Transcript Highlights:

• And the best way to understand what those partnerships are is to listen to people who are in those partnerships
• So we start with a partnership of NDSU that we call them the subject matter experts.
• The beauty of this partnership is that we work together.
• We've heard this before as we talk about partnerships.
• Partnerships develop these pathways.

Summary: The committee met at NDSU and approved the April 9 minutes. The main purpose of the meeting was an informational presentation from NDSU President David Stewart and university leaders on the university’s priorities, including enrollment, student success, research, commercialization, and use of New Horizons funding. Stewart emphasized a “One NDSU” approach, thanked legislators for past support, and said the university will focus on recruitment and retention, a new strategic plan, and growing research and tech transfer while serving North Dakota’s workforce needs. University leaders said NDSU is using tuition waivers more strategically and will work to reduce them over time through scholarship optimization. Provost Sherry Vale described academic portfolio reviews, program closures or consolidations, strategic hiring, and workload policies aimed at aligning resources with demand. They also highlighted student outcomes, including high completion rates, strong employment placement, and NDSU’s role in producing a large share of the state’s engineers, nurses, and agriculture graduates. Several students testified about how NDSU’s mentoring, internships, research, and support services helped them succeed. The committee also heard from partners on New Horizons-related collaborations: Gateway to Science described K-12 STEM outreach in rural and tribal areas, and Sanford Research discussed joint research efforts, including COBRE-related work, obesity and GLP-1 studies, and a joint biostatistics hire. Later speakers highlighted Governor’s School and NDSU’s research and commercialization efforts, including growth in research expenditures and invention disclosures. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Advocacy for the California Housing Partnership, and Marina S.
• My name is Tisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership.
• The California Housing Partnership respectfully asks for your aye vote. Good afternoon, Mr.
• And you've seen how these types of policy changes over your time here can be...
• And you've seen how these types of policy changes over your time here can be.

Bills: AB306 , AB750 , AB956 , AB1128 , AB2181

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Keywords: Public Utilities Commission, diversity, geographic representation, regulatory authority, Governor appointments

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee met as a subcommittee and later established quorum to hear five housing-related bills. AB 306 (Schultz) would create a centralized statewide process for resolving disputes over differing local interpretations of the state building code; it drew no testimony in opposition and was ultimately concurred in. AB 750 (Quirk-Silva) would expand HCD’s Portfolio Reinvestment Program to help preserve and rehabilitate challenged affordable housing developments; supporters emphasized the loss of subsidized units and the need to preserve existing stock, and the bill passed unanimously. AB 2181 (Zbur) would limit use of speculative density-bonus assumptions in appraisals for hotel and motel ground leases, with supporters saying it protects workers and prevents inflated valuations; it also passed unanimously. The committee then heard AB 1128 (Marisicci), a gut-and-amend bill that, after Senate amendments, would apply mobile home rent stabilization to 10 mobile home parks in Torrance. Supporters, including the Mobile Home Residents Coalition, said the measure would provide predictable rent increases for seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and working families. Opponents argued it would override local control and discourage investment and new park construction. Members debated the broader policy of rent control versus housing supply, and the bill passed on a 7-4 vote with one not voting. Finally, AB 956 (Quirk-Silva) clarified accessory dwelling unit law by allowing up to two detached ADUs, or one detached ADU plus one JADU, so long as existing size, height, setback, and safety requirements are met. Supporters described it as a modest clarification that would help families add housing on their own property, while one member objected that local agencies should retain more discretion. The bill passed unanimously. At the end of the hearing, members and staff offered extensive praise for Quirk-Silva’s housing work, noting that AB 956 was likely her last bill before the committee, and the committee adjourned after final roll-call votes were completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a partnership with UC Davis and Casey Family Programs and Think of Us.
• It's a strategic partnership group. We've had Our initial meeting.
• It's a strategic partnership group. We've had our initial meeting.
• It's just a different policy decision.
• Laura Muther with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy, California.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services heard an informational hearing on child welfare, foster care, community care licensing, child support, and related budget issues. CDSS described the Governor’s proposed child and family services budget, emphasized a family-centered and kin-first approach, and reported that foster care entries and congregate care placements have declined over the past decade. Witnesses also highlighted the importance of extended foster care to age 21, while noting persistent racial disparities for Native American and Black children and the need for stronger prevention, family finding, and community-based supports. A major focus was the proposed tiered rate structure (TRS), which CDSS said would shift funding from placement-based rates to child-centered supports, including care and supervision, strength-building dollars, and immediate needs funding paired with high-fidelity wraparound services. CDSS and county representatives said implementation is on track, with foundational policy guidance expected by the end of the year, CANS/CFT timeliness targeted by year-end, and the CWS CARES system nearing go-live in October 2026. Counties and providers raised concerns about whether the rate model and wraparound capacity will be sufficient, especially for higher-acuity youth, and asked for more data, clearer guidance, and continued collaboration. County Welfare Directors Association representatives also requested continued emergency response funding and an extension of flexible family supports, arguing both are needed to stabilize front-end child welfare work and bridge to TRS. Providers from FFAs and STRTPs warned that insurance costs, provider closures, and the transition to TRS could threaten service capacity unless the state addresses long-term insurance and reimbursement issues. LAO noted the Governor’s budget contains no new child welfare augmentations and said the main General Fund change reflects the expiration of one-time funding. No votes were taken; members instead asked for follow-up data, technical assistance, and possible future legislative or trailer bill solutions, including on insurance and implementation timelines.

Transcript Highlights:

• We thank you for your dedicated service and your partnership in upholding American democracy.
• And I would like to express my appreciation for your partnership and your support in these areas.
• While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area.
• While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area.
• The judicial branch is laying a strong foundation with its model policies, training programs, and...

Transcript Highlights:

• We thank you for your dedicated service and your partnership in upholding American democracy.
• And I would like to express my appreciation for your partnership and your support in these areas.
• While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area.
• While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area.
• The judicial branch is laying a strong foundation with its model policies, training programs, and...

Summary: The Legislature convened in joint convention for the 2026 State of the Judiciary, escorting Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and the Associate Justices to the rostrum and recognizing statewide constitutional officers in attendance. Legislative leaders welcomed the court and framed the address around the importance of judicial independence, equal justice, and the judiciary’s role in California’s democracy. Chief Justice Guerrero reported on several major judicial branch priorities. She emphasized rising threats to judges and court security, the need to extend authority for remote proceedings beyond its current sunset, and the ongoing implementation of the CARE Act in all 58 counties, including data on petitions, agreements, and plans. She also discussed trial court funding and persistent judgeship shortages, especially in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, where congested calendars have led to case dismissals and heavy use of temporary assigned judges. The Chief Justice also addressed the judiciary’s response to artificial intelligence, including guidance on generative AI, deepfakes, and evidence issues, as well as concerns about federal immigration enforcement at courthouses and its effect on access to justice. She reviewed corrective actions after the February 2025 bar exam problems, including scoring adjustments, a return to in-person testing, and rule changes for attorney admissions. She closed by noting judicial salary concerns, the 100th anniversary of the Judicial Council, and the need for continued collaboration with the Governor and Legislature. No votes were taken. The joint convention ordered the State of the Judiciary address printed in the Journal as a separate appendix and then adjourned, with an invitation extended to a reception with the Chief Justice later that evening.

Transcript Highlights:

• We thank you for your dedicated service and your partnership in upholding American democracy.
• And I would like to express my appreciation for your partnership and your support in these areas.
• While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area.
• While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area.
• The judicial branch is laying a strong foundation with its model policies, training programs, and...

Summary: The Legislature recessed into a joint convention for the 2026 State of the Judiciary, escorted the California Supreme Court justices to the rostrum, and heard remarks from legislative leaders and Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. The speakers emphasized judicial independence, the rule of law, and the importance of the courts as a co-equal branch of government. The Chief Justice framed her address as a calm report on the judiciary’s work and major challenges, while thanking legislative and executive partners for collaboration. Chief Justice Guerrero highlighted several policy and operational issues facing the courts. She urged continued support for remote proceedings, noting more than 6 million remote hearings since 2022 and strong user satisfaction, and discussed the CARE Act’s statewide implementation, including petition and agreement numbers and the recent expansion to cover certain bipolar disorders. She also raised concerns about judicial security and privacy, threats and negative rhetoric toward judges, courthouse access issues tied to federal immigration enforcement, and the need for more judgeships and funding in high-need counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino. She also discussed the judiciary’s response to artificial intelligence, including guidance on generative AI, deepfakes, and evidence admissibility, and reported corrective actions after the troubled February 2025 bar exam, including scoring adjustments, expanded provisional licensing, and a return to in-person testing. Additional points included proposed ongoing funding for trial courts, long-standing judicial salary disparities, and the Judicial Council’s 100th anniversary. No votes were taken; the joint convention concluded with the address ordered printed in the Journal and an invitation to a reception for members and guests.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then partnerships.
• And then partnerships.
• WPC is a public policy think tank.
• This is a policy problem.
• I'm the vice president for research at the Washington Policy Center.

Committee: Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Our office supports partnerships with a wide range of external partners.
• Our office supports partnerships with a wide range of external partners.
• Our office supports partnerships with a wide range of external partners.
• Our office supports partnerships with a wide range of external partners.
• </c><01:43:45.199><c> and</c> good choices in those Partnerships and good choices in those Partnerships

Transcript Highlights:

• In our outreach, we have found good partnerships from local schools to world events.
• We have a strong partnership with Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling.
• So one of our first partnerships, which I'll go over the next two pages, was with Kenmore Air, where
• It's been a great partnership for almost 30 years, and... ...we raise our hands to you. Thank you.
• So we do get a lot of what I'll call policy feedback from all of those different places as we're moving

Summary: A joint hearing of the Senate Business, Financial Services and Trade Committee and the House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee was held on an amendment to the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Gaming Compact. The Washington State Gambling Commission and Puyallup Tribal representatives described the compact as a restatement of the tribe’s 1996 agreement, updated to reflect prior amendments and current gaming operations. Commission staff outlined several changes, including authorization for electronic table games, extension of credit with customer-protection safeguards, removal of per-facility limits, changes to wager limits, a stepped increase in the tribe’s player-terminal allocation, and new licensing/eligibility/registration and definitions appendices. They also noted added provisions on responsible gaming, non-smoking areas if smoking is offered, emergency-services access, and community commitments. Puyallup Tribal leaders gave extensive testimony on how gaming revenue has supported tribal self-governance, cultural preservation, education, housing, health care, elder services, youth programs, environmental protection, and charitable giving. They said gaming revenue has funded tribal facilities, a school, a longhouse, housing projects, a funeral home, health and behavioral health services, substance-use treatment, and donations to nonprofits and local public health efforts. Tribal economic development staff also described diversification efforts funded by gaming, including businesses in hospitality, fuel, construction, manufacturing, logistics, and a planned terminal partnership with the Northwest Seaport Alliance. The casino CEO emphasized responsible gaming, compliance, self-exclusion tools, staff training, and a problem-gambling campaign. Committee members asked about the compact negotiation process and the state’s interests. Gambling Commission staff explained that compact changes are negotiated under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, with the governor’s office, commissioners, and ex officio members providing policy input, and that the current hearing was required within 30 days of completion of the state process. Staff said the commission would hold a public meeting on Thursday to take comment and then vote whether to forward the restated compact to the governor or return it for further negotiation. No public testimony was signed up at the hearing, and no vote was taken by the legislative committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• So just, you know, pointing out that it can disincentivize the partnerships when we do it this way.
• I appreciated the comment about the definition of distressed hospitals and the partnership.
• So I think that's the address: the state policy.
• They need to be prepared to answer those questions so we can move on policy.
• Not to mention that policies come out of this building that increase the cost of that every day.

Summary: The committee heard AB 108, a budget bill junior that would amend the 2025 Budget Act to create a one-time $25 million General Fund grant program at HCAI for hospitals in immediate and significant financial distress, along with a technical change related to property tax deferments for eligible low-income seniors. Finance explained that eligible hospitals would need to show less than 10 days cash on hand, best efforts to exhaust other financing options, a payer mix of more than 50% government payers and uninsured patients, and nonprofit status, with expedited contracting and rulemaking exemptions so funds could be distributed quickly. Members repeatedly questioned whether $25 million was enough, how many hospitals would qualify, and whether the 10-day threshold was too narrow, while also raising broader concerns about hospital reimbursement rates, seismic compliance costs, federal policy changes, and the need for more up-to-date data and a longer-term solution. Several members and the LAO noted that the bill was intended as a short-term bridge to keep a very small number of hospitals open until July 1, while the larger distressed-hospital discussion would continue in the May Revision and next year’s budget. Some members argued the state should consider grants rather than loans more broadly, and others emphasized that hospitals serving Medi-Cal and uninsured patients, including safety-net facilities like MLK Community Hospital and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, face structural pressures. Public comment was uniformly supportive of the bill, with the California Hospital Association, district hospital representatives, counties, and CHLA all backing the proposal and urging additional funding for distressed hospitals in the coming budget. The committee approved AB 108 on a roll call vote of 18-0 and held the roll open briefly to secure remaining votes before formally reporting the bill out.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> uh Charles all vice president of policy uh Charles all vice president of policy and<00:01:54.479
• </c><00:05:07.120><c> I</c> care assistance partnership reform.
• I care assistance partnership reform.
• And so what the bill does partnerships.
• a true partnership and I'm grateful<00:21:20.080><c> for</c><00:21:20.320><c> them.

Committee: House Families & Children

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, so these partnerships and the growth. Of this.
• Robert Singleton**, Senior Director of Policy and Public Affairs. And **Mr.
• I'm the Senior Director of Policy and Public Affairs at Chamber of Progress.
• I want to turn to the policy aspects of things.
• It's going to be a partnership.

Transcript Highlights:

• Nonpartisan network of business leaders advancing policies that we believe will support a more global
• Last year, enrollment through Pre-K Today made up an estimated 10% of our statewide Pre-K partnership
• Despite the value of Pre-K partnerships, various design flaws have resulted in their limited. uptake
• Section 1.13, applying additional funding for children and pre-K partnerships.
• to partnership. without being solely reliant on their home district's will to engage.

Bills: HB2 , HB2

Committee: House Public Education

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• This is work that the Department of Agriculture has already been doing in partnership with other state
• that it's addressing because literally it takes those kinds of partnerships to make sure that we're
• it takes those kind of partnerships to make sure that we're getting what my guys grow and raise all
• And that's partnerships with retailers, it's partnerships with the ag community.
• It's partnerships with people and communities.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee opened its first formal public hearing agenda of the session with House Bill 2238, which would direct the Department of Agriculture to coordinate statewide food security efforts and develop a food security strategy due to the Legislature by December 1, 2027. Staff explained the bill would add food security coordination and food system monitoring to the department’s duties and require collaboration with state agencies, nonprofits, experts, and tribes. Prime sponsor Rep. Christine Reeves described the bill as a way to codify and continue work the department had done under COVID emergency authority, while also addressing food insecurity, farm viability, food access, and supply chain resilience. She and several testifiers emphasized rising food costs, food deserts, and the need for a coordinated statewide approach. Testimony in support came from Second Harvest of Spokane, Northwest Harvest, Washington wheat, potato, onion, and cattle groups, the Washington State Farmers Market Association, Harvest Against Hunger, Pierce County Councilmember Brian Yambay, the Washington Food Industry Association, Food Lifeline, the Coalition of Accountable Communities of Health, and small producers, many of whom stressed the importance of coordination, affordability, data, and including people with lived experience and small farmers in the process. No one testified in opposition during the hearing, though the sign-in record showed 137 pro and 166 con positions overall. The committee then moved into executive session on several 2025 bills, including measures on gray wolf management (HB 1311), farmed octopus (HB 1608), force-feeding birds and foie gras (HB 1735), grizzly bear management (HB 1825), invasive species education for pet sales (HB 1976), and maple syrup processing operations (HB 262). Staff briefed each bill, and members discussed proposed amendments on HB 1735 and HB 1976, but the committee deferred action on all bills except HB 1608. During caucus, members indicated HB 1608 was the only bill to be voted on that day. On HB 1608, which would ban knowingly possessing, transporting, or distributing farmed octopus and authorize a civil penalty, members debated animal welfare and the bill’s policy merits. Rep. Birnbaum supported the measure as a humane step, while Rep. Dent said he had concerns and was not ready to support it. The committee then voted 6-5 to report HB 1608 out of committee with a do pass recommendation. The meeting adjourned after that vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• the state policy action component of this.
• And as you can see from the waiting here, this the weighting of of this policy actions, 1.7 5% next policy
• Moving on to remote Karen Telehealth and the state policy action side, I was I think, is the last policy
• As far as you know, what policies we have in place for us, what policies we don't or are we significantly
• If if the state policies are set now, how do we progress towards me?

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> active sector partnerships in the state. active sector partnerships in the state.
• the administration the policy of this the administration the policy of this body<01:04:34.240><c> if<
• </c> public policy disaster in other states. public policy disaster in other states.
• </c> enacted a broad range of public policies enacted a broad range of public policies to<02:52:42.160
• </c> establish the rules and policies establish the rules and policies regarding<03:17:21.120><c> a</

Bills: HB2118 , HB2473

Committee: House Economic Development & Technology

Summary: The committee heard several bills related to permitting and economic development. On HB 2603, relating to permits, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development said it supported the measure with comments. Committee discussion focused on the fact that the state’s facilitated permit process appears to have been rarely or never used, the need to identify specific projects that would use it, and whether DBEDT would need dedicated staffing to administer it. DBEDT said it had found no projects under the current process, had no capacity to run the program as structured, and estimated it would need about 7 to 9 FTEs, including permitting, coordination, data, systems, and possibly legal support. The chair suggested exploring a staff assignment and comparing the concept to federal FAST-41-style expedited permitting. On HB 2140, relating to essential permitting positions, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development again supported the bill with comments. Testimony and questioning centered on a pilot program to help counties pay competitively for permitting staff. A DBEDT representative said the issue of competitive pay affected both county and state permitting offices and that the bill was intended as a temporary pilot, though a more permanent solution would be preferable. When asked how counties would fund the salary support, the witness said that was not yet discussed with the counties and agreed to follow up. The committee also noted the bill applies to participating counties. On HB 2598, relating to the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation, the State Procurement Office and HTDC offered comments, and the Department of the Attorney General raised constitutional concerns. The AG said the bill’s residency-based certification requirements, when tied to procurement, could implicate the dormant Commerce Clause, and that the required 1% contribution tied to state contracts raised unconstitutional-conditions concerns. In questioning, the AG characterized these as legal risks rather than automatic lawsuits. The committee did not take a vote. The committee then heard HB 2141, relating to state enterprise zones. Taxation, DBEDT, HCDA, the University of Hawaii Cancer Center, and HTDC testified in support, while the Tax Foundation noted the program was intended to help economically depressed areas create jobs. HTDC said the bill would help preserve the Maui Research and Technology Center’s enterprise-zone status after rezoning. Committee discussion focused on whether the enterprise zone program is being used effectively, how the bill might attract businesses to areas where the state is investing, and whether the program’s labor requirements are too burdensome for new businesses. DBEDT explained that the program requires a 10% workforce increase in the first year, which must be sustained, and said it promotes the program through county coordinators and in-person outreach. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's how long we've been working in partnership.
• This is not just a policy decision.
• I'm here today to talk about the staff and policies and procedures that we're...
• This bill contradicts best practices in state policy.
• I serve as the public policy specialist at the Arc of Washington.

Summary: The committee began with a work session on recommendations from the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Work Group. Tisha Kirshbaum of the Health Care Authority described the Washington Thriving Strategic Plan, a prenatal-to-25 system-of-care framework meant to reduce fragmentation, improve coordination across multiple state agencies, and expand early, community-based behavioral health supports. Members asked about duplication among agencies, simplification of the system, and upstream services such as community health workers, school-based supports, and crisis access. The committee then heard House Bill 2429, which would direct the governor and state agencies to align with the Washington Thriving plan, create an executive coordination officer and leadership council, extend the work group, and require broader alignment by state, tribal, local, and nonprofit entities. The bill received strong support from the governor’s office, the Health Care Authority, parents, youth, providers, and advocates, while a few testifiers raised concerns about government overreach, cost, or the need to address non-psychiatric causes of distress. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2364, which renames and expands the Legislative Executive Work First Poverty Reduction Oversight Task Force into the Legislative Executive Economic Justice and Well-Being Task Force and updates the related advisory council to align with the state’s 10-year plan to dismantle poverty. Staff and the prime sponsor said the bill reflects the evolution of the poverty-reduction effort and adds agencies such as the Department of Revenue, Health Care Authority, and Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board. Testimony from DSHS and advocates was uniformly supportive, emphasizing bipartisan collaboration and the need to update statute to match current work. Next, the committee heard House Bill 2171 on supporting foster youth. The bill would create an endangered foster youth alert system, require county rapid-response protocols, establish a foster youth empowerment account, create an oversight board through the Ombuds office, and expand training for foster parents and child welfare workers. The prime sponsor and several advocates described the bill as a response to lived experience and a way to improve accountability and long-term support. DCYF said it supports the intent but raised legal and cost concerns, and some youth advocates warned that public alerts could increase risk or trauma for youth who run away from unsafe placements. The hearing then moved to House Bill 2314, which would create a pilot allowing certain community-based clients with developmental disabilities to receive dental care at residential habilitation centers. Supporters said the bill would use existing dental capacity to address severe access gaps and long waits in the community, while opponents from disability advocacy groups argued it would pull people back into institutional settings instead of building community-based dental capacity. Testimony on the bill was mixed, and no final committee action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Johnson and I am the chief policy Johnson and I am the chief policy officer<00:02:31.920><c> with
• In terms of policy, I'll do quickly a policy recommendations moving forward. So that's our...
• In terms of policy, I'll do quickly a policy recommendations moving forward. So that's our...
• Policy recommendations.
• It's a policy issue.

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and began informally, with members noting this was the final information-gathering meeting on housing before a November meeting to discuss findings and report back to the LRC. The main presentation focused on the Lexington Affordable Housing Partnership, a public-private effort supported by a $10 million state allocation. Presenters described Fayette County’s housing shortage, citing a gap of more than 22,000 units, rising home prices, and the challenge of assembling land and capital for affordable projects. The partnership explained that five local banks created a $3 million capital investment fund to buy and hold land at no interest, with deed restrictions keeping the site at 80% or below area median income and allowing the banks to seek Community Reinvestment Act credit. The first project is a 12.5-acre former Transylvania University baseball field, planned for about 242 units, including detached homes, townhouses, garden-style apartments, and senior housing. Speakers said the project required extensive neighborhood engagement and zoning/development approvals, but that the planning phase is now largely complete and infrastructure work should begin soon. Financing details included roughly $64 million in additional funding through tax credit equity, market-rate loans, city support, Kentucky Housing Corporation resources, and donations from nonprofit partners. Developers said the multifamily bond applications are due to Kentucky Housing Corporation the next day, and they expect the land purchase to be repaid into the revolving fund once the property is entitled and closed, allowing the original $3 million to be redeployed for future projects. They estimated rental units could be filled within about six months of completion, while for-sale units would come online over 12 to 36 months. In discussion, members asked about regulatory barriers and project timelines. Presenters pointed to rising construction costs tied to new federal and state requirements, and one member highlighted the need to continue reviewing planning and zoning reforms to speed development plan approvals and reduce delays. The group also endorsed a possible statewide $20 million housing fund, a residential infrastructure fund, and efforts to avoid additional regulatory burdens on housing development.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you all need data in order to make important policy decisions.
• Having a policy that would require adoption of the statewide student information system.
• This work is a partnership, as Madam Secretary mentioned.
• Partnership framework.
• So we work in partnership with all of those entities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Retail Merchants of Hawaii does encourage DBEDT to continue its partnership with the Hawaii Pacific Export
• with the Hawaii Pacific partnership with the Hawaii Pacific Export<00:23:30.320><c> Council</c><00:23
• </c> is a pilot project and in partnership is a pilot project and in partnership with<01:10:25.600><c
• </c><01:12:09.440><c> and</c> DBED create some sort of policy and DBED create some sort of policy and
• Chair recommends to tuition policies.

Summary: The joint hearing covered several bills focused on economic development, tourism, business climate, and related policy areas. On HB 1943, which would support a DBEDT office in Korea, DBEDT and the Retail Merchants of Hawaii testified in support, emphasizing Korea’s importance as a market for investment, trade, and tourism and the value of helping small and midsize Hawaii businesses access Asian markets. A later witness also tied the proposal to broader free-trade and APEC-related goals. The committees heard no opposition on that measure. The committees then heard HB 1612 and HB 1614, both supported by multiple organizations and agencies. Testimony for HB 1612 stressed Hawaii’s weak business climate and the need for policies that improve economic growth and competitiveness; the Hulamua Collaborative cited survey results showing only 19% of respondents viewed Hawaii as a good place to do business. HB 1614 also drew support, with HTC saying its focus is on economic growth. For HB 1968 and HB 1967, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, the University of Hawaii, the Chamber of Commerce, and Hulamua Collaborative largely stood on written testimony in support; the hearing notes reported nine supporters and one opponent on HB 1968, and seven supporters with one comment on HB 1967. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on HB 1589, a bill to create dementia training and recognition for businesses. Testifiers included a private citizen sharing a personal family story, the Alzheimer’s Association, and DBEDT. Supporters said the measure would help families affected by dementia, reduce stigma, and make businesses more dementia-friendly. DBEDT said the issue would be better handled by an agency with dementia expertise, while the Alzheimer’s Association said it could provide training at no cost and suggested amendments to shift implementation toward the Executive Office on Aging and to use the term “dementia business champion.” The final major topic was HB 1608, involving a space-related project and financing. Phoenix Space testified that the bill would help launch responsive space access operations at Hilo International Airport, create local jobs, and support partnerships with Hawaii institutions, while another supporter said the project could diversify the economy. A committee member raised a timing concern, noting bond cap capacity was already allocated through 2028, and the witness said they were willing to work on a solution. The hearing also included HB 1850 on capital gains taxation, where supporters argued the bill would make the tax system fairer by increasing taxes on investment income, while the Chamber of Commerce opposed it. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing.