Transcript Highlights:

• Effective allocation, workforce development, supply chain, research and development, or other areas.
• and researched and workforce developed also.
• Energy-proving grounds serve as a way to accelerate their development and actually de-risk these developments
• It brings a chilling effect to commercial development by expanding criminal liability for developer owners
• But it's directed simply at the developer owner.

Bills: SB1468, SB1612, SB1789, SB2530, SB2571, SB2717, SB2967

Keywords: utility systems, Texas A&M, regents authority, construction, improvement, construction contracts, trust funds, property rights, mechanics lien, contractors, trustee liability, mechanic's lien, liability, attorney's fees, windstorm insurance, Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, insurance regulation, administrative penalties, coastal counties, catastrophe year

Transcript Highlights:

• Typically, a developer will require a group of properties to redevelop.
• After the developer has submitted development documents to the city, the city or citizen group will petition
• In the worst circumstances, they stop development completely.
• and any other developer that wishes to develop an area around a historic property to preserve that character
• Yeah, but there's no need; we're not allowing them to not develop the lot.

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 2215, which would clarify that property owners may challenge municipal zoning ordinances that are adopted without following Chapter 211 procedures, and would expressly waive municipal sovereign immunity for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus actions in those cases. The bill sponsor and witnesses argued it would simply enforce existing notice, hearing, and due process requirements and give landowners a practical remedy when cities fail to comply. Testimony in support came from attorneys and a landowner describing alleged zoning actions in Selma that they said occurred without proper notice or hearings and caused significant financial harm. After questions, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2639, which would add disclosure and compensation requirements for local historic designations, including compensation based on the greater of repair/restoration costs or the difference in appraised value with and without the designation. The bill author said it was intended to address situations where historic designation delays or blocks redevelopment and to ensure property owners are fairly compensated. A property owner testified in support, describing an Austin case in which a demolition permit led to historic designation and what he said was a costly forced rehabilitation. Opponents, including a preservation advocate and an East Austin resident, argued the current process is already rigorous, rare, and balanced, and that the bill would undermine cities’ ability to preserve historic places and community heritage. During closing on SB 2639, the chair raised a concern that Section 3B appeared to apply retroactively to pending cases, which he said could be unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws. The committee did not resolve that issue during the hearing, and the bill was left pending. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Development does not happen quickly.
• It is based on the year that a development was built.
• And that is where developers try to prioritize.
• So again, development does not stop in California.
• of... ...was signatory to the development of moderate-income multifamily development at the time, the

Summary: The committee heard several housing bills, with the longest discussion focused on SB 79, which would allow more housing near high-capacity transit stops and on transit agency-owned land. The author and supporters argued it would address California’s housing shortage, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and strengthen transit systems by putting more residents near rail and rapid transit. Supporters included housing advocates, local officials, environmental groups, and transit-oriented development organizations. Opponents, including many cities, the League of California Cities, and some tenant and legal advocacy groups, raised concerns about affordability requirements, displacement, demolition protections, local control, and the bill’s interaction with existing local planning efforts. The committee discussed amendments to strengthen anti-displacement protections, minimum density, affordability standards, and a local flexibility alternative, and SB 79 was moved out on a due-pass-as-amended vote of 8-1, with one member not voting. The committee then took up SB 21, which would amend the Housing Crisis Act to allow limited unit reductions when converting deed-restricted SRO buildings into larger, more livable affordable units with private bathrooms, kitchens, and supportive services. The author and nonprofit housing providers said many SRO buildings are financially unsustainable and that the bill would preserve deeply affordable housing while improving conditions for residents. There was no organized opposition testimony at the hearing, though one business property group registered opposition. Members expressed support for the preservation-focused approach, and SB 21 was approved on an 8-0 vote and sent to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. Next, SB 92 was heard, a measure to close a density bonus loophole by limiting how much additional commercial floor area a project can receive and preventing the law from being used to justify very large nonresidential projects with only minimal affordable housing. The author cited a San Diego project as an example of the problem, and the City of San Diego supported the bill as a reasonable fix. Several labor and housing groups also supported it, while no formal opposition witnesses testified. The committee accepted amendments, members praised the effort to curb abuse while preserving feasibility, and SB 92 passed on a 7-0 vote. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 522, which would extend just-cause eviction protections to units rebuilt after disaster if they had previously been covered by the Tenant Protection Act. The author and the Los Angeles City Attorney said the bill would help preserve rental housing in disaster-affected communities, especially after the Pacific Palisades fires, and would not create new rent control. Opponents, including apartment, realtor, and property owner groups, argued it would add burdens to rebuilding and could discourage reconstruction. Members raised questions about whether existing law already protects returning tenants and whether the bill was necessary, and the hearing continued into committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:40:57.480><c> the</c> allow us to uh help develop the allow us to uh help develop the currently
• </c><00:42:53.760><c> and</c> home funds Economic Development and home funds Economic Development and
• </c> year communities and developers year communities and developers requested<00:54:48.400><c> over<
• </c><01:10:51.159><c> of</c> would also fund development of would also fund development of Supportive
• <01:11:02.560><c> work</c> developing work developing work skills<01:11:04.520><c> Minnesota</c><01:11

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:26.400><c> a</c> wetland delineations, we developed a wetland delineations, we developed a
• </c> areas that you are developing? areas that you are developing?
• development. at the development of residential lots at the development of residential lots and<00:55
• </c> within the programs that they develop. within the programs that they develop.
• , and based on where that development, and based on where that development<01:02:45.600><c> is,</c> development

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But private development off the reservation, most of what What we see is private development.
• Redfeather develops as well, and there's another, Sandstone does development.
• But developing on the reservation is very different than developing in the city.
• As far as private development, private developers don't like to set foot on the reservation because again
• We always welcome private development. We want private developers in Indian Country.

Transcript Highlights:

• the cost for developers.
• So holding the land tax-free, doing the pre-development, and allowing the developers to get their things
• The pre-development and allowing the developers to get their things in order to produce affordable housing
• , and small and emerging developers are eager to join established nonprofit developers to produce affordable
• private and nonprofit real estate developers.

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee held public hearings on three bills. SB 6237 would require landlords to disclose flooding history and flood risk to new tenants, along with notices that renters’ insurance and flood insurance may be needed and that county or local government sources have hazard information. The sponsor said the bill was a simple disclosure modeled on other states’ laws after recent flooding in Washington. Testimony was generally supportive, with an environmental nonprofit urging a broader jurisdiction-based disclosure instead of only county government, and housing industry groups saying they were neutral or concerned about added lease disclosures and asking for clearer language about what flooding information must be disclosed. No vote was taken on the bill. The committee then heard SB 6214, which would authorize public corporations, housing authorities, and certain nonprofits to operate as land bank authorities for affordable housing, with requirements for affordability covenants, annual reports, priority access to tax-foreclosed properties, and tax exemptions for qualifying land bank property and transfers. Supporters from Spokane, counties, housing authorities, affordable housing groups, and developers said land banking would help lower land costs, speed development, and expand affordable housing production. One member of the public opposed the bill, arguing it could remove land from the market and affect rural land supply. Department of Revenue staff flagged a technical issue, saying the bill needs a clearer definition of a qualifying land bank authority so the exemption can be administered, and confirmed the proposal would shift property off the tax rolls. The committee also asked whether the bill would allow non-housing uses such as parks or green space; staff said the bill requires affordable housing use, though the other half of land bank activity is not specified. The committee also heard SB 6139, which would require landlords to keep accepting previously used payment methods and continue to accept partial rent payments during an unlawful detainer process, while making clear that partial payments do not reinstate a lease or stop an eviction unless the parties agree in writing. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address cases where tenants can make partial payments but landlords shut off payment portals and refuse them, forcing judges to issue case-by-case standstill orders. Tenant advocates opposed the bill, arguing it would encourage evictions, remove judicial discretion, and could trap tenants by inviting partial payments that do not protect their housing. Landlord and property management groups were concerned about requiring continued access to payment portals and about ambiguity over whether accepting partial payments would waive eviction rights, though they said the bill was a good starting point and suggested clearer receipts and statutory protections. The public hearing was closed without action on SB 6139. In executive session, the committee adopted a proposed substitute for SB 6091, which limits broker marketing restrictions without requiring open access to homes and removes a Washington Law Against Discrimination provision, then voted the bill do pass to Rules. The committee also voted to recommend confirmation of gubernatorial appointments 9278, Pedro Espinoza, and 9279, Diana H. Perez, to the Housing Finance Commission.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:04:07.480><c> developing</c><01:04:07.880><c> an</c> requires developers developing an requires
• ; we ask of every developer.
• ; we ask of every developer.
• ; we ask of every developer.
• ; we ask of every developer.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing, land use, and preservation bills. HB 1008 HD2 would require the Department of Land and Natural Resources to complete historic preservation determinations for state affordable housing projects within 90 days and create sensitivity-based review pathways. HHFDC, DLNR’s State Historic Preservation Division, and written testimony from DBEDT supported the bill as an expedited process for projects unlikely to affect significant historic resources. Members asked how the bill would define significant versus non-significant historic properties, how it would interact with Kapakai analysis, and whether burial councils had been consulted; SHPD said the bill would not replace Kapakai review and that burial councils had not been included. Written support also came from OHA, Hawaii Realtors, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce. HB 1093 would clarify the Hawaii Public Housing Authority’s powers relating to housing projects. HPHA supported the measure, saying it would align definitions with prior law and help deconcentrate poverty by allowing mixed-income rebuilding. The director also said the bill was increasingly urgent because of reported federal HUD priorities that could affect public housing and Section 8 funding. HB 1096 HD1 would repeal state low-income housing preferences for disabled veterans and spouses of deceased veterans, with HPHA saying federal veteran programs such as VASH are a better mechanism and that the state preference has not been used in years. HB 1411 would allow HHFDC projects to give sale or lease preferences to applicants who live or work within five miles of a project; HHFDC and the Hawaii Chapter of NAIOP supported it as a way to keep residents connected to their communities, while members raised constitutional concerns about broader local-preference policies. The committee also heard HB 367 HD1, which would create county permit exemptions for certain agricultural and maintenance activities. Written testimony included opposition from the Department of Planning and Permitting and support from the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Grassroot Institute, and others. A public testifier opposed the bill, arguing that permit exemptions could worsen safety and compliance problems. Finally, HB 826 HD1 would allow county planning commissions, by special permit, to authorize residential housing in agricultural districts for agricultural workforce housing, long-term rental, or fee simple ownership under certain conditions. HHFDC supported it as a faster alternative to lengthy state land-use redistricting, but the Department of Agriculture, Land Use Commission, and Office of Planning and Sustainable Development raised concerns about food production impacts, due process, service provision, jurisdictional conflicts, and the use of special permits for what could amount to district boundary changes. Public testimony was mixed, with some support and some opposition. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Did you develop this? I did not develop this. Where did this come from?
• is this your did you develop this I did is this your did you develop this I did not<00:13:48.120><c>
• I think it should be adopt, develop and adopt, just like we said here: develop and adopt policy.
• that they develop.
• It shall develop, adopt, and implement? No. Just develop and adopt.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee work session of the Education Policy and Administration Committee focused on House Bill 131 and House Bill 781, which were described as nearly identical bills addressing student cell phone use in schools. Members noted that HB 781 is an early bill and therefore needed committee action by Wednesday, while HB 131 did not face that deadline. The chair and members discussed the bills’ shared goal of requiring school boards to develop and adopt policies on student personal device use, with debate over whether the state should set minimum standards or leave more to local control. A major topic was funding. One member urged the committee to avoid creating an unfunded mandate and asked for some funding support, while others argued it was too early to commit money and that the committee should first establish the policy framework. The governor’s proposed funding was discussed, including a $1 million figure in the budget and a separate $250,000 amount referenced in the bill, but several members said the money would likely be insufficient to cover all students or pouch systems statewide. The committee also reviewed a handout reflecting proposed budget language that would require school boards to adopt policies on personal device use during the school day, with schoolwide implementation and exceptions for medical disability or language proficiency needs, and a DOE-administered grant program. Members spent considerable time on drafting details, especially deadlines and exceptions. They debated whether the bills should require school boards to “develop,” “adopt,” or also “implement” policies, and whether the effective date of the act should also serve as the deadline for school boards. They also discussed whether exceptions for classroom instructional use should be mandatory or merely encouraged, and whether the bills should explicitly include or exclude charter schools. Additional proposed exceptions included IEPs, 504 plans, English learners, and medical needs such as glucose sensors or insulin pumps, with some members suggesting medical issues be certified by a physician. No final vote or formal action was taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill requires development... ...other environmental and community partners to support it.
• This bill requires developers and contractors to submit disclosures about their workforce development
• That include priority consideration for community economic development programs.
• developer based here in Massachusetts.
• developer based here in Massachusetts.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a wide range of energy bills, with much of the discussion focused on offshore wind, battery storage, solar, nuclear study proposals, and a bill to redefine clean energy. Several Barnstable-area legislators and witnesses raised concerns about offshore wind transmission infrastructure near neighborhoods, beaches, and drinking water supplies, and supported bills to create a special commission and increase local input and oversight. In contrast, environmental, consumer, labor, and clean energy groups strongly backed offshore wind expansion bills, arguing that offshore wind lowers long-term costs, improves winter reliability, reduces fossil fuel dependence, supports jobs and local supply chains, and should include wildlife protections, labor standards, and community benefits. Some witnesses and committee members noted that parts of the offshore wind legislation overlap with the Governor’s energy affordability bill, and asked for clarification on which provisions were new versus duplicative. The committee also heard testimony on battery storage and solar legislation. Two student witnesses and several industry representatives supported a bill to study grid battery storage, saying storage can reduce outages, lower peak prices, and improve grid resilience during extreme weather. Witnesses from solar and storage companies supported a broader clean energy transition bill that would expand storage procurement, create a retail-style storage program for distributed batteries, set a 10-gigawatt solar target by 2035, and streamline siting and interconnection. Committee members pressed witnesses on whether these provisions were already included in the Governor’s affordability bill and asked for a section-by-section breakdown of what was new. One witness also urged allowing developers to bond interconnection payments to reduce financing costs. Another major topic was a bill defining clean energy, especially whether existing pumped-storage hydropower should qualify for subsidies or be excluded. Supporters of the bill argued that existing pumped storage should not receive additional ratepayer subsidies because it is already built, can have environmental impacts on rivers and ecosystems, and could cost ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Opponents said pumped storage is an important reliability resource and should remain eligible. The committee also heard testimony on nuclear-energy study bills: some witnesses supported creating a commission to examine nuclear power as a reliable, carbon-free option, while others opposed nuclear study bills and argued that nuclear is costly, unsafe, and inconsistent with the state’s clean energy goals. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> relating to Agra Business Development relating to Agra Business Development Corporation.
• ,</c> metric with the workforce development, metric with the workforce development, we<00:14:10.880><
• </c><00:15:47.600><c> Aloha</c> Business Economic Development. Aloha Business Economic Development.
• </c> Technology Development Corporation. Technology Development Corporation.
• Technology Development Corporation.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism heard six bills on February 5, 2026, covering timeshare registration, Agribusiness Development Corporation authority, a North Kohala land parcel, business competitiveness, state enterprise zones, and Hawaii Technology Development Corporation. Testimony was largely supportive across the agenda. For SB 2359, DCCA said the bill would streamline annual renewals and plan amendments for timeshares, though it still wanted review time rather than automatic acceptance. For SB 2169 and SB 2170, ADC and Hawaii Farm Bureau supported the measures; members asked about condemnation authority and the intended agricultural use of the North Kohala parcel, with ADC stating it had no current lands it was seeking to condemn without authorization and that the parcel would be suitable for crops such as cucumber, eggplant, and tomato. SB 2263 drew broader discussion about how to measure and improve Hawaii’s business competitiveness. UHERO’s Dr. Steven Bond-Smith supported the bill’s intent but cautioned against relying on a mainland-oriented composite ranking as a benchmark for Hawaii, arguing it could mischaracterize the state’s economy. DBEDT responded that Hawaii must compete within the broader U.S. landscape and that the bill would add accountability and planning around competitiveness goals. On SB 2360, which revises the state enterprise zone program, DBEDT and other supporters said the program helps stimulate business activity and that the bill would better align the program with current business needs; a witness from Min Plastics said the current definition excluded businesses that do substantial custom manufacturing work, and another testifier urged combining enterprise zones with foreign trade zones. Committee questions focused on current zone locations, reporting, and whether technology, aerospace, and creative industries should be included. For SB 304, which concerns the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation, HTDC said the bill would expand allowable uses of funds and help support local companies as federal R&D grant opportunities change; it currently awards about 20 grants from roughly 50 applicants each year. After testimony, the committee recessed and then took up decision-making. It recommended passage of SB 2359 with amendments, including extending a review period from 45 to 60 days; SB 2169 with technical amendments; SB 2170 with amendments blanking out the bond appropriation amount; SB 2263 with amendments and a new definition section; SB 2360 with amendments; and SB 3084 with amendments blanking out its appropriation amount. All recommendations were adopted without objections, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• what economic development is.
• So from that perspective, when we talk about economic development, we talk about economic development
• mentioned the blueprint for career development.
• On behalf of the Economic Development collaborative which houses the Small Business Development Center
• We also teach development courses.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> private uh local uh private developers private uh local uh private developers as<00:26:58.720><c
• </c><00:32:45.000><c> owned</c> years our company has developed owned years our company has developed
• </c> million towards our total development million towards our total development cost<00:38:08.920><c
• </c> comments um I do I I see it developing comments um I do I I see it developing and<01:03:16.079><
• </c><01:13:37.800><c> Fund</c> fund into the Housing Development Fund fund into the Housing Development

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have seen those development timelines improve significantly.
• And the new Department of Housing Development and Finance.
• It will lead to improved efficiency and housing development.
• Developers.
• HDIS also provides us with the data we've used to develop...

Summary: The Assembly Subcommittee on State Administration held a budget hearing focused heavily on housing, homelessness, and related administrative proposals. HCD reported that California housing production has increased, with 2023 completions up 13% from 2022 and entitlement and construction timelines improving, while members and advocates criticized the Governor’s January budget for zeroing out or sharply reducing several housing programs. Public testimony urged funding for affordable housing production, preservation, youth housing, CalHome, LIHTC, HAP, and related programs, and several speakers argued the state should not pull back after recent progress. A major policy item was trailer bill language to allow HCD to access “excess equity” in existing affordable housing projects and recycle those funds into new or preserved housing. HCD and the LAO said the proposal could unlock tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, but members wanted guardrails and clearer statutory direction to ensure the funds stay within the intended housing purposes. The committee also discussed encampment resolution funding; HCD said the proposal would shift expenditure deadlines to the date of award rather than appropriation, while the LAO raised concerns about limited outcome data and urged the Legislature to use upcoming reporting before deciding on future funding. The hearing also covered HCD trailer bills to consolidate default reserve funds into a centralized continuously appropriated account and to clarify reporting requirements for early rounds of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. HCD requested funding to implement chaptered legislation, including a new tribal housing program and reporting-related bills, and also sought extensions for certain reappropriations, including Homekey and REAP 2 deadlines. Public commenters and regional agencies supported flexibility for REAP 2 timing and other housing-related adjustments. Finally, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency presented the Governor’s reorganization proposal to split the current agency into a Housing and Homelessness Agency and a Consumer Protection Agency. The administration said the change would improve focus, efficiency, and coordination, but the LAO and several members questioned whether it would truly save money or improve accountability, especially given the need for new leadership, possible staffing changes, and the fact that the plan had not yet been formally submitted for review. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:35:33.920><c> in</c> highdensity residential development in highdensity residential development
• That’s very, extremely dense development, especially in zones previously regulated and developed only
• and developed only for previously regul and developed only for commercial<00:40:08.160><c> use</c><00
• So they restrain the developers. The developers obviously want to build a building.
• :09.160><c> the</c> it's to allow the developers the it's to allow the developers the builders<00:57:

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The decisions that we make in this committee will have a lasting impact not just on land use and development
• We will continue to develop better policies that will enhance public land management, protect property
• rights, and promote smart housing. development.
• Land use and land development issues are key areas, but there could also be legislation that ends up
• When it comes to single-family development and multifamily development, it all triggers from the cost

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• cities and developers.
• Housing development is a multi-year, capital-intensive effort.
• So AB 1621 offers... ...to increase costs and uncertainty for developers.
• Despite ongoing efforts to develop affordable and mixed-income housing, developers still face regulatory
• mixed-use development proposals on qualifying sites.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• areas that we thought were worthwhile developing.
• areas that we thought were worthwhile developing.
• Part of it was also to develop new remote sensing technologies, develop a highly skilled, high-wage workforce
• We're developing and piloting the program components.
• This is a reading wand that has been developed by the gentleman who developed the LeapFrog LeapPad learning

Summary: The Education Postsecondary Committee held its first meeting and focused on state university centers and institutes, with an overview from the Board of Governors on how the more than 500 centers and institutes across Florida’s public universities are categorized, overseen, and reported. The Board described three categories: state-level centers, legislatively established centers, and university-established centers. Members were told universities must maintain policies, notify the Board of changes, publish public inventories, and submit annual reports and compliance certifications. Senator Harrell asked about funding sources and whether underperforming centers are reviewed for elimination; the response was that funding varies by center and that universities decide whether to maintain or disband centers under their own policies, with annual reporting and audit findings shared with the Board. Four university presentations followed. Florida Atlantic University highlighted its Center of Excellence in Biomedical and Marine Biotechnology, describing research in marine-derived drug discovery, genomics, imaging, cancer, neurodegenerative disease, and ocean sustainability, along with spin-off institutes and partnerships that have generated significant grant and contract support. FIU presented its Center of Excellence for Hurricane Damage Mitigation and Product Development, emphasizing the Wall of Wind facility, hurricane and water intrusion testing, code and product innovation, insurance modeling, and future expansion toward higher wind speeds and flood simulation. Florida State University’s High-Performance Materials Institute described work in advanced materials, aerospace composites, sensors, nanocomposites, and AI-enabled materials development, along with patents, industry partnerships, and new facilities tied to economic development. The University of Florida’s Lastinger Center for Learning outlined its work on teacher professional learning, literacy, New Worlds Reading, tutoring, and mathematics supports, including microcredentials, statewide book distribution, and early results showing improved reading confidence and growth. Members generally praised the centers for their research, commercialization, workforce development, and education impacts. Senator Jones and Senator Harrell commended the Lastinger Center’s literacy work and the broader return on investment from these programs, while Senator Berman noted the value of the synergies across institutions. The chair emphasized that future funding requests should clearly show measurable success, commercialization, and statewide impact. The committee then adjourned without any formal votes on legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a good program for anybody that's a developer that's trying to develop a project.
• Well, these guys would like to be able to put a development in there.
• Well, these guys would like to be able to put a development in there.
• Once this new development is in place, the sales tax that's being generated from this new development
• back to the developer to help pay for their costs.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Almost every one of our developments takes advantage of it.
• Almost every one of our developments takes advantage of it.
• What we're finding from our developers is that they don't like change either.
• And that's, of course, helpful to the development community.
• and the cost of that development.

Summary: The committee heard a series of presentations on comprehensive plan updates, permitting reform, special purpose district coordination, and subdivision reform. Pierce County and the City of Redmond described their recent comprehensive plan updates, emphasizing housing production, transit-oriented development, middle housing, preservation of affordable housing, and the need for technical assistance and clearer state guidance. Both jurisdictions said the planning process took years and was complicated by overlapping state requirements, changing legislative mandates, and multiple review authorities. Redmond in particular said mid-course legislative changes forced supplemental environmental review and added significant cost and delay, and both local governments asked for more stability, clearer statutes, and better-aligned timelines. Presenters from the architecture, building official, and development sectors focused on permitting delays and proposed ways to speed housing delivery. Dave Boucher of AIA Washington argued for a provisional construction permit process for projects stamped by licensed professionals, along with mandatory deadlines and fewer stalled review cycles. Tim Woodard of WABO described existing tools such as pre-application meetings and phased approvals, noting they can improve certainty but also require staff time and careful coordination. Representatives from Master Builders and D.R. Horton said permit and subdivision delays add substantial cost to housing, citing studies showing months of delay and tens of thousands of dollars added per home, and urged administrative approvals, concurrent review, self-certification, and limits on repeated review cycles. The committee also reviewed a Commerce-led task force report on integrating special purpose districts into Growth Management Act planning. The task force recommended early invitation and notice to water, sewer, school, port, and other service providers during countywide planning policy and comprehensive plan updates, better coordination on grants and capital projects, updated water system coordination plans, and improved school siting and funding alignment in fast-growing areas. Speakers stressed that the recommendations were intended to be light-touch and focused on better communication rather than major statutory overhaul, while also noting that rural and slow-growing areas should not be burdened with the same requirements as rapidly growing jurisdictions. On subdivision reform, FutureWise and the City of Spokane discussed making more subdivision decisions administrative, preserving vesting, clarifying exemptions, and reducing unnecessary notice and appeal steps. Spokane described local reforms such as smaller minimum lot sizes, unit lot subdivisions, and reduced-process “minor engineering review” for simple plats, while raising concerns about new notice requirements and appeals to city councils for technical plat decisions. Across the hearing, members repeatedly returned to the theme that local governments, builders, and state agencies need clearer, more coordinated rules to reduce delay and uncertainty while still protecting safety and planning goals.