Transcript Highlights:

• bonds generally the bonding talk about bonds generally the bonding process<00:04:58.000> at<00
• revenue bonds, appropriation bonds, etc.
• revenue bonds, appropriation bonds, etc.
• bonds and the Geo various purpose bonds bonds and the Geo various purpose bonds um<00:46:01.280>
• Bond um and the other is a 20year bond Bond um and the other is a 20year bond both<00:57:44.880>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Capital Investment Committee met on January 16 for an informational overview on state bonding and capital investment. House Research analyst Chelsea Griffin and House Fiscal analyst Andrew Lee explained the nonpartisan roles of their offices and then walked members through the basics of Minnesota bonding: how bonds are issued and repaid, how they are categorized, and the main legal authorities governing state general obligation bonds, including the state constitution, Minnesota statutes, and federal tax law. Griffin emphasized that state GO bond proceeds must be used for a public purpose, for a purpose authorized in the constitution, as specifically described in law, and must mature within 20 years. She also noted that state GO bonding is typically originated in the House and that capital projects financed with state GO bonds generally require a three-fifths vote in each chamber. The presentation also covered practical limits and requirements on bonding projects, including the distinction between state and local GO bonding, the role of bond counsel, restrictions on bond-financed property, the prohibition on reimbursing already-paid costs, and the full funding and non-state match requirements. In response to member questions, Griffin clarified that the full funding requirement in section 16A.502 means a project must be fully funded before the appropriation is available, while section 16A.86 reflects an expectation that local governments provide about half the financing for local projects, though the legislature can choose to fund more than half or waive a local match. She also said she did not believe a bill to make the 50 percent match requirement statutory passed last session. Lee then began a spreadsheet-based overview of the 2023 capital budget laws, explaining how capital investment spreadsheets are organized and how different fund types appear in the documents. He highlighted examples such as University of Minnesota projects funded with GO bonds and Minnesota State projects using user financing, where the system contributes a share of project costs from non-state sources such as tuition or system revenues. The committee did not take any votes or formal actions during this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• That means they were a revenue bond, a water and sewer that relies solely on revenue bonds.
• So if you go to issue, um, say revenue bonds or water bonds.
• We had some general obligation bonds from a previous bond issue that we that we refinanced and then 3
• The bonds are for 30 years.
• It's about private activity bonds, uh, the easier of the bonds that we're gonna hear today.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is bond authorization, so it's capital.
• treat it like a traditional bond bill.
• bill but I ask you to treat it like a traditional bond bill traditional bond bills are a mix of authorizations
• We know that bonding alone is not enough in this moment.
• We know that bonding alone is not enough in this moment.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 4987, the administration’s transportation bond bill centered on Chapter 90 roadway funding and related capital programs. Administration officials described the bill as a roughly $5.5 billion package that would continue $300 million per year for Chapter 90 over four years, with part of the funding distributed by the traditional formula and an additional $100 million based solely on road miles to better support rural and smaller communities. They also highlighted authorizations for municipal pavement work, Shared Streets and Spaces grants, accelerated bridge and pavement repairs, MBTA rail modernization and reliability, housing-related transportation improvements, and a new DCR-focused PRISM program for parkways and related infrastructure. Officials emphasized that the bill is financed through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues, and said it would help municipalities plan more predictably, speed project delivery, and support housing, safety, and climate goals. Committee members and witnesses discussed the bill’s broader scope beyond traditional Chapter 90, especially the $200 million for transportation projects that support housing development and the $200 million for MBTA modernization and rail reliability. Members asked about the rationale for a four-year authorization amid fiscal uncertainty, federal funding volatility, and the status of commuter rail electrification. Administration officials responded that the capital authorization is backed by dedicated transportation revenues rather than the operating budget, and said multi-year certainty helps cities and towns make better long-term repair decisions. They also said the MBTA’s rail modernization funds would support locomotive procurements, including battery-electric and Tier 4 diesel locomotives, as part of a longer-term regional rail and electrification strategy. Municipal officials and regional advocates strongly supported the bill. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, along with town and city officials from Sherborn, Conway, and Yarmouth, said the increased Chapter 90 funding and road-mile-based distribution are especially important for small and rural communities with limited local revenue capacity, and that multi-year funding would let them bundle projects, bid at better prices, and address backlogs more proactively. A Better City and MAPC also supported the bill but urged the committee to treat it like a traditional bond bill by adding policy provisions and considering new transportation revenue tools, such as TNC fee changes, road pricing, parking taxes, and other mechanisms. The committee took no vote during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Sandy passing a bonding bill?
• <00:04:09.519> proposals look at some of the bonding proposals look at some of the bonding
• money would go into bonding this year. money would go into bonding this year.
• >> Yes, it can because this is the bonding >> Yes, it can because this is the bonding
• are, you know, there's um four bonding are, you know, there's um four bonding leads<00:09:06.320

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Subdivision three is the bonding authority authorizing the city to issue bonds to finance the projects
• Subdivision three is the bonding authority authorizing the city to issue bonds to finance the projects
• Subdivision three is the bonding authority authorizing the city to issue bonds to finance the projects
• Subdivision three is the bonding authority authorizing the city to issue bonds to finance the projects
• served on the economic development served on the economic development authority<00:48:37.520>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• bonds being paid off, Mr.
• bonds being paid off, Mr.
• In answer to your question, the bonds are paid off the way that TIDs work—Tax Increment Development Districts
• The way that TIDs work, Tax Increment Development District, is that you can bond only if you have a method
• So when you want to talk about let's not do bonding here or let's not do bonding there, they should do

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 5194 by Capriglione relates to improving the efficiency of the state workforce development programs
• HB 5194 by Capriglione relates to improving the efficiency of the state workforce development programs
• , health, civic engagement, and social development.
• for purposes rejected by voters at a bond election held during the preceding five years.
• development boards and is referred to the Committee on Trade, Workforce, and Economic Development.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, this state bond would add student and employee housing as an allowable bond expenditure
• Additionally, this state bond would add student and employee housing as an allowable bond expenditure
• That is why in this bond, different from previous higher education bonds, we have included housing.
• who were developing around there.
• And so when... ...developers who were developing around there.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development heard a long agenda focused mainly on housing production, higher education facilities, homelessness, and permitting reform. Early items included AB 6, which would direct HCD to convene a working group on allowing three- to ten-unit “missing middle” housing to be built under the Residential Code rather than the Building Code; AB 48, a higher education bond proposal that would fund campus repairs, modernization, disaster recovery, and student/employee housing; and AB 76, which would clarify a Chula Vista university innovation district exemption so the project can include academic buildings and housing without conflicting with surplus land rules. Supporters emphasized affordability, cost savings, student housing needs, and access to education, while members raised questions about implementation, affordability requirements, and project scope. The committee later took votes on these items, with AB 6, AB 48, and AB 76 all moving forward on unanimous or near-unanimous votes to Appropriations. Members also heard AB 595, which would create a state homeownership tax credit pilot to support affordable for-sale housing. The author and supporters argued that California’s homeownership rate is at historic lows and that the bill would help close racial wealth gaps by financing homes working families can buy. The committee approved AB 595 and sent it to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including several other housing-related bills, was also approved unanimously. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act of 2025, which would require ongoing state investment and a financing plan to address homelessness and housing affordability. The author and witnesses described the scale of homelessness, the limits of one-time funding, and the need for sustained, accountable funding streams. After testimony from housing advocates and people with lived experience, the committee passed AB 1165 on a 10-0 vote to Appropriations. Finally, the committee heard AB 609, a CEQA reform bill that would create a simplified exemption for qualifying infill housing projects in already developed areas. Supporters framed it as a targeted way to reduce delays and costs for housing near jobs and transit, while opponents from environmental justice, labor, and tribal groups warned it could reduce public participation, weaken protections for disadvantaged communities, and create consultation concerns for tribal cultural resources. The author said the bill would not change zoning or affordability tools and would continue to work with opponents on amendments. The bill was moved forward after extensive discussion, with members noting ongoing negotiations on tribal consultation and labor concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the active development agreement section is specific to Fort Worth only.
• bond and tax rate proposals.
• The projected tax impacts of these bonds and a full accounting of how the bond proceeds are spent, what
• these bonds, and a full accounting of how the bond proceeds are spent, what projects they fund.
• That is specific to school district bonds and taxes, though. This is a bit more comprehensive.

Bills: HB103

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government heard a series of local and special-purpose bills, mostly with brief sponsor explanations and little or no public opposition. Topics included fireworks sales near the Texas-Mexico border for Cinco de Mayo (HB 1629), allowing larger counties to use their own inspectors for county buildings (HB 3234), updating governance and financial rules for the Wood County Central Hospital District (HB 5664), clarifying firefighter collective bargaining and impasse procedures (HB 3171), and exempting certain Fort Worth ETJ properties from release rules to protect infrastructure investments (HB 2512). The committee also heard bills on border subdivision rules in Cameron County (HB 3680), extending a property tax exemption to surviving spouses of certain veterans affected by the PACT Act (HB 2508/HJR 133), drainage district election timing and procedures (HB 5693, HB 2694), utility transparency for municipally owned systems (HB 1991), and management district and hospital district election or appointment changes (HB 5698, HB 2293). Another major bill, HB 1449, would expand a food truck permitting pilot program to counties over one million population; witnesses supported the concept but asked the committee to coordinate it with related fee and standards bills, and the bill was left pending for further work. The committee also heard HB 3732, which would let fire departments obtain extensions to comply with new NFPA protective equipment standards, and HB 5431, which would clarify that mayors and at-large council members do not need new elections after reapportionment; both were left pending after questions about their scope. Several transparency and tax-related bills were also discussed, including HB 103, creating a statewide database of local bond and tax election information, and HB 851, requiring reporting on homestead tax ceiling properties; both drew support and were later voted out. After testimony, the committee reported multiple bills favorably, often unanimously, and recommended many for the local and uncontested calendar. The committee also used procedural swaps to substitute House companions for Senate bills on several measures, then recessed with plans to return later to process additional bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• The second is the bond portion of the proposition.
• The bond authorized by Proposition 1 is a $6.4 billion bond. $4.4 billion of that is for behavioral health
• So the bond, Proposition 1 authorized a $6.4 billion bond.
• , the BHCIP, and the bond.
• So I'm going to quickly move into the bond.

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:

• Why are lawmakers not developing reprimands towards law developing reprimands towards law developing
• shy bonds far professional bail bonds shy bonds far professional bail bonds shy bonds far outperform
• that bond up which effectively lowers that bond.
• What bonds or reforming the bond system. What bonds or reforming the bond system.
• So bonds and parcel bonds forever. So bonds and parcel bonds forever.

Bills: HB265, HB146, SB254, HB202, HB3, HB42, SB18

Keywords: resisting arrest, penalties, criminal justice, law enforcement, public safety, youthful offender, capital murder, victims' rights, SB254, Alabama, statute of limitations, civil procedure, civil action, sex offense, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, survivor rights, tolling, disability, minor plaintiff

Transcript Highlights:

• more sense for a developer to shoulder the cost.
• a developer to shoulder the costs of joint legal defense.
• This is why the bond is so important and timely.
• Infrastructure bonds.
• This is the Housing and Community Development Committee.

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard a long agenda of housing-related bills, beginning with AB 518 on low-impact camping areas. The author and supporters said the bill would streamline permitting for small rural camping operations on private land, expand outdoor access, and support rural economies, while opponents from campground associations and counties warned it could undermine existing regulation, create enforcement problems, and allow advertising of unpermitted sites. Members raised concerns about fire safety and local control, but the bill was ultimately passed as amended on an 8-0 vote. The committee then approved AB 635, which would require HCD to refer up to 25 of the most serious mobile home residency law complaints to the Attorney General. Supporters said mobile home residents need stronger enforcement against egregious park-owner violations, while opponents argued the existing program is underused, costly, and should remain subject to a sunset. After discussion of the program’s surplus and enforcement role, the bill passed 9-1. AB 893, which expands ministerial approval for mixed-income housing near college campuses and broadens eligibility for affordable units to students, faculty, and staff, also drew strong support from student advocates and housing groups and respectful opposition from the League of California Cities over local control and height limits; it passed 10-0. AB 925, the Mobile Home Emergency Safety Act, would require stronger emergency preparedness measures in mobile home parks, including accessible exits, working fire hydrants, and gas shutoff access, with a fee increase to fund enforcement. Supporters framed it as a life-safety measure in disaster-prone areas, while opponents argued the bill duplicates existing requirements and imposes an unnecessary fee increase. The committee voted 6-1 to send it to Appropriations, with the bill left on call. The consent calendar, including several other housing and local government bills, was approved 8-0. The committee also heard AB 712, which would increase penalties and attorney-fee protections for applicants enforcing state housing laws against public agencies; supporters said it would improve compliance, while special districts opposed the bill as overly broad and unclear. Members discussed indemnification and timing issues, and the bill was advanced with amendments to Judiciary.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're in 20 years of bonding.
• So on a $350 million bond package, the payment on a 20-year bond is $53 million a year.
• the bonds that we already have, and the bond market was at 2%.
• So you can buy 10- or 20-year bonds, five-year bonds.
• You can buy 10- or 20-year bonds, five-year bonds, and you can sell that in the market.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bonds do not... Without the exemption, these deals do not pencil. The bonds do not get issued.
• No LIHTC, no bond cap allocation, no state appropriation.
• And we forced the developer to do the sewage piping from that development to, you know, $10,000, you
• And we forced the developer to do the sewage piping from that development to, you know, $10,000, you
• of development rather than after.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related proposals and policy ideas. One speaker urged changes to the welfare property tax exemption for affordable housing, arguing that annual income recertifications are outdated and burdensome, and proposing a one-time qualification at move-in, streamlined monitoring through TCAC or HCD, and continued exemption protection for projects that remain in compliance. The witness said rising insurance costs and administrative burdens are hurting cash flow and threatening the viability of affordable housing operations. A major portion of the meeting focused on social housing and the SB 555 study. HCD described its ongoing study process, including public engagement with residents, practitioners, and experts, and noted that California already has many building blocks for social housing, such as public land tools, long-term affordability mechanisms, community land trusts, and tenant protections. Community land trust and housing policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action, expanded public subsidy, tax abatements, public land, and simplified financing, and they emphasized the need to reframe the concept for the “missing middle” and middle-class households to build broader political support. Committee members discussed stigma around “social housing,” the need for a rebrand, and the possibility of a pilot program, especially on excess public land. The committee also heard a proposal for a certified professional plan-check system modeled on Vancouver, Canada. The presenter said California’s permitting delays, inconsistent reviews, and staffing shortages add cost and uncertainty even for streamlined projects, and proposed allowing state-certified private professionals to perform plan checks and inspections under state oversight while local governments retain zoning and enforcement authority. Members discussed local control concerns, infrastructure costs, and the need to reduce delays and uncertainty in the entitlement process. Finally, the committee heard testimony supporting changes to HCD loan disbursement so funds can be used during construction rather than only after completion. Witnesses said this would reduce interest costs, improve feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes with existing funding. The discussion also referenced AB 1053 as the vehicle for implementing that approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the requirement is applicable to the whole bond.
• Well then, from a bond overall bond perspective, that gives you some flexibility in other programs where
• It's just a bond, but of everything on the agenda, the bond is what I think you find the Assembly most
• to be out in the market developing partnerships.
• Maximize the bond dollars.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:41:22.720> Authority Industrial Development Authority Industrial Development Authority
• Woodford County Economic Development Woodford County Economic Development Authority<00:43:18.560
• Center revenue bonds 2016 series A in Center revenue bonds 2016 series A in accordance<00:48:32.319><
• refunding of of an existing bond. refunding of of an existing bond.
• and then tendering bonds as well to try and get holders, investors of those bonds to tender them back

Keywords: 00:02 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:45 Approval of Minutes 01:01 Information Items 06:25 Project Rpt from Postsecondary Institutions-KCTCS 10:50 Project Rpt from Finance and Admin Cabinet 18:08 Lease Rpt from Finance and Admin Cabinet 27:12 Rpt from OFM – KY Infrastructure Authority 33:56 Rpt from OFM – CED EDF Grants 47:20 Rpt from OFM – Office of Financial Mgmt 56:53 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, including approval of the February meeting minutes and several information items. Those items covered university equipment purchases, school district and transportation-related debt issuances, Northern Kentucky University’s planned construction-manager/general-contractor delivery method for the medical examiner/crime lab relocation project, a lease-space advertisement, postsecondary asset preservation allocations, and lease-law compliance reports. Members then discussed the Northern Kentucky crime lab project in more detail; staff explained that the memorandum of agreement would cover the construction portion while the lease would cover operations, and members were told the project should move forward without procurement problems. The committee approved a Kentucky Community and Technical College System project to modify the fire academy maintenance building after the related dormitory project was set aside because of major cost overruns. KCTCS said the dormitory would be about $3 million over budget, so it would not be bid; instead, the maintenance building would be expanded to add showers and restroom/locker facilities, bringing that project from $2 million to about $3.2 million. The committee also approved a Transportation Cabinet project for the Hardin County I-65 southbound commercial motor vehicle station relocation, with members asking about the estimate, the lack of a direct prior example, and the fact that the loadometer equipment itself would be purchased separately and was not included in the construction estimate. Finance and Administration Cabinet lease items were then considered. The committee approved a Department of Public Advocacy lease in Christian County and a Transportation Cabinet vehicle regulation lease in Kenton County, both negotiated down from initial asking prices and both including utilities. Two lease modifications were reported without action: a Department of Revenue fit-up in Jefferson County and an expanded vehicle regulation lease in Adair County. Members also approved a package of Kentucky Infrastructure Authority items, including four loans and six Cleaner Water Program grant reallocations, covering sewer and water projects such as MSD’s Patty’s Run flood pumping station, Paducah-McCracken County’s wastewater treatment plant, Mount Washington’s lift station replacement, and Eminence’s wastewater plant expansion. Finally, the committee heard a batch of Kentucky Product Development Initiative economic development grants and approved the action items in one vote. The projects included due diligence and infrastructure work for industrial and site-development projects in multiple counties, with local match requirements and KEDFA approvals described for each. The committee also received three line-item water grants from House Bill 1 that required no action, and the meeting ended after the grant presentations and approvals.

Transcript Highlights:

• activity bonds activity bonds are<00:05:17.200> capped.
• Under the old rules, the developer would typically request 55% of their cost in private activity bonds
• , or $22 million in bonds.
• million worth of bonds. million worth of bonds.
• cap on the maximum bond um limitation. cap on the maximum bond um limitation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bonds do not. There's a hard ceiling at that level.
• The bonds do not. Without the exemption, these deals do not pencil. The bonds do not get issued.
• No LIHTC, no bond cap allocation, no state appropriation.
• And we forced the developer to do the sewage piping from that development to, you know, $10,000, you
• of development rather than after.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-finance and permitting reforms aimed at making affordable and middle-income housing projects “pencil.” The first panel focused on the welfare property tax exemption, with witnesses arguing that annual recertifications are outdated, burdensome, and costly for both residents and operators. They urged streamlining by aligning eligibility rules with TCAC or HCD monitoring, allowing one-time qualification at occupancy, and preserving exemptions for projects that remain in compliance, especially as insurance costs and operating deficits are rising sharply. A major portion of the meeting centered on social housing and community land trusts under SB 555. HCD described the state’s ongoing study, due by December 31, 2026 and to be included in the 2027 annual report, and outlined public engagement already completed with residents and practitioners. Community land trust and policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action beyond the study, including expanded tax abatements, public land use, soft loans, and simpler capital stacks. They emphasized that the model should include mixed-income and “missing middle” households, and several members discussed the stigma around the term “social housing,” suggesting a rebrand toward generational or multi-generational housing to broaden public support. The committee also discussed a proposed certified professional program modeled on Vancouver, Canada, to speed plan checks and inspections by allowing state-certified private professionals to perform certain code-compliance functions under local oversight. The witness said this would reduce delays, repeated reviews, and cost overruns while preserving local authority over zoning and enforcement. Members raised concerns about local control, infrastructure costs, and political resistance, but expressed interest in exploring a pilot and further recommendations. In the final panel, housing advocates supported allowing HCD loan funds to be disbursed during construction rather than only after completion. They said this would reduce interest costs, improve project feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes without new appropriations. Members agreed the current system is fragmented and outdated, and several speakers and legislators repeatedly called for streamlined, more flexible financing and permitting tools to support housing production.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:41.800> and committee on Economic Development and committee on Economic Development
• <00:20:53.320> in development in development in support<00:20:55.880> uh<00:20:56.880><
• GO bonds would fall under this.
• GO bonds would fall under this.
• GO bonds would fall under this.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 1061 on digital equity. Testimony was strongly supportive, including from Rosie Davis of the Maui County Area Health Education Center, who said Molokai and Maui need better digital access for telehealth and clinic services. Members discussed whether the bill should be consolidated with other digital broadband measures and asked about funding; the chair noted the draft used general funds but said federal money was now available for the navigator program. The committee later recommended SB 1061 be passed with an SD1, technical amendments, and an effective date of July 1, 2050, with members voting aye. The committee then heard SB 135 on macadamia nut labeling. Hawaiian Host Group and several supporters argued the bill would help align the industry around a processing solution and support growers and jobs, while the MacNut Association and Hamakua Macadamia Nut Company opposed it, saying the state lacks enough processing infrastructure and that existing law already covers labeling. In questioning, members focused on the lack of a current processing facility and the timeline for a new one on Hawaiʻi Island. After hearing mixed testimony, the committee deferred the bill indefinitely. The committee also considered SB 1657 and SB 1539 relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. Testimony on both measures was generally supportive, with ADC describing the Wāhō water system as serving about 5,000 acres and over 70 farmers, mostly small and medium growers, and saying the proposal would help expand service without asking for more water. The committee later voted to pass SB 1657 and SB 1539 with SD1s, technical amendments, and a July 1, 2050 effective date. Finally, the committee took up SB 891 on economic development and gaming. The hearing drew extensive testimony, including support from Boyd Gaming and Stanford Carr Development, and opposition from Native Hawaiian speakers who said Hawaiians must have a seat at the table and raised concerns about self-determination and outside control. Members questioned the scope of the proposed gaming working group, the number and makeup of members, and the need to review prior gaming bills and studies. In decision-making, the committee passed SB 891 with an SD1 and major amendments: adding tourism references, changing expense reimbursement rules so private gaming representatives pay their own expenses, expanding the working group to include Native Hawaiian, social services/behavioral health, DBEDT, law enforcement, and tax/professional expertise seats, deleting one proposed seat, and adding a July 1, 2050 effective date. The committee also reported that the recommendations were adopted by vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• To do whatever they can to develop the economic development of the region and to serve their citizens
• Act as the 9-1-1 Bond Act.
• Speaker, gentlelady, so this bond, these bonds would specifically be spent on projects identified on
• For foreign trade zone development.
• to the Secretary of Economic Development.