Transcript Highlights:

• This includes items on projects subject to review and certificates of need exemptions.
• Those estimates are something that you project out the number of projects throughout the state.
• If you apply that over the department's projection of the number of projects in the state, we well exceeded
• , of course, Over the department's projection of the number of projects in the state, we well exceeded
• Get that application complete by December 28, 2025, and that project will also be grandfathered.

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee met on February 3, 2025, with a quorum present and took up three main items. First, the committee considered a large set of recommended objections to Agency for Health Care Administration rules, all centered on sunset provisions stating the rules would expire after five years. AHCA asked for another deferral while it reviewed the rules, arguing the sunset language was a form of self-restraint rather than an invalid exercise of rulemaking authority. Committee leadership disagreed that further delay would resolve the issue and moved to a single vote covering all objections. The motion passed by roll call, and the committee informed AHCA that an objection would be filed unless the agency amended the rules within 30 days. The committee then heard an informational briefing from the Department of Environmental Protection on its Outstanding Florida Springs rule and stormwater rule. DEP explained that it did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory cost for the springs rule because the proposed standards largely mirror existing water management district rules and the Central Florida Water Initiative framework, so DEP said there was no new regulatory burden. Members asked about permit authority, costs, and whether the rules were functionally different from prior rules. DEP maintained the rules set minimum standards and did not add costs beyond what regulated parties were already doing. DEP also described implementation of the stormwater rule adopted under the 2020 Clean Waterways Act and later ratified by the Legislature in 2024. DEP said the rule was the product of years of workshops and technical advisory committee meetings, and that the final version included lower-cost alternatives, grandfathering, and phased implementation. DEP estimated the rule’s cost at about $2,600 per acre in the revised CERC, while industry witnesses said the real cost could be much higher, especially if land costs are included. A home builders representative argued the estimate understated impacts, while a stormwater engineer said the rule gives more flexible, performance-based tools and could become more cost-effective over time. Finally, Senator Graal presented proposed Chapter 120 changes in SB 108, aimed at tightening and modernizing rulemaking. The proposal would require five-year rule reviews, annual agency reporting, faster notice of proposed rulemaking after authorizing legislation, electronic filing, public access to incorporated materials, clearer tracking of technical changes, and limits on how long rules can remain pending ratification. Members discussed whether the Legislature should be more specific in statutes about rulemaking deadlines and whether agencies should be more accountable when rules stall. No formal action was taken on the Chapter 120 proposals, and the committee adjourned after discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand it's a member project.
• I understand it's a member project.
• million in PICO projects.
• Do you know whether those projects were submitted as member projects?
• And I know that there were a number of non-water projects as well as water projects that were funded

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:00.880> happen, necessary to make this project happen, necessary to make this project
• than is necessary to make the project than is necessary to make the project happen?
• Um, identify the entire project cost.
• And as especially housing projects.
• want to be able to assist other projects want to be able to assist other projects that<00:52:07.760

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Gives a 4th priority to projects with at least 80% of units restricted to families earning up to 60%
• So let's say I have a project and so many units are at 80% of median income, OK.
• So priority is, uh, who gets selected, uh, which projects. So projects are scored, right?
• So, uh, think about it like this, at, at the end of the day, the project has to pencil out.
• So you can't do a project, a $50 million project and have all 30% income folks that live there.

Bills: HJR40

Keywords: Medicaid, healthcare access, Affordable Care Act, federal funding, constitutional amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• In fiscal year 25, they did $5.8 million in projects.
• And in fiscal year 26, they have $5.6 million in projects.
• They have still left some projects unfunded.”
• And I know we did a project in Anton Chico, and you're probably aware of that project that we did with
• So good luck on your acequia project. That's all I think. Representative Pettigrew.

Bills: SB193

Keywords: SB193, acequia, community ditch, irrigation works construction fund, water infrastructure, ditch infrastructure, irrigation, New Mexico water law, agricultural water, farmers, Rio Grande, acequia association, forest land protection revolving fund, state fund transfer, irrigation projects, 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These are your big box projects. acres. These are your big box projects.
• are big projects.
• For any for a project are big projects.
• not reviewing those small projects. not reviewing those small projects.
• like to go out and review the project. like to go out and review the project.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 110, as amended by the Senate, which would establish fees for alteration-of-terrain applications and direct the Department of Environmental Services to adopt rules for a permit-by-notification process for certain projects. Trisha Milo introduced the bill for Senator Lang and noted that the department had worked on the amended language. Matt Mayberry of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association said the industry strongly supported the bill, describing it as a public-private partnership that would speed review for developers without affecting local control, with builders paying the costs rather than taxpayers. Members focused heavily on how the bill’s fee structure and permit thresholds would work, especially for projects near shoreland, wetlands, and protected water bodies. Representative Opel raised concerns about whether the bill reduced review of habitat and shoreland impacts or shifted costs unfairly; Philip Trobridge of DES explained that the bill does not eliminate those reviews and that shoreland projects still receive greater scrutiny. He said the bill creates different tiers, with the permit-by-notification process applying to certain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet that are not in protected shoreland, while larger or shoreland-affected projects remain under the standard review process. He also said the proposed fees were based on sustaining the program, covering added habitat and species review responsibilities, and keeping reviews efficient. Trobridge said the new fee structure would generate about $1.2 million in additional revenue and help fund additional staff and related program costs. He stated that the department had worked with the regulated community and believed the fees were fair and reasonable, though he acknowledged the bill’s wording was confusing and that the threshold could be revisited later if the new process works well. Members also discussed how the state process interacts with local approvals, and Trobridge said both state and local approvals are required before a project can begin. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> there's<00:16:08.680> about Um within this project, there's about Um within this project
• project simply unaffordable. project simply unaffordable.
• a project passing and a project failing.
• between a project passing and difference between a project passing and a<00:24:06.400> project
• > complex School building projects are complex School building projects are complex with<00:32

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from the OHA projection.
• You, we can't do any new construction projects.
• We'll work on a project for doing that.
• That's a $191 million project in Tulsa.
• a lot of projects.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the administration is projecting the savings to decline...
• not as much as the administration is projecting, in our view.
• We are the oldest project, the first project that started over 40 years ago, and we have weathered many
• I am a former staff attorney at the First District Appellate Project.
• I left the project a year ago.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are some projects near these projects that are being funded in other projects, but we're not jeopardizing
• any projects by those transfers.
• near these projects that are being funded in other projects but we're not jeopardizing any projects
• Yep, I love that project. I think it's really smart.
• The sweep does not affect those projects.

Summary: The meeting covered a series of fiscal year 2027 budget and budget-related bills, beginning with the general appropriations and tax package. Staff and the chair highlighted a budget built around about $1.4 billion in tax cuts, a one-time 2.5% agency reduction, major funding for state employee health insurance, corrections, flood and wildfire relief, and other supplemental appropriations. The chair repeatedly urged support for the package, emphasizing the size of the tax cut and noting that the committee’s joint vote had only three no votes out of 28 members. Members then reviewed several smaller budget implementation bills affecting racing and gambling, capital outlay, commerce and defense innovation, corrections, environment and water policy, higher education, human services, K-12 education, county finance, tax administration, state data governance, and state office rent rates. Key provisions included extending or modifying funds and fee structures, transferring surplus or unneeded monies, creating or revising oversight boards and pilot programs, increasing K-12 funding by 2% for inflation, adjusting university retention limits, expanding SNAP and housing-related requirements, and changing tax conformity and credits. Several members asked clarifying questions about specific items such as electric vehicle charging funds, mobile home relocation payments, university funding, and the new health insurance oversight board. The chair also explained the tax bill’s major changes, including conformity to federal tax law, a larger dependent tax credit, changes to deductions, repeal of certain tax credits, veteran property tax relief, limits on data center tax incentives, and provisions affecting manufacturing infrastructure and unemployment insurance administration. The committee discussed the Budget Stabilization Fund, debt repayment, and education rollover balances, with the chair arguing for using surpluses to pay down debt. The final item discussed was a behavioral health bill creating a home and community-based services program for adults determined to be seriously mentally ill, with a stated FY 2027 total fund appropriation of $7.8 million contingent on federal approval and matching funds. The meeting ended with a reminder that floor action would begin the next day at 10 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Projects can also be eligible 90% range.
• Uh loan for water and sewer projects.
• Uh, community projects funds are used for needed projects that small communities have a hard time
• The project must commence construction.
• personally to a development project personally to a development project kills<00:19:15.240> current

Keywords: Upon adjournment of the concurrent meeting, the Senate State and Local Government committee will continue meeting, 958, all

Summary: The concurrent meeting began with roll calls for both the Senate Standing Committee on State and Local Government and the House Standing Committee on Local Government, establishing quorums. The committees then heard a Department for Local Government presentation on the Community Development Block Grant program, which serves smaller and more rural areas. Commissioner Matt Sawyers and Executive Director Mark Williams explained the 2026 HUD application as a public hearing, noting an estimated total of a little over $25 million, with proposed allocations for public facilities, community projects, economic development, public services/Recovery Kentucky, and housing. They also described proposed changes, including shifting some funding from economic development to housing, raising non-traditional application ceilings, extending the economic development application window, and giving the commissioner flexibility to reallocate funds if requests exceed the allotment. No legislators or members of the public asked questions, and both chambers approved the presentation and then adjourned the House portion. The Senate committee then took up Senate Bill 149 by Senator Elkins, which updates county treasurer statutes. The bill shortens the waiting period for appointing an acting treasurer from 30 days to 5 days and allows fiscal courts to appoint a temporary treasurer for up to 60 days during vacancies, illness, incapacity, or termination. Members discussed the need for continuity in county finances, and the bill received favorable expression 9-0. Next, the committee considered several housing-related bills from the housing task force. Senate Bill 224, by Senator Mills, creates vested property rights for development applications and narrows who may appeal certain local land-use decisions; the committee adopted a substitute, then approved the bill 8-1 after members raised concerns about standing language and possible impacts on local participation. Senate Bill 225 requires the housing and construction department to analyze the cost and housing-supply effects of proposed housing regulations; it passed 9-0 after a committee substitute. Senate Bill 233, by Senator Neal, removes annual financial reporting requirements for homeowners associations with 14 lots or fewer to reduce burdens on small developments; it passed 9-0. Finally, Senate Joint Resolution 75, as amended, directs the Public Service Commission to study affordability and water/wastewater utility regionalization, including possible consolidation of small districts; the amendment and the resolution both passed 9-0, with one member noting concerns about whether the matter should proceed as an administrative case rather than a study.

Transcript Highlights:

• Project.
• I'm wondering, is that the sort of projects? Is that a...
• I'm wondering, is that the sort of projects?
• Is that included in your portfolio, doing big wind projects?
• And then finally, we have some really important state projects, generational projects, that are coming

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've already funded nine projects this year.
• So we're really able to fund those projects that come up sort of out of season, if you will—those projects
• that are either critical workforce projects or infrastructure projects where we see a catalytic opportunity
• We've already awarded $2.1 million to 11 projects.
• That project had been in development for some...

Summary: The Transportation and Economic Development Budget Subcommittee met to organize for the session, take roll, and hear introductory remarks from members and agency heads. Members briefly introduced themselves and their districts, with several noting transportation, economic development, emergency response, military, and hurricane recovery issues in their areas. Chair Shove then outlined the subcommittee’s jurisdiction and current-year budget, noting a total of about $20.3 billion, with most funding coming from trust funds and only a small share from general revenue. The committee also heard that upcoming meetings would include presentations from major agencies in the subcommittee’s purview. The first agency presentation was from the Department of Military Affairs and the Florida National Guard. Major General John Haas described the Guard’s three missions—supporting national security, responding to state emergencies, and adding value to the state—and highlighted deployments for hurricanes, border security support, and ongoing support to the Department of Corrections. He emphasized that the Guard is understrength relative to Florida’s size and demand, said recruiting is strong, and identified force structure growth as the main challenge. Members asked about aircraft, funding sources, and recruiting; Haas explained the Guard’s helicopter and fixed-wing fleet, said aircraft purchases are funded through legislative appropriations, and reported strong interest in the Florida State Guard’s recruiting pipeline. Executive Director Mark Thieme then described the Florida State Guard’s expansion into air, ground, and maritime capabilities, including Black Hawks, boats, drones, canine search-and-rescue teams, and ground support units. He said the agency supported immigration enforcement and hurricane response, and asked for continued legislative support to expand aviation, maritime, and medical capabilities. Members praised the Guard’s disaster response work and asked about aircraft, funding, and staffing. Secretary Cord Byrd of the Department of State followed, focusing on election administration, election security, the SunBiz and voter registration IT systems, arts and culture, corporations, libraries, and historical resources. He said Florida’s election system remains a national model, reported two prosecutions for non-citizen voting, and discussed modernization needs for legacy IT systems. The committee also asked about voter lookup tools, password privacy for SunBiz, and arts funding vetoes. Secretary Alex Kelly of the Department of Commerce described the agency’s broad portfolio, including workforce, economic, community, and international commerce functions, plus housing recovery, broadband, small business support, rural infrastructure, defense-community grants, and law enforcement recruitment bonuses. He said access to capital is the biggest barrier for small businesses and noted ongoing work with CareerSource, the Department of Corrections, and other partners on workforce and reentry. Secretary Jared Perdue of the Department of Transportation then outlined FDOT’s record budget and five-year work program, emphasizing emergency response, preservation and maintenance, safety, and major investments in roads, ports, airports, transit, and spaceport infrastructure. He said the department has removed millions of cubic yards of storm debris, is ahead of schedule on the Moving Florida Forward initiative, and faces a large unfunded project backlog. Members asked about supply chain issues, project priorities, and workforce needs, and Perdue said FDOT is open to collaboration on recruitment and retention.

Transcript Highlights:

• currently only covers 10% of project currently only covers 10% of project costs<00:26:31.760>
• growing season to complete both projects growing season to complete both projects in<00:26:56.360
• <00:27:35.559> and producers with building projects and producers with building projects and
• to those smaller projects.
• to those smaller projects we beneficial to those smaller projects we could<00:37:44.760> fund

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That’s an eligible project cost for those BEAD-awarded projects.
• a middle mile project.
• Those two projects, the North Texas project, is absolutely— Those two projects, the North Texas project
• These projects, these two projects, are going to either be wastefully duplicative or be a middle mile
• for project areas.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• five projects. five projects.
• capital budget for a similar project. capital budget for a similar project.
• sets out the cash-funded project sets out the cash-funded project authorizations.<00:35:33.920><
• like a wonderful project. like a wonderful project.
• Yes. obligations for courthouse projects. obligations for courthouse projects.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have seen firsthand how critical coordination of these projects is.
• Somerville has overwhelmingly supported this project.
• And there are projects, Provides an enormous waste thermal resource, and there are projects in Colorado
• made it their design standard for all their projects.
• He notes that we have two elementary school projects under construction now.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on several climate and utility-related bills, especially H. 3449/S. 2292 to expand the municipal fossil fuel-free building demonstration program from 10 to 20 communities and related home rule petitions for Somerville and other municipalities. Witnesses from Somerville, Salem, Worcester, Cambridge, Newton, Arlington, Wellesley, Watertown, and the Massachusetts Municipal Association argued that local governments should be allowed to opt into fossil fuel-free or net-zero building standards, citing climate goals, environmental justice concerns, housing production, and data showing all-electric construction can cost about the same as or less than mixed-fuel construction. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses for cost data and asked for written follow-up, while also discussing whether strong environmental standards affect housing supply; witnesses responded that the main housing constraints are financing and that they would provide more data from local projects and state studies. A second major topic was H. 3564, which would require gas companies to provide municipalities with detailed multi-year pipe replacement plans, allow local review and objections, and limit reimbursement for projects not previously disclosed except in emergencies. Municipal leaders and advocates said the bill would improve coordination of street work, reduce disruption and costs, and help cities plan for electrification, network geothermal, and non-pipeline alternatives. Testimony from Wellesley, Cambridge, Arlington, Newton, and others emphasized repeated problems with last-minute gas main work, the need for advance notice, and the value of municipal participation in planning gas system retirement and alternatives. The committee also heard testimony on the “tactical transition” bills, S. 2249/H. 3539, aimed at managing the gas-to-clean-energy transition. Supporters from Gas Transition Allies, Rewiring America, and 350 Mass said the bills would require joint gas-electric planning, create an advisory council, eliminate subsidies for new gas hookups, shift investment toward repairs and clean alternatives, protect workers through retraining, and make utility plans more transparent. They argued these changes would reduce ratepayer costs, avoid stranded gas assets, and support orderly decarbonization. In addition, HEET testified on H. 3541, which would update greenhouse gas accounting to better reflect methane’s short-term climate impact, and H. 3543, which would establish a framework for managing shared thermal resources and thermal energy networks; committee members asked several questions about the meaning, ownership, and consumer-cost implications of the proposed “thermal commons.” No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the assumption in terms of the capital cost for this project and on and on.
• As far as the project itself, I think funding has been one of the major.
• Yeah, I was just going to comment in terms of our supplemental project update report.
• Of those housing projects are complete to date.
• being delivered so these major mega project type of projects but when we take into account the geographic

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is for statewide project management.
• So we've funded over 130 projects, and these projects can have multiple facility types on their projects
• So we've funded over 130 projects and so these projects can have multiple facility types on their projects
• And so our budget projections, including projections of General Fund obligations, are part of that multi-year
• And so our budget projections, including projections of general fund obligations, are part of that multi-year

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from the chair and members about recent federal cuts to public health, mental health, family planning, and Title X funding, with strong concern about the impact on California programs and providers. The committee then turned to the Department of State Hospitals, which presented its 2025-26 budget proposal of $3.4 billion, including new positions, capital improvements, and funding tied to increased patient costs and incompetent-to-stand-trial services. DSH reported major progress in reducing the IST waitlist and wait times, said it had met the court’s 28-day treatment benchmark for those without extenuating circumstances, and described workforce recruitment and retention efforts such as residency programs, fellowships, outreach, and hiring streamlining. Members asked about future IST referral trends, SB 1323’s effect on diversion and community treatment, and workforce lessons in high-cost regions; public comment urged reconsideration of county IST growth cap methodology in light of new criminal justice initiatives. The committee next received an informational overview of Proposition 1 and its changes to behavioral health funding and governance. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that Prop. 1 restructured county MHSA funding buckets, expanded the Commission for Behavioral Health, shifted prevention and early intervention responsibilities, and authorized a $6.4 billion bond, including $4.4 billion for behavioral health facilities through BHCIP. DHCS said it had released guidance for county integrated plans and was receiving extensive public comment. Members focused on BHCIP application requirements, especially letters of support and tribal projects, and raised concerns about whether DHCS’s implementation matched statutory intent. DHCS said it had authority to set application requirements and that tribal entities were treated differently because of sovereignty and funding structure. DHCS then updated the committee on BHCIP, the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, and related bond implementation. The department said BHCIP had awarded about $1.7 billion across five rounds, with more than 130 projects and 223 distinct facilities funded, and that it was preparing to award the new bond funds after receiving nearly $8 billion in applications. The LAO’s assessment found that more than half of awards served at least 80% Medi-Cal enrollees, but also raised concerns that the regional allocation model could reinforce inequities, that the program had not sufficiently addressed the highest-need regions such as the southern San Joaquin Valley, and that smaller counties and less launch-ready applicants faced barriers. For bridge housing, DHCS said more than $1.1 billion had been awarded, serving over 5,000 people and supporting more than 2,000 operational beds, but the Governor’s budget proposes to eliminate Round 4 funding as the administration weighs other statewide investments and Proposition 1 implementation workload. Public commenters and members urged more accountability, better regional equity, stronger labor and community involvement, and caution about funding for for-profit psychiatric facilities. Finally, the committee heard on the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. CalHHS and DHCS described CYBHI as a broad prevention- and equity-focused effort with more than 1,300 organizations funded, over $2.1 billion awarded, and multiple work streams spanning schools, community programs, workforce, and digital supports. DHCS highlighted school-based services, the fee schedule rollout, and digital platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna, which it said are reaching users statewide and providing low-barrier access to coaching and support. Members and public commenters raised concerns about delays in school fee schedule implementation, the large share of funding going to digital tools, the need for more in-person services, and whether the initiative is sufficiently tracking outcomes and equity impacts. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:41:12.880> number to stop the um the project number to stop the um the project number
• this has been that particular project this has been that particular project I'm<01:41:21.560>
• He said the commuter rail project, Project 40818, the one between Nashua and Concord, is “fetch” and
• every time they study it they project every time they study it they project less<01:43:27.360>
• want to stop project want to stop project 40818<01:46:34.920> which<01:46:35.080> was<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Public Works and Highways Committee heard testimony on House Bill 375, which would allow municipalities to designate certain road segments for ATV travel, create maps and signage for those routes, set seasonal limits, and require certain equipment on ATVs such as lights, a horn, flashers, and directional signals. The sponsor, Rep. Dan Maguire, said the bill is intended to support tourism and give towns a structured, optional way to permit ATV use on roads, not to override existing uses. Members asked about possible overlap with agricultural vehicle rules, golf carts, speed limits, and whether the bill could allow ATV use on busier roads or expressways; the sponsor said he did not intend to interfere with existing lawful uses and believed golf carts would only be included if they met the relevant statutory requirements. NHDOT State Maintenance Engineer Alan Hennessy said the department had concerns with language exempting municipalities and the Bureau of Trails from the permitting process, arguing that the existing permit system provides needed review, public notice, and signage requirements. He also raised questions about road funding and maintenance if ATVs were allowed on state highways. Fish and Game Captain Michael Eastman testified that his commission opposed the bill as written, citing concerns about the ATV definition, the distinction between ATVs, UTVs, and other OHRVs, and the potential impact on state highways and road maintenance. He said towns can already open roads to OHRV use under existing law, and he noted that accident data for road use would generally be handled by local police or State Police rather than Fish and Game. Craig Reny, chief of the Bureau of Trails, said the current Bureau of Trails/DOT permit process for highway crossings and connectors works well and is used to ensure safety through engineering review. He said his bureau was not taking a position on the bill but wanted to clarify that existing procedures already address many of the issues the bill appears to cover. No vote or final action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.