Transcript Highlights:

• Home Builders Association and I'm pretty Home Builders Association and I'm pretty confident<00:22:52.679
• But with a 3-acre lot minimum, the builder can only build one home.
• <01:08:18.960> come you've seen the home builders come you've seen the home builders come
• I've worked with several builders and developers.
• <01:22:33.840> and worked with several Builders and worked with several Builders and developers

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:56.959> to<00:02:57.840> the builders to the builders to the homeowners<00:02:59.560
• I asked one of my builders about the potential cost savings this language could create for home buyers
• uh about the potential cost my Builders uh about the potential cost savings<00:05:14.039> this
• From the research, you know, with several builders that I talked to, they said about a third of that
• A builder could build it if they find somebody that's a first-time home buyer.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Held on behalf of Texas Associated Builders.
• and Texas Associated Builders, and you'll be testifying against the bill?
• Let's remember the why's and... ...foolish builder that Jesus told us about.
• What did the wise builder do? They built it on the rocks.
• Association and Texas Association of Builders.

Bills: HB407, HB871, HB882, HB2011, HB3572, HB3578, HB4038, HB4866, HB4897, HB4978, HB5380, HB5555, HB5668, HB5670, HB5674, HB5676, HB5679, HB5688, SB673

Keywords: solar energy, residential construction, building code, municipal regulations, energy compliance, building codes, interconnection, education, funding, teacher support, student resources, school infrastructure, municipal requirements, environmental sustainability, municipalities, construction, agricultural operation, International Code Council, county regulations, construction fees

Transcript Highlights:

• Alton Lister, the president-elect of the Florida Home Builders Association and owner of Lister Builders
• I'm Alton Lister, President-elect for the Florida Home Builders Association and owner of Lister Builders
• So as a builder, developers deal with this, but as a builder, we go into an area, and then when an impact
• We feel like, of course, we feel like we're builders.
• And as a builder, you know, I was, a lot of people have this concept of a builder: you're an instant

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• Assessing whether a builders.
• Went back to my home builders.
• /c><00:06:57.199> 400<00:06:57.600> builders, builders.
• I mean, at 400 builders, builders.
• She just wanted to know if the builder was okay. She just wanted to know if the builder was okay.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Builders, you will be testifying for the bill, is that correct?
• I'm here with and the Texas Association of Builders.
• As a small builder in Houston, we only build a handful of homes every year.
• We're just going to stay as a small Houston city builder.
• I was the only builder, besides the mom and pop builders that are out there.

Bills: SB840, HB2025, HB2512, HB3139, HB3798, HB3892, HB4373, HB4398, HB4582, HB4689, HB5187, HB5658, HB5666

Keywords: HB 2025, Texas Property Code, plat filing, replat, amended plat, condominium plat, subdivision, county clerk, tax certificate, ad valorem taxes, delinquent taxes, property records, real property, land use, local government, property development, subdivision recording, condominium recording, tax receipt, eminent domain

Transcript Highlights:

• The seller, the builder, is if the builder was in breach then the builder does not get to hold on to
• The seller, the builder, is if the builder was in breach then the builder does not get to hold on to
• The seller, the builder, is if the builder was in breach then the builder does not get to hold on to
• The seller, the builder, is if the builder was in breach then the builder does not get to hold on to
• The seller, the builder, is if the builder was in breach then the builder does not get to hold on to

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• CBIA is an association of home builders. We've got nearly 3,000 members statewide.
• It includes large production builders.
• builders who build a handful of custom homes per year.
• So it's over 14 decades, I've been representing California home builders and apartment builders, and
• Over four decades, I've been representing California home builders and apartment builders in proceedings

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

Transcript Highlights:

• When it says eligible builder, it means a residential home builder. Why just eligible builders?
• How do you become an eligible builder? Mr.
• When it says eligible builder, means a residential home builder. Why just eligible builders?
• , the big builders, right?
• Even if you have qualified builders, you will not have qualified builders. this won't work for your people

Bills: HB111, HB108, HB145, HB164, HB291, HJR6, HR1, HB63, HB64, HB165, HB184, HB200, HB4, HB7, HB20, HB65, HB66, HB80, HB88, HB96, HB166, HB285, HB295, HB306, SB29, SB37, HJM2, HJM3, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order, water rights, overdiversion, illegal diversion, groundwater storage and recovery, well license, permit violation, water enforcement, New Mexico water code, irrigation district, conservancy district, water diversion, unauthorized water sales, measuring device, district court appeal, water resources, water compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• For uh decades, builders have 26.
• tile shower in, and then the builder tile shower in, and then the builder doesn't<00:37:46.240><
• <00:37:53.440> who see with, you know, Joe Builder who see with, you know, Joe Builder who
• <00:46:04.079> has as the builder has as the builder has disclosed<00:46:05.920> to
• if the if the builder was the builder is if the if the builder was in<00:47:19.960> breach<00

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:56:19.079> Association members of the Home Builders Association members of the Home Builders
• There's some falling out between them and the builder.
• My builder said, yeah, I can do that, but the deal falls apart.
• date the buyer is is paying the Builder date the buyer is is paying the Builder $5,000<01:09:51.279
• Oftentimes, builders will show them an invoice: this is how it's costing.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:12.960> who Builders who Builders who don't<00:21:15.039> H<00:21:15.640> LIC
• If we are allowed to only have one builder and that builder may charge $6 or $10 million for a project
• If we are allowed to only have one builder and that builder may charge $6 or $10 million for a project
• 50:18.400> Builder<00:50:19.119> and<00:50:19.280> that<00:50:19.440> Builder
• <00:50:20.000> May have one Builder and that Builder May have one Builder and that Builder

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing on several bills. HB 576, relating to restrictions on the transfer of real property under chapter 201H, drew support from HHFDC and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, which said the bill would waive transfer restrictions that conflict with DHHL’s program implementation. HB 421, relating to contractors, drew opposition from the Contractors License Board and DCCA/RICO, who said the measure would weaken owner-builder restrictions meant to prevent circumvention of contractor licensing laws; Hawaii Roter and the Grassroot Institute supported it. Members questioned whether the bill would still bar resale within a year and whether subcontractors would still need licenses. HB 367, relating to building permits, received support from the Hawaii Farm Bureau and Grassroot Institute, with comments from DLNR; testimony urged the bill to be expanded to include zoning permits as well as building permits to avoid confusion, especially on Kauaʻi. HB 826, relating to housing, received mixed testimony. HHFDC and several local and advocacy groups supported it, while the Sierra Club raised concerns about converting agricultural lands to residential use, possible impacts on food security, property values, taxes, and the need to account for public trust and traditional practices. HB 525 also drew support from HHFDC and three individuals, with no opposition noted. HB 252, relating to managing agents, was supported by the Hawaiʻi Council of Community Associations and opposed by the Community Associations Institute and several individuals, who argued that commercial management experience is not the same as condominium management and preferred language tied to industry certifications and a later effective date. HB 709, relating to trespassing, was opposed by the Honolulu Police Department, which said officers would have difficulty verifying ownership or tenancy in the field, that the bill could require a separate enforcement team, and that the sheriff’s division is better suited to handle evictions. Hawaiʻi Realtors and the Grassroot Institute supported the measure. Finally, HB 431 HD1, relating to housing, received broad support from the Hawaiʻi State Council on Developmental Disabilities, HHFDC, DHS, the Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions, OHA, county housing offices, and multiple nonprofit and political groups. Supporters emphasized the bill’s funding for housing and supportive services, with the homelessness office describing the measure as unprecedented and saying it could help the state cut homelessness in half over the next few years.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the CEO for the New Mexico Home Builders Association.
• I'm from a bigger home, and so I talked to builders like that.
• In here, it says the builders are required to be approved by the MFA.
• To the home builder, what's going to need to be approved?
• I mean, they've got the demand, and they've got the builders Thank you.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• push back that we're giving to builders push back that we're giving to builders after<00:30:41.120
• It's there to help the developer, the builder, and the consumer.
• I'm the president and CEO of Associated Builders and Contractors.
• the New Hampshire Home Builders the New Hampshire Home Builders Association<01:37:20.800> apart
• versus larger commercial builders.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• our class actions against the builders our class actions against the builders uh<00:27:37.240>
• specific requirements that uh Builders specific requirements that uh Builders were<00:28:00.440>
• > to builders it incentivizes Builders to builders it incentivizes Builders to lowball<00:28:49.760
• <00:34:05.760> have number of other home builders have number of other home builders have
• As one of Hawaii's largest home builders, D.R.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee met on February 12 and heard several bills. HB 97, relating to travel insurance, drew only brief testimony: the Insurance Division stood on written testimony, one industry witness supported the bill and requested a minor amendment, and no one else testified or asked questions. HB 226, relating to window tinting, received support from the Department of Transportation, while the Honolulu Police Department offered comments on the proposed amendments, asking for clearer language on what it means to roll windows down, when the requirement applies, how it handles bad weather, and what sanctions would apply for noncompliance. No further testimony was offered on that measure. The committee also heard HB 1179, relating to rural emergency hospitals. The Department of Human Services stood on written testimony, and Maui Health Systems strongly supported the bill, saying it would help critical access hospitals better serve kūpuna and provide long-term care beds. There were no questions or additional testimony. HB 420, relating to remedies and the contractor repair act, generated extensive and sharply divided testimony. Opponents, including attorneys representing homeowners and AARP Hawaii, argued the bill was anti-consumer, would weaken homeowners’ ability to recover for construction defects, and would shift costs and risk to consumers. Supporters, including builders, realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and D.R. Horton Hawaii, said the bill would create a more balanced and efficient process, reduce unnecessary litigation, and help builders address legitimate defects more quickly. Testimony on HB 420 focused heavily on whether the contractor repair process and class actions help or hinder repairs. Opponents said the bill would delay or limit homeowner recovery, especially for life and safety defects, while supporters said current class-action litigation can prevent direct communication with homeowners and slow repairs. Committee members asked questions about when communication with homeowners stops and whether repairs could be made before a class is certified. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That process is now underway with significant stakeholder participation from builders, industry experts
• , stakeholder participation from builders, stakeholder participation from builders, industry<00:04
• We are a nonprofit volunteer organization representing architects, builders, and energy professionals
• The builders aren't paying the 20 years of utilities that homeowners are.
• , that's not going to help the builder, that's not going to help the builder, but<00:42:54.160>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Representative Mecklin moved House File 3545 to the general register and offered a DE amendment that removed the commissioner’s authority to choose a more efficient standard and removed the requirement that the 2038 residential energy code achieve a 70% reduction in annual net energy consumption compared with the 2006 energy use index. The amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. Mecklin said the bill was intended to address home affordability, arguing that energy code requirements add to housing costs and make it harder for younger Minnesotans to buy homes. Several testifiers opposed the bill, including representatives from the Center for Energy and the Environment, AIA Minnesota, Sierra Club, Fresh Energy, Housing First Minnesota, and ARXUS. They argued that energy codes are not a primary driver of housing costs, that stronger codes do not slow housing production, and that more efficient homes lower utility bills and improve comfort, safety, resilience, and climate outcomes. Testifiers cited studies and examples showing payback over time, including estimates that efficiency upgrades could pay for themselves in five to nine years and save homeowners tens of thousands of dollars over 30 years. The Department of Labor and Industry said it had concerns about the bill because it would move away from a more energy-efficient standard and could create unintended consequences in the code adoption process, though it said the current technical advisory group process already considers cost concerns. Members questioned the cost and savings estimates, especially the comparison between higher upfront mortgage costs and lower utility bills. Fresh Energy explained that its figures were based on Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Slipstream analyses using a typical Minnesota home and that the savings were modeled over time. Representative Johnson expressed skepticism about the assumptions behind the savings numbers and argued that utility costs are not the main barrier to homeownership. The chair said the committee intended to take a vote on the bill that day, but the transcript ends before any final vote or disposition is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Association and Texas Association of Builders, and you'll be testifying for the bill.
• Uh, I'm a home builder in Houston, Texas.
• Um, I'm here with the Greater Houston Builders Association and the Texas Association of Builders speaking
• We're just, we're going to stay as a small Houston city builder.
• and Texas Association Builders, and that you'll be testifying for the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Theoretically, people doing builders are more diligent about it, but people tend to be sloppy about the
• I represent the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona.
• So we have been attempting to address those home builders' concerns.
• To the home builder?
• I represent the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona.

Bills: SB1254, SB1431, SB1478, SB1566, SB1787

Keywords: workers' compensation, industrial commission, safety regulations, employee protection, penalties, compliance, municipal planning, homeowners associations, design regulations, property rights, building permits, single-family homes, liquor, alcohol, spirituous liquor, liquor license, liquor licensing, Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, restaurant to-go cocktails, mixed cocktails

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 1566, which would prohibit municipalities and counties from maliciously delaying licensing, permits, or approvals, authorize the Attorney General to enforce the prohibition, and provide expedited judicial review. The sponsor said the bill is intended to address affordability by preventing intentional government delays in housing and business approvals. County representatives supported the goal but opposed the bill as drafted, arguing the county language differed from the city/town language and could sweep in ordinary processing delays or incomplete applications; the sponsor said a floor amendment would fix the county language. Testimony from supporters described long permit and parcel-number delays and argued the bill would give applicants a remedy against intentional obstruction. The committee recommended the bill do pass by a 7-3 vote, with one present and one absent. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1787, which would require written notice for exactions imposed on development projects, allow individualized determinations, and create an appeal path including judicial review. The sponsor framed it as a takings and affordability measure to stop unrelated or excessive exactions from being imposed on housing projects. Cities and counties opposed the bill, saying existing law already requires nexus and proportionality, already provides an appeal process, and that the bill would create a duplicative Attorney General review and confusion, especially for mixed-use projects. Supporters, including Pacific Legal Foundation, the Home Builders Association, and a homeowner who described a costly infrastructure demand on her property, argued the bill would curb extortionate demands and make the process fairer. The committee passed the bill 7-2 with one present and one absent. Senate Bill 1478, a liquor-regulation cleanup bill, was also heard and received broad support. The measure makes technical changes to liquor statutes, including clarifying interim permits, repealing a federal food-safety preemption provision, and updating definitions such as cider and production terminology. Industry stakeholders said the bill was the product of months of consensus work and mostly technical corrections. It passed unanimously, 10-0. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1431, which would limit municipal control over home design features and prohibit certain required shared amenities that would necessitate HOA maintenance. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would reduce housing costs by preventing subjective aesthetic mandates and unnecessary HOA-driven requirements, while opponents from cities and neighborhood groups warned it would undermine local control, crime-prevention design standards, neighborhood character, and quality. Home builders and property-rights advocates said the bill would expand consumer choice and reduce costs, while critics argued it could lead to lower-quality housing and remove local recourse. The bill was not reported out in the portion provided, and testimony continued with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill repeals the leasing restriction on owner-builders who obtain an owner-builder exemption to
• <00:05:37.160> will that works for this owner builder will that works for this owner builder
• <00:09:38.080> Um<00:09:38.480> and restricts these owner builders.
• Um and restricts these owner builders.
• Uh, the first item on the agenda is HB 1743 related to the owner-builder exemption.

Bills: HB1743, HB2122, HB1756, HB1837, HB1729, HB2559

Keywords: owner-builder, exemption, housing crisis, contractor, leasing restrictions, affordable housing, construction, regulations, teacher housing, housing vouchers, teacher retention, Hawaii Department of Education, hard-to-staff schools, housing, first-time home buyers, savings account, tax deductions, homeownership, savings accounts, tax deduction

Summary: The House Housing Committee heard testimony on several housing-related bills. HB 1743 would expand the owner-builder exemption by repealing a leasing restriction and requiring notice when a leased residential structure was built by an unlicensed contractor. Subcontractors Association of Hawaii and the Contractors Licensing Board opposed the bill, warning it could encourage unlicensed contracting and weaken consumer protections, while Hawaii Realtors, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, BIA Hawaii, and others supported it as a way to increase housing flexibility. After questions about whether licensed electrical and plumbing work would still be required, the committee voted to pass HB 1743 with amendments and a defective date. The committee also heard and advanced HB 2122 HD1 on teacher housing, which would create a teacher housing assistance program using vouchers from the teachers housing revolving fund. Testimony included support from the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, Housing Hawaii’s Future, the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus, and individuals, with the Office of Collective Bargaining in opposition and the Department of Education offering comments. The bill was voted out as is. The committee then considered HB 1756 and HB 1837, both updating the individual housing account program to reflect current housing prices; supporters including Housing Hawaii’s Future and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs said the limits were outdated and needed inflation adjustments, and HB 1756 was passed with amendments while HB 1837 was deferred as nearly identical. HB 1729 would disallow the state home mortgage interest deduction for second homes. Hawaii Realtors opposed it, while Housing Hawaii’s Future supported it as a way to prioritize first-time homebuyers and reduce competition from second-home buyers. The chair noted a possible revenue savings estimate and the committee passed the bill with amendments, with several reservations. Finally, HB 2559 would prohibit real estate brokers from marketing residential property to limited exclusive groups of buyers, which the Office of Consumer Protection said needed an enforcement clarification and the Realtors said could affect some legitimate private-listing situations. The chair proposed replacing the outright ban with a disclosure requirement for private listings, and the committee passed HB 2559 with amendments. The hearing then adjourned after the chair thanked members, staff, and the public.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm not concerned about if a builder is going to make money.
• A lot of the national builders, a lot of the big public builders, use us to allocate their funds.
• But builders, and I do want to make this point from the perspective of builders, are doing everything
• Builders hate How many homes have you not sold?
• The builders will build for the market if we let them.

Summary: The Committee on Community Affairs met with a quorum present and took up SB 122, which would repeal Chapter 205 on local business taxes while allowing municipalities to continue imposing a gross-receipts-based business tax on merchants. Senator Trumbull presented the bill for the sponsor, and committee members questioned what services local governments fund with local business tax revenue and whether the bill should be considered alongside broader property tax changes. County and city representatives opposed the bill, arguing that local business taxes are capped home-rule revenues used for general fund services such as public safety, zoning and licensure checks, economic development, and business support, and warning that repeal would shift costs to residential taxpayers and reduce local flexibility. Senator Shreve said he would vote no because of ongoing property tax discussions, while Senator Pizzo said he would support the bill but wanted clearer accounting of how the revenue is spent. The committee voted 5-1 to report SB 122 favorably. The committee then held a housing panel discussion focused on Florida’s housing shortage, affordability, and supply constraints. Dr. Samuel Staley said Florida is in a housing crisis driven largely by insufficient supply, arguing that the state needs roughly 100,000 additional units per year just to keep up with in-migration and that local planning systems often do not prioritize housing enough. He urged more emphasis on measurable impacts, streamlined permitting, accessory dwelling units, smaller lot sizes, and other market-responsive tools. Ann Ray of the Shimberg Center said Florida is seeing more single-family and multifamily construction but that production is concentrated in a handful of counties, while condo construction remains limited; she also noted that rents and home prices spiked sharply in the early 2020s and remain above pre-2020 levels, with nearly 905,000 low-income renters cost-burdened. Leslie Deutsch of John Burns Research said the national housing market is slow, Florida has a severe affordability problem, and builders are lowering prices and offering incentives but still face high land, labor, materials, and insurance costs. In committee discussion, senators focused on whether Florida should encourage more density, including townhomes, build-to-rent products, modular housing, and redevelopment of existing sites rather than relying on large new subdivisions. Members also discussed the role of local zoning, impact fees, density bonuses, and state incentives tied to housing targets. Several senators said Florida’s growth and affordability challenges require updating land development codes and planning for where future residents will live without overbuilding rural or environmentally sensitive areas. The chair closed by emphasizing that density can support affordability and that Florida should use existing footprints more efficiently.