Transcript Highlights:

• So how do we develop that? This is our new capital system. So how do we develop that?
• that developers use.
• So, the developers we interviewed were five separate developers as part of this study.
• The developers were all private developers. Unfortunately, they asked not to share their names.
• The developers were all private developers. Unfortunately, they asked to not.

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from WSDOT on balancing uncertainty in capital program estimates and cash flow management. WSDOT explained the differences between design-bid-build and design-build delivery, its tiered risk-assessment process by project size, and how it uses base estimates, inflation, and risk modeling to set budgets. Staff said design-bid-build estimates are generally accurate within about 1% across the program, while design-build projects carry much wider uncertainty and are better communicated as ranges; they cited a P85 budget approach and noted that large, complex projects can be affected by market competition and long procurement timelines. Members asked about the Columbia River Bridge cost growth and about value engineering, and WSDOT said it uses value engineering but has limited scope to cut costs because of project requirements and policy mandates. Troy Swing also discussed cash flow, noting that a few large projects can significantly affect biennial funding needs, and said a risk pool would not reduce overall program risk but could help manage timing if paired with appropriation and cash-flow controls. The committee then received the final presentation in the WSDOT Project Delivery and Innovative Practices study from HKA Global. The consultant said WSDOT’s estimating practices are generally robust and recommended improving transparency by presenting budget authorizations as ranges or estimate classes, better tracking estimate growth over time, and adjusting advertisement timing to avoid competing lettings. The report also discussed surety bonding, suggesting the legislature consider restoring authority for reduced bonding on select large design-build projects or using phased bonding and alternative securities. On indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting, the consultant said current job order contract rules are restrictive and recommended legislative changes to make such tools more usable, especially for smaller tasks and to help use unspent funds more flexibly. The committee also heard a follow-up presentation on transit-oriented development policy recommendations tied to HB 1491. The Urban Institute’s Yona Freemark said Washington has been a national leader on TOD but that housing construction, especially in the Puget Sound, has slowed sharply since 2022. He said rising construction costs, high financing costs, and local tax and rent conditions are making many TOD projects infeasible, and recommended that the state fill infrastructure funding gaps around stations, revisit MFTE affordability requirements, consider minimum rather than average density requirements near transit, and create a statewide system to track TOD outcomes such as affordability, gentrification, and transit access. Members questioned the study’s developer interviews, the role of rent control and crime, property tax assumptions, and parking needs; the presenter said the study included five private developers, that rent control was not part of the study scope, and that parking was included in the model assumptions. Finally, the committee began a presentation on regulating emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth. Staff and consultants described California-style at-berth rules, which require shore power or equivalent emissions controls so ships can shut off diesel auxiliary engines while docked. The study is examining vessel traffic, emissions reductions, implementation costs, labor and operational needs, and possible effects on port competitiveness and cargo diversion. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, I know that uh we recently, one of the developments that I mentioned on the single family development
• Um, they often utilize um through either a developer or, um, yeah, usually through a developer nonprofit
• In line with that, um, Development is occurring.
• Planning and development. So we need to encourage the developers, construction.
• In our mindset when we're planning and developing phases for housing development as a whole, then I think

Transcript Highlights:

• of developing, maintaining, and operating social housing.
• Housing developer. A fiscal note is available.
• The detached ADUs are subject to certain development regulations.
• One of the biggest barriers to condo development is liability risk.
• This bill would allow social housing providers like us to reduce development costs to increase development

Bills: HB2304, HB2664

Keywords: condominium, housing, warranty, property rights, construction, HB 2664, unlawful detainer, eviction notice, landlord-tenant, tenant rights, service of process, certified mail, notice by mail, notice posting, possession action, vacate notice, Washington RCW 59.12, housing law, rental housing, forcible entry and detainer

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
• The margins are already thin for affordable housing developers.
• So we began developing projects across the city of Los Angeles.
• for development within their community.
• It does have a prohibition against residential development.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And development fees.
• And we have developed what we believe is...
• Enterprise is a national nonprofit that develops technical capacity for many nonprofit developers.
• AB 2612 requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to research, develop, and propose
• participation in the standard development process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> financing, add costs to development. financing, add costs to development.
• ,</c><00:02:06.800><c> now</c> If you add costs to development, now If you add costs to development,
• And now they're seeing this as a source of revenue and adding it to the cost of the development. development
• </c><00:03:44.120><c> But</c> natural part of lot development. But natural part of lot development.
• </c> fees that we see having been developed fees that we see having been developed in<00:04:51.360><c

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• what economic development is.
• So, from that perspective, when we talk about economic development, we talk about economic development
• On behalf of the Economic Development Collaborative, which houses the Small Business Development Center
• On behalf of the Economic Development Collaborative, which houses the Small Business Development Center
• We also teach development courses. Next slide, please. We also teach development courses.

Summary: The committee held an information hearing on California’s economy and household affordability, with the first panel focusing on inflation, housing, energy, wages, and the likely effects of new federal tariff policy. PPIC’s Sarah Bone said Californians remain deeply pessimistic about the economy, with inflation the main driver of concern; she noted prices are still about 23% higher than in January 2020, with especially large increases in food, energy, and housing costs. LAO’s Brian Euler emphasized that housing is the largest household expense and pointed to insurance, electricity, gasoline, and health care as other major cost pressures, urging the Legislature to review whether existing policies are actually reducing costs and to consider studies of why recent housing laws have not produced more units. UC Davis economist Catherine Russ warned that tariffs on China, Canada, Mexico, and potentially broader imports could raise consumer prices, disrupt supply chains, and hurt California exporters, farmers, and small businesses; she suggested monitoring prices, strengthening food assistance, and preparing transition support for affected workers and producers. Members pressed the panelists for concrete, near-term policy ideas, especially on housing and tariffs. Questions centered on whether accessory dwelling units are making a meaningful dent in affordability, how to improve implementation of pro-housing laws at the local level, and how to measure the impact of tariffs on consumers, health care, and agriculture. Panelists said ADUs help but are limited, that state laws can be undermined by local implementation and litigation, and that tariff effects may show up quickly in prices and later in hiring and investment. Several members stressed that the tariff issue is not a minor disruption for constituents and asked for more data on consumer impacts, food aid needs, and crop-specific farm losses. The second panel shifted to regional economic development and small business support. Go-Biz’s Derek Kirk described California Jobs First and the state economic blueprint as a first-in-decades, regionally informed strategy to create good-paying jobs, support key sectors, and align workforce and business development across 13 regions. The California Association for Local Economic Development’s Gerbach Sahota argued that local governments need practical tools, stable policy, and stronger partnerships with the state, while warning that prosperity is not always perceived as shared and that rural communities can be left behind. He urged the Legislature to use hearings, local input, and existing funding streams more effectively, including for recovery and infrastructure. David Fitzgerald of the Small Business Development Centers said California’s SBDC network serves hundreds of thousands of clients, many of them women and historically underrepresented entrepreneurs, and has generated billions in economic impact, capital access, revenue, and jobs. He said the biggest gaps are outreach to the state’s many self-employed businesses with no employees, better labor data on those workers, and more flexible support for direct services. Committee members then asked what small businesses need most in the face of inflation and tariff shocks, including lower licensing costs and other relief, and the discussion continued on how to better target state support to businesses and households under pressure.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Nuclear Energy Development Authority.
• waste that's developed is stored on site where it is produced.
• It's actually, as a developer, they're great to work with.
• and SMR developers were looking exactly at those zones.
• Ontario projects, SMRs, will be developed by state-owned organizations, and they'll be developed by the

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• approved and developed under the same site plan or development order, and revises a subsection permitting
• a data center or develop the plans.
• Senators, SB 208 requires local governments to charge development permit and development order application
• It also removes the Opa-locka study related to the urban development boundary development as well.
• A lot more development, then they got taken out of office because of too much development.

Summary: The Senate convened with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several member introductions of guests and staff. The chamber then took up returning messages from the House and acted on several bills, including transportation facility designations (SB 628), affordable housing/Live Local Act changes (HB 1389), utility services (HB 1451), education (HB 1279 substituted for SB 7038), data centers (SB 484), and land use/development regulations (SB 208/HB 399). Several other measures were temporarily postponed, including education, emergency services, and environmental rule ratification bills. On SB 628, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-4. On the affordable housing bill, senators discussed the fourth iteration of the Live Local Act, including a new provision allowing certain affordable housing on religious institution property, removal of accessory dwelling unit language, and changes to tax exemption and expiration provisions; the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 35-0. On the utility services bill, the House amendment shortened the surcharge phase-out timeline and advanced reporting dates; the Senate concurred and passed the bill 30-6. The education package was substituted with the House companion, amended to include agreed-upon provisions on student health and safety, early learning, math, virtual instruction, career and technical education, school choice, accountability, tuition protections, and financial aid, and passed 36-1. The data centers bill drew extensive debate over transparency and ratepayer protections. Senators questioned the removal of the Senate’s nondisclosure agreement prohibition, the 12-month confidentiality period, and whether costs could be shifted to residential and commercial customers. Supporters said the amendment strengthened ratepayer protections and maintained local land-use authority, while critics objected to the loss of transparency and the possibility of local NDAs. After debate, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-6. The land use and development bill generated the most contentious discussion. Amendments addressed a Fontainebleau/Miami Beach resort water park issue, a sunset provision, and a major rural boundary/property rights proposal affecting counties such as Orange and Seminole. Senators debated whether the rural boundary language protected property rights or undermined local planning and environmental safeguards, with concerns raised about takings, county liability, and the use of an Attorney General opinion. The transcript cuts off during extended debate on that amendment, so no final vote on the land use bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The developer puts up all the money. The developer takes all the risk.
• This has to do with economic development taxes.
• Is your client intent to sell that property to a developer or to go ahead and use this incentive to develop
• To develop it themselves.
• There's no active developer right now that's trigger-ready, but the There's no active developer right

Summary: The Legislative Rules Committee held a public hearing and then executive session on Senate Bill 1694, along with related Senate Bill 1688, which together would modernize and expand the Missouri Downtown and Rural Economic Stimulus Act (MODESA). Senator Steve Roberts said the bills would increase flexibility for redevelopment projects, broaden financing tools, extend timelines, and expand residential incentives, with no general fund risk. Supporters, including lobbyists for the Cordish Companies, the City of Kansas City, the City of St. Louis, Greater St. Louis Inc., Historic Revitalization for Missouri, and BioSTL/Next Missouri, argued the program has already helped transform downtown Kansas City and St. Louis and could spur major redevelopment such as Ballpark Village, Power & Light, the Millennium Hotel area, the AT&T Tower, and the Railway Exchange Building. They emphasized private investment, local control, and the potential to bring vacant buildings back onto the tax rolls. One witness, the state public advocate, opposed SB 1694, arguing it would create more bureaucracy and political subdivisions, rely on tax abatements and TIF-like tools, and shift costs to taxpayers. Committee members asked questions about the bill’s residential language, the history of MODESA projects, the fiscal note, and whether the incentives could apply to other downtown sites. Supporters clarified that the committee substitute removed a proposed income-tax incentive, reduced some escalators, and retained a voluntary, opt-in structure for cities. The chair also noted that stadiums themselves are excluded, though surrounding areas may qualify. In executive session, the committee adopted a substitute and voted 10-0 to do pass the House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 1694 and 1688. The committee then voted 8-2 to do pass Senate Substitute Number 2 for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1586, sponsored by Senator Brown, and 8-0 with two present votes to do pass House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 889, which the chair described as a large cleanup bill removing obsolete statutes. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• under, fall under those development rules as any developer would.
• You can get water without having to contribute to the future development.
• those and then has to turn the development document over to the.
• developer builds and, and.
• Um, I'm a local developer, land broker here in Austin, Texas.

Transcript Highlights:

• The developer, general contractor,...
• Second, the developer liability prevention.
• So that doesn't just mean townhome development. That would be single-family home developments.
• Developing these plans unlocks a very powerful tool.
• to encourage development of affordable housing.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Research and Development Tax Credit.
• Chair, this is a straightforward economic development fix.
• I'm the governor's economic development policy advisor.
• Is this the only economic development tool to get to commercialization?
• They're developing that technology.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the committee substitute for House Bill 27, which would modernize New Mexico’s research and development tax credit. Sponsors said the bill would allow the credit to be stacked with industrial revenue bonds for qualifying facilities, exclude data centers and national laboratories, permit up to $50 million in transferable credits per year for 2026-2028, and extend the carry-forward period to seven years. Supporters from business, construction, labor, and economic development groups argued the changes would improve cash flow for startups, help attract and retain high-wage jobs, and encourage commercialization of New Mexico-developed technology in sectors such as advanced energy, aerospace, fusion, and advanced manufacturing. Several witnesses emphasized that the bill was intended to keep commercialization and capital investment in New Mexico rather than losing them to other states. Committee members raised concerns about tax policy, fiscal impact, and whether the bill would truly lead to commercialization. Questions focused on the transferability provision, the $50 million annual cap, who could buy credits, whether data centers should be excluded, how the bill interacts with IRBs and other incentives, and whether the labs could benefit. Some members supported the bill’s goals but worried it was too narrowly tailored or could create winners and losers. The sponsors and administration witnesses responded that the bill was designed to tie R&D to physical infrastructure, provide capital to early-stage companies, and protect the general fund with caps and time limits. They also said the bill would not apply to national labs and would not change existing rural-area doubling provisions. After extensive discussion and no opposition testimony, the committee did not advance the bill. Representative Cadena moved to table the committee substitute for House Bill 27, Representative Parra made the second, and the motion passed without opposition, so the bill was tabled.

Transcript Highlights:

• :17:27.039><c> overall</c> workforce development fund overall workforce development fund overall impact
• :27.520><c> onetime</c> development center, a onetime development center, a onetime appropriation<00:
• </c> Workforce Development Inc.
• /c><00:24:00.720><c> the</c> Community Development 500,000 over the Community Development 500,000 over
• 1 million Development Programming 1 million Equitable<00:25:02.320><c> Development</c><00:25:02.919>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
• The margins are already thin for affordable housing developers.
• The margins are already thin for affordable housing developers.
• for development within their community.
• It does have a prohibition against residential development.

Summary: The committee heard a long housing agenda with several bills presented before quorum was established. AB 1725, as amended, would require disclosure of nearby oil wells and methane monitoring issues in a specific district; the author and community witnesses described serious health and safety risks in Vista Hermosa Heights, while the California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, and California Chamber of Commerce opposed, arguing the bill targeted the wrong industry and that the state should instead fix abandoned wells directly. AB 2110, a local finance tool to create tax increment districts for workforce housing for education, health care, manufacturing, and public safety workers, drew no witnesses in support or opposition and was presented as a way to help workers live closer to jobs. AB 1732 would expand CEQA streamlining for public university and college housing projects; UC and several housing and labor groups supported it, while housing advocates raised concerns about amendments affecting existing 100% affordable housing exemptions. AB 1771, amended into a study bill, would direct HCD to report on the long-standing resident manager requirement for apartment buildings with 16 or more units; the rental housing industry supported studying the issue, while the chair emphasized the need to consider tenant protections and the impact on current resident managers before changing the law. The committee also heard AB 2185, which would direct state affordable housing programs to update guidelines to better support factory-built housing; it drew broad support from housing, labor, technology, and local government groups, with no opposition. AB 2748 would delay new EV-readiness requirements for 100% affordable housing developments, keeping the prior 40% standard through 2035; supporters said the higher standard would add significant costs and threaten project feasibility, while clean air and transportation advocates argued the code changes are modest, important for equity, and should not be rolled back. Members split along those lines, with some emphasizing housing production and others urging more public subsidy for EV infrastructure rather than delaying the code. SB 417, a proposed $10 billion affordable housing bond for the November ballot, received extensive support from housing organizations, local governments, labor, and business groups, but Habitat for Humanity and the Los Angeles mayor’s office asked for specific allocations for CalHome and interim housing; the bill was ultimately moved to Appropriations on an 8-0 vote, with members noting ongoing negotiations over funding priorities. Finally, AB 1740 would create an urban multimodal community designation for Santa Monica, allowing local approval of certain low-impact coastal-zone activities—such as some housing, bike and bus lanes, outdoor dining, and building changes—without Coastal Commission review. The author and Santa Monica officials said the bill would reduce delays and uncertainty for infill housing and local economic recovery while preserving protections for sensitive coastal resources; supporters included housing, business, and city groups. The Coastal Commission and environmental organizations opposed, saying the bill would carve out broad exemptions, weaken public access and appeal rights, and bypass the local coastal program process that Santa Monica has not completed. Committee members debated the Commission’s role, with some criticizing it for opposing legislation and others arguing the bill was a common-sense way to modernize coastal permitting. A motion and second were made on AB 1740, and the bill was left pending with the committee’s action to be taken when appropriate.

Transcript Highlights:

• We develop our own policy positions. We manage our own resources and budget.
• We develop our own policy positions. We manage our own resources and budget.
• We'll be looking at developer interests. We'll be evaluating the system.
• So how are you integrating other goals like equity and economic development?
• But there were some elements that needed to be developed more on the record.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held an oversight hearing with leaders from the CPUC, Public Advocates Office, CAISO, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, and the Energy Commission. Chair Petrie-Norris framed the hearing around high utility bills, wildfire risk, grid reliability, clean energy buildout, and the state’s long-term decarbonization goals, and also noted it was CPUC President Alice Reynolds’ final week at the commission. Each agency gave an update on its role: the CPUC described efforts to reduce rate increases while maintaining reliability and clean energy procurement; the Public Advocates Office focused on affordability and the need to control underlying utility costs; CAISO discussed transmission planning, market operations, and the upcoming extended day-ahead market; Energy Safety reviewed wildfire mitigation oversight and inspections; and the Energy Commission highlighted clean energy growth, EV adoption, storage, efficiency, and gasoline price monitoring. A major theme was affordability versus the costs of the clean energy transition. Reynolds said the CPUC has lowered utility revenue requests, reduced utility returns, adopted a base services charge, and reworked net metering, while also continuing to manage wildfire-related costs and support resource adequacy and demand flexibility. Sarazawa argued that recent rate decreases may not be durable because billions of dollars in wildfire and other utility costs are still pending or unbilled, and she urged tighter use of general rate cases, lower-cost financing, program reform, and more equitable rate design. Members pressed the agencies on whether state policy is sufficiently accounting for labor, local economic development, and the cost impacts of transmission and procurement decisions, especially where out-of-state resources are being considered. CAISO and the Energy Commission emphasized that the state’s planning and market reforms are helping lower costs and improve reliability. CAISO said the Western Energy Imbalance Market has produced billions in benefits, the extended day-ahead market is on track to launch, and transmission planning is being aligned with long-term resource needs while reducing queue delays. The Energy Commission said California is now getting roughly two-thirds of its power from clean sources, has added massive amounts of storage and renewables, and is seeing strong EV and charger growth that can help spread fixed grid costs. Energy Safety reported thousands of inspections, hundreds of notices of non-performance, and a decline in reportable ignitions, while noting that major fires show more work is needed. Members also raised concerns about the SB 100 report delay, memo and balancing accounts, the future of battery storage, and whether decarbonization zone pilots will affect residential and commercial customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• And development fees.
• Enterprise is a national nonprofit that develops technical capacity for many nonprofit developers.
• AB 2612 requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to research, develop, and propose
• participation in the standard development process.
• I understand it from the real estate developing side.

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard a long agenda of housing-related bills, beginning with AB 1892 on HOA/Davis-Stirling Act cleanup provisions. The author and sponsor said the bill would clarify HOA responsibilities for utility service repairs in common areas, align election notice timelines, and require electronic voting ballots to be sent at least 30 days before an election. No opposition was presented, and the bill was set aside to be taken up later when a quorum was available. The committee then heard AB 1708, which would revise the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program to give smaller cities a clearer role in regional homelessness planning and access to funding. Mayors and city representatives from Bellflower, Paramount, and other cities testified that smaller jurisdictions are spending significant local funds on shelters and services but lack direct access to HHAP dollars. Some larger-city and housing advocates opposed or were opposed unless amended, arguing the bill could add administrative burden, but committee members broadly supported the goal of including smaller cities in regional responses. Members also heard AB 2058 on factory-built housing, AB 2576 on historic-resource protections under SB 79, AB 1751 on missing-middle townhomes, AB 1924 on homelessness prevention, AB 2626 on waiving certain monitoring fees for at-risk affordable housing developments, and AB 2089 on welfare-exemption and recertification procedures for affordable housing. Testimony generally emphasized reducing duplicative local permitting for factory-built housing, protecting state and national historic resources while still allowing housing near transit, expanding ministerial approval for townhomes, creating a statewide homelessness-prevention strategy with accountability measures, giving HCD flexibility to waive fees to preserve financially stressed affordable housing, and streamlining property-tax exemption recertification. Several bills were voted out of committee, including AB 1751 and AB 2626, both passing on 8-0 and 7-0 votes respectively, while other measures were discussed with motions pending or held open for absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:03.360><c> uh</c> uh permitting uh larger developments uh uh permitting uh larger developments
• </c><00:08:36.800><c> would</c> proposed here that the developer would proposed here that the developer
• </c> that back from a willing developer that back from a willing developer consultant.<00:13:07.040><
• </c><00:21:43.360><c> to</c> It's incumbent upon the developer to It's incumbent upon the developer to
• . development.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The public hearing focused on Senate Bill 153, a proposal to speed up Department of Transportation driveway/entrance permitting for larger residential developments, generally 20 units or more. Senator Mark McConkey, the prime sponsor, said long permit delays can stall financing and housing construction, and explained that the bill creates a second, expedited permitting lane funded by a per-door fee. He said the original 90-day mandate was replaced with a more workable process developed with DOT and the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, and noted that the fiscal note had been removed. Committee members asked about the fee structure, timing, whether the bill applied to 20 doors/units, and whether it affected income-restricted housing; McConkey said it does not include income-based incentives and does not change zoning or local planning requirements, only the DOT permit timeline. Industry witnesses strongly supported the bill. Matt Mayberry of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association said the proposal is a public-private partnership the industry requested, that time delays can jeopardize financing, and that builders are willing to pay for faster review as long as safety remains the top priority. Joshua Reap of Associated Builders and Contractors gave similar support, saying DOT bottlenecks have long slowed projects and that the bill would help move approved developments forward without burdening taxpayers. Questions from members focused on whether the expedited lane would pressure DOT to approve unsafe projects, whether consultants would already be vetted, and how the process would work alongside local approvals; witnesses said DOT would still retain final sign-off and that the process would be transparent and safety-focused. Alan Hanscom of DOT then explained the department’s role in more detail. He said the bill would require DOT to issue permits within 60 business days after approval of the traffic impact study for qualifying residential projects, and would create a $120 per-unit fee to fund a dedicated liaison position and software upgrades. He said the applicant would also pay for third-party consultant engineer review under DOT oversight, with the consultant costs passed through at no DOT markup and any unused funds returned to the applicant. Hanscom said DOT has been working with the sponsor and builders to clarify the process and improve transparency, and estimated the fee would support a position that coordinates between applicants, districts, consultants, and DOT bureaus to reduce dead time in the review process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Housing developments.
• It is not a rush of new development that is coming in.
• or the infill development.
• The new residential subdivisions are being developed, or the infill development.
• My intent is that there are places that we could continue to develop that just have not been developed

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and considered a series of bills, many focused on local government authority, land use, housing, and public notice requirements. Several measures were reported favorably, including SB 984 on firefighter cancer benefits and prevention, SB 1612 requiring local governments to accept electronic payments, SB 936 on temporary door locking devices, SB 962 on affordable housing protections for farms, SB 218 on land use regulations in hurricane-affected counties, SB 1020 on regulation of chickee huts, and SB 1434 on infill redevelopment of environmentally challenged properties. SB 1180 on community development district recall elections was amended to narrow and clarify the recall process and to add provisions on synthetic turf and compact urban mixed-use districts before being reported favorably. SB 380 on legal notices was also amended and reported favorably despite significant opposition from the Florida Press Association, Common Cause, and others who argued it would further fragment public notice access; supporters said it would modernize publication options and save money. Testimony on the bills was mixed. Supporters of the housing and redevelopment measures argued they would increase attainable housing, streamline approvals, and make better use of underutilized or contaminated land, while local government groups and advocacy organizations warned about overdevelopment, reduced public input, infrastructure strain, and conflicts with comprehensive planning. On SB 1444, which combined preemptions related to religious gatherings, private clubs, and certain permitting requirements, supporters framed it as protecting religious freedom and limiting local micromanagement, while the League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties opposed it as overly broad and unclear; the bill nevertheless passed favorably after debate. SB 218 was presented as restoring normal land-use authority in counties unaffected by hurricanes while preserving protections in damaged areas, and SB 984 was described as clarifying firefighter cancer benefits and health coverage rules; both passed without controversy. The committee also heard extensive testimony on SB 948, a strike-all on local government land development regulations and orders that would create a statewide framework for starter homes and lot-split rules within urban growth areas. Supporters said it would expand housing supply and reduce regulatory delays, while opponents said it would override local zoning, weaken infrastructure and environmental protections, and apply too broadly. The bill drew support from housing advocates and some local officials, but opposition from the Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, and others. The transcript ends with SB 948 still under consideration, with testimony continuing and no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> housing developments in the pipeline. housing developments in the pipeline.
• Um I think part of development. Right.
• But the big picture was the large developers. Hiko, Gentry, right? They are heartened, right?
• You got to have the developer build the infrastructure. Because I can give you land.
• I can go have all these developers give the DOE land.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Joint Senate Committee on Education, Hawaiian Affairs, and Housing heard House Bill 1088 HD1, which would exempt housing developed by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) from school impact fees. The Department of Education said it was open to working with DHHL and the Legislature, including possibly eliminating the construction-cost portion of the fee for DHHL and other government affordable housing projects, but it wanted to retain the land-dedication requirement for future school sites where growth would exceed existing school capacity. The School Facilities Authority supported the bill, and DHHL strongly supported it, noting that its testimony referenced an earlier emergency proclamation but that the exemption remains in the current proclamation. DHHL also said it had no objection to a proposed amendment from the Wahiawa Hawaiian Homestead Association. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii testified in opposition to the broader school impact fee program, arguing that the fund has accumulated about $29 million that has not been spent and citing concerns raised in State Auditor Report 19-13, including administrative and constitutional issues. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the fee system is being applied fairly, especially to smaller projects and homeowners, and whether the districts and calculations used to assess fees have been updated. Members questioned the DOE and SFA about the distinction between land and construction costs, the use of fees in areas like Kīhei, Kalihi, Ala Moana, and Ewa, and whether the department had revisited district calculations as recommended in the audit. DOE said it had collected about $500,000 in construction money and $2.8 million in land contributions for Kalihi-related areas, and said it would follow up on questions about land conveyances and district updates. After discussion, the chair called for a vote. The Education committee recommended passing HB 1088 HD1 as is, with Senator San Buenaventura voting with reservation and Senators Ihara and Kole voting aye. The recommendation was adopted. The Housing committee then also deferred the measure.