Transcript Highlights:

• Economic Development.
• </c> sizes through all stages of development. sizes through all stages of development.
• </c> Microbusiness Development programs. Microbusiness Development programs.
• </c> development toolbox. development toolbox.
• </c> the Economic Development report. the Economic Development report.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

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.

Committee: Senate Education

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Development Fund. The legislature Development Fund.
• The fifth one is developing a statewide economic development strategy.
• The fifth one is developing a statewide economic development strategy.
• The fifth one is developing a statewide economic development strategy.
• </c> development point of view. development point of view.

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These are not developments.
• But if I'm a developer and I've got a new million-dollar home development that I'm starting, I can't
• Comes to, he's developing a million-dollar subdivision in my hometown of Nampa, brand-new development
• If a developer is developing a new subdivision, there's nobody there, he's developing it.
• With this new development coming in, so a new developer, if a developer comes along and they want to

Committee: House Business

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, approving minutes from several February and March meetings, and thanked the page for her service. It then took up Senate Bill 1354, which would create a statewide framework for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), requiring cities over 10,000 population to allow one internal or attached ADU per lot while preserving existing HOA restrictions and historic district exemptions. Supporters argued the bill would expand housing options, protect property rights, and help families with aging parents, adult children, or rental income; opponents from the HOA and insurance community warned it could increase density, rentals, parking and utility strain, and insurance costs, especially if short-term rentals increase. After sponsor clarifications on county exclusion, HOA rules, and infrastructure limits, the committee passed SB 1354 on a 10-4 roll call vote and sent it to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. The committee next heard Senate Bill 1297, the Conversational AI Safety Act, which would set transparency and safety standards for conversational AI services, especially for minors. The bill requires disclosures that users are interacting with AI, guardrails against sexually explicit content and romantic/sentient personas for minors, limits gamification techniques that encourage addictive use, and parental controls. Google testified in support, saying it already uses similar safety-by-design measures and that the bill would create consistent industry standards; members asked about how operators would identify minors and whether the bill would apply to out-of-state providers. The committee approved SB 1297 as amended and sent it to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1352, which would require cities over 10,000 population to allow “starter home subdivisions” with smaller lots and modest setbacks, while preventing higher fees for those homes and allowing denials for infrastructure, safety, or environmental reasons. The sponsor framed it as a response to rising home prices and delayed first-time homeownership, while supporters from housing and building groups said smaller lots could lower costs and expand supply. City and resident testimony opposed the bill as a state override of local planning and zoning, arguing it would impose high-density development and weaken local control; city representatives also said the bill’s lot-size language was being misunderstood and that they had not had enough input in drafting. Despite those concerns, the committee passed SB 1352 as amended with a do-pass recommendation after discussion of its effect on local land-use authority and deed restrictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am the Director of Small Business Development at the Executive Office of Economic Development.
• So how do small businesses find mass development?
• But mass development fellows are already on the ground.
• Development Corporations.
• And lastly, the Vail Development Fund.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business held an informational hearing focused on the conditions facing small and micro businesses in Massachusetts and the state programs intended to support them. Chairs Andy Vargas and Adam Gomez opened by emphasizing equitable economic development, the importance of CDFIs, and the need to help underserved entrepreneurs, especially women, minorities, veterans, immigrants, and other groups facing barriers. Committee members noted the hearing would not take up bills, and testimony was limited to 10 minutes per organization. State and quasi-public agency witnesses described current programs and funding. Dico Gibral of the Executive Office of Economic Development highlighted the Business Front Door, multilingual access, small business office hours in Gateway Cities, and funding in the Mass Leads Act, including support for CDFIs, small business technology, and capital grants. Tom Hooper of Commonwealth Corporation described workforce training programs such as the Workforce Training Fund, Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund, and Career Technical Initiative, saying they help small businesses train workers, fill labor shortages, and support returning citizens and people with disabilities. Committee members asked about federal funding uncertainty, workforce migration, training schedules, and program uptake. Business and advocacy groups focused on cost pressures and regulatory burdens. The Massachusetts Restaurant Association urged continuation of outdoor dining and takeout alcohol sales, and pressed for relief from high credit card swipe fees, support for surcharging, and streamlining municipal licensing. The Retailers Association of Massachusetts cited survey results showing inflation, utility costs, payroll taxes, health insurance, and interchange fees as major concerns, and said many members might sell or close within five years; it also backed ending the state prohibition on surcharging and creating an Office of Main Streets Massachusetts. MACDC, BECKMA, and the Coalition for an Equitable Economy emphasized the need for more technical assistance, CDFI and small business funding, and protections against rising costs, tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and immigration enforcement impacts on immigrant-heavy business districts. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• We develop our own software. We utilize internally built software.
• of artificial intelligence. ...without hindering the development of artificial intelligence development
• The requirement that commerce develop an inventory of economic development grant opportunities is made
• The requirement that commerce develop an inventory of economic development grant opportunities is made
• nonprofit housing and community development organizations.

Summary: The committee first took executive action on House Bill 1170, which would require disclosures when content is developed or modified by artificial intelligence and address provenance tools and enforcement. Staff described a proposed substitute and several amendments. The committee rejected amendments that would have applied the bill to public entities and tribal nations, added technical-and-commercial-feasibility language, and created a geo-blocking provision or a right to cure. It adopted amendments allowing comparable existing detection tools to satisfy the bill, protecting covered providers from liability when disclosures are unintentionally altered despite reasonable preservation measures, and setting a January 1, 2028 effective date. Members then debated whether the bill was ready for enactment, with supporters emphasizing transparency and consumer trust and opponents warning it was premature and could hinder innovation. The committee voted 7-4, with two excused, to report the bill out of committee with a do-pass recommendation. The committee then heard House Bill 2186, which would expand state support for applicants seeking federal economic development funds, create a matching-funds account, and require a study of available federal grants. The prime sponsor said the bill would help Washington capture more federal dollars, especially for projects that require matching funds, and would expand the Fund Hub WA website beyond environmental grants. Testimony in support came from the Port of Seattle, the Washington Economic Development Association, the City of Pasco, a downtown Kennewick nonprofit, and the Department of Commerce, all saying the bill would improve competitiveness, help underserved communities, and leverage state dollars for larger federal returns. Commerce said it was still developing the fiscal note and technical edits. The hearing on HB 2186 was then closed. Finally, the committee opened a hearing on House Bill 2351, which would protect emergency responders and emergency response operations. Staff explained that the bill would bar local governments and incident command systems from assisting enforcement actions targeting emergency responders based on protected status, create emergency operation zones with restrictions on law enforcement activity, and change the obstruction statute to cover obstruction of emergency responders. The prime sponsor and many local officials, firefighters, and advocates testified in support, citing incidents where federal enforcement actions disrupted wildfire response and other emergencies. Some witnesses raised concerns about administrative burden, ambiguity, and possible unintended consequences, including a proposed mental-health defense and clarification of responder identification. The Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and the Association of Washington Cities said they supported the goal but wanted changes to avoid conflicts and reduce burdens. The hearing concluded without a vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Department of Economic Development, Department of Economic Development, Tourism<00:13:58.959><c> in</
• I put it in economic development.
• </c> from economic [laughter] development. from economic [laughter] development.
• </c> in developing Banyan Drive is foremost. in developing Banyan Drive is foremost.
• </c> development. Chair delay. development. Chair delay.

Committee: Senate Economic Development and Tourism

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard SB 2627, which would exempt Hawaii Tourism Authority contracts and agreements for sports projects, events, and related marketing from the state procurement code and other competitive bidding requirements. HTA, DBEDT, and the State Procurement Office testified in support or with comments, while one individual offered general support for sports tourism. Senators focused on narrowing the bill so the exemption would apply more specifically to sports-related projects and marketing, rather than broad marketing activities, and discussed whether the bill should require notice to the State Procurement Office or approval by the chief procurement officer. Procurement officials said a reporting requirement would be the most expeditious option, while still allowing post-event monitoring and public posting of exemptions. Members also discussed whether the exemption should be limited to situations involving sole-source sports entities, such as major leagues or international sports organizations, to better justify bypassing procurement rules. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, but members and testifiers agreed to continue working on the language. The hearing then moved to SB 2074 relating to state facilities and naming rights for the Aloha Stadium and Hawaii Convention Center. The Stadium Authority, HTA, and DBEDT testified in support, while the Outdoor Circle and other organizations opposed the measure. Opponents argued the bill could create fiscal and legal risk, echoing concerns raised in prior legislation and by the attorney general, and warned it would mark a major shift by treating public facilities as commercial branding opportunities. Supporters said naming rights could generate significant revenue to help fund the stadium project and reduce the burden on the state and developers. Senators questioned how signage would be handled, especially whether it would be exterior-facing or limited to inward-facing signage, and the Stadium Authority said it was willing to work with the Outdoor Circle on language that would preserve community aesthetics while allowing revenue generation. A senator cited a prior study estimating naming rights could bring in about $1.5 million per year over 20 years, and asked what that revenue would buy for the public; the Stadium Authority responded that it would help advance the project toward a larger, improved stadium. No final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• of housing and other economic development activities.
• As many comments have indicated, that includes green development or renewable development.
• We have solar development, geothermal development, and other renewable energy development underway.
• This is already proving to be a great economic development driver.
• So if a developer came in, let's just say a developer came in and the voters approved it, and there were

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• And then um I also always sort of come back to um somebody an economic development person told me one
• And so, uh, how are we looking at that as economic development.
• Finally, uh, a couple more items in the Department of Economic Development.
• And how do we think about that when our rural communities get to that point of development.
• I think that this is a great opportunity as we're discussing our economic development future.

Committee: House Economic & Rural Development & Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, this is a straightforward economic development fix.
• I'm the Governor's Economic Development Policy Advisor.
• You're talking about an advanced energy R&D development testing facility.
• Is this the only economic development tool to get to commercialization?
• They're developing that technology.

Committee: House House Taxation & Revenue

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing.
• cities and developers.
• Housing development is a multi-year, capital-intensive effort.
• Despite ongoing efforts to develop affordable and mixed-income housing, developers still face regulatory
• mixed-use development proposals on qualifying sites.

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills, with most of the discussion focused on streamlining approvals, clarifying housing law, and expanding planning resources. AB 2005 would expand SB 9 urban lot split eligibility to homeowners using living trusts or LLCs and allow partnerships with small builders; supporters said it would help owner-occupants create more homeownership opportunities, while members raised concerns about enforceability and possible loopholes for corporate investors. AB 2676 would clarify the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 to make clear that referendums or initiatives cannot be used as de facto moratoriums on approved housing projects in affected cities and counties; the author said it codifies existing intent and court rulings, and members discussed retroactivity and pending actions before moving it forward. AB 1621 sought to tighten timelines and accountability for post-entitlement permits by limiting repeated plan checks and preventing local agencies from requiring changes that deviate from already approved plans, with supporters from the building industry and apartment sector saying delays add major costs. Cities and counties opposed unless amended, arguing the bill could limit their ability to ensure compliance with local and state standards and create unintended loopholes. The committee also heard AB 2002, which would codify and expand the REAP 1.0 regional planning grant program to support RHNA-related planning, housing elements, technical assistance, and some housing trust fund activities; supporters emphasized its value for under-resourced jurisdictions, while the building industry sought guardrails against grant conditions that exceed state standards. AB 2118 would refine the AB 2011 streamlined pathway for mixed-income housing by clarifying that state permits are ministerial when objective standards are met and limiting local standards that block mixed-use projects; it drew broad support from housing and planning groups and no opposition. AB 2074 proposed a ministerial pathway for high-rise mixed-income housing in major transit-rich downtowns, paired with labor standards and a state-backed revolving loan fund; supporters said it could revitalize downtowns and leverage private capital, while housing advocates and some members questioned whether public financing should prioritize mostly market-rate high-rise projects and raised budget concerns. The committee took roll-call votes and advanced the bills, with AB 2676, AB 1621, AB 2002, AB 2118, and AB 2074 all moving out on majority or unanimous votes, and consent items AB 1899 and AB 2390 also approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Grayson: We heard from the developers.
• of the developer.
• One of Habitat's biggest costs is development fees.
• Using the framework for development impact fee disclosure and transparency developed in AB 1820 (Schiavo
• I'm the Executive Director of Mission Housing Development Corporation.

Committee: Senate Local Government

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you see a lot of those types of developments, Mr. Foster? Mr.
• </c><00:36:58.960><c> remodelers</c> are the building developers remodelers are the building developers
• So what I would ask is for members to Etc developers will long be gone with Etc developers will long
• But the problem is this type of development and affordable developments aren't happening today.
• But the problem is this type of development, and affordable developments aren't happening today.

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Will that be the developer? I know you mentioned... Who is the entity? Will that be the developer?
• So my question is, are developers now who are proposing a development required to offer any land in conservation
• And for those folks that are anti-development, I want to get the thought out there: when you're anti-development
• All of those jobs come from development.
• in a development that we previously passed.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee heard a full agenda of local and policy bills, with most measures receiving favorable reports. Early in the meeting, the committee approved HB 4019, capping Lake County inmate health care and emergency transport reimbursements at percentages tied to Medicare; HB 97, allowing small counties to opt back into transportation concurrency; HB 267, expanding SHIP/local housing assistance eligibility to mobile home owners paying lot rent; HB 351, creating a framework for concurrent state jurisdiction over certain matters involving military installations, with an amendment changing the bill to say the state “may accept” jurisdiction; HB 4013, revising and merging fire district boundaries in Lee County; HB 481, increasing public nuisance fines and strengthening nuisance abatement and foreclosure procedures; HB 4025, conveying state land to the Village of Tequesta for continued park use; and HB 4017, repealing an obsolete Nassau County recreation and water control district, as amended. The most extensive discussion centered on HB 299, the “Blue Ribbon Projects” bill, which would create a voluntary framework for very large developments that dedicate 60% of land to conservation while allowing compact, walkable development and affordable housing on the remainder. The sponsor argued it would balance growth, conservation, and housing affordability without new bureaucracy, while opponents from Audubon Florida, county groups, and local governments warned the bill could weaken local planning, lack enforceable conservation safeguards, and allow nonconservation uses within reserved areas. Supporters said it could preserve large tracts of land at no taxpayer cost and improve long-range planning. The committee adopted an amendment clarifying reserve areas, allowing use of the state’s Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, requiring easements be provided without charge, and aligning affordability definitions with existing programs. The bill then passed favorably as amended, with some members voting no. The committee also approved HB 4023, a local bill adjusting the boundaries of the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District in Collier County, with no change to the district’s powers and duties. Several bills drew supportive testimony from local officials, industry groups, or affected residents, and some had amendments adopted without objection. At the end of the meeting, the chair noted it was the last interim committee week meeting, thanked members and staff, and encouraged continued stakeholder engagement ahead of session.

Transcript Highlights:

• I led California's Department of Housing and Community Development.
• We're really affordable housing developers first and foremost.
• factory-built housing pre-development pilot program.
• But I do see it, I do see more and more developers embracing it.
• But I do see it, I do see more and more developers embracing it.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Crucial information for developers, planners, and communities. ...development plans and building permits
• , crucial information for developers, planners, and communities alike.
• I'm a community, business, and rural development representative for the State Economic Development Department
• It only helps developers, as one of the developers spoke—McKenzie from Abrazo Homes said that as he has
• And it's interesting... ...for developers to come in and build housing.

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs

Summary: The committee first took up HB 110, as amended by a committee substitute, which would require quarterly public reporting of housing development and permitting data by Class A counties and municipalities over a population threshold. The sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to improve transparency, identify bottlenecks in housing approvals, and help policymakers and developers understand permitting timelines and staffing needs. Support came from home builders, realtors, economic development, housing advocates, and some local officials, who argued that consistent data would help address New Mexico’s housing shortage and support better policy decisions. Opponents, mainly from the Municipal League and several smaller cities, argued the bill was an unfunded mandate, a step toward state preemption of local control, and a burden on municipal staff; they also warned it could expand to smaller communities later. Committee members raised concerns about rural impacts, the lack of penalties in the bill, whether the data already exists and could be obtained voluntarily, and what the state would do with the information after collection. The sponsor said the bill was only a reporting measure, not a preemption bill, and that the data would help identify where resources or staffing support are needed. During discussion, the sponsor agreed to amendments discussed with the Vice Chair to raise the population threshold from 30,000 to 40,000 and add a five-year sunset, which would remove several smaller municipalities from coverage. The committee then voted 4-3 to give the committee substitute a do pass recommendation, with the bill itself receiving a do not pass recommendation; several members explained their votes by emphasizing either support for the data effort or concern about mandates and future expansion. The committee then heard HM 24, which asks the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty Division of the Department of Justice and the Land Grant Council to study the potential consequences of restructuring the Las Vegas land grant. The sponsor and witnesses explained that the Las Vegas land grant is uniquely managed through the Fourth Judicial District Court and that the memorial would help explore the historical basis for that arrangement and possible paths toward greater autonomy. Supporters said the study could help the land grant move toward independent governance and clarify procedures and policies. The committee approved the memorial on a do pass motion without opposition, and the meeting adjourned afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses.
• So we didn't see any development once Chapter 40R was amended for starter homes.
• I'm here today to discuss H. 303, which is an act of remote community development planning.
• their own community development plan or regional development plan, which would include new housing opportunities
• their own community development plan or regional development plan, which would include new housing opportunities

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses held a brief hearing on several housing and planning bills. Testimony focused on Senate Bill 176 and House Bill 313, which would update Chapter 40R smart growth zoning incentives and double municipal payments for adopting qualifying zoning districts, and Senate Bill 177, a technical correction to Chapter 40S so starter-home districts created under Chapter 40Y would also qualify for school cost reimbursement. Benjamin Fierro, representing the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, strongly supported the bills, arguing that the current incentives are too modest, that starter homes are needed for young and first-time buyers, and that the school reimbursement fix is necessary to align the statutes. Nally Soto of the Massachusetts Housing Coalition also supported the bills, saying the higher incentives would help municipalities approve more housing and address the housing shortage. Representative Kassner testified on House Bill 303, a remote community development planning bill modeled on Executive Order 418. She said it would restore and expand statewide comprehensive planning for land use, transportation, housing, open space, infrastructure, and climate resilience, with regional planning agencies playing a key role. Committee members asked about how Chapter 40S reimbursement is calculated and how the planning bill would interact with existing regional planning commissions. One member also spoke in support of the housing bills and described local challenges with affordability, land costs, and compliance with the MBTA Communities law. No votes were taken during the hearing. The chair closed testimony after a final call for additional witnesses and announced that the committee would continue working on the bills and hold one more hearing in September on additional measures and late-filed bills. The committee then adjourned by motion and second.