Transcript Highlights:

• and roadway projects.
• Um, we have a new light rail, uh, expansion project called Project Connect, uh, that is going to help
• I think she was asking for specific projects that made an. Yes.
• Oh, specific projects, um, I don't, I don't think we didn't really highlight specific projects.
• Uh, has big projects, DFW.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is essential to the success of complex modernization projects...
• DAS identifying that they have received an award of that project.
• On public projects.
• Is it two or three campuses doing a project or two?
• It's not required of every single project in the whole world.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard AB 402, which would increase Cal Grant award amounts for students attending private nonprofit colleges and allow community college transfer entitlement awards to be used at those institutions. The author and supporters said the bill would restore award levels to their 2001 value and improve access for low- and middle-income, working, military, and transfer students. Several witnesses from private nonprofit universities, community college districts, and advocacy groups supported the measure. Senators raised concerns about the prior Cal Grant agreement tied to Associate Degree for Transfer participation and about the need to fund broader Cal Grant reforms, but the bill advanced on a unanimous due-pass vote to Senate Appropriations and was placed on call. The committee then took up AB 2067, a sunset extension for lease-lease-back authority for TK-12 school construction through July 1, 2032. The author and supporters from school housing and contractor groups said the method provides flexibility, early collaboration, cost control, and legal certainty for school construction projects. Senators asked how often lease-lease-back and other alternative delivery methods are used, and whether the skilled-and-trained workforce provisions limit competition. Some members objected to the skilled-and-trained requirement, while others said the bill simply preserves an existing tool without changing labor rules. The bill passed on a 6-1 vote, with Senator Ochoa Bogh voting no, and was placed on call. AB 1204, which would revise the Local Control Funding Formula by increasing supplemental and concentration grants, lowering the concentration threshold, adding regional cost adjustments, and setting a minimum annual COLA floor, drew extensive testimony on both sides. Supporters said the bill better reflects regional costs, inflation, and student need, especially for low-income, multilingual, and unhoused students. Opponents, including several school district leaders, argued it would widen funding disparities and divert money from the LCFF base grant, which they said should be the priority. Committee members also questioned the fiscal impact, the proposed 4% COLA floor, and whether the bill had enough research and stakeholder consensus. Despite those concerns, the bill was advanced to Appropriations on a due-pass vote and placed on call. Finally, the committee heard AB 1235, which would require a skilled-and-trained workforce process for CSU design-build projects to align CSU with UC and community college construction rules. Supporters said it would improve training and project quality, while opponents from contractor groups argued it would reduce competition, increase costs, and impose mandates without evidence of better outcomes. Several senators objected to the skilled-and-trained requirement as limiting opportunities for contractors who comply with state law, while others noted the issue was already common in higher education construction. The discussion was still underway when the transcript ended, and no final vote on AB 1235 was captured.

Transcript Highlights:

• rail projects and activities. rail projects and activities.
• So they've asked to have this project So they've asked to have this project also<00:56:05.000>
• state project state project if<01:25:54.920> you<01:25:55.160> impact<01:25:55.840
• And if we can save a little money on a project, hopefully we can do more projects and have safer roads
• , on a project, on a project, um um um hopefully<01:37:10.720> we<01:37:10.800> can

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , broadening eligible financing tools, and extending project timelines so transformational projects can
• These projects should happen on their own without having their hands out.
• But on the existing Modessa projects alone, it looks like we average $1.5 million on other projects other
• They, this will be their first major project in the Midwest. Okay.
• This city will make the decision on who does these projects. And these projects, this one...

Summary: The Legislative Rules Committee met with a quorum and held a public hearing on Senate Bill 1694, along with related Senate Bill 1688, both described by the sponsor and supporters as a modernization and expansion of the Missouri Downtown and Rural Economic Stimulus Act (MODESA). Senator Steve Roberts said the bills would broaden redevelopment tools, extend timelines, expand residential incentives, and help projects in St. Louis and other communities without using general revenue. Supporters from the Cordish Companies, the City of Kansas City, Greater St. Louis Inc., Historic Revitalization for Missouri, and BioSTL emphasized past redevelopment successes, including Power & Light, Ballpark Village, and potential reuse of large vacant buildings such as the AT&T Tower and Railway Exchange Building. They argued the proposal would leverage private investment, create jobs, and provide a predictable statewide framework. One witness opposed the bill, arguing it would create more bureaucracy, rely on tax abatements and TIF, and burden taxpayers. Committee members asked questions about the bill’s scope, rural component, fiscal note, and specific redevelopment targets, and the public hearing then closed. After a brief stand-at-ease, the committee entered executive session and adopted a substitute for the combined Senate Bill 1694/1688 package, then voted do pass on the House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 1694 and 1688 by a vote of 10-0. The committee also considered Senate Bill 1586, a solid waste measure, and voted do pass Senate Substitute Number 2 for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1586 by a vote of 8-2. Finally, the committee took up Senate Bill 889, a cleanup bill removing obsolete statutes, and voted do pass the House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 889 by a vote of 8-0 with two members voting present. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• , broadening eligible financing tools, and extending project timelines so transformational projects can
• Let us spend another $2.7 billion on those projects, make them bigger and better.
• These projects should happen on their own without having their hands out.
• But on the existing Modessa projects alone, it looks like we average $1.5 million on other projects other
• The city will make the decision on who does these projects.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To the project, that emissions of transportation would be cut.
• So the SunZia project is probably the flagship transmission project.
• I think they're also calling the generation project SunZia.
• We also had the Western Spirit Project that was an intrastate project, which happened much more quickly
• I'm aware in the industry of multiple projects that are being delayed.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• PeopleSoft Insights project.
• Projects for next year include PeopleSoft Insights.
• The Elley Building project is on track to be completed this summer.
• That is due to projects we were appropriated to complete, capital projects, as well as accumulating some
• We identified those two projects. I know they're both material costs.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the project manager's costs are 1.5% of the actual costs of the project.
• And the project manager's costs are 1.5% of the actual costs of the project.
• And the project manager's costs are 1.5% of the actual costs of the project.
• And the project manager's costs are 1.5% of the actual costs of the project.
• <00:19:47.919> This project. This was a big project. This project.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 209, which would require schools seeking building aid for construction or reconstruction projects to use an owner’s project manager. The chair explained an amendment that would remove the bill’s requirement that the manager be engaged before application and instead revert to current law, while updating the project threshold from the older $1 million figure to a more current amount and clarifying that the manager’s role is to protect the project owner’s interests. Members asked about the cost of hiring a project manager over several years before a project is funded, the 1.5% fee in rule, and whether the rules already define the manager’s duties. The chair said the amendment addressed those concerns by leaving the timing to current law and relying on existing administrative rules for qualifications and responsibilities. The committee then voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 209 OTPA, placing it on the consent calendar. The committee then moved to SB 99, which concerns allowing students enrolled in career and technical education programs at receiving comprehensive high schools to take additional academic courses there. The chair said the bill was intended to make it easier for students to access CTE without being blocked by scheduling conflicts in their sending schools, and to clarify how agreements between sending and receiving districts would work. He described concerns about the bill’s cost formula, transportation, part-time versus full-time status, and whether the proposal could unintentionally create open-enrollment or athletic-transfer issues. He said the amendment would mirror existing treatment for homeschool and charter school students, use a familiar funding model, and limit participation to students already enrolled in one or more CTE classes at the receiving school. The chair also emphasized that comprehensive high schools already have a statutory definition and that the bill would help more students participate in CTE, which he said currently reaches only a relatively small share of students statewide. He noted that transportation would be covered only when a CTE bus is available, otherwise students would be responsible for arranging travel as under current practice. After brief discussion, the committee voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 99 OTPA, also placing it on the consent calendar.

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.
• Yep, I love that project. I think it's really smart.
• There are a lot of projects that are currently in the pipeline.
• The sweep does not affect those projects.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a key reason why we won the Emirates Global Aluminum Project. For us.
• It doesn’t mean that if a great project came up in a new industry that we didn’t necessarily have an
• As opportunities come in, whether it's an expansion project for an existing business in our state or
• And I know you all are still working on a lot of those prep projects and ARPA projects.
• In the past year, there was a project in my House district that was dead.

Summary: The LEAD Committee met with the Department of Commerce to review a high-level strategic plan for Oklahoma economic development. Commerce Director Bud presented a plan centered on the state’s competitive advantages: central location and logistics, low cost of doing business, energy availability, labor force, tax environment, and partnerships with tribes, local communities, universities, and workforce organizations. He said the agency must focus on industries where Oklahoma has a “right to win,” identifying aerospace and defense, energy, agribusiness, manufacturing, and cybersecurity as priority sectors, with other sectors such as transportation logistics, automotive, finance/shared services, federal offices, bioscience, and broader IT treated as secondary or longer-term opportunities. Members asked about workforce, entrepreneurship, infrastructure, incentives, research and development, housing, and how Commerce should stay focused on its core mission. Commerce said CareerTech remains a major asset, but the state needs better coordination among agencies, universities, and workforce partners. Officials also said entrepreneurship should be encouraged within target industries, infrastructure readiness should be mapped and aligned to industry needs, and incentives should be evaluated against total cost of operations rather than compared only on percentage terms. They noted that the Incentive Evaluation Commission is comparing Oklahoma’s incentives with other states and that closing deals begins early, with the right people and partners involved from the start. The discussion also emphasized the need for stronger statewide marketing, better use of regional development staff, more robust research/data capabilities, and a stronger international strategy. Legislators raised concerns about Commerce being tasked with programs outside its core mission, and Commerce said it must administer those programs unless the Legislature changes the law, though it would like to streamline and reallocate resources where possible. The meeting ended with broad support for the strategic direction, appreciation for Commerce’s work on recent projects, and adjournment without any formal vote or action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• between 25 and 35 projects through one of these forms.
• And just some recent, 35 projects per year that come through these avenues.
• It's within those policy areas that the project work is completed.
• Typically, these are quick-turnaround projects. They're more narrowly focused.
• in the next includes the full listing of Opagus projects that are in statute.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee met to receive annual overviews of its oversight responsibilities and the work of the Auditor General and OPAGA. Committee staff reviewed the committee’s authority over state and local governments, enforcement of audit-report filing requirements, repeated audit findings, Transparency Florida reporting, and lobbying compensation audits. Auditor General Cheryl Norman described her office’s independence, audit standards, quality control, and major audit areas, including the state’s annual financial and single audits, school district and university audits, operational and performance audits, and attestation work. She also noted staffing shortages, recruitment efforts, and a request for carry-forward funds to study salaries. Members asked about whether audits can quantify recoverable dollars, how school district spending comparisons are handled, and how to raise concerns about DCF-related audits or a local city audit that has been pending for years. Norman said her office can quantify findings when possible, sometimes compares costs across districts in operational audits, and that members can bring specific concerns to the appropriate deputy auditor general or the committee. She also explained that citizen or local-government audit requests may require payment of audit costs. OPAGA Coordinator Kara Collins-Gomez outlined OPAGA’s role as a legislative research unit that conducts studies directed by law, the presiding officers, or the committee, and described its policy areas, methodologies, contract monitoring, and recurring statutory reports. Deputy Auditor General Matthew Tracy explained how to read operational audit reports, including findings, criteria, condition, cause, effect, recommendations, and management responses. Deputy Auditor General Greg Senators explained financial audit reports, including audit opinions, required supplementary information, internal control and compliance findings, federal program compliance, and management letters. The meeting concluded with thanks to the presenters and a motion to adjourn, which passed without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• A project for the state will require the bidder to have a labor agreement in order to bid for the project
• The experience of many large-scale projects, including the Boston Harbor project, the Port of Oakland
• bid and work on projects covered by project labor agreements.
• on projects contractors bid and work on projects covered<00:09:53.079> by<00:09:53.240> project
• Maybe four, five, six projects serving between 10 and 30 people, or homes per project.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I briefly outline... ...infrastructure investments and project permitting delays.
• California ISO, utility-owned projects, and third-party-owned lines.
• To understand this, you need to unpack how these projects are financed.
• I'm also glad that you brought up the point around project timelines, these protracted delays.
• This is a way to ensure that new publicly owned projects would be part of that shared risk pool.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard two bills focused on electricity affordability and utility costs. AB 745, by Assembly Member Irwin, would restructure the California Climate Credit by shifting it from lump-sum payments to direct reductions in volumetric electricity rates and moving the credit to the summer months when bills are highest. The author and UC Santa Barbara economist Dr. Kyle Meng argued this could significantly lower summer rates and better help households during extreme heat. Supporters, including UCS, NRDC, and some labor representatives, favored the concept, with some urging that the gas climate credit also be redirected. No opposition testimony was presented, and the bill passed 18-0 to the floor. The committee then considered AB 825, also presented as an affordability package aimed at reducing electric bills by addressing wildfire mitigation costs, transmission financing, permitting delays, and a review of ratepayer-funded programs. The bill would authorize securitization for undergrounding expenses, remove the first $15 billion in undergrounding capital investments from the rate base for return purposes, create a public transmission financing program using Proposition 4 funds and IBank support, revive the California Power Authority as a public sponsor, and establish a task force to review energy efficiency and demand response programs. The author and witness Matt Friedman of The Utility Reform Network said the bill could save ratepayers billions over time through lower-cost public financing and securitization. Testimony on AB 825 was mixed. Support came from several consumer and clean-energy groups, while utilities and labor raised concerns about the bill’s impact on utility financial stability, wildfire fund participation, liability, and whether the $15 billion securitization cap could discourage undergrounding. Some witnesses also objected to the task force’s potential effect on energy efficiency and demand response programs. Committee members discussed the need to balance affordability with utility creditworthiness and wildfire safety, and several asked for more analysis of market impacts and liability issues. Despite those concerns, AB 825 passed the committee 13-0 and was sent to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Koran, could you share with us what's the stated end goal on this particular project?
• Project proposers need clear rules and guidance when investing in a project that needs a government permit
• We're concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the projects.
• These concerns need to be considered early in the process of any water use project. water use project
• design or challenges with project viability can be expensive and often impact project timelines. project

Transcript Highlights:

• It simply requires local jurisdictions to gather more information on the impacts of road projects, but
• I do think there's some way to work the concerns out where we don't have to go through project by project
• bucket of major projects that do need consultation and minor ones that should need consultation.
• I do think there's some way to work the concerns out where we don't have to go through project by project
• bucket of major projects that do need consultation and minor ones that should need consultation.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee met and began without a quorum, first hearing AB 612 by Assembly Member Rogers and later AB 435 by Assembly Member Wilson. AB 612 would direct Caltrans to update the highway design manual so local jurisdictions consult with fire departments on major road improvements. Supporters, including the California Professional Firefighters and labor representatives, said the bill would improve emergency response and prevent road designs from hindering fire apparatus. County representatives said they were not opposed but wanted the bill narrowed to avoid mandatory consultation on minor maintenance projects or in areas without a local fire district. Several members praised the bill as common-sense safety legislation, and it was moved forward to Appropriations. The committee then adopted its rules and approved a seven-bill consent calendar. AB 435 would update California child passenger safety law to require children under 10 to be properly restrained in the back seat, require children ages 10 to 13 to remain in the back seat unless they pass the five-step seat belt fit test, and require the five-step test before a child may ride in the front seat. The author and supporters, including Safe Kids Greater Sacramento, Safety Belt Safe USA, AAA, the Automobile Club, and hospitals, argued the bill would align state law with national best practices and improve child safety. Committee members raised concerns about enforceability, implementation timing, pickup trucks, large families, and low-speed vehicles, and the author said he was open to amendments and additional data, including California-specific information. AB 435 was advanced to the Committee on Appropriations after discussion. AB 612 also received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. The committee held rolls open to allow additional members to add on, then later confirmed the votes and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We get our construction guys out there to oversee those short-duration projects.
• Like I said, it involves more project oversight.
• We work in coordination with our project managers to ensure everything works.
• Next, we are showing our transportation fund, our TPF projects.
• The BRM database can also perform some analysis, trying to predict future projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• Experts are cutting projections for economic growth.
• You can see in the forecast that you just received GDP is projected to go down, inflation is projected
• to go up, mortgage rates are projected to go up.
• to go down received GDP is projected to go down inflation<00:04:22.960> is<00:04:23.199> projected
• > Donald rates are projected to go up Donald rates are projected to go up Donald Trump<00:04:27.400

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So a lot of projects take a lot longer.
• Many times a project doesn't even happen because of infrastructure.
• And the project dies right there.
• There are no real projects being done on unincorporated care.
• I was the fourth director to work on the project.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We provide 100% incentive for customers and 100% project management.
• It's a great project and came together with a lot of help from a lot of people.
• The project is reportedly on time and on budget.
• crucial, noting... ...project on time and on budget.
• We’ve since expanded to six projects.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on the value of Mass Save, with opening remarks emphasizing that despite past criticisms the program has delivered major energy, cost, climate, and equity benefits. The chair cited large avoided system costs, strong benefit-cost ratios, and recent legislative changes that set emissions goals, restricted fossil-fuel equipment incentives, and increased focus on low- and moderate-income households. Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahoney testified that Mass Save has weatherized hundreds of thousands of homes, reduced bills, avoided emissions, and that the current plan includes budget controls after the DPU ordered $500 million removed from the approved budget. She said the governor’s proposal to have only electric utilities administer the program was intended to reduce administrative costs and align with current implementation trends. Members questioned Mahoney about what counts as marketing and administration, and she said the category includes traditional advertising as well as community-based outreach, customer resource centers, and other customer engagement work, much of it in low- and moderate-income communities. She said administrative and marketing costs are under 5% of the budget, while more than 80% goes to incentives and direct program delivery. Several witnesses then focused on workforce and contractor impacts. Dave Betcher of Abode Energy Management and Rick Taglienti of Rogers Insulation said Mass Save sustains small businesses, creates careers, and supports thousands of jobs; both warned that budget cuts would reduce hiring, training, and work in homes and businesses. They also described a broad ecosystem of suppliers, trainers, and service providers that depends on stable program funding. Other witnesses addressed cost-effectiveness, affordability, and emissions. Anna Johnson of ACEEE said Massachusetts remains a national leader, with Mass Save returning about $2.80 per dollar invested, reducing peak demand, and lowering bills for participants, especially through weatherization and heat pumps. Kyle Murray of Acadia Center said the program is statutorily required to be cost-effective and has avoided billions in supply and infrastructure costs for all ratepayers, including nonparticipants, by lowering overall demand and peak prices. Amy Boyd-Rabin of the Environmental League of Massachusetts argued that efficiency is the cheapest way to meet climate targets and that cutting the budget would force more expensive power generation. The hearing also featured testimony on equity and housing: Mary Wampo described historic under-service to renter-heavy and lower-income communities and said recent reforms, including designated equity communities and performance incentives tied to equity, are helping correct that imbalance; Brian Biot and James Collins of LEAN/ABCD described low-income delivery systems and wraparound services; Barney Heath and John Nannari said Mass Save incentives are essential to affordable housing, passive house construction, and keeping projects on time and on budget. The final witnesses highlighted Connected Solutions and electrification: Sunrun’s Bronte Payne said the virtual power plant program saved more than it cost and helps avoid peaker plants and grid upgrades, and Highland Electric Fleets’ Ben Sondaga said electric school buses can provide similar grid benefits while lowering transportation costs for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• um at 30% gives preference to projects um at 30% of<00:12:28.519> the<00:12:28.639> area
• They are mixed in with other higher-price units so that the project is feasible; otherwise, they could
• is feasible otherwise they the project is feasible otherwise they could<00:13:56.880> not<00:
• Trust Fund projects are below 30%<00:14:15.320> 30%<00:14:15.839> of<00:14:15.959>
• So on page five, line 3 through 4, it will now read: projects on land owned or developed by the state

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.