Transcript Highlights:

• And we were looking at more funding structures for it to be able to do more types of work.
• And we were looking at more funding structures for it to be able to do more types of work.
• And we need that investment on the shoreline.
• We're fortunate in San Mateo County to have one shoreline.
• We're fortunate in San Mateo County, have one shoreline.

Summary: The committee heard a series of natural resources bills, with several measures accepted on committee amendments and moved forward on party-line or near-unanimous votes. AB 2461 on oil and gas bonding and well-closure financial assurance drew strong support from environmental groups and some legislators, while an industry representative was neutral and warned about unintended consequences and reduced transfers. Senators Laird and Cabaldon supported the bill as a clarification of AB 1167, and the committee voted do pass as amended to Appropriations, with the bill placed on call. The committee also approved a consent calendar of 10 bills, which was moved and held on call. AB 53 by Assemblymember Ramos, as amended, would expand tribal eligibility for conservation grants and loans and express legislative intent to create a process for returning ancestral lands to federally recognized tribes. Tribal and environmental supporters argued the bill recognizes tribal stewardship and helps remove barriers to conservation participation, while county, farm bureau, and habitat league witnesses raised concerns about long-term land management, public accountability, easements, and jurisdiction if lands are transferred. Committee members emphasized the importance of preserving conservation protections and continuing work on the land-return framework; the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations and held on call. AB 2679 on Lake Tahoe corridor safety and access was supported by local officials and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, who described dangerous parking, pedestrian conflicts, and a successful shuttle pilot, and the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 1666, creating biomass innovation parks and other incentives for non-combustion uses of forest and agricultural biomass, received broad support from business, conservation, and local government witnesses, with senators framing it as a way to address wildfire debris and create rural jobs; it also advanced do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 2494, which would modernize the demonstration state forest system and elevate biodiversity, recreation, carbon storage, and tribal stewardship over maximum sustained production, drew strong support from environmental and tribal advocates but significant opposition from forest industry, county, and research witnesses who warned it could undermine research, sustainable forestry, and local economies; the author said he would continue negotiations, and the bill was moved do pass to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 2234, which updates the definition of geothermal exploratory projects, and AB 2521, which seeks to use the California Council on Science and Technology for watershed-wide water availability analyses to help identify excess water for groundwater recharge. Both bills had support from sponsors and some stakeholders, while AB 2521 drew concerns from agricultural water interests about agency reliance, public trust considerations, and funding. Both measures were moved do pass as amended to Appropriations. Finally, AB 2410 would extend a CEQA exemption for certain fuels-reduction projects in high fire-risk areas; local government groups supported it as a wildfire-prevention tool, while environmental and other opponents argued the remaining exemption still weakens habitat protections and public review, and one witness sought to remove conventional herbicides from the exemption.

Transcript Highlights:

• Stacked flat apartments, smaller units generally, low-rise structures, which is quite similar to what
• and to colleagues at Ecology who've recently put out the guidance on critical area ordinances and shoreline
• Yeah, and then thank you so much because we have... we did a very small local amendment to our shoreline
• code that hasn't been able to get through the Ecology approval process for shoreline master programs
• It has to be structured so that we keep moving, even across divisions.

Committee: Senate Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• The Governor's budget had over $20 billion in structural imbalance.
• The Governor's budget had over $20 billion in structural imbalance in each of the out years.
• We continue to have a structural deficit, both in the budget year 2026-27 and the subsequent years.
• I think it's really just in this framework of the general fund structural deficit.
• That's just naturally a part of the program structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• That experience is what set me on my career path from the shoreline to the ambulance system, and now
• The Hawaii workforce challenge is structural.
• The Hawaii workforce challenge is structural.<00:43:12.000><c> This</c><00:43:12.240><c> is</c><00:43
• :12.360><c> something</c><00:43:12.720><c> we</c><00:43:12.840><c> deeply</c> structural.
• This is something we deeply structural.

Bills: HCR92 , HCR46 , HCR172 , HCR147 , HCR112 , HCR100 , HR84 , HR42 , HR139 , HR104 , HR92

Committee: House Labor

Keywords: automated external defibrillator, AED, cardiac arrest, state buildings, health education, public health, lifeguards, first responders, public safety, ocean safety, emergency response, Hawaii, workers' compensation, auditor, procurement audit, compliance, Department of Human Resources Development, transparency, accountability, medical care

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a long history of supporting existing community-based management structures, including helping
• We have a long history of supporting existing community-based management structures, including helping
• Finally, the bill's arrest authority, penalty structure, and procedural safeguards should be clarified
• >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, one concern came up that if it's along the shoreline, that it doesn't taking
• </c> &gt;&gt; the use of the in within the shoreline &gt;&gt; the use of the in within the shoreline

Bills: HB1881 , HB2218 , HB1956 , HB2151 , HB1845 , HB1844 , HB2103 , HB2424 , HB1650 , HB376 , HB2599 , HB1861

Committee: House Water & Land

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 10, 2026, with Chair Mark Hashem outlining strict testimony rules and noting a time constraint because of later hearings and floor session obligations. The committee then took up several bills, hearing mostly supportive testimony on HB 1881 relating to land use, HB 2218 relating to DLNR/community management, and HB 1956 relating to freshwater waves, while HB 1845 relating to the Land Use Commission drew legal concerns and opposition. HB 2151 relating to building materials had no substantive testimony presented in the excerpt, and the committee moved through it quickly. On HB 1881, testimony focused on protecting North Shore lands from overdevelopment. A supporter described the area as valuable precisely because it remains largely undeveloped, and a member asked whether the bill’s restrictions on “finculars” would affect existing or future private residential installations; the response suggested the bill was aimed at future commercial uses and that grandfathering or personal-use exceptions might be possible, but the exact wording would need legal refinement. HB 2218 received broad support from OHA, DLNR, Kua, Sierra Club, Hui Maka Aana, the Honlay Initiative, and others, who said the measure would expand community-based co-management across DLNR divisions, build on existing park partnerships, and produce real benefits such as better stewardship, safer access, local jobs, and stronger community trust. Members asked about the bill’s five-year review structure, how multiple community groups would be handled, and whether the model could apply to ocean or nearshore areas; DLNR said the board would retain authority, agreements would be non-exclusive and subject to review, and the department was still working through how the approach would function across different divisions and marine settings. For HB 1956, the Attorney General offered technical comments, urging clearer definitions of “residing” and “freshwater way,” clearer timing for citations and arrests, and more explicit procedural safeguards and agency roles. On HB 1845, the Attorney General and Land Use Commission raised concerns that the bill could conflict with constitutional protections for important agricultural lands and could not be reconciled with existing voting requirements; the LUC also said commissioners cannot vote by proxy under sunshine law and warned that the bill could allow too few commissioners to approve major boundary changes. Members questioned how the bill would work in counties without designated important agricultural lands, and the LUC explained that Kauai is the only county to have completed the IAL process, while the broader statutory process remains county-driven and has been the subject of litigation. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• They had one concept that had to do with fees based on shoreline that folks owned; that apparently was
• </c> to do with uh um fees based on shoreline to do with uh um fees based on shoreline that<00:58:07.760
• </c> shoreline fee. shoreline fee.
• fee which was taken out of shoreline fee which was taken out of this<01:07:47.280><c> bill.
• or business impacted upwards structure or business impacted upwards to<01:23:30.480><c> thousands.

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 1042, which would increase the BFA contingent credit limit. State Treasurer Monica Misipelli explained that under RSA 66, state debt capacity is tied to unrestricted revenue and that guaranteed debt counts in the calculation even though it is contingent rather than direct debt. She said the state currently has about 4.2% to 4.3% debt-to-revenue ratio, about $120 million in additional capacity, and that approving the bill’s proposed increase would reduce available capacity for future state borrowing, including capital budgets. She noted the BFA has a long history of using guarantees without a state payout, but said the legislature should consider whether the full additional $250 million is needed and whether unused guarantee authorizations, such as one for the Pease Development Authority, should be reviewed in the future. Committee members asked whether guarantees have the same effect as actual debt for bonding capacity, and the treasurer confirmed that they do for purposes of the formula. Members also asked about the usual level of debt relative to the statutory 10% cap, and she said the state generally stays well below that limit. BFA Executive Director James Key Wallace then testified that the request was driven by rising project costs, inflation, and the need for more runway so the agency does not have to return to the legislature in an emergency. He said the BFA is self-supported, has never had a guarantee paid out by the state, requires collateral and reserves, and believes the appropriate range is closer to $400 million to $450 million; he also said a Senate bill would raise the limit to $400 million. He added that the BFA’s pipeline includes projects from about $15 million to $100 million and that housing availability is an important factor in business location decisions. After closing the work session on House Bill 1042, the committee opened House Bill 241, a bill on health insurance coverage for pain management services for chronic pain. Representative Dave Nagel, the prime sponsor, gave extensive background on his long career in pain medicine and said the bill is intended to improve access to non-opioid therapies and evidence-based pain management. He described the broad population affected by chronic pain and opioid use disorder, and said the proposal has long had bipartisan and stakeholder support. No vote or final action was taken on House Bill 241 in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the proposed structure. the proposed structure.
• I'm just going to look up the RSA, see where it's sitting. consistent with existing shoreline consistent
• with existing shoreline protection<00:41:51.680><c> standards</c><00:41:52.480><c> and</c><00:41:52.720
• </c> requirements to protect the shoreline requirements to protect the shoreline and<00:45:22.400><c>
• </c> they're going to want for new structures they're going to want for new structures and<00:45:42.640

Summary: The subcommittee on SB 170 opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and then worked through the bill section by section, focusing first on a housing-related provision that would prohibit municipalities from requiring occupants to be related by blood or marriage. The chair proposed adding “school enrollment status” as a protected class to prevent towns from limiting where students may live, especially in Durham. Members debated whether that phrase was too vague and whether “educational status,” “enrollment status,” or “school enrollment status” was the best wording. Public testimony raised concerns that adding a new protected class could have broader implications under the state’s anti-discrimination law and could also affect municipal zoning authority, while supporters argued the bill was aimed at preventing local rules that restrict student housing and group living arrangements. The subcommittee did not take a final vote on that language during the discussion. The committee then turned to land-use and subdivision provisions. The Department of Environmental Services testified that its test-pit and related land-development rules are already protective of groundwater and surface water, and that municipalities sometimes impose stricter setbacks or other requirements locally. Builders and housing advocates argued that more stringent local requirements for test pits, well siting, and related approvals add time and cost and can impede housing development, while some municipal concerns were raised about aquifer and wellhead protection overlay districts and local groundwater safeguards. Public testimony also supported making state standards uniform across municipalities, though one speaker noted that local and state review processes can differ and that the bill could simplify approvals. The subcommittee also discussed a road-length provision, with one member supporting limits on municipal caps that could impede development and another suggesting a possible water-and-sewer-capacity qualifier. Additional sections were explained as allowing utilities and infrastructure to be placed in subdivision open spaces or perimeter buffers, and requiring municipalities to act quickly on plan changes after initial review. The chair indicated support for several of the sections as drafted, and the discussion ended with the committee moving through the remaining provisions without recorded final votes in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• of the utilities to drainage structures of the utilities to be<00:30:21.120><c> placed</c><00:30:21.360
• I'm just going to look up the RSA, see where it's sitting. consistent with existing shoreline consistent
• They might have more stringent requirements to protect the shoreline, and especially now where we've
• </c> requirements to protect the shoreline requirements to protect the shoreline and<00:45:22.400><c>
• </c> they're going to want for new structures they're going to want for new structures and<00:45:42.640

Summary: The subcommittee opened discussion on SP 170 and worked through the bill section by section, focusing first on housing discrimination language and then on land-use and development provisions. On the housing section, members discussed adding “school enrollment status” or a similar term as a protected class to prevent municipalities from steering students into specific zones, especially in Durham. Some members questioned whether “status” was too vague and suggested “enrollment status” or “school enrollment status” for clarity. Public testimony raised concerns that adding a new protected class could have broader implications beyond this bill and could affect municipal zoning authority, while supporters argued the language was needed to prevent discrimination against students in housing access. The committee then heard testimony on provisions limiting municipal authority over septic test pits and well-siting requirements. DEES officials and a builder testified that state standards are already protective of groundwater and surface water and that some local requirements are more stringent than the state’s, adding cost and delay to housing projects. Supporters said uniform state standards would make housing development faster and more predictable. Opponents warned that local rules can protect aquifers, wellhead areas, and drinking water in specific communities, and that removing municipal flexibility could weaken those protections. The subcommittee appeared comfortable keeping these sections, though members discussed whether to clarify the language and whether some local review authority should remain. The meeting also covered road-length limits, caps on the number of lots on dead-end roads, and subdivision design rules. Members generally supported prohibiting municipalities from using maximum road length or lot caps to block development, with one amendment suggested to allow such limits where adequate water and sewer capacity is lacking. The committee also discussed allowing utilities and infrastructure such as septic systems, wells, electric systems, drainage structures, and shared leach fields to be placed in subdivision open space or perimeter buffers when those areas are not protected wetlands or shoreland. Finally, the committee reviewed a provision requiring municipalities to stamp and accept plan changes within three days after initial review, with members explaining that the goal is to prevent repeated, incremental changes from dragging out the approval process. No final votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but members indicated general comfort with several sections as amended or clarified.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh the Nukem's structure and whatever.
• As you can see that shoreline there.
• </c><00:22:02.799><c> so</c> will allow expansion of structures so will allow expansion of structures
• I was a shoreline specialist within the I was a shoreline specialist within the wetlands<00:34:44.960
• </c> December of 2021, I was the shoreline December of 2021, I was the shoreline section<00:34:50.359

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 27FN, which would change how improvements to dwellings over water are handled and align those projects more closely with the state building code. The bill was presented by Trisha Milo on behalf of Senator Lang, and attorney John Cronin explained that it arose from a specific New Hampshire Supreme Court case involving the Newcombs’ lakeside property, but that it could affect a small number of older waterfront homes statewide. He said the intent was to give the Department of Environmental Services (DES) limited waiver authority for improvements that do not harm water quality, plant life, or fish, while still requiring DES review and local permits. Committee members asked several questions about the scope of the bill, including whether it was tied to one case, how many properties might be affected, what counts as “living space,” and whether the language could allow larger decks or other expansions. Cronin said the bill was meant to be narrow, focused on access and egress and not on creating new living space, and that DES would still be able to deny unreasonable requests. He also described the Newcombs’ project as a rehabilitation of an older structure that had been approved locally and later challenged by DES, leading to the current dispute. Darlene Forst, the Wetlands Bureau administrator at DES, testified in opposition. She said the department was surprised the bill was being heard because it believed the Senate had sent it to interim study, and she argued the language was unclear and could have broader statewide effects than intended. Forst also said the underlying case was still active and should not be effectively re-litigated through this bill. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it doesn't look like structure.
• We need structural and pervasive.
• ><c> of</c> structure.
• That existing structure of structure.
• </c> structure end quote means a structure structure end quote means a structure existing<05:14:48.160

Committee: House Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• They had one concept that had to do with fees based on shoreline that folks owned, but that apparently
• </c> to do with uh um fees based on shoreline to do with uh um fees based on shoreline that<00:58:07.760
• </c> shoreline fee. shoreline fee.
• Right now we're working on Milton 3 Ponds, a redesign of that structure over there on the Salmon Falls
• or business impacted upwards structure or business impacted upwards to<01:23:30.480><c> thousands.

Summary: The committee first heard testimony from State Treasurer Monica Misipelli on House Bill 1042, which would increase the contingent credit limit for the BFA. She explained that under RSA 66 the state’s debt capacity is capped at 10% of unrestricted revenue, and that guaranteed debt counts in the calculation even though it is not direct debt. She said the state currently has about 65% of its capacity used, roughly $120 million of remaining room, and that raising the BFA contingent credit limit from $200 million to $450 million would reduce that capacity. She noted the state’s debt-to-revenue ratio is about 4.2%, that the state’s credit rating is not immediately affected by the guarantee program unless the state actually has to assume the liability, and suggested unused guarantee authorizations, such as one for the Peace Development Authority, could be reviewed in the future. Members asked whether a credit guarantee affects bonding ability like actual debt, what the usual debt level is relative to the statutory cap, and whether the increase would crowd out future capital borrowing. Misipelli answered that guarantees are included in the formula and do affect available capacity, though the current ratio remains manageable. She also said she had been using a $120 million benchmark for capital budget planning and was now modeling $130 million in future state debt. When asked whether the full $250 million increase was necessary, she deferred to the BFA, saying the question should be answered by the agency. James Key Wallace, executive director of the New Hampshire BFA and interim commissioner of Business and Economic Affairs, then testified in support of the bill. He said the request was driven by larger project costs over the last several decades, with construction inflation causing guarantees to be used up in bigger chunks, and by the fact that the BFA has been close to its current cap. He said the agency does not use taxpayer funds, has never had a payout on a guarantee in nearly 35 years, and requires collateral, reserves, and an 80% loan-to-value buffer. He told members the Senate had a similar bill to raise the limit to $400 million and that the BFA considered that range acceptable. In response to questions, he said a smaller increase such as $150 million would cover known transactions but might not provide enough runway for future opportunities, and he confirmed the bill was brought at the BFA’s request. He also said businesses consider housing availability when deciding whether to locate in New Hampshire, since housing and workforce are key location factors. At the end of the work session, the chair closed House Bill 1042 and opened House Bill 241, a bill on health insurance coverage of pain management services for chronic pain. Representative Nagel began introducing the bill and asked for copies of the treasurer’s debt-capacity report, but the transcript cuts off before any further action on HB 241.

Transcript Highlights:

• Including the cost of debt, the cost of equity, and the overall capital structure.
• acres and non-shoreline acres. um the um the um<00:51:08.880><c> uh</c><00:51:09.040><c> we</c><00:51
• areas within all acreage and Shoreline areas within all commissioner<00:52:14.720><c> and</c><00:52:
• </c><00:53:03.960><c> Acres</c> Shoreline acres and non Shoreline Acres Shoreline acres and non Shoreline
• once again but be 70 acres and Shoreline once again but be 70 acres and so<00:55:43.960><c> that</c>

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• We continue with Cameron shoreline protection.
• Non-structural development in the Corps of Engineers.
• I'll comment very quickly on the concept about their non-structural.
• The answer is yes, the master plan has contemplated non-structural.
• The answer is yes, the master plan has contemplated non-structural.

Summary: The House Natural Resources Committee met to consider House Resolution 1, which approves the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority’s annual State Integrated Coastal Protection Plan for fiscal year 2026-27. CPRA officials Michael Hare and Gordon Dove presented the plan, describing about $1.54 billion in proposed spending authority, a three-year outlook near $1 billion annually, and a portfolio of 143 projects focused largely on construction and implementation. They highlighted major work in multiple regions, including marsh creation, shoreline protection, levees, land bridges, barrier island restoration, the Birdsfoot Delta, Grand Isle, and the Barataria and Terrebonne basins, and said the plan is intended to restore roughly 12,000 acres and support coastal jobs and labor income. A major portion of the discussion focused on non-structural flood protection, especially home elevations and related measures being pursued with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Representative Sauer questioned whether this approach represented mission creep and whether CPRA and the state should be responsible for such programs. CPRA staff responded that non-structural measures have been contemplated in the master plan, but are now treated more programmatically and at a local level; they said the state is already involved as a non-federal sponsor in many projects and has used CPRA, HUD, and FEMA funding to help offset costs. Members also discussed the scale of the program and the need to determine which agencies should lead it. Chairman Dove emphasized that the coastal program is moving forward through regional, multi-parish projects and praised cooperation among parish leaders, levee boards, ports, state officials, and federal partners. He also stated that the Mid-Barataria sediment diversion is fully defunded, its permit and coastal use authorization have been terminated, and related contracts have been settled or are still being resolved in court. Members asked follow-up questions about the diversion settlement, project tracking, and the status of expropriation-related litigation tied to the canceled project. No vote on HR 1 was recorded in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> posture for over-the-water structures. posture for over-the-water structures.
• </c> suspended directly from the structure. suspended directly from the structure.
• </c> the shoreline from this modification. the shoreline from this modification.
• . structure. structure.
• </c> grandfathered for use at that shoreline grandfathered for use at that shoreline and<06:11:17.040

Transcript Highlights:

• We're already thinking ahead towards our 2029 Shoreline Master Program update, because of course these
• We are, and our council in particular, is very concerned about making sure that the shorelines and the
• But how can we structure bills that takes that time on?
• But how can we structure bills that takes that timeline?
• And since they already have the structural plans on file, they can issue that within three weeks.

Committee: House Local Government

Summary: The committee heard a series of presentations on comprehensive plan implementation, permitting reform, and subdivision and infrastructure coordination. Pierce County and the City of Redmond described their recent comprehensive plan updates, emphasizing major efforts to add housing capacity, middle housing, transit-oriented development, climate and shoreline protections, and preservation of existing affordable housing. Both jurisdictions said the work took years and required extensive public engagement, and both stressed that frequent statutory changes, late-issued state guidance, and overlapping review requirements created “implementation fatigue” and added cost and delay. Redmond in particular said mid-course legislative changes forced supplemental environmental review and additional analysis, while Pierce County asked for more technical assistance and more consistent guidance across agencies and neighboring jurisdictions. On permitting, an architect from AIA Washington, WABO, and the Master Builders Association argued that delays in plan review and subdivision approvals are a major driver of housing costs. They described long review timelines, repeated comment cycles, and inconsistent local processes as barriers that increase financing, labor, and weather-related costs and can cause projects to stall or be canceled. Proposed solutions included provisional or phased approvals for certain housing projects, stronger use of pre-application meetings, clearer and more objective standards, self-certification by licensed professionals in limited cases, and limits on repeated review cycles. WABO and local officials cautioned that pre-application and phased-review processes can help but require staff time and careful coordination, and they noted that many delays actually arise earlier in land use, environmental, or utility review rather than the final building permit stage. The Department of Commerce and consultant Clay White presented preliminary recommendations from a task force on integrating special purpose districts into Growth Management Act planning. The task force recommended earlier and broader notification of water, sewer, school, port, and other service providers during countywide planning policy updates, comprehensive plan amendments, permit notices, and grant applications; better coordination of utility and transportation capital projects; possible GIS tools to share capital facility plans; more regular updating of coordinated water system plans; and stronger alignment of school siting and funding with anticipated growth. They said the recommendations were intentionally light-touch because local governments are already absorbing many new requirements and because independent districts are reluctant to give up decision-making authority. Finally, FutureWise and the City of Spokane discussed subdivision reform. They supported administrative approval of subdivisions in urban growth areas, retention of key notice and access protections, and clearer rules for exemptions such as boundary line adjustments and estate-related lot divisions. Spokane described local reforms such as smaller minimum lot sizes, unit lot subdivisions, and reduced-process short plats for simple infill, while warning against additional notice requirements and appeals to city councils for technical plat decisions. Speakers repeatedly urged the committee to avoid adding major new mandates while local governments are still implementing recent housing and planning laws.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're already thinking ahead toward our 2029 Shoreline Master Program update, because of course these
• We are, and our council in particular, is very concerned about making sure that the shorelines and the
• But how can we structure bills that takes that time on?
• But how can we structure bills that takes that timeline? Or do we?
• Since they already have the structural plans on file, they can issue that within three weeks.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mary's counties, living shorelines and non-structural shoreline stabilization measures, education, energy

Transcript Highlights:

• Doing away with basic SMA permitting that protects our shoreline... permitting that protects our shoreline
• For 65 years, HRS 205A has authorized SMA zones to protect our shoreline, natural resources, and ensure
• NIL is structural. It is not optional. And falling behind shrinks that visibility.
• This bill provides the structure needed to navigate this landscape.
• This year it's an endowment structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Does this bill also help with shoreline erosion?
• Does this bill also help with shoreline erosion?
• It's mostly on the structure and wind resistance.
• shoreline shoreline erosion<00:46:24.760><c> the</c><00:46:24.880><c> measure</c><00:46:25.200><c> you're
• </c> erosion it's mostly on that structure erosion it's mostly on that structure and<00:46:30.839><c>

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing on a wide range of housing-related bills. HB 295 on Hawaiian homelands drew support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and individual testifiers who described long waits for DHHL housing, while the Department of Hawaiian Homelands offered comments noting that lowering the Native Hawaiian blood quantum from 50% to 25% would require multiple legal and federal review steps. The committee also heard testimony on several Hawaii Public Housing Authority measures, including HB 99, HB 1096, HB 1097, HB 1095, HB 1093, and HB 1094, which generally received agency support and little or no public opposition during the hearing. HB 1094 prompted questions about the handling and sale or donation of seized property, and the agency said it lacked capacity to manage that work directly and would need to consult the Attorney General on liability concerns. The committee then heard HB 1056 and HB 1467, both related to a proposed Hawaii Homes or housing resiliency program. DCCA, the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, the Climate Advisory Team, and Hawaii Realtors supported HB 1056, while the Attorney General requested clarification on fund language. The Insurance Commissioner said DCCA was willing to run the program and that strengthening homes would help keep insurance available in Hawaii. For HB 1467, the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority and Climate Advisory Team also supported the measure, with the Attorney General raising concerns about delegation, the special fund, and extension authority. Testimony on both bills emphasized hurricane retrofits, with some witnesses urging harmonization of the two similar proposals and one witness warning that the bills could conflict with efforts to reduce building-code minimum standards. Other measures included HB 1013 on important agricultural lands, which received support from HHFDC, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, DBEDT, the Agri-Business Development Corporation, and Purple Maiʻa Foundation, with some agencies offering comments. HB 1294 on agricultural workforce housing drew comments from the Attorney General, who said commissions may be established by law rather than by the department itself, along with support from OHA, a council member, and the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus. HB 89 on teacher housing received support from OHA and education groups, while the Attorney General said the bill may have constitutional issues and suggested amendments to set standards for voucher applications. HB 276 on condominiums and HB 528 on residential leases also drew support, with no testimony in opposition. HB 415 on public safety and fire sprinklers generated the most clear split in testimony: the State Fire Council, a fire department representative, and an individual supported the bill, arguing sprinklers improve safety and can prevent major losses, while BIA Hawaii, Pacific Home and Appliance Distribution, NAAP Hawaii, Gentry Holmes, and DR Horton Hawaii opposed it, saying the added cost would worsen housing affordability and that existing codes already address safety. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing; the chair repeatedly closed each bill after testimony and questions, and the hearing moved through the agenda without recorded committee votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• They also provide structure and guidance outside of school hours.
• I'm a parent of a third grader in Shoreline School District at Highland Terrace Elementary.
• That gap has cost Shoreline $6 million since 2021.
• And even the best-governed districts cannot overcome structural deficits. ...across the district, and
• even the best-governed districts cannot overcome structural deficits.

Bills: SB5992 , SB5918 , SB5951 , SB6042 , SB5952 , SB5961 , SB5969

Committee: Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education

Keywords: youth development, funding, positive programs, youth services, community programs, school funding, education, supplies, operating costs, K-12 education, albuterol, access, public schools, private schools, healthcare, school safety, emergency preparedness, mapping, local education policies, curriculum requirements