Transcript Highlights:

• and housing infrastructure bonds are quite competitive.
• , where we can build something smaller than a private developer would be interested in.
• , where we can build something smaller than a private developer would be interested in.
• , where we can build something smaller than a private developer would be interested in.
• Development Corporation or Development Corporation or mmcdc<01:02:33.000> the<01:02:33.119>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• had a general obligation bond in nearly 20 years, nor lease revenue bonds since 2011.
• and lease revenue bonds.
• projects. college bond projects.
• It was about an equal amount of lease revenue bonds and G.O. bonds.
• to lease revenue bonds.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:28.400> bill forward to us passing a bonding bill forward to us passing a bonding bill
• It's not a GO bond program.
• <00:57:21.000> um fund bonding or trunk Highway bonds um fund bonding or trunk Highway bonds
• and we have to sell more bonds.
• and we have to sell more bonds.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Capital Investment held its first meeting of the 2025 session with members and staff introducing themselves and describing their priorities. Senators from both parties repeatedly emphasized the goal of passing a strong bipartisan bonding bill this year, with several members noting that local projects were delayed after no bonding bill passed the previous year. Chair Housley also said the committee would not meet later that week and previewed an upcoming presentation from MMB on federal funds. The committee then heard a presentation from MMB’s Leah Corey and Anna Ming on Minnesota’s federal funding efforts. Corey explained that MMB’s federal funds team coordinates state efforts to maximize funding from IIJA, IRA, CHIPS, and related federal programs. She said Minnesota has secured about $12.3 billion in federal funding so far, including roughly $3 billion more since the last presentation, supporting about 1,800 projects statewide. Most of the funding is going to transportation, roads, and bridges, with other major areas including clean energy and weatherization. She also highlighted an interactive public dashboard showing projects by region and noted that much of the data reflects funds flowing through the state enterprise. Corey also discussed state match programs that helped unlock federal dollars, including the IIJA discretionary match fund, the State Competitiveness Fund, and the Forward Fund. She said $180 million in state match has unlocked about $1 billion in federal investment through the IIJA discretionary match fund, nearly $17 million in state investment has unlocked nearly $90 million in federal funding through the State Competitiveness Fund, and $124 million for the Forward Fund has unlocked nearly $1 billion in federal and private investment. Members asked whether more state dollars could have brought in more federal funds; Corey said she was not sure, but noted the IIJA match fund is expected to run out in the coming months. The presentation also focused on direct pay tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, which allow tax-exempt entities such as governments, nonprofits, school districts, and tribal nations to receive payments for eligible clean energy projects after they are completed. Corey said the state is building awareness and technical assistance around direct pay, including educational sessions and a tax expert resource. She also described Minnesota’s Green Bank, the Minnesota Climate Innovation Finance Authority, which is beginning to issue loans for projects such as community energy, nonprofit geothermal systems, and solar-plus-battery installations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it would be impact fees for new development or for a single development or anything else.
• Harrison Bond, with Brownstein, on behalf of Ovation Development, in support of AB 366.
• Harrison Bond, with Brownstein, on behalf of Ovation Development, in support of AB 366.
• So the way I understand it, right, if you bond, you know what you're bonding for, right?
• that development.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• continues our pre-development. continues our pre-development.
• Paul development or a Ramsey County development, but a state regional development.
• Paul development. This is not just a St. Paul development.
• Bonding is a lot of fun.
• Bonding<01:12:46.560> is Bonding is Bonding is it's<01:12:48.040> a<01:12:48.520> lot

Transcript Highlights:

• development. Okay. development. Okay.
• development of the Crossroads<00:15:20.800> development<00:15:21.320> site<00:15:21.600
• Crossroads development site in Lebanon. Crossroads development site in Lebanon.
• In KPDA funds to develop two 60,000-square-foot spec buildings to further develop the industrial area
• development authority. development authority.

Keywords: The live stream ended prematurely due to a network issue. A full recording will be uploaded as soon as possible, 958, all

Summary: The committee first discussed and approved a new airport-related project involving two 60-by-80 corporate hangars. Members asked about how the project would generate revenue, and staff explained that hangar rent and fuel sales would help repay the costs, with more than half of the funding coming from the FAA. The project was approved by roll call vote. The committee then approved two large capital pool projects: a $1,715,120 roof replacement and skylight project for the Libraries and Archives building in Frankfort, and a $2,105,400 exterior renovation project for several state buildings, including Health and Family Services, the Kentucky History Center, and the State Office Building. After that, the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority presented one loan increase and five grant reallocations. The loan increase was for Springfield’s wastewater treatment plant project, rising by $262,300 to just over $2.88 million because bids came in higher than estimated. Members asked about the delay between approval and bidding, and staff explained the design, environmental review, and state approval process can take one to two years. The committee approved the six action items, and then received informational updates on additional water projects that required no action. The Cabinet for Economic Development next presented one forgivable loan and 11 KPDI/KPDI EDF grant projects. The loan was a $1 million forgivable loan for the Perry County Economic Development Board to acquire the Coalfields Industrial Building, with repayment forgivable if a project creates at least 75 jobs. The grant projects included site-readiness and industrial development work in Pendleton, Elizabethtown/Hardin, McCreary, Floyd, Marion, Fleming, Graves, Eddyville/Lyon, Caldwell, Mercer, and Johnson counties. Members asked how local match percentages are set and were told they are based on county population and updated every two years; staff also explained that beneficiaries usually provide the match and are reimbursed after submitting costs. The committee approved the action items. Finally, the Office of Financial Management presented two new debt issues and three SFCC debt issues. The new debt items were a Kentucky Housing Corporation bond authorization of up to $600 million for single-family mortgage revenue bonds, including a $100 million initial transaction, and a $5.5 million multifamily conduit bond for 98 apartments in Lexington. Informational items covered University of Kentucky refunding bonds and Turnpike Authority refunding bonds, both of which produced savings. The three SFCC debt issues for Campbell, Edmonson, and Perry counties were then approved by roll call vote. The meeting ended with brief discussion of the upcoming calendar and scheduling before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I wanted to start by just noting that in terms of the overall bond, the $10 billion bond, the Water Chapter
• , revise, and develop guidelines.
• I developed that.
• We've allocated about $500 million from the earlier Prop. 1 water bond, Prop. 68 parks bond, and the
• And then just on the funding for water quality and safe drinking water in the bond... ...the bond was

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• bonding authorization.
• required to authorize GO bonds.
• required to authorize GO bonds.
• required to authorize GO bonds.
• required to authorize GO bonds.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• the 2010A bonds and not exceeding $31.5 million to refinance 2016A bonds.
• the 2010A bonds and not exceeding $31.5 million to refinance 2016A bonds.
• revenue bonds.
• bond insurance.
• The bond commission, by the bond commission, the bond shall be deemed to have been sold by the commission

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Summary: The State Bond Commission met on May 21 with a quorum present and approved the April 16 minutes. The commission then reviewed and approved a large slate of local government and public authority financing requests, including election propositions for the November ballot, water and sewer infrastructure projects, fire protection and recreation district bonds, school board financing, and several refunding transactions. Most items were found to meet technical requirements and were approved on motions by Speaker DeVillier and seconded by Senator Talbot. Among the more notable items were the East Baton Rouge City-Parish refunding bonds for the Greater Baton Rouge Airport District, the City of Kenner’s retroactive approval request tied to a convention center agreement with GMB Basketball LLC, a Louisiana Housing Corporation financing increase for the Federal City Building 10 affordable housing project, and preliminary approval for the Northwest Louisiana Finance Authority’s Petro Tower redevelopment in Shreveport. The commission also approved financing for Southern University’s Scott’s Bluff student housing project and the Crescent City Schools/Harriet Tubman Charter School project. The Crescent City Schools item prompted questions about how MFP funds are used; staff explained that lease payments would support the bonds and that MFP funds are generally split between educational expenses and facilities-related costs. The commission received six monthly cost-of-issuance reports, which required no action, and a status update on the state debt schedule. It also approved Resolution No. 2 authorizing up to $425 million in general obligation refunding bonds to refund the Series 2016 bonds and tender other outstanding bonds for savings, with pricing tentatively set for June 16 and closing for June 30. During other business, New Orleans City Council President J.P. Morel thanked the commission for its role in helping address the city’s fiscal crisis and for approving a charter amendment election item aimed at strengthening budget oversight. The meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Municipal bonds are a particular type of bond, and they are bonds issued by states, counties, municipalities
• There are other types of bonds, such as private activity bonds, which are a very special kind of bond
• statutory authority to issue those bonds through the Statewide Economic Development Finance Act, or
• SWEDFA. statutory authority to issue those bonds through the Statewide Economic Development Finance Act
• So, they're bonds issued to aid private economic development or private businesses, but private businesses

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know that GO bonds would be that this would be eligible for GO bonds.
• I don't know that<00:35:36.040> GO<00:35:36.320> bonds that GO bonds that GO bonds would
• . bonds. bonds.
• We bond for much of these things. And it could be GO bonding.
• even revenue bonds.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• funded with General obligation Bond funded with General obligation Bond proceeds<00:05:07.039>
• administration and commerce to develop administration and commerce to develop the<00:10:32.800><
• :40.359> Bill that the projects in the bonding Bill that the projects in the bonding Bill are<
• reasons that could be devel developed reasons that could be devel developed with<00:54:23.760>
• successful in the October 2020 bonding successful in the October 2020 bonding Bill<01:08:13.279>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Capital Investment Committee met on January 23 and approved the minutes from the previous meeting. The main presentation was from the Office of the Legislative Auditor on its evaluation of Minnesota’s Sustainable Building guidelines, also referred to as B3. The auditors said the guidelines apply to certain new buildings and major renovations funded with general obligation bonds and are intended to improve energy efficiency, occupant health, and environmental quality. They described the program as involving the Departments of Administration and Commerce, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Sustainable Building Research, and project teams, but found widespread confusion over who is responsible for administering and enforcing the program. The auditors reported that oversight and accountability are limited, compliance is not clearly tracked, and there is no agency assigned to ensure projects follow the guidelines or to require compliance data. They said many projects in a review of 2020 bonding projects had not begun tracking compliance, and that up-to-date data were often missing. They also found the law’s stated program objectives are outdated because the referenced energy-code provision was repealed in 2009, and that measurable goals have not been established for most of the guideline categories. The office recommended that the legislature designate a responsible agency, clarify duties in statute, require compliance monitoring and data collection, update the program’s stated goals, and direct systematic evaluation of cost and sustainability outcomes. Members asked about consequences for noncompliance, funding, and whether cost impacts should be studied first. The auditor said the requirements are legal obligations, but no real enforcement consequences have been used so far, and any consequences discussed have been mostly theoretical. She said the Departments of Administration and Commerce were receiving about $1 million combined to support the contract with the Center for Sustainable Building Research, while other state agencies were not receiving dedicated funding for oversight. In response to questions about costs, she said the overall effect of the guidelines on project costs and sustainability is still unknown, but that the legislature could direct an analysis of cost impacts before taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• had a general obligation bond in nearly 20 years, nor lease revenue bonds since 2000.
• and lease revenue bonds.
• bond payments that we handle.
• It was about an equal amount of lease revenue bonds and GEO bonds.
• to lease revenue bonds.

Summary: The committee’s first major discussion focused on higher education facilities across UC, CSU, and the community colleges, with Chair Alvarez framing the issue as a final budget hearing before the May Revise. The LAO presented findings that campuses have grown substantially in buildings and square footage, while classroom and lab utilization remains below legislative standards and deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise. The LAO also emphasized that the state and segments lack comprehensive data on capital renewal spending and recommended better reporting, clearer funding targets, and long-term planning for renewal and maintenance. UC, CSU, and community college representatives each described large five-year capital plans, aging facilities, seismic and deferred maintenance needs, and the role of student housing, while noting that construction costs are rising faster than inflation. Members questioned the segments about debt service, utilization rates, and how projects are prioritized. UC said its debt service tied to state support is about $665 million annually and described a $30 billion five-year capital financial plan, including housing, medical centers, and building renewal. CSU said it has about $31 billion in five-year needs and more than $8 billion in deferred maintenance, with funding coming from a mix of state-related and one-time sources since the state shifted capital responsibility to CSU. Community colleges said their unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion and explained their use of a scoring matrix and FUSION system to rank projects. The chair and members pressed all three systems to better distinguish between projects that are truly shovel-ready and those that are long-term needs, and discussed whether facilities condition data, total cost of ownership, and more standardized metrics should guide future bond proposals. The committee then turned to Proposition 2 and the Governor’s proposed community college capital outlay projects. The Department of Finance said Prop. 2 provides $1.5 billion for community colleges and that the Governor’s budget proposes 29 projects, with two continuing Prop. 51 projects also included. The LAO supported the overall use of the funds but raised concerns about the current 65/35 split between modernization and growth, the unusually large share of gymnasium projects, and some scoring metrics that favor larger campuses and certain regions. Community college officials said the scoring system was developed through participatory governance and would take one to two years to revise, but they supported the funding and agreed to follow up on questions about project categories and the rationale for the weighting. Members also suggested giving more weight to modernization, regional access, and intersegmental or collaborative projects. A final item addressed the CalKids program. The Department of Finance proposed $56,000 ongoing General Fund for three positions, while the LAO recommended approving two positions but rejecting a manager position until the current $7.5 million marketing campaign is evaluated. ScholarShare’s executive director said CalKids has enrolled more than 5 million children, with nearly 600,000 claims and over $45 million distributed, and argued that additional staff and outreach are needed to reach a goal of 1 million claimed scholarships by the end of 2025 and to implement AB 2808. Members asked about marketing effectiveness, data sharing, and eligibility rules, and the program said it is expanding partnerships with Cradle to Career and CSAC. No final vote was taken in the hearing, and the chair indicated the facilities item would be held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:45.360> will ownership development program will ownership development program will
• ><00:12:36.240> and renters, homeowners, developers, and renters, homeowners, developers, and
• Housing infrastructure bonds are the state's largest source of capital for the development of housing
• :14:00.399> state's infrastructure bonds are the state's infrastructure bonds are the state's
• Since 2012, development of housing.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• revenues, $363,875,000 in bonding authority.
• Bond and special fund reprogramming, $75,000 in bonding authority.
• A joint development agreement. Joint development agreement. Okay.
• A joint development agreement. Joint development agreement. Okay.
• The bond committee is adjourned. Thank you.

Summary: The committee met to finalize the FY27 bond bill, beginning with a roll call and a detailed review of updated appropriation amounts. The Comptroller General walked through major changes across agencies, including additions for OMB, the Department of State, DNREC, Agriculture, Education, and Transportation, and explained the funding sources that would cover the total $1.256 billion package. Members then debated several large items, especially the $110 million appropriation for the Diamond State Port Corporation, the $35 million Legislative Hall addition, the $20 million Community Reinvestment Fund, and the $30 million land and building acquisition line. Questions focused on the port project’s costs, expected jobs, return on investment, and whether the state would face future commitments; Secretary of State Charney Patitofunded Chances and other officials testified that the port expansion would create construction and permanent jobs and support long-term economic growth, while some members remained skeptical and objected to the process and spending priorities. The committee also discussed school construction funding, with officials explaining that additional money would forward-fund projects already in the pipeline and help districts that had been turned down for certificates of necessity. Other items reviewed included funding for park improvements, marina acquisition, the Plummer Center demolition and transfer, the Pyle Center sewer project, the Site Readiness Fund, affordable housing, the Arts Endowment Fund, an unclaimed property task force, and various transportation and community transportation projects. Several members raised concerns about county distribution, minority-party involvement in negotiations, and the scale of certain appropriations, but the majority defended the package as statewide investment and economic development. The committee then voted on the Section 1 addendum and a series of new and replacement epilogue sections, including provisions for the port project, Legislative Hall minor capital improvements, land acquisition, affordable housing, the Community Reinvestment Fund, downtown development districts, the Rite Aid demolition, the Site Readiness Fund, school construction formula review, and enhanced school capital funding. Most motions carried, with a few recorded no votes or abstentions on the main addendum. The meeting concluded with a motion authorizing technical corrections by the Comptroller General’s office, followed by closing remarks thanking staff and members for their work and noting that this was likely the final bond committee meeting for some participants before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Development.
• It may be used for construction; the builder or developer must obtain insurance or a surety bond from
• The bonding companies will thoroughly underwrite both the project and the developer.
• In this case, the developers will pay the bonding company a fee or premium to issue the bond, much like
• And further to that, by signing the bond, the developers are taking the obligation to repay the bonding

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it is a developer tool.
• So plans are developed.
• Ours relates to the bond issuance.
• for economic development.
• is not fully developed, and it takes a while to develop their capital stack.

Transcript Highlights:

• 15-year Bond or a 30-year Bond because 15-year Bond or a 30-year Bond because they<00:56:55.559> will
• Can't you do a bond?
• Can't you do a bond?
• Can't you do a bond?
• Can't you do a bond?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We issue bonds in the bond market.
• <00:07:32.240> we um we issue Bonds in the bond market we um we issue Bonds in the bond market
• units that are in that um development units that are in that um development so<00:55:50.680>
• <01:02:26.200> so in the bond market to issue bonds so in the bond market to issue bonds so
• cost rehab Land for a development cost rehab Land Development<01:18:24.320> affordability<01:

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an agency overview from Minnesota Housing Commissioner Jennifer Ho. After member and staff introductions, Ho described Minnesota Housing’s mission, structure, and role as a mission-driven financial institution that issues bonds, uses earnings to support operations, and works across the housing continuum from homelessness prevention to homeownership and preservation. She emphasized that the agency is not a builder or regulator, but funds and partners with developers, local governments, nonprofits, and lenders. She also noted the agency’s four divisions, including a new local government housing programs division created after the 2023 legislative session expanded the agency’s responsibilities. Ho reviewed funding and program activity, saying Minnesota Housing spent $1.96 billion in fiscal year 2024 and helped more than 73,000 households. She highlighted that the agency’s work is heavily competitive and often oversubscribed, with many projects selected through RFPs and grants but more applications than available resources. She discussed 2023 and 2024 investments, including homeownership, rental, and manufactured housing projects, and said roughly half of competitive dollars have gone to Greater Minnesota over the last several years. She also explained the difference between funds committed and funds actually disbursed, noting that construction and rehabilitation projects can take many months to close and draw down funds. The commissioner also updated members on new programs created in 2023 and 2024, including first-generation down payment assistance, the Greater Minnesota Workforce Housing Development Program, public housing rehabilitation, state housing tax credits, and other local and regional initiatives. She said some programs are already closed out, while others remain in early implementation or are still accepting applications. Ho mentioned a forthcoming technical amendment to adjust a high-rise sprinkler program after eligibility issues limited participation. She closed with examples of projects preserved or funded, including a St. Louis Park preservation deal, public housing preservation in Greater Minnesota, a St. Cloud challenge project, and the first-generation down payment assistance program, which distributed $50 million to about 1,450 first-time buyers, most of whom were Black, Indigenous, or people of color. No votes or formal committee actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• revenue bonds.
• revenue bonds.
• that level is not because developers that level is not because developers don't<00:13:13.519>
• you thank you we have Mark development you thank you we have Mark development Inc<00:14:37.880><
• <00:15:18.360> can interest loans that developers can interest loans that developers can utilize

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing heard testimony on several housing-related measures. Senate Bill 65 would appropriate funds to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority for rehabilitation and repair of public housing units. Testifiers from the Department of Human Services, HPHA, Catholic Charities Hawaii, and Roar Cares supported the bill, emphasizing that repairing vacant units is a fast, cost-effective way to increase available housing for homeless and elderly residents. HPHA later told the committee it had 139 vacant units, with an estimated average repair cost of about $73,000 per unit. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 65 with amendments, including an appropriation of $10,147,000, and the motion passed. The committee also considered Senate Bill 40, which would allow HHFDC to secure a line of credit or other indebtedness for the bond volume cap recycling program. HHFDC supported the measure and explained that Act 35 had provided a $150 million line of credit for fiscal year 2025 only, so this bill would extend that authority; HHFDC said the bonds involved would be revenue bonds. Roar Cares supported the bill, while the chair asked whether the Legislature would need to pass such a bill annually. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage with amendments to specify revenue bonds and noted the administration should study other ways to secure the line of credit without annual legislation. For Senate Bill 35, which would create a Housing Efficiency and Innovation subaccount within the rental housing revolving fund and allow fund transfers without legislative approval, HHFDC and several others supported the measure, arguing that more flexible fund movement would improve efficiency. The committee adopted a recommendation to pass SB 35 with amendments, including language prioritizing projects on state or county land or projects by entities required to reinvest surplus into housing, and noting nonprofit developers could qualify for prioritization. Senate Bill 42, which would repeal certain 30% AMI set-aside and preference requirements for rental housing revolving fund projects, drew opposition from Catholic Charities Hawaii, which argued the bill would reduce the supply of the most vulnerable housing units, while HHFDC warned it could reduce production of 30% AMI units. The committee deferred SB 42. The final bill discussed was Senate Bill 75, which would establish a working group to revise the state’s qualified allocation plan and related rental housing revolving fund loan terms and report back to the Legislature. HHFDC and others offered comments, while Catholic Charities asked that the bill be deferred, saying HHFDC already had the capacity to work with the community without a new law. Roar Cares supported the concept but urged broader stakeholder inclusion. In decision-making, the chair said the committee report would note concerns about prior QAP revisions and the need for more transparent, ongoing stakeholder participation, and the committee recommended passage of SB 75 without amendments. All recommendations were adopted, and the hearing adjourned.