Transcript Highlights:

• Meet the goals and expectations set out in the bond language.
• The first is to directly appropriate climate bond funding for the purposes specified in the bond, in
• Throughout the rest of the bond, the funds go to a department.
• On the other hand, most of the bonds had the...
• Backfilling reduces the amount of progress we've made with the bond.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• what's named in the bond structure.
• Will any of this bond money be used for security? Mr.
• Will these bond proceeds Will the bonds be used to purchase the land that the state now owns?
• And are you planning on bonding the full amount, or what are you planning on bonding on your first set
• of bonds?

Bills: SB48, SB64, SB100

Keywords: State Fairgrounds District, fairgrounds bonds, public financing, bond authorization, gross receipts tax, gaming tax, tax-backed bonds, infrastructure funding, Albuquerque fairgrounds, State Fair Tid, economic development, municipal bonds, revenue pledge, capital projects, New Mexico finance, special education, office of special education, deputy secretary, public education department, IEP

Transcript Highlights:

• So once a bond project, always a bond project. So now the dollars cannot go.
• The governor's recommendation is for GO bonds only, but the statute is written to allow for both GO bonds
• Sections 4 and 5 infrastructure bonds.
• in housing infrastructure bonds. in housing infrastructure bonds. So<00:37:16.680> Ms.
• that the housing infrastructure bonds that the housing infrastructure bonds are<00:37:20.840>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

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:

• The concept of baby bonds is simple but powerful.
• Baby bonds are an antidote to this.
• Baby bonds are an antidote to this.
• Baby bonds address the root cause of poverty.
• In short, baby bonds is preventive medicine.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on several bills focused on financial security, banking regulation, and payment-card fees. Treasurer Deborah Goldberg supported the Massachusetts baby bonds proposal (H. 48) and also endorsed bills on matched savings (H. 1158/S. 737) and retirement planning/Secure Choice (H. 1143/S. 722), arguing these measures would help address wealth inequality, build assets, and improve retirement readiness. Supporters of baby bonds included policy experts and health advocates from Children’s Health Watch and Boston Medical Center, who said early-life asset building could improve long-term economic and health outcomes for children in low-income families. AARP also urged passage of the retirement planning bill, citing the large share of private-sector workers without access to an employer retirement plan. Representative Donato testified for H. 1143, describing it as a voluntary retirement-savings opportunity for workers at small employers. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3933, concerning the Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance Corporation, from former Bank Commissioner Mike Hanson, who defended the state’s full deposit insurance system for credit unions and savings institutions as a longstanding consumer-protection model. The Massachusetts Bankers Association raised concerns about the bill’s technical provisions and broader credit union/bank competitive issues, while the Cooperative Credit Union Association supported related legislation allowing modest compensation for credit union directors (S. 821/H. 1338) and flexibility for state financial institutions to grow through partnerships (S. 723). Bankers opposed those credit union bills, arguing they would upset a level playing field and blur long-standing distinctions between banks and credit unions. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1259/S. 688, which would prohibit card interchange fees on the tax and gratuity portions of restaurant transactions. Restaurant owners and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association testified in favor, saying the fees are a significant and growing expense, especially as most customers now pay by card; they argued the bills would save restaurants money without affecting state revenue. Credit union, banking, and payments-industry representatives opposed the bills, saying interchange helps fund fraud protection and payment infrastructure, that the proposal would create compliance burdens and likely litigation, and that it would mainly affect Massachusetts-chartered institutions while national banks could be preempted. Committee members noted that a commission on payment-card fees is being established and said the issue would be studied further. The hearing also included support for a separate bill on virtual credit cards for dental providers, with dentists saying automatic virtual-card payments impose hidden processing fees and fraud risks.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:44.760> rating that our state's bond rating that our state's bond rating is<00:20:46.080
• Members, hopefully pass a bonding bill.
• I know bond ratings are not funds. I know bond ratings are not glamorous,<00:21:01.560> Mr.
• tools or bonding to build them at scale. tools or bonding to build them at scale.
• cities and counties to be able to bond cities and counties to be able to bond for<00:26:40.880><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to present the June bond sale, uh, starting on page 119.
• was looking at our previous bond sale in December.
• So, currently, the way we manage our bonds is through a few Excel spreadsheets.
• So, uh, building a better timeliness of the bonds, but again not tying up the old bonds, um, and then
• Uh, we're also moving to monthly audits of our bonds and share data.

Transcript Highlights:

• These bonds are proven to unrated bonds and encourages flexibility.
• Those bonds still go through, right? We recognize.
• the length of the bond.
• It could be anything that is associated with a bond. ...was an example of a type of bonded project.
• So there is an open door if that bond ends and there is a new bond to replace it.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on March 20, 2025, and first approved HB 4025, creating the Duke Farm Stewardship District in Lee County, on a 17-0 vote. The committee then advanced HJR 1215, which proposes a constitutional amendment to exempt agricultural tangible personal property from property tax, after extended debate about the fiscal impact on counties, especially rural and fiscally constrained ones; it passed 16-1. HB 411 also passed unanimously after an amendment, extending affordable housing tax exemption treatment to certain nonprofit projects on leased land, including Habitat for Humanity projects. The committee likewise approved CS/HB 669, allowing local governments to purchase certain unrated bonds, and CS/HB 4017, codifying the Vermont Drainage District charter in Charlotte County, both without opposition. The committee also approved HJR 1039, which would let the Legislature prevent assessed-value increases for homestead properties that are improved to mitigate flood damage, and the related implementing bill HB 1041; both passed 17-0. Public testimony on these items included some opposition to the flood-related amendment, but no floor debate changed the outcome. The final major item was CS/HB 1221 by Rep. Miller, which would require local option taxes to be renewed by voter referendum every eight years, with longer terms allowed for bonded projects. That bill drew the most extensive testimony and debate, with counties, tourism groups, and local officials warning about impacts on tourism funding, infrastructure, schools, and public safety, while supporters argued for taxpayer accountability and periodic review. After debate, the committee reported the bill favorably on a 13-4 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• . bonds.
• Any bond debt money that we.
• Using bond proceeds for the reason. and stated in the bond proposition and the clarification of existing
• They've managed to build rail through bonds. bonds, or through sales tax.
• Putting it on the ballot as a bond?

Bills: HB19, HB30, HB851, HB1663, HB1681, HB1769, HB1937, HB1979, HB2428, HB2433, HB2825, HB3159, HB3424, HB3486, HB3487, HB3504, HB3605, HB3879, HB3994, HB4382, HB4752, HB5444, HB5446, HB5447, HB3199, HB4847, HB19

Keywords: local government debt, property tax, ad valorem tax, bond election, certificate of obligation, anticipation note, school district tax rate, voter-approval rate, debt service cap, municipal finance, county bonds, flood control district, hospital district, public works, tax transparency, property tax notice, November uniform election date, general obligation bonds, local debt reform, taxpayer notice

Transcript Highlights:

• bond.
• The judge released him on a $750,000 bond. $75,000 bond, which costs $7,500 to be released.
• Um, because there's an issue related to conditions of bond, maybe not the amount of bond.
• One was held without bond, the other was released on $500,000 bond on a capital murder case.
• bond-related projects.

Bills: SB664, SB40, SB9, SJR1, SJR5, SB27, SB207, SB2938, SB1901, SB1227, SB1248, SB912, SB1321, SB2143, SB2145, SB1497, SB1239, SB2180, SB1388, SB1762, SB1662, SB1951, SB1537, SB493, SB378, SB1020, SB1018, SB992, SB958, SB920, SB1350, SCR25, SB687, SB1332, SB2185, SB552, SB664, SB40, SB9, SJR1, SJR5, SB458, SB482, SB927, SB984, SB651, SB1620, SB2124, SB2448, SB841, SB843, SB402, SB2662, SB2053, SB2332, SB2112, SB745, SB1247, SB1789, SB27, SB207, SB2938, SB1901, SB1227, SB1248, SB912, SB1321, SB2143, SB2145, SB1497, SB1239, SB2180, SB1388, SB1762, SB1662, SB1951, SB1537, SB493, SB378, SB1020, SB1018, SB992, SB958, SB920, SB1350, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135, HCR141, HCR46, HCR109, HCR10, SCR25, HB2525, HB142, HB140, HB29, HB451, HB3809, HB3307, HB 1130, HJR1, HB9, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB2308

Keywords: Texas courts, judicial officers, associate judge, magistrate, master, referee, hearing officer, court administration, Government Code Chapter 54, Government Code Chapter 54A, bail training, Article 17.024, Article 15.17, local administrative judge, State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Office of Court Administration, county courts, criminal justice, criminal jurisprudence, judicial qualifications

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:

• That's because for those school districts that issued the bonds in that one-year window, those bonds
• That's because for those school districts that issued the bonds in that one-year window, those bonds
• That's because for those school districts that issued the bonds in that one-year window, those bonds
• That's because for those school districts that issued the bonds in that one-year window, those bonds
• <00:46:26.920> bonding ...they've put the bond bonding amounts in a special fund, and then

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Is reduce the total amount that we're bonding, general fund bonding, and we now have $18 million right
• system it's meant to just pay the bond system it's meant to just pay the bond for<01:13:56.880><
• <01:33:19.199> 207 to attempt to bond 207 to attempt to bond 207 million<01:33:22.440>
• what the Treasurer recommended, and then the highway fund bonding and the other fund bonding.
• bonding it's in there and it is bonded bonding it's in there and it is bonded but<01:35:25.360><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review the lapse extensions in the back of House Bill 25, which governs capital budget appropriations and bonding. Members were walked through how the bill is structured: section 1 covers general, federal, and other funds; section 2 covers highway fund appropriations; later sections authorize borrowing, restrict spending to the stated purposes, and explain why community colleges and the university system operate through their boards of trustees. The chair also explained that lapse extensions are needed because capital projects can span multiple years, and that appropriations normally expire at the end of the biennium unless extended. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on how to identify unspent balances and whether they should be extended, repurposed, or allowed to lapse. Members discussed that if a project is complete or an agency confirms it no longer needs the money, the remaining balance can be reused for another project or, if not needed, lapse back. The committee also reviewed the meaning of bill references and chapter numbers, and how to read prior-year appropriations and extensions in the worksheet. One example discussed was a 2023 Department of Administrative Services courthouse generators item, and members noted that some agencies may rely on encumbered balances rather than explicit lapse extensions, though the chair said he prefers including the extension for flexibility. The committee identified at least one specific change: the Jeffrey Ringe CTE renovation was removed from the governor’s recommended budget because the required local match was not approved, freeing about $18.5 million for possible reuse. Later, the chair noted that lapse extension 49 on the worksheet was no longer needed and could be removed, leaving an unspent balance of $81,500 available for repurposing. The discussion also referenced a Department of Transportation item, Caroline Stratford Freight Rail Improvements, which the agency asked to keep alive through a lapse extension so the funds would not expire on June 30. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the special obligation bonds.
• It's the special obligation bonds.
• Special obligation bonds are a type of bonds that the state has issued in the past and the Clean Water
• . ...into these sections of the environmental bond bill.
• While this is a crucial step, bonding is not a long-term solution.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on S.2542, the Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill aimed at climate resilience, water infrastructure, conservation, and related permitting reforms. Secretary Rebecca Tepper and administration officials described the bill’s major investments in flood control, coastal resilience, DCR roads/bridges/dams and parks, drinking water and wastewater upgrades, PFAS remediation, land conservation, food security infrastructure, and expanded Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness funding. They also explained proposed streamlining measures for environmental permitting, flood risk disclosures, a Connecticut River Resilient Commission, and a new Resilience Revolving Fund to provide low-cost financing for municipal resilience projects. Committee members asked about affordability, useful life of projects, how the revolving fund would be capitalized, and how the bill would help communities such as Lawrence, Methuen, and coastal towns; officials said the fund would initially use existing trust resources, not new fees, and could later support special obligation bonds once it has a track record. Several witnesses supported the bill but urged larger authorizations or additional provisions. Boston Harbor Now asked for more funding for MVP and the state’s resilient coast plan, and supported permitting reforms for nature-based and hybrid solutions. The Massachusetts Rivers Alliance urged inclusion of drought-management language from separate bills, plus a statewide flood buyout program and a water reuse commission. Green Roots called for dedicated funding for outdoor and indoor air quality monitoring and indoor air quality improvements, especially in environmental justice communities affected by traffic and airport pollution. Conservation and forestry advocates requested more funding for urban tree canopy, local nurseries, and workforce training, while also raising concerns about PFAS impacts and the need for clearer municipal reforestation language. Agriculture and water infrastructure groups focused on food security and drinking water needs. The Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership and the Mass Food System Collaborative backed the food security infrastructure grant program and farmland protection funding, warning that the program needs continued support in fiscal 2027 and that farmland loss is accelerating. The Massachusetts Waterworks Association said the bill does not go far enough on drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, citing large statewide capital needs and PFAS compliance costs, and asked for recurring funding and broader eligibility for climate resilience grants. A Product Stewardship Council representative also urged funding for a waste reduction needs assessment, citing growing landfill constraints and rising disposal costs. No votes were taken during the hearing."}{

Transcript Highlights:

• , consolidation pre-design from GO bonds, consolidation pre-design from GO bonds, and<00:13:13.560
• Um I've been on a lot of bonding committees, a lot of bonding tours over the years.
• lot of bonding tours uh over the years. lot of bonding tours uh over the years.
• And um while I've not been bonding And um while I've not been bonding chair, chair, chair, um<00
• can't imagine how difficult the bonding can't imagine how difficult the bonding chair<00:32:05.880

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The committee took up a large bonding bill and reviewed the final spreadsheet of capital investments. Chairs and members repeatedly thanked staff, House and Senate negotiators, and the Governor’s team for a collaborative process. The bill was described as a statewide package rather than a partisan one, with major funding for higher education asset preservation, DNR projects, public safety, transportation, the Met Council, veterans facilities, corrections, DEED/local projects, and a large water infrastructure section. House Fiscal staff and Senate fiscal staff walked through the bill line by line. Highlights included University of Minnesota and Minnesota State asset preservation, education and language immersion school funding, DNR trail and flood mitigation projects, public safety facilities, local road and bridge grants, Met Council parks and I/I grants, veterans home and armory funding, corrections projects including the Faribault vocational expansion, and many local economic development and public facility projects across Greater Minnesota and the metro. The bill also included Public Facilities Authority water and wastewater grants, housing rehabilitation funding, historical society grants, a Minnesota Zoo operating transfer, airport appropriations, and several cancellations of prior appropriations to help finance the package. Members generally praised the bill and the bipartisan work behind it. Some Republicans emphasized the one-time license fee reduction and affordability, while also saying DEED’s business development infrastructure funding was too low. Senator Nelson highlighted long-awaited transportation projects such as Highway 14 and township roads. Senator Dibble supported the transportation investments but criticized the bill for having no transit funding, calling that a major omission. No vote was recorded in the excerpt, but the discussion centered on final review and support for moving the bonding bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• million allocated I guess through a bond million allocated I guess through a bond for<00:28:29.360
• <00:39:49.000> in issue those Bonds in issue those Bonds in 2026<00:39:51.000> um<00
• <00:44:11.559> and billion dollars in bond and billion dollars in bond and authorization<00
• have to um again go out and issue bonds have to um again go out and issue bonds that<00:45:45.240
• That would possibly be bonded, yes. So in 26, it will be possibly bonded. Yes.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Public Works and Highways committee held a capital budget orientation led by Legislative Budget Assistant Office staff, who walked members through the budget materials, the capital budget process, and the committee’s compare sheet. The presentation explained that agencies begin developing capital requests nearly a year in advance, submit them by May 1, and that the governor’s recommended capital budget is a reduced version of the much larger agency wish list. Members were told the agencies initially requested about $1.1 billion in projects, the catalog was trimmed to just over $400 million in general fund projects, and the governor’s recommendation in the pink book totals about $143 million in general fund capital appropriations. The committee also reviewed the prior capital budget and related statutes and committee procedures. Several specific projects drew discussion. The Department of Education’s CTE projects were explained as having been shifted into the operating budget in the prior cycle and now returning to the capital budget recommendation; members asked whether there was a backup CTE project and whether local approval had been secured for the named project. The Cannon Mountain tramway request was highlighted as a $20 million recommendation, with the presenter explaining that an earlier $18 million appropriation would be lapsed back to the general fund to help balance the budget. The Department of Corrections’ new prison project was also discussed; members were told the state has already appropriated $50 million for planning and site evaluation, but the governor’s current capital budget does not include a new prison construction appropriation because the project is not yet ready for that phase and may need to be funded differently, possibly through a separate, staggered appropriation. State Treasurer Monica Mezzapelli then presented on debt affordability and the state’s borrowing capacity. She said the state’s credit position has improved, with the debt-to-revenue ratio falling from 8.2% in 2015 to 3.8% in 2024, and explained that RSA 6-C limits debt authorization to 10% of unrestricted prior-year revenue. She noted that the Treasury’s planning assumes $60 million in annual bond issuance, with the prison-related $40 million now expected to be issued in 2026 rather than 2025 because the project is not ready to spend the funds. She said the state can still borrow more, but additional debt service must be paid from operating funds, and recommended keeping capital bonding in the $120 million to $130 million range to preserve affordability and the state’s credit rating. Members asked for clarification on the CTE funding shift, the prison schedule, and the meaning of the large agency request totals. The chair and treasurer discussed the governor’s $143 million recommendation versus the committee’s usual target range, and the treasurer said $130 million would be more comfortable than $140 million, with $135 million described as a possible compromise. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the meeting was informational and ended with the presenters offering to answer follow-up questions as agencies come before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> I I think you will see action on bonding >> I I think you will see action on bonding
• <00:05:14.800> bill governor has put forth his bonding bill governor has put forth his bonding
• We have the will to move a bonding bill this session.
• We have the will to move a bonding bill this session.
• We have the will to move a bonding bill this session.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, you’re going to bond to how much? How much are you going to get in bond? $5.73 million?
• And we’re going to bond this with 30-year bonds. Markita, is that correct? Yes.
• And we’re going to bond this with 30-year bonds? Marquita, is that correct? Yes.
• And we're going to bond this with 30-year bonds? Marquita, is that correct? Yes.
• I want to run a bond scenario.

Bills: SB152, SB145, SB190, HB247

Keywords: telecommunications, low-income assistance, lifeline, broadband, rural broadband, universal service fund, public regulation commission, PRC, 911 surcharge, telecommunications relay service, VoIP, mobile service, internet affordability, digital equity, digital inclusion, rural internet, broadband infrastructure, eligible telecommunications carrier, ETC, tribal consent

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:

• finance the bonds. finance the bonds.
• for the bond? for the bond?
• or wouldn't I guess affect bond ratings? or wouldn't I guess affect bond ratings?
• > bond<01:21:40.159> writers that the bond writers typic bond writers that the bond writers
• bonds. Thank you. bonds. Thank you. >> Thank<01:23:58.320> you.

Bills: SB2190, SB2338, SB2424, SB2356, SB2981, SB3028, SB3187, SB2378, SB2398, SB2192, SB2155, SB3219, SB3218

Keywords: affordable housing, employment contracts, salary caps, housing finance, public housing authority, executive compensation, parking minimums, off-street parking, transit-oriented development, TOD, housing supply, smart growth, redevelopment, adaptive reuse, micro units, rail transit, public transit stations, county zoning, land use, urban planning

Summary: The House Housing Committee heard testimony on a series of housing-related Senate bills. SB 2190 SD2 on inclusionary zoning drew support from HHFDC, Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute, Housing Hawaii’s Future, and Hako Seed Center, with opposition from OHA and Aloha Independent Living Hawaii. SB 2338 SD1, dealing with housing agency personnel authority, received comments from the Attorney General cautioning that the bill should be clarified to avoid conflicts with civil service and collective bargaining laws and recommending removal of a provision limiting employment contracts; HHFDC said its comments addressed those concerns and supported the measure. SB 2424 SD1, concerning HHFDC, received broad support from housing, business, and community groups, with one opposition. Testimony focused on changing the definition of “qualified resident” so people who already own an HHFDC-assisted unit could later purchase another if their housing needs change; HHFDC said the current rule forces people to sell before buying again and that the bill would help people move up the housing ladder and encourage more housing development. SB 2356 on parking also drew broad support from state agencies, housing advocates, business groups, and local officials, with Unite Here Local 5 in opposition. SB 2981 on land use had strong support from many organizations and 67 individuals, with Unite Here Local 5 opposing. SB 3028 SD2 on property conveyance generated the most detailed policy debate. Supporters, including Catholic Charities Hawaii, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, Indivisible Hawaii, and others, backed restructuring the conveyance tax into a marginal rate system and urged changes to revenue allocations, including dedicated funding for homeless services, DHHL, and the rental housing revolving fund. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii supported the marginal-rate concept but opposed dedicated special-fund allocations and criticized the bill’s blank sections. Committee members questioned the historical purpose of the conveyance tax, and the Tax Foundation explained it was originally a modest tax tied to property-value tracking when the state still ran the property tax system. The committee also heard SB 3187 SD2 on off-site construction, SB 2378 SD2 on housing permitting, and SB 2398 SD2 on residential housing utilities. OPSD supported SB 3187 but said it preferred the House version and wanted clarification that off-site certification should apply to factories in Hawaii, not out of state, to avoid outsourcing labor; it also suggested starting with a small scope. SB 2378 SD2 drew support from engineering, housing, and labor groups, with testimony that the House version included needed fixes to make the program insurable. On SB 2398 SD2, the Board of Water Supply opposed the bill, saying it could require disclosure of sensitive infrastructure information beyond ordinary water-availability assessments and raise critical-infrastructure and cybersecurity concerns; developers and housing groups supported the measure. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.