrastructure; it drew support from housing advocates and senior housing groups, while Senator Seyarto questioned whether the state would actually fund another program. The bill passed 3-1 and remained on call. The committee then adopted a consent calendar containing SB 1169, SB 1086, SB 1126, and SB 1439 through SB 1442. SB 1014, also by Senator Grayson, would require local jurisdictions to provide early estimates of on-site and off-site improvements and limit later surprise requirements; supporters said it would reduce costly late-stage changes, while the City of San Mateo and county/city groups raised concerns about estimates being too speculative at the preliminary application stage. It passed 4-2 and remained on call. SB 1036, another Grayson bill, would require credit for prior site uses under the Mitigation Fee Act for redevelopment projects; it had broad support and passed unanimously. SB 1145 would streamline CEQA and surplus land procedures for the Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse project; supporters emphasized the long-planned 10,000-home transit-oriented redevelopment and labor agreements, while housing legal groups sought stronger affordability enforcement. The bill passed 6-0. The committee also heard SB 908 by Senator Wiener, which would streamline permits for energy-code-compliant window replacements and limit local and HOA design restrictions; supporters framed it as a way to lower energy bills and help affordable housing providers, while local government groups warned about overbroad state preemption and possible litigation exposure. It passed 3-1 and remained on call. SB 1172 by Senator Hurtado would place guardrails on tax-sharing consultant agreements, with the City of Shafter and League of California Cities supporting the measure as a taxpayer protection; it passed 4-0 and remained on call. SB 1379 by Senator Cervantes would separate the Riverside County Sheriff-Coroner and create an independent medical examiner in response to high in-custody death rates; supporters cited transparency and public trust, while the sheriff’s association and county representatives argued it would override local control and increase costs. The bill passed 4-1 and remained on call. SB 1283 by Senator Ashby would expand ministerial approval for EV charging stations to include canopies and on-site energy storage; supporters said it would modernize permitting and help fill charging gaps, while cities and counties raised safety, liability, and local review concerns. It passed 4-0 and remained on call. Later, SB 1414 by Senator Reyes proposed an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County. Supporters from Common Cause and the League of Women Voters said it would improve transparency and remove conflicts of interest from supervisorial map-drawing, while the county opposed the bill, citing its existing advisory commission and an estimated $2 million implementation cost. Senators Ashby and Arreguín voiced support for independent redistricting, and the committee continued discussion as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Development fees and other construction requirements can make up a significant portion of building costs
• So the Mitigation Fee Act governs how local jurisdictions impose impact fees, and to charge an impact
• and construction-related jobs, closer to reality.
• and expert fees associated with that.
• That invites— And collect attorney fees and expert fees associated with that.

Summary: The committee heard a series of housing, local government, and governance bills, with most of the discussion focused on housing production, permitting, and local accountability. SB 1003, by Senator Grayson, would create an Infrastructure Partnership Financing Program to help local jurisdictions and developers jointly fund infill housing infrastructure; it drew support from housing advocates and senior housing groups, while Senator Seyarto questioned whether the state would actually fund another program. The bill was moved on a 3-1 vote and remained on call. SB 1014 would require local jurisdictions to provide good-faith estimates of on-site and off-site improvements within 30 business days of a preliminary application and limit later surprise requirements; Habitat for Humanity, SPUR, and other housing groups supported it, while the City of San Mateo and local government associations raised concerns about accuracy and timing. It passed 4-2 and remained on call. SB 1036, which would require credit under the Mitigation Fee Act for prior site uses when redeveloping a site, passed unanimously to the Senate floor. SB 1145 would streamline CEQA and federal reuse review for qualifying projects at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station; it drew broad labor and local support, but housing and legal advocates sought stronger affordability and enforceability provisions. The bill passed 6-0 to the Committee on Environmental Quality. The committee also considered SB 908, which would streamline permits for energy-code-compliant residential window replacements and limit local design restrictions and HOA barriers. Supporters said the bill would let homeowners and affordable housing providers reduce energy costs, while opponents argued it could override local design standards; it passed 3-1 and remained on call. SB 1172, the Local Tax Savings Act, would add guardrails and transparency to local tax-sharing and consultant agreements; it was supported by the City of Shafter and the League of California Cities and passed 4-0 to Revenue and Taxation, remaining on call. SB 1283 would expand ministerial approval for EV charging stations to include canopies and on-site energy storage systems and require local ordinance updates by 2027; EV industry groups supported it, while cities and counties warned about safety, liability, and local review. Members discussed battery storage safety and litigation concerns, and the bill passed 4-0 to Judiciary, remaining on call. The committee also heard SB 1379, which would separate the Riverside County Sheriff-Coroner offices and create an independent medical examiner in response to in-custody death concerns. Supporters cited high death rates, settlements, and the need for independent investigations, while the sheriff’s association and county representatives argued the change would be costly, duplicate services, and override local control. The bill passed 4-1 to Public Safety and remained on call. Finally, SB 1414 would create an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County; supporters said it would improve transparency and remove conflicts of interest, while the county opposed the estimated $2 million cost and noted its existing advisory commission. Members generally supported independent redistricting, and the bill was discussed but no final vote was recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Even during construction, we have roughly avoided 500,000 metric ton of emissions due to our construction
• One is the program's construct by itself.
• fee for service.
• The other one is the complaint fee and so the developers are very you know confident in the fee for service
• , timber harvest fees, etc.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• dedicated General funds permit fees dedicated General funds permit fees specialty<00:04:19.120><
• One additional component is not the license fees, but maybe the habitat fee, for example.
• <00:36:17.640> for fees but maybe like the habitat fee for fees but maybe like the habitat
• , there’s a decal, carnival equipment fee, um, agency income administration fee, a criminal record fee
• fee, agency income administration fee, a criminal record fee goes in there.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Division 2 Finance Committee heard an overview and budget presentation from New Hampshire Fish and Game, led by new Executive Director Stephanie Simi and Business Division Chief Kathy Leonti. The agency described its mission to conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and marine resources, and emphasized growing pressures from disease, climate impacts, habitat change, and increased public demand. Simi said the department is largely funded by hunting and fishing license revenue and federal grants, is reviewing staffing and internal processes, and faces critical needs including permanent funding for environmental review staff, infrastructure and IT modernization, and possible service reductions if additional support is not found. Members asked about specific program and policy issues, including chronic wasting disease in deer, hemorrhagic disease in rabbits and hares, moose population decline, and a proposed bait-disease bill. The department said it is actively monitoring diseases and did not see a need for the bait bill at this time. Legislators also discussed the Hike Safe program, which the department said has grown from an expected $100,000 annually to more than $300,000, and a possible boating version of that program, which the department said remains under consideration but would involve complex logistics and multiple agencies. Questions were also raised about rescue costs, out-of-state hikers, and whether boat registrations could be used as a revenue source; Fish and Game said boat registration is handled by the Department of Safety, though the department receives $5 per registered boat for the public boat access program. The budget discussion focused on revenue projections, use of unrestricted Fish and Game funds, and dependence on federal reimbursements. Leonti said the department met the governor’s general fund target but not the Fish and Game fund target without using surplus unrestricted funds, leaving only about $100,000 in the fund by the end of the biennium. She said the budget uses more than $18 million in Fish and Game funds annually against about $14 million in unrestricted revenue, and that five of 193 full-time positions remain unfunded. The department warned that if federal grants were halted, it could cost about $5 million over five months and force the Fish and Game fund to cover the gap. Committee members also requested that future presentations be sent electronically in advance, and the department agreed to do so.

Transcript Highlights:

• :36.240> 20 construction commission reported 20 construction commission reported 20 prior<00:01
• fees are such a large percentage. fees are such a large percentage.
• We traditionally ask the utilities and the engineers what makes the fee not fit the fee schedule and
• So the fee schedule ranges.
• Um so the fee explanation.

Keywords: 00:05 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:34 Approval of Minutes 00:56 Information Items 05:40 Project Rpt from Postsecondary Institutions 14:00 Project Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 20:40 Lease Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 24:53 Rpt from OFM – Ky Infrastructure Authority 40:38 Office of Financial Management 47:39 Remaining 2025 Meeting Dates 48:05 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with routine business, including a quorum call, approval of the April minutes, and several informational reports. Those information items covered upcoming general obligation debt for Bullitt, Jefferson, and Warren counties; Kentucky Communications Network Authority updates tied to House Bill 6; Eastern Kentucky University asset preservation reallocations under House Bill 1; and School Facilities Construction Commission debt activity, including 20 prior debt issues totaling about $386 million with roughly 85% locally supported debt service and 15% SFCC participation. Members then discussed concerns about a Kentucky Communications Network Authority project, focusing on a reported discrepancy between an appropriation of $12.927 million and an apparent payment of about $8.532 million on a project with a cost estimate of $12.449 million. Several members asked for more detailed written information before the next Capital Projects meeting, noting that a lawsuit is pending and that they wanted to better understand the basis for the request and the spending to date. The committee also heard and unanimously approved a donor-funded Northern Kentucky University project to renovate tennis courts, with possible pickleball additions, after questions about why approval was needed, the project’s estimated $3 million cost, and its expected minimal ongoing operating costs. The committee next received Kentucky State University pool allocation reports for three projects: a $2 million McCullen Hall renovation, a $1.75 million walkway and miscellaneous repairs project, and a $2 million academic services building roof-and-window project. A member asked specifically about curb cuts and accessibility in the walkway project, and Kentucky State said existing curb cuts would be repaired and additional accessibility issues would be reviewed by engineers. The lease report from the Finance and Administration Cabinet included one lease modification requiring approval for the Attorney General’s office in Franklin County and one no-action modification for the Board of Cosmetology; the Attorney General lease was approved by roll call vote. Finally, the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority presented five loans and 37 grants, with action taken on the loan and grant items. The loans included a Hodgenville wastewater treatment plant increase, a Grant County sewer district treatment plant loan, a Mount Sterling dam rehabilitation loan, and two Morganfield drinking water loans for granular activated carbon treatment, one with full principal forgiveness. Members asked about the Morganfield project’s purpose and were told it was a remediation effort for a water-quality concern, and they also raised questions about engineering fees, which KIA said are compared against a U.S. Rural Development fee schedule that is industry accepted. The committee also reviewed cleaner water program grant reallocations from county allocation pools.

Transcript Highlights:

• OK, so who constructs sidewalks? Okay, so who constructs sidewalks?
• the fee.
• the fee.
• And this modified stormwater utility fee would explain And this modified stormwater utility fee would
• Just curious about the sidewalk utility fee. I'm curious about the sidewalk utility fee.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's also going to include any municipal specific fees and costs, so that would be permit fees and
• It's going to be a fee that is associated with both land development and house construction.
• construction.
• House construction, fees, and gross receipts tax. This is giving you a shortfall of $28,000.
• materials and construction labor.

Transcript Highlights:

• vehicles would be hit with an annual fee of $450, a dramatic change from the current $75 fee.
• vehicles would be hit with an annual fee of $450, a dramatic change from the current $75 fee.
• <00:46:21.920> US be instituting a new EV fee. US be instituting a new EV fee.
• $250 federal fee on electric vehicles. $250 federal fee on electric vehicles.
• fees on that electricity. fees on that electricity.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So how much was the 1% administrative fee?
• And if they go before the board, their fee, their fine can continue to increase as the attorney fees
• They don't have to charge the attorney fees now.
• Landry on issues because I'm not in construction. Construction law, but not construction.
• Brad Hassard from the Louisiana Construction Board, wait, Contractors Board, and Construction Code Council

Summary: The House Committee on Commerce met on May 18, 2026, with a quorum present and the chair noting it was the committee’s last meeting of the session. The committee first considered Senate Bill 254, which would prohibit certain excess debit card surcharges and authorize enforcement by the Attorney General. After adopting technical amendments and a committee amendment requiring written notice before a private right of action, the bill was reported favorably as amended. The committee then took up Senate Bill 80 on broadband administration fees and GUMBO program closeout. Members questioned the proposed increase in administrative and contractor fees, the timing of project completion, and how withheld reimbursements would work for utility damage. After adopting several amendments, including cleanup language and a provision to restore the reimbursement process, the bill was reported favorably as amended, though the Louisiana Telecommunications Association voiced concerns about the withholding language and lack of a clearer fault-determination process. The committee next considered Senate Bill 469, updating the Louisiana Underground Utilities and Facilities Damage Prevention Law. Technical amendments were adopted, along with amendments clarifying that the bill’s 30-day notice to utility owner-operators is separate from existing GUMBO notice requirements and creating a rapid dispute-resolution process involving the Office of Broadband, the utility operator, and the local governing authority. Testimony from broadband and municipal stakeholders emphasized the need for quicker responses to excavation damage and better enforcement, while some witnesses raised concerns about the late amendment and the need for clearer recourse and standards. The bill was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 468, dealing with fuel rewards programs and fuel discount limits, was also amended to allow such discounts while capping them at $1 below the advertised price; it was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 131, concerning attorney’s fees and costs in professional licensing disciplinary proceedings, drew testimony from a cosmetology board representative and the Pelican Institute. Supporters argued the bill would curb incentives for boards to generate revenue through enforcement and give licensees a fairer opportunity to resolve cases; board testimony noted that some boards already have fee caps and that enforcement actions are relatively limited. After adopting an amendment clarifying when a licensee is the prevailing party, the bill was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 251 on critical infrastructure protection also received technical amendments and several substantive changes, including adding ports and airports to the definition of critical infrastructure, clarifying “significant access,” adding a knowledge requirement, and adjusting exemptions and enforcement timing; it was reported favorably as amended after testimony from State Armor representatives about foreign adversary threats. Finally, House Resolution 253 was introduced to create a task force to study how post-2005 building code additions and inspection requirements affect residential construction costs, with the sponsor explaining the goal was to gather industry input and return recommendations next session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Deposits may only be used for the actual construction of the condominium home.
• an insurer licensed in Texas, covering 100% of the deposits used for construction.
• Deposit may only be used for development and construction purposes.
• Other states have made expedited filings and charge a fee for this specialized service.
• Reforms expedited filing fees and authorizes the Secretary of State to set and collect a fee up to $5,000

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, so who constructs sidewalks? Okay, so who constructs sidewalks?
• the fee.
• The local government imposing the fee has to show that the person who pays the fee gets a benefit from
• The payer of the fee has to get value out of paying the fee.
• Just curious about the sidewalk utility fee. I'm curious about the sidewalk utility fee.

Summary: The committee began with member introductions, then heard a presentation on a draft final report studying alternative funding mechanisms for sidewalks and related pedestrian infrastructure. Consultants said current local funding sources are insufficient, with most jurisdictions unable to complete planned sidewalk networks within 50 years. They evaluated four options: a sidewalk utility fee, a modified transportation benefit district sales tax, a new real estate excise tax option, and expanded stormwater fee use for ADA sidewalk ramps. The consultants recommended authorizing the modified TBD sales tax and new REET option, considering a sidewalk utility despite legal uncertainty, broadening any authorization to all pedestrian improvements, and not pursuing the stormwater fee option. Members asked about legal authority, fairness, revenue adequacy, and whether jurisdictions had been consulted; the presenters said state enabling legislation would likely be needed for a sidewalk utility and that fairness could be defined either by direct benefit or by need. The committee then received an update on the 2025 assessment of city transportation funding needs. The consultants reported that city transportation revenues have grown in some local and federal categories since 2019, but state revenues have remained relatively flat and smaller cities are especially affected by declining fuel tax revenues and limited tax bases. They estimated annual city transportation needs at $4.25 billion, average annual spending at $1.89 billion, and a funding gap of $2.37 billion, larger than in the prior study because of updated data, inclusion of system improvements, and higher preservation costs. Draft recommendations focused on reducing costs and improving efficiency, preserving and increasing state support, and expanding local funding options, including preservation-first spending, a permanent federal fund exchange program, streamlined review processes, better coordination with WSDOT, possible property tax flexibility, and exploration of new local tools. Members raised questions about design standards, the role of density and transit, federal compliance, and whether the report would identify specific consolidation or process changes. The committee also heard a project update on evaluating zero-emission vehicle and electrification programs funded by the Climate Commitment Act. Consultants said they had reviewed roughly 23 programs and projects across seven agencies and were now evaluating options to improve delivery, including process improvements, reorganizing programs, or consolidating governance and administrative functions. Early findings highlighted staffing shortages, duplication and variation across agencies, differing levels of risk, and the challenge of coordinating climate priorities across agencies with other core missions. Members asked about program outcomes, administrative costs, whether some programs should have exit strategies, and how to strengthen the EV Coordinating Council. Finally, WSDOT provided an implementation update on its new public-private partnership authority under SB 5801, saying work is underway to prepare governance, legal, policy, and organizational structures ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is a fee for service.
• Fee and then we always go above it and then we invoice accordingly. So it's fee for service.
• , timber harvest fees, et cetera.
• , timber harvest fees, et cetera.
• a statutory cap or a fee schedule.

Summary: The hearing opened with budget framing from the chair and the LAO, who said the May Revision addresses roughly a $14 billion budget problem and that the environment and transportation subcommittee’s proposals account for about $1.9 billion of the solution. The LAO urged members to focus on solutions that do not worsen out-year deficits, to preserve reserves, and to defer major policy changes that are not necessary to pass the budget, including the newly introduced water-related trailer bills. Members also raised concern about a late-dropped Olympic-related trailer bill, which the LAO likewise suggested should be deferred for fuller review. The first major item was the Delta Conveyance Project and related water quality control plan trailer bills. The administration argued the proposals would streamline permitting, water rights proceedings, judicial review, and land acquisition, and would clarify DWR’s bond authority for the project. DWR said the project is needed to protect water supply reliability against drought, earthquakes, sea level rise, and other climate-related disruptions, and that the tunnel would help move water when conditions are wet and safer for the environment. Committee members from both parties questioned the timing, the use of budget trailer bills for major policy changes, the scope of the CEQA and water-rights changes, the lack of a bond cap, cost growth, and eminent domain protections. The LAO recommended deferring both water trailer bills without prejudice. Public comment was sharply divided, with labor, water agencies, and some business groups supporting the project as climate adaptation and reliability infrastructure, while environmental, tribal, fishing, county, and community groups opposed it as an attempt to bypass public process and weaken protections. The committee then briefly heard the DMV’s Digital Experience Platform fee trailer bill, which would reinstate a $1 system improvement fee to help fund the vehicle-registration phase of the project. DMV said the fee would raise about $7 million annually and offset roughly $59 million to $60 million of project costs, while the LAO noted it would help but would not solve the Motor Vehicle Account’s broader structural gap. The hearing then moved to California High-Speed Rail, where the new CEO presented an updated plan and said the project remains a major climate and infrastructure investment. He reported a revised Merced-to-Bakersfield cost range of $34.9 billion to $38.5 billion, said the agency is trying to reduce risk through direct procurement of materials, and argued that stable annual funding is needed to avoid higher costs from delays.

Transcript Highlights:

• These deposits may only be used for actual construction of the condominium home.
• The committee substitute clarifies that any amounts used from the deposit for development and construction
• Deposits for the acquisition of a non-condominium home may be used by the homebuilder for construction
• The bill only allows for use of deposits for actual construction costs as defined in the bill, um.
• Reforms, expedited filing fees authorize Secretary of State to set and collect a fee up to $5000 for