Transcript Highlights:

• But the exciting part of the real estate development ...and real estate development.
• The word development gets a negative connotation, but there's a lot around development.
• The word development gets a negative connotation, but there's a lot around development.
• The word development gets a negative condentation, but there's a lot around development.
• , not a land developer.

Summary: The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee first took up the appointment of Joshua Kellum to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Kellum described his background in diversified land, agricultural, materials, and real estate operations and said he views himself as a conservationist. Senators questioned him closely about his development background, the balance of perspectives on the commission, his vote supporting the black bear hunt, and the use of Fish and Wildlife Foundation funds for the “Yes on 2” campaign. Supporters argued he is primarily a land steward and conservation-minded landowner, while opponents said the commission is already dominated by developers and lacks scientific or conservation expertise. After debate, the committee voted to recommend Kellum’s confirmation, with Senator Smith voting no and the rest of the voting members in favor. The committee then received a presentation from FWC on implementation of recently enacted boating and vessel laws. Bill Holcomb outlined changes under SB 1388 (the Boater Freedom Act), including limits on vessel stops and boarding, a new Florida Freedom Boater Safety Inspection decal, and revised rules for Springs Protection Zones. He also reviewed SB 164 on derelict and at-risk vessels, including new enforcement tools, a long-term anchoring permit, and updated penalties; HB 289, Lucy’s Law, which strengthens boating safety penalties and education requirements; SB 830 on the disposition of migrant vessels; and HB 735 on water access facilities and boating infrastructure. Holcomb said FWC is in rulemaking, training officers, and updating forms and permitting systems to implement the laws. Members asked follow-up questions about derelict vessel cost recovery and whether penalties go back to the state, and about the Springs Protection Zone standard. Holcomb said the state can recover removal costs from responsible owners and that the new springs standard requires “significant harm” and that vessel activity be the predominant cause, with subject matter experts and partner agencies helping make those determinations. He said Silver Glen Springs remains a proposed zone but was paused pending the new criteria and rulemaking. The committee took no further action on the presentation and adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• for development, ACFDs.
• developer in the United States.
• If you're in a MUD, the developer can take roughly 50% of those development costs.
• We have many developments within cities, but developing in a city is often not an option.
• I have spent 46 years in the development industry, primarily using the MUD development model.

Summary: The committee heard testimony first from the Texas General Land Office and School Land Board. GLO officials described the agency’s role in managing more than 13 million acres of state lands and mineral interests for the Permanent School Fund, overseeing the Alamo, coastal programs, veterans’ services, and federal disaster recovery. They said the agency has generated about $6 billion for the Permanent School Fund since Commissioner Buckingham took office, and that its disaster recovery portfolio is about $14 billion across multiple events, with more than 22,000 housing units rebuilt or reconstructed since Hurricane Harvey. Members asked about land purchases such as Brewster Ranch, rare earth mineral leasing, SpaceX-related beach access, and whether the lands are public access lands; GLO staff said the holdings are managed to maximize revenue for education, that most land is leased rather than open to public access, and that they are coordinating on coastal access and compliance. On the School Land Board, members sought clarification on the difference between GLO-managed lands and the Permanent School Fund Corporation’s investment role, and staff explained that GLO generates the revenue while the separate corporation invests it. No votes or formal actions were taken. The Board for Lease of University Lands then testified. University Lands officials explained that they steward 2.1 million acres of surface and mineral interests in West Texas for the Permanent University Fund, which supports UT and Texas A&M institutions. They said a 2025 lease sale produced about $50 million in bonus revenue from 28,000 acres, and described the Board for Lease’s role in approving lease forms, lease sales, and development agreements. Members asked about the size and use of the PUF, how distributions work through UTIMCO, whether PUF money can be used for athletics, and how the land is managed; the witness said the fund is a constitutional endowment, the land is largely leased rather than sold, and distributions are generally used for buildings, labs, and other permanent structures, with some institutions also using a portion for operations. No votes or formal actions were taken. The committee then took up municipal utility districts. Testimony from a law firm, the Texas Municipal League, Fort Bend County Commissioner Vincent Morales, and Johnson Development largely supported MUDs as a financing tool for infrastructure tied to growth. Witnesses said MUDs help fund water, sewer, drainage, roads, parks, and related infrastructure, allowing development to proceed without shifting costs to existing taxpayers and helping keep housing affordable. They emphasized that MUDs are created with disclosure to homebuyers, are subject to the Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act, and are overseen by TCEQ for bond issuance and related financial stress tests. Members questioned whether MUDs are taxing entities, whether they can be created inside city limits or ETJs, how much control cities and counties retain, and whether MUDs are becoming permanent local governments; witnesses acknowledged they levy taxes and debt, can exist within city limits with city consent, and often function as long-term local entities. The committee did not take any formal action during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, this is about getting at that when we develop and look into new developments that they include those
• and and look into new we develop and and look into new developments<00:05:10.760> that<00:05:
• development and sale of another 25 lots. development and sale of another 25 lots.
• developers to construct this housing. developers to construct this housing.
• to a planned unit housing developments to a planned unit development<00:37:27.000> process, development

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• As a developer, a frequent concern we hear from community members is how developments will fit into existing
• As a developer, a frequent concern we hear from community members is how developments will fit into existing
• Darcy Jamison, Vice President of Development with Beacon Communities Development.
• Darcy Jamison, Vice President of Development with Beacon Community's Development. But.
• Darcy Jamison, Vice President of Development with Beacon Communities Development.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on zoning, Chapter 40B, and related housing bills. Much of the testimony focused on the “Yes in My Backyard” bill (H. 1572/S. 962), which would expand by-right development of missing middle housing, reduce barriers such as minimum lot sizes and parking mandates, and support duplexes, triplexes, and other small-scale housing. Supporters included housing advocates, developers, local officials, and municipal leaders from places like Cambridge, Salem, and Braintree, who argued that state action is needed because local zoning often blocks needed housing and that the bill would help create more affordable, neighborhood-compatible homes. Several witnesses also backed a companion “Yes in God’s Backyard” bill (H. 2347), which would allow faith-based institutions to build housing on their property by right, with testimony emphasizing the potential for new units, added municipal tax revenue, and partnerships between religious organizations and housing developers. The committee also heard testimony on Senate Bill 1021 to modernize Chapter 40R incentives. Senator Pavel Payano and others said the program’s payments have not kept pace with inflation since 2004 and should be increased to better encourage smart-growth zoning near transit and town centers. Another major topic was H. 2298 on site plan review, which would codify and standardize the process in state law. Rep. Kristin Kassner and witnesses from MAPC and NAIOP said current site plan review practices vary widely across the state, creating confusion, delays, and litigation, while a uniform framework would give municipalities clearer tools to review by-right projects without undermining local oversight. The hearing also included testimony on Chapter 40B reform, including S. 1005 and H. 1537. One witness supported further review of 40B and stronger regional planning, while another backed a proposal to allow certain pre-2010 40B condominium owners to sell at market value under a framework that would recapture some of the subsidy benefits. Committee members asked several questions about local zoning changes, housing goals by county, and how the proposed bills would affect communities. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs indicated that written testimony would be welcomed for technical details and additional comments.

Transcript Highlights:

• and single-family development.
• Development, and I think some of the developers that we have here, Jeff Curry, will talk to this.
• million up front as equity to develop the development, and then that investor...
• And to rental housing development and preservation, explain the difference from development.
• for new housing development.

Transcript Highlights:

• So as I noted, we developed this pro forma model, this real estate development model, to understand where
• development.
• development.
• What I can say is that the developers represented large multifamily development firms that currently
• Could you, do you hear that from a large number of developers, cities as well, or just developers?

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard a series of work-session presentations focused on transit-oriented development, commercial-to-residential redevelopment, building code implementation, housing market trends, and the Covenant Homeownership Program. The first presentation, from the Urban Institute, reviewed research on HB 1491 and TOD feasibility, arguing that Washington has made major progress but faces diverging conditions across transit areas. The presenter said rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and lower rents in some markets have made many projects less feasible, and recommended targeted infrastructure funding for lower-market communities, adjustments to MFTE and affordability requirements by local market conditions, more support for very low-income housing in high-market transit areas, minimum density standards near stations, expanded public land/joint development tools, and better tracking of TOD outcomes over time. Committee members asked about AMI calculations, immigration’s effect on construction labor, developer input, and whether a tracking mechanism had been removed from the bill. The Department of Commerce then outlined implementation of HB 1491 and demonstrated the new Washington Zoning Atlas, which is live and intended to help visualize zoning, overlays, and station-area conditions. Commerce said local governments will designate station areas, update zoning and MFTE policies, and handle anti-displacement measures, with Vancouver and Spokane first to implement and Puget Sound following later. Staff described a timeline for updated MFTE guidance, station-area implementation guidance, a TOD model ordinance, and later rulemaking on variances. The committee also heard from the Lieutenant Governor’s office on a report about converting commercial properties to housing, which found substantial potential for redevelopment on vacant or underused commercial land, especially near transit, but noted barriers such as ground-floor retail mandates, affordability requirements, infrastructure costs, private covenants, and slow implementation. The office urged by-right residential use on commercial land and faster rollout of new housing laws. The State Building Code Council updated the committee on its three-year code cycle and several legislatively directed actions, including minimum dwelling size, emergency shelters, and especially single-exit stairs and multiplex housing. Council staff said those code changes are nearing completion and will provide prescriptive solutions, while noting that elevator size and requirements were not changed and would require separate legislative direction if the committee wanted to revisit them. Members discussed the cost impacts of building and energy codes and the council said it is required to consider economic impacts and is increasingly looking at performance-based approaches. Later, the Washington Center for Real Estate Research presented its annual housing report, showing that higher mortgage rates have sharply reduced affordability, flattened house prices in many cities, and slowed single-family permitting and completions, while multifamily construction has recently cooled after a prior surge. Finally, the Washington State Housing Finance Commission reported strong first-year results for the Covenant Homeownership Program, which provides zero-interest down payment assistance to eligible first-time buyers with family ties to Washington before 1968; the program assisted 547 homebuyers in its first fiscal year, with more than $60 million loaned, and the agency said participation has continued to grow after income-limit changes enacted in 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we forced the developer to do the sewage piping from that development to, you know, $10,000, you
• But to that small developer, that was a big deal, right?
• And we forced the developer to do the sewage piping from that development to, you know, $10,000, you
• But to that small developer, that was a big deal, right?
• 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:

• This bill by Chairman Ken King requires utilities to develop and implement comprehensive wildfire mitigation
• However, the Secretary of State must develop the processes and procedures, publish them in the register
• It's a grassroots development of interracial, interdenominational national teams of pastors who are mutually

Bills: SB27, SB8, SB15, SB30, SB268, SB568, SB650, SB1405, SB1540, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB2024, SB2217, SB2308, SB2753, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB145, HB493, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2516, HB2885, HB2963, HB2974, HB3642, HB3909, HB5138, HB5246, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59

Keywords: immigration enforcement, ICE agreements, sheriff grants, law enforcement, county jail, federal immigration law, SB 15, Texas Local Government Code, zoning preemption, housing affordability, small lots, lot size, lot density, single-family zoning, residential subdivision, municipal land use, local control, state preemption, parking requirements, setbacks

Transcript Highlights:

• On a set of precedent of people being able to, developers being able to sue members of city councils
• As an attorney, you know that a developer could bring a...
• Family residential development projects. Senator Gutierrez, for what purpose?
• Certainly, they come into conflict with developers, but they manage that conflict."
• If there's land right for development, for homes, for families, no government should obstruct that.

Bills: SCR8, SCR24, SCR25, SB1, SB65, SB315, SB371, SB372, SB379, SB400, SB402, SB406, SB427, SB487, SB502, SB509, SB535, SB610, SB707, SB740, SB761, SB840, SB875, SB893, SB918, SB925, SB965, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1073, SB1106, SB1121, SB1194, SB1253, SB1300, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1447, SB1532, SB1555, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR25, SCR22, SCR12, SCR24, SCR8, SB565, SB372, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB610, SB918, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB535, SB761, SB1, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Transcript Highlights:

• including the Economic Development including the Economic Development Cabinet's<00:04:57.720>
• economic development grant side. economic development grant side.
• Once again, related to development approvals and the process and the lack of certainty for developers
• Once again, related to development Once again, related to development approvals<00:19:01.040>
• cost of the developer and homeowner. cost of the developer and homeowner.

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• fund affordable housing developments.
• to fund affordable housing developments.
• We are a market-rate housing developer.
• This is the reality developers face.
• As a developer, that sounds scary.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:12:42.239> our<01:12:42.520> developers market rate developments our developers
• won't develop there.
• won't develop there.
• won't develop there.
• won't develop there.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, we were here to talk about the structure for developing or for regulating development in urban
• Some want to attract development. Some want to limit development.
• Some want to attract development. Some want to limit development.
• This works well short term because developers get to develop. Services are provided.
• Because developers get to develop, services are provided, water's installed, sewers installed, but counties

Summary: The committee held a work session on local government issues, beginning with an update from the State Building Code Council on four legislatively mandated code amendments now in CR-102 rulemaking: temporary emergency shelters, reduced minimum dwelling unit size, multiplex housing up to three stories and six units, and single-exit apartment buildings up to six stories. Council staff also described a separate embodied-carbon appendix proposal that remains under public review, with testimony both supporting and opposing it. Members asked about the rationale for some of the code limits, including the restriction on connecting multiplex buildings. The committee then heard a panel on annexations from MRSC, Pierce County, and the Association of Washington Cities. Witnesses reviewed annexation methods, including petition, election, and interlocal agreement approaches, and said larger annexations are increasingly using interlocal agreements because they can address infrastructure, revenue sharing, and public process concerns. They described barriers such as inconsistent local standards, the cost of infrastructure, referendum risk, census requirements, and the difficulty of persuading residents and local officials to support annexation. Members asked about the five-year restriction on residential zoning changes in one annexation method and whether a hearing examiner could reduce political pressure on local decision-makers. A second panel discussed subdivision reform. The Master Builders Association urged raising the short-plat threshold within urban growth areas to 30 lots as a simpler first step, citing permitting delays and added housing costs. The City of Spokane described implementation problems with recent housing laws, including uncertainty about how to review plats under HB 1110, lot-splitting administration, and added notice requirements for unit lot subdivisions. AWC said there was broad agreement that subdivision decisions should be more administrative, but public hearings remained a point of disagreement. The committee also heard from FutureWise, the Washington State Association of Counties, and Lewis County on county development regulation and enforcement, with witnesses emphasizing underfunded code enforcement, inconsistent standards between counties and cities, and the need for better coordination, incentives, and possibly stronger enforcement tools. No votes were taken; the chair said the committee would continue working on possible solutions in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• a mini-developer.
• Single-family developers get a privileged role in the process while multifamily developers do not.
• Overall, single-family developers have won much easier rules than developers who build apartments in
• So this would establish a development fund to assist in the development of so-called starter homes.
• A development fund to assist in the development of so-called starter homes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
• as to timelines once a developer has engaged, so that way the developer is aware of the timelines or
• developers when they...
• Our commitment to developing and utilizing general orders so that individual developers, when they have
• No developer is the same.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing production, affordability, and timelines. Chair Pacheco and Assemblymember Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage and the need to reduce costs while maintaining environmental, safety, and community protections. The first panel featured housing experts and industry representatives who argued that state regulations, code complexity, utility constraints, and agency review processes add substantial cost and delay to development. Bill Fulton described overlapping state and local land-use authorities and the tension among housing, coastal protection, climate, and wildfire goals. CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and California Apartment Association representative Bob Raymer said building codes, energy mandates, and agency processes have materially increased per-home costs, and they urged more centralized affordability analysis and greater scrutiny of regulatory impacts. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger timelines and accountability for state agency reviews. The second panel brought in state agencies to explain their roles. HCD said its housing element enforcement, streamlining laws, and technical assistance have helped increase production, shorten entitlement timelines, and improve compliance by local governments. CARB said SB 375 is a planning law that does not directly regulate land use, and argued that regional housing assumptions in sustainable communities strategies are not being fully implemented on the ground. The Coastal Commission said it works with local governments to balance coastal protection, sea-level-rise risk, and housing, and noted recent guidance and pilot efforts to streamline housing approvals in the coastal zone. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are designed to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design and documentation complexity. Fish and Wildlife and DTSC both emphasized early engagement and collaboration to reduce delays while protecting natural resources and public health; DTSC said it is refining vapor intrusion guidance and using brownfield grants to support redevelopment. The State Water Resources Control Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to provide predictable permitting while balancing water quality, water rights, and housing needs, and noted billions in grants and loans for water infrastructure and site remediation that can support housing affordability. In response to questions from Assemblymember Haney, several agencies described ongoing coordination across departments, including regular meetings among HCD, CARB, the Coastal Commission, and transportation agencies, as well as broader interagency efforts to reduce redundancies and identify pinch points in project delivery. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the main outcome was informational testimony and discussion of possible future reforms to improve coordination, predictability, and affordability in state regulatory processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Corporation would act as a land bank and be able to develop plans and RFPs and RFQs for development
• developers?
• accept those properties and then work with a nonprofit developer or a for-profit developer to do affordable
• and also mixed-income development.
• I lead cooperative housing development for the Northwest Cooperative Development Center.

Summary: The committee met for work sessions on land banking/shared homeownership and on maximizing existing housing stock. Members first heard an overview from Commerce on alternative homeownership models, including community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, middle housing, church land for housing, and public land transfers. The discussion focused on how these models can help households build equity while keeping housing permanently affordable. Committee members asked about statewide counts of co-ops and land trusts, and Commerce said it does not track all of those entities directly. Pierce County staff then described the Pierce County Community Development Corporation’s rapid acquisition fund and its role in acquiring, holding, and transferring public land for affordable housing. They said the county used general fund and affordable housing sales tax dollars to buy properties, preserve a manufactured home park through resident ownership, and create a pipeline of sites for future development. Members asked about the advantages of a public development authority, funding sources, the use of surplus and underutilized public property, and how the model works with housing authorities. Spokane land bank staff followed with testimony that land banks can reduce blight, preserve affordability, and help nonprofits acquire land quickly, but that holding costs and taxes can make the work harder without state support. They also described brownfield assessments, donated properties, and work on Black homeownership and public surplus properties. The committee then heard from the Northwest Cooperative Development Center on limited equity cooperatives, especially in manufactured housing communities. The witness said Washington now has about 43 limited equity co-ops and that recent subsidy funding and legislation have accelerated resident purchases of manufactured home communities. Members asked how residents benefit from capped equity, how values are affected, and whether the model improves access to lending; the witness said the model stabilizes costs, allows modest equity gains, and that a recent law allowing manufactured homes in co-ops to be titled as real property should improve access to traditional financing. The committee also discussed House Bill 1974 from the prior session and possible updates to land banking legislation. In the second work session on maximizing existing housing stock, Commerce reviewed recent housing laws and implementation timelines, including ADUs, middle housing, condo liability reform, SEPA changes, tiny homes, and co-living. Members raised concerns about the long implementation horizon, vacancy data, corporate ownership of homes, and the need for better support for small landlords and first-time ADU owners. Sightline then testified on mobile dwelling units, arguing that RVs, tiny houses on wheels, and similar units are a low-cost, quick-to-install housing option that is often blocked by zoning; the witness said many Washington residents already live in these units, often informally. Finally, AARP discussed housing options for older adults, including ADUs, missing middle, manufactured home communities, co-living, universal design, and village-style support models, emphasizing aging in place and the need for more accessible, affordable housing choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• THOSE ARE SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF RENTAL HOUSING.
• TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST AND THOSE DEVELOPERS ARE GETTING PRIVATE INVESTMENT AS WELL AND THERE ARE FEDERAL
• DEVELOPMENTS OF SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACT.
• EVERY DEVELOPMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE MIXED INCOME.
• >> WE DID LAST YEAR OVERALL 106 DEVELOPMENTS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it is a developer tool.
• It's unlike some other tools in economic development, shifted to the developer because if those revenues
• So plans are developed.
• for economic development.
• is not fully developed, and it takes a while to develop their capital stack.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, it's three separate developments. Okay. Three separate developments.
• So, for development. Correct. There is one of development. Correct.
• smart choice for a developer. smart choice for a developer.
• > development<02:06:08.639> in safe, responsible development in safe, responsible development
• developers will honor commitment to developing affordable housing.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have land out there. it to a developer, but the way it's being developed is so fast, so quick, and
• This legislature, development should pay for development. That does not happen.
• So what that means is the developer is required...
• the property that that developer owned?
• The developer's doing all the private development.

Bills: HB23, HB363, HB447, HB954, HB23

Keywords: third-party review, property development, local government, permits, construction inspection, regulatory authority, land development, liability, occupancy certificate, municipal utility district, petition, county clerk, water code, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, traffic impact studies, bonds, road projects, eminent domain, extraterritorial jurisdiction, county authority