Transcript Highlights:

• Unlike a public library where patrons will go in, our patrons, for the most part, we serve from home.
• The statewide reduction efforts adopted as part of the 2024 Budget Act remain in effect, authorizing
• It’s something that we’re exploring as part of that work as well.” “Yeah.
• We appreciate the opportunity to be part of these conversations as they evolve.
• So there is part of it that is one-time and the rest is ongoing to maintain.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance met to review CSU and State Library budget issues, enrollment trends, the Capital Fellows program, and a Title IX update. Chair David Alvarez opened by stressing that CSU faces serious financial pressure, including a systemwide deficit and proposed cuts that he and several members said were too large and likely to harm access, course offerings, and student services. Public comment focused heavily on the Braille Institute Library, with patrons, staff, veterans, and advocates urging restoration of funding and warning that the proposed cut would severely affect blind and visually impaired Californians across Southern California. Several CSU faculty, staff, and union representatives also opposed the proposed reductions and warned of larger class sizes, fewer sections, and layoffs. On the CSU core operations item, the Department of Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to reduce ongoing General Fund support by about $375 million and defer a 5% base increase, while the LAO said CSU core funding would be roughly flat once tuition and targeted augmentations were considered, but warned that rising costs and prior shortfalls would still force campuses to cut spending. CSU’s Chancellor’s Office said the proposed cut would deepen existing problems, citing prior-year budget gaps, job losses, reduced course sections, and student-service reductions. Members pressed Finance and the LAO on whether cuts could be made more surgically, especially at the Chancellor’s Office or in institutional support rather than in instruction, and the LAO said the Legislature has flexibility to target cuts more specifically. CSU also described ongoing consolidation efforts, including shared services among campuses and the planned Cal Maritime/Cal Poly San Luis Obispo integration, while cautioning that savings are not yet fully known. The committee then discussed CSU enrollment. The LAO recommended holding enrollment targets flat because the budget does not add new funding, while CSU reported strong recent growth, including more California residents, record first-year enrollment, and expanded direct admissions and transfer pathways. Members questioned why some campuses with high demand turn away many applicants while others continue to lose enrollment, and CSU said it is shifting resources from campuses with sustained declines to those with demand, using a 10% below-target threshold. The committee also discussed whether enrollment declines mirror local population trends, how to improve marketing and program alignment, and whether lessons from Cal Poly Humboldt’s conversion could inform other campuses such as Sonoma State. The Capital Fellows item drew a Finance proposal for a salary increase and an LAO counterproposal for a smaller raise plus future COLA language; the committee kept the item open. Finally, CSU reported progress on Title IX compliance, saying it has completed most State Auditor recommendations, expanded civil rights staffing, and increased training, prevention, and case-management efforts, though members asked how proposed budget cuts might affect those services.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are several parts of this.
• How do we... ...They lease out parts of it to different people that have parts of those servers.
• I'm just not an expert in that part of this.
• I'm just not an expert in that part of this.
• It's part of basic responsible planning.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Part two, article 4. Part two, article 4 is your power. It's stripped.
• Part two, article 4. Part two, article 4 is your power. It's stripped.
• Part two, article 4. Part two, article 4 is your power. It's stripped.
• Part two, article 4. Part two, article 4 is your power. It's stripped.
• Part two, article 4. Part two, article 4 is your power. It's stripped.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 03:11:00.920> this<03:11:01.120> budget<03:11:01.479> request part of this part
• And as part of that, I think we added one bay and had renovated the patrol shed, and as part of that
• documentary that we prepared it's part documentary that we prepared it's part of<03:41:00.760>
• there was other work that was uh uh part there was other work that was uh uh part of<03:59:57.080
• Yes, that's part of the project.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a Department of Corrections capital budget presentation on HB 25, focused largely on urgent maintenance and security needs at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men and other DOC facilities. DOC officials described the governor’s proposed priorities: boiler surge and radiator tank replacements, electronic controls and camera upgrades, and replacement of HVAC units using R22 refrigerant. They also outlined additional requested projects totaling $15.4 million, including a body alarm/man-down system at Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility, steam line and trap repairs, fire alarm replacements, and removal of an underground diesel tank in favor of above-ground storage. DOC testified that many systems are well beyond their expected service life, including 40-year-old boilers, outdated analog cameras, and HVAC equipment using discontinued R22 refrigerant. They said the men’s prison is relying on a leased temporary boiler, has significant steam leaks causing major water loss and reduced boiler efficiency, and is dealing with frequent fire alarm faults and deteriorating wiring. On the body alarm system, they said the vendor no longer supports the equipment and replacement parts are no longer available. On the diesel tank, members questioned whether it could be abandoned in place or whether fuel could be reused; DOC said it had not explored all alternatives and would follow up, while noting the tank is underground and tied into the warehouse system. Members also asked whether some current investments could be reused in the planned new men’s prison. DOC said some items, such as air handlers, might potentially be moved, but most projects are needed to keep the current facility operational and would not be practical to transfer. Questions were also raised about the leased boiler arrangement, the use of the man-down system by staff and visitors, and whether the kitchen project could be converted to a modular unit. DOC said the modular kitchen approach is necessary because the existing kitchen cannot remain fully operational during repairs. The committee then moved to lapse extensions, and DOC identified several projects no longer needing extensions, including items numbered 64, 65, and 66 in HB 25, with the chair noting those balances would be deleted and that the lapse amount was $550,500.

Transcript Highlights:

• We break things into parts, parts, parts. Unfortunately, then... ...molecules.
• We break things into parts, parts, parts.
• But bring all those parts together. Can you reassemble the parts into a whole person?
• That’s part of it.”
• That's part of it.

Summary: The task force meeting opened with new leadership announcements, including Senator Nick Schroer thanking outgoing chair Representative John Black and naming Representative Del Taylor as vice chair. After some initial technical difficulties with audio and Zoom, members reviewed the task force’s statutory charge under Missouri law: to hold hearings on substance use, explore solutions, draft or modify legislation, and produce recommendations for prevention and treatment. The chair said the goal for this year is to develop concrete legislative ideas for the next session, with hearings focused first on field experts and later on alternative therapies and the Department of Mental Health. Dr. Rachel Winograd gave the first major presentation, describing Missouri’s overdose crisis as increasingly complex and driven primarily by fentanyl, now compounded by xylazine and metatomidine. She said overdose deaths have declined for a third straight year, with preliminary 2025 data around 1,200 deaths, and attributed the decline to a smaller fentanyl supply, wider naloxone availability, and fewer young people entering use. Her main recommendations were to focus on reducing harm rather than trying to eliminate drug use, expand evidence-based medications for opioid use disorder—especially methadone and buprenorphine—improve access to naloxone, and loosen methadone regulations, including take-home doses, the federal 72-hour rule, and broader methadone units. She also emphasized that peer support, housing, transportation, and other practical supports matter, and noted that naloxone can still reverse fentanyl overdoses even when tranquilizers are present. Dr. Heidi Miller, the state medical director, followed with two recommendations: integrate substance use disorder care into whole-person health care and follow the science when considering substance-related legislation. She argued that primary care, maternal health, workforce training, EMS, public health, and methadone access should all be part of a coordinated model, and said reimbursement should support teams rather than isolated providers. She also urged stronger enforcement of parity between behavioral health/SUD and physical health coverage, and highlighted tobacco and alcohol as major, under-addressed causes of death in Missouri. Dr. Doug Burgess then reinforced the need for a coordinated continuum of care, comparing substance use treatment to the seamless system used for heart attacks, and said patients should have standardized assessment, discharge planning from day one, transition coordinators, peer recovery coaches, and better information-sharing between levels of care. Members asked questions about relapse, treatment court, EMS referral barriers, reimbursement, and whether buprenorphine can be started in the field; no votes were taken, and the meeting ended with plans to continue hearing testimony and use it to shape future policy recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think that was really a wise thing on the part of the CPUC.
• They're part of a resource adequacy program, for example.”
• So this is part of the challenge, I think, and part of the changing dynamics that I mentioned in my opening
• Although we are a part of the CPUC, we operate independently.
• I can take a moment for the other part of your question.

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, so that is one of the parts that we are repealing.
• That part is in statute.
• It's just not part of their core curriculum. That's the part that we engage in.
• That's, that's part of our prescriptive authority.
• There's two parts to that question.

Bills: HB 265, HB25

Keywords: youth camp, safety regulations, advisory committee, child welfare, health standards, summer camp, camp safety, child abuse reporting, child neglect, mandatory reporting, background check, criminal history check, sex offender registry, CPR training, first aid, public health, child protection, camp operator, camp counselor, Health and Safety Code

Transcript Highlights:

• So, balancing that, and I appreciate the apprentice part of what you're saying.
• So, balancing that, and I appreciate the apprentice part of what you're saying.
• acceptable way of of writing this part acceptable way of of writing this part of<00:59:49.960>
• out okay taking the background part out okay taking the background check<01:06:16.720> part<01
• background check part for—um—or this one, it is 82.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard House Bill 2712, which would remove the exam requirement for licensure as a Licensed Social Work Associate (LSWA). Members expressed concern that the exam requirement was only added in 2021 and has not been in place long enough to evaluate, but they also questioned whether licensure should be granted without a meaningful measure of competency. Testimony was split: supporters argued the exam is a barrier for applicants without formal social work education, while opponents said licensure should still require some standard of competency, especially because the title carries public expectations and insurance reimbursement implications. Karina Bonia, speaking for NASW New Hampshire, said there is very limited data because only one person in New Hampshire currently holds an LSWA. She explained that LSWA applicants may have degrees outside social work, unlike licensed social workers, and that the current exam is the same national social work exam used for higher levels of licensure. She argued that this creates a significant barrier for LSWA applicants and noted that LSWA holders are already required to complete 30 hours of training and substantial supervised hours. Members asked for data on pass/fail rates and whether a different exam or practical skills test would be more appropriate. Committee members and OPLC representatives discussed whether the current statute and board rules already provide enough authority for the board to set other criteria, and whether the exam requirement is tied to the social work compact. OPLC indicated that the current rule requires passage of a national proctored exam approved by the board, but that no national exam exists specifically for this level, and that the board may need legislative authority to develop different criteria. The discussion ended with interest in obtaining the existing rule language and possibly revisiting the issue through amendment or future legislation rather than immediately removing the exam requirement.

Transcript Highlights:

• What this a part of their rent.
• tenant portion of the rent and the part tenant portion of the rent and the part that<00:50:49.440
• Uh this uh this part of the 5% match.
• thought about being part of that budget. thought about being part of that budget.
• cameras and other recordings as a part cameras and other recordings as a part of<03:22:00.880>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• parts thereof, trees<00:18:04.640> or<00:18:04.880> parts<00:18:05.200> thereof
• <00:18:05.600> or<00:18:05.919> similar trees or parts thereof or similar trees or parts
• <00:34:45.679> of didn't ask for that particular part of didn't ask for that particular part
• as<01:01:10.400> you've this question. in part because as you've this question. in part because
• Um, I think part of the it's answered.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• part.
• The second part that's the first part.
• <01:03:34.080> of results have to be included as part of results have to be included as part
• I was part of the original team DNR.
• Both the north and south parts of me. Both the north and south parts of the<01:31:59.320> state.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the next part of our presentation is about SNAP Employment and Training, with just an overview of
• As part of our outcome reporting and measuring, we look two quarters back after someone completed SNAP
• And I understand that part.
• How will that organization become, you know, part of that?
• But we are going to do that as much as possible in an ex parte way.

Summary: The subcommittee received a brief DHS update on the Living Choices Assisted Living Waiver reimbursement rate process, with Secretary Janet Mann reporting that the new cost reporting period began in January and that DHS has begun provider and contractor conference calls as the process moves forward. The bulk of the meeting focused on DHS’s overview of TANF and, especially, SNAP changes under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill. Mary Franklin explained new SNAP work requirements for adults ages 18 to 64 who are not otherwise exempt, including the three-month time limit in a 36-month period unless they meet an 80-hour monthly work, volunteer, education, or training requirement. She also reviewed exemptions, noted that some prior exemptions were removed while new tribal-related exemptions were added, and described SNAP Employment and Training providers, budgets, service areas, participant characteristics, and outcomes. Members asked about how mandatory referrals will work, whether funding and vendors are sufficient, how cross-program participation is tracked, how verification and recertification will be handled, and how error rates and sanctions will be managed. DHS said mandatory participants will be referred directly to providers, verification will occur at application and recertification, interviews can be by phone, and the department will return with more information on error-rate mitigation and other requested data. DHS then outlined upcoming Medicaid community engagement requirements for the ARHOME population under the same federal law, which must be implemented by January 1, 2027. The department said it is preparing policy, system changes, data matching, communications, and an outbound customer-service verification process, with a soft launch planned for July to help identify who would meet the requirement or need to provide more information. Members raised concerns about notice, local versus centralized decision-making, and how clients will document work, school, caregiving, or medical exemptions. The meeting concluded with broader discussion of the Alliance for Opportunity audit and a shared emphasis on using SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, and workforce programs together to improve outcomes, expand training options, and better connect Arkansans to education and employment opportunities. The committee also discussed extending the audit contract at a future meeting and adjourned without taking any formal vote in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• SNAP admin, the administration part, not the benefit side.
• So the full year is about $18 million, just for the admin part.
• That's part of the actuarial calculations.
• Part of the data center bill passed last year.
• That’s part of what we want to see.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Part of this bill that's pertinent to this committee is that the bill will move the program from the
• They have been part of this conversation for a couple of years now and are ready to take this on.
• My name is Leah Gardner, and I am with Hunger Solutions, which is now a part of the Food Group.
• Chair, myself and others have been concerned that a part-time board that's only required to meet four
• Part of our government system where we are providing direct care and treatment, right?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There was some confusion on the part of some folks.
• So that is also part of Florida PALM.
• And then part of also our replacing, and we added this in 2022, Florida PALM, and then part of what we're
• So that is also part of this release.
• So I can't say part of the answer on TV, I don't think.

Summary: The State Administration Budget Subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of Financial Services on the My Safe Florida Home program, the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot, and the Florida PALM financial system replacement project. For My Safe Florida Home, Stephen Fielder explained the wind-mitigation grant program, including its inspection-first process, two-to-one matching grants for most homeowners, low-income exemptions from the match, and eligible improvements such as roofs, clips/straps, water barriers, and opening protection. He reported roughly 109,000 initial inspections, nearly 59,000 grants approved, 31,000 final inspections, 25,000 reimbursements, and about $240 million paid out through the end of 2024. Members asked about premium savings, contractor pricing, fraud, owner-builder eligibility, reimbursement timing, and whether the program should have a dedicated funding source; Fielder said the program is currently closed, more than 40,000 people have signed up for updates, and the office has seen some price-gouging and impersonation issues but no major fraud trend. The committee also discussed the new prioritization rules that took effect July 1, 2024, which direct grant awards by age and income. Fielder said the program used a survey of existing applicants to implement the new priority groups and that the first group was over age 60 and low-income. Members raised questions about how premium reductions are measured, whether insurance company changes or rising insured values affect the data, and whether the program can track long-term outcomes after reimbursement. Fielder said the office reports raw premium changes based on declarations pages, knows the insurer for participants, and has validated results with multiple insurers, but does not track homeowners after they leave the program or enforce continued insurance coverage. For the My Safe Florida Condo Pilot, Fielder said the program is modeled on the home program but uses association-level applications, a maximum grant of $175,000 per association, and a similar two-to-one match. He said the application window opened briefly in November and was closed quickly because available funding could be exhausted and the department is prohibited from creating a waiting list. He identified several needed statutory changes, including better distinguishing condos from single-family homes, adjusting roof requirements for flat concrete roofs, and revisiting the unanimous unit-owner vote requirement, which he said has been a major obstacle. Chair Lopez noted the pilot is intended to be a learning process and thanked DFS staff for identifying implementation issues. The final presentation covered Florida PALM, the state’s effort to replace the 40-year-old FLAIR accounting system with a PeopleSoft-based financial management system. Fielder and PALM Director Jimmy Cox said the project began in 2014, the state contracted with Accenture in 2018, cash management went live in 2021, and the project was paused in 2022 for legislative review and remediation. They said the system is expected to go live in 2026, possibly in July rather than January, and that the project has spent about $225 million to date, with a current-year budget of about $60.9 million and a projected next-year request of about $64 million. Members asked about cybersecurity, cloud hosting, project scope, and whether the system is unique to Florida; staff said the system is not Florida-specific, access is credentialed through agency identity management, and the cloud host location is confidential. After the presentations, Chair Lopez assigned members to work with specific agencies on budget review meetings, asked them to discuss agency structure, priorities, staffing, waste reduction, and other budget issues, and set a deadline to report findings in the first week of regular session. The meeting then adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• So to address that part of and react.
• So that's part of the process.
• . part-time. part-time.
• They do part-time at each one or They do part-time at each one or something.
• So that's part of the concern.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:29:33.600> attorney work as a volunteer part-time attorney work as a volunteer part-time
• > and<01:32:08.320> part<01:32:08.480> of executive reorganization act and part
• taken up in the amendment this was part taken up in the amendment this was part of<03:12:06.279>
• So the folks that do this and have no desire to be part of that don't have to be part of that, which
• <03:55:52.600> a migratory bird parts now that's not a migratory bird parts now that's not

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, for the most part, that is a Obviously, for the most part, that is a tradition<00:02:14.959
• they just you skip the burial part. Mhm. they just you skip the burial part. Mhm.
• the two-year part. Okay. the two-year part. Okay.
• There are four parts to the bill.
• It would be qualified as part of that documented part of that, um, 303.02 engineering.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Unofficial fiscal notes are in a completely different part of statute.
• move and so that isn't necessarily part move and so that isn't necessarily part of<00:45:35.960>
• I'm so sorry, the first part of the question. Now I'm thinking about the second part. I apologize.
• <01:08:13.680> and and there were lots of moving parts and and there were lots of moving parts
• <01:25:40.880> of exclusion offered up which was part of exclusion offered up which was part

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I would have loved to have been part of that conversation. Appreciate it.
• I think the important part is that it's not taking away anybody's rights.
• I just wanted to highlight our concerns regarding part three of this bill.
• That component to you is fine and constitutional; it’s just Part B, yeah?
• Part B, yeah? Okay, yeah. Rep, I have one more question for Deja.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing held a public hearing on January 31 and heard testimony on a series of housing and building-code bills. The first major item, HB 1 relating to building codes, drew sharply divided testimony. Supporters, including BIA Hawaii, Grassroot Institute, Dr. Horton, and several builders and trade groups, argued the current code-adoption process is slow, fragmented, and costly, and that reform would help housing production. Opponents, including Sierra Club Hawaii, AIA Hawaii, ICC, and labor representative Kiko Bosi, said the bill would weaken public safety, reduce statewide consistency, and could leave tenants and first responders at greater risk. No vote was taken during the hearing, and members asked questions about the effect of a governor’s emergency proclamation suspending the Building Code Council and about county authority over code amendments. The committee then heard HB 745 and HB 1321, both also relating to building codes. Grassroot Institute supported both measures, saying the system is broken and needs streamlining, while BIA Hawaii and others emphasized the cost burden of repeated code updates. Opponents, especially Bosi and ICC, argued that the bills would undermine the State Building Code Council’s role, create confusion, and prioritize cost over safety; Bosi also said labor should be included in any code discussions. Members questioned whether counties can remove state code provisions and whether the state code already supersedes county codes, and one member noted the need for clarity and consistent enforcement rather than a wholesale overhaul. Later, the committee heard HB 284 on housing, HB 761 on county permitting and inspection, and HB 738 on historic preservation. HB 284 drew support from several housing and real estate groups, while DLNR opposed it. On HB 761, HHFDC supported the bill, DLNR warned that the proposed changes could jeopardize Hawaii’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, DAGS said it would likely need to duplicate county permitting staff, and the Department of Planning and Permitting opposed it; Grassroot Institute and NAIOP supported it. For HB 738, HHFDC, DLNR, Grassroot Institute, Hawaii YIMBY, NAIOP, and others supported the measure, with Grassroot and NAIOP suggesting clarifications so expedited review would also cover mixed-use projects and better define the scope of work. The transcript does not show any final votes or committee action on these bills during the hearing.