Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Vice Chair, member, just some clarifying comments with respect to the AMI limits.
• We're fine with the proposal as... but we would amend our admin rules to match the AMI set forth for
• clarifying comments um with respect to clarifying comments um with respect to the<01:35:00.239> AMI
• limits we're fine with the the AMI limits we're fine with the proposal<01:35:04.159> as<01:35
• set forth for rules to match um the AMI set forth for the<01:35:11.040> term<01:35:11.520>

Bills: HB1719, HB1742, HB1737, HB2049, HB1725, HB1726, HB1738, HB1799, HB1700

Keywords: housing crisis, manufactured homes, factory-built housing, zoning, relocatable housing units, farm employee housing, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes, agricultural districts, land use, regulation, renewable energy, community development, housing, affordable housing, real estate, state regulation, building codes, construction, permitting

Summary: The joint public hearing covered several housing-related bills and one building-code measure. HB 1719 would make manufactured homes a permitted use by right on residentially zoned lots in the urban district, HB 1742 would authorize self-contained relocatable housing units with restrictions, and HB 1737 would clarify that a farm dwelling in an agricultural district may include an accessory employee housing structure. Testimony on these bills was overwhelmingly supportive from groups including Hawaii Realtors, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Housing Hawaii’s Future, the Modular Building Institute, the Hawaii Farmers Union, and others, with a few agencies offering comments. No one testified in opposition on HB 1719 or HB 1742, while HB 1737 drew one opposition and one comment in addition to broad support. No votes were taken during the hearing segment provided. A major portion of the hearing focused on HB 2049, which restructures the conveyance tax into a marginal-rate system and changes how the revenue is allocated, including funding for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the rental housing revolving fund, while also affecting the legacy land conservation fund. Supporters, including DHHL, Hawaii Appleseed, Aahu Youth Action Board, Hawaii YIMBY, and others, argued the bill would help Native Hawaiian housing and, for most transactions, function as a tax cut. Opponents, including NAP Hawaii, Hawaii Realtors, Hawaii Land Trust, Mhai Land Trust, and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, objected to using conveyance tax as a revenue-generating tool and raised concerns about higher upfront costs and reduced funding for other housing uses. Committee members and staff discussed the bill’s revenue estimates, the reduced percentage but higher cap for the land conservation fund, the effect on rental housing funding, and the bill’s cost-of-living adjustment language; staff said a line-by-line comparison of the current and proposed tax structure would be provided before decision-making. The hearing also took up HB 1725, which would extend the state building code adoption cycle from two years to six years, apply the IRC to triplexes and fourplexes, allow counties to adopt more or less stringent amendments, and appropriate funds for code adoption work. Most testimony supported the bill, with advocates saying the current process is unmanageable, too resource-intensive, and creates confusion because state and county codes can diverge; supporters said a longer cycle would improve clarity and allow more focused review. The International Code Council and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers opposed the measure, warning that delaying adoption could have negative consequences and urging the committee to let an existing statewide code-adoption strategy proceed first. Members asked about sequencing, county implementation, and whether the longer cycle would create catch-up problems, but no action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Affordable units are up to 140% AMI. AMI. AMI.
• AMI figure on a yearly basis? AMI figure on a yearly basis?
• unit is now 200 AMI.
• unit is now 200 AMI.
• unit is now 200 AMI.

Bills: SB2060, SB2063, SB2062, SB2069, SB2070

Keywords: rental housing revolving fund, HHFDC, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, mixed-income housing, mixed-income rental project, affordable housing, low-income housing, housing finance, housing development, preservation, rehabilitation, pre-development, construction financing, equity investment, credit enhancement, collateral, gap financing, area median income, AMI, perpetual affordability

Summary: The committee heard five housing measures, with the chair announcing that SB 2060, SB 2063, SB 2062, and SB 2069 were works in progress and that decision-making would be deferred to February 3. SB 2060 would allow HHFDC, with Finance approval, to transfer money within the rental housing revolving fund and its subaccounts without further legislative authorization, including a transfer to the mixed-income subaccount for FY 2026-2027. HHFDC and other supporters said the change would give the agency more flexibility to move projects forward, while Catholic Charities Hawaii and a testifier from Roars and Cares supported the bill but warned that shifting money away from lower-income housing could weaken efforts to serve households under 80% of area median income and people at risk of homelessness. HHFDC said the fund’s uncommitted balance was about $100 million and that demand exceeded available resources. SB 2063 would revise the mixed-income subaccount by changing project priorities, adding new criteria, allowing transfers within the subaccount without legislative approval, and directing conveyance tax revenues into the subaccount. HHFDC, OPSD, LURF, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Stanford Carr Development, and Roars and Cares supported the measure, while Catholic Charities urged the committee to keep rental and for-sale housing policy separate and to use other mechanisms for homeownership. Catholic Charities said the rental housing revolving fund should remain focused on rentals, and that for-sale initiatives should be addressed separately. The chair indicated an intent to defer the bill for further edits. SB 2062 would make the dwelling unit revolving fund equity pilot a permanent HHFDC program, allowing the agency to buy equity in for-sale developments to lower initial purchase prices and require repayment through shared appreciation. HHFDC said the pilot had been successful, with 83 units committed and $7.6 million of the $10 million program cap already committed, and said permanence would let the agency pair the program with DERF loans earlier in project financing. The chair said SB 2069 would be used as the vehicle for amendments to the DERF equity program and related changes. SB 2069 would authorize HHFDC to use existing dwelling unit revolving fund balances for the equity pilot; it drew support from HHFDC and several housing organizations. SB 2070 would create a permanently affordable for-sale housing program by replacing the current 10-year buyback restriction with a resale price cap tied to an appreciation index, which HHFDC said would preserve affordability while allowing owners to build equity. In questioning, senators pressed HHFDC on whether the bill was necessary, whether it would remove first-time homebuyer and other ownership restrictions, and whether the new program was truly “permanently affordable” if not tied to AMI. HHFDC said the current statutory restrictions limit flexibility, that the proposal would expand access to local residents, and that the price cap would be based on about 4.5% annual appreciation. Supporters said the approach would help buyers move up the housing ladder, while some senators expressed concern that it could open the program to owners of multiple properties and that the committee should see sales-velocity data on existing restricted units before proceeding.

Transcript Highlights:

• > um<00:19:55.000> at<00:19:55.320> the<00:19:55.440> 140<00:19:56.040> AMI
• <00:19:56.880> or some others will be um at the 140 AMI or some others will be um at the 140
• AMI or below,<00:19:57.760> but<00:19:57.920> the<00:19:58.040> mix<00:19:58.360
• , but not low income, but you<00:20:03.400> know,<00:20:03.480> 140%<00:20:04.600> AMI
• you know, 140% AMI or below. you know, 140% AMI or below. 40%<00:20:06.960> will<00:20:07.080

Bills: SB3302, SB2061, SB2050, SB2102, SB2694, SB2089, SB847

Keywords: SB3302, homemade food products, farm kitchens, home kitchens, Department of Health, DOH, food safety, food labeling, value-added agriculture, small farms, agricultural land, commercial food establishment permit, cottage food, direct-to-consumer sales, local food systems, Hawaii Revised Statutes, chapter 91, farm-to-table, food processing, public health regulation

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on April 9, 2026, and heard testimony on several measures. SB 3302 SD1 HD1, dealing with homemade food products, would require the Department of Health to adopt rules for farm kitchens producing homemade food products that are no more stringent than rules for home kitchens. The Department of Health said it supported the bill with technical amendments, and the Hawaii Food Industry Association and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii also supported it. No opposition was heard. A lengthy discussion focused on SB 2061 SD2 HD1, which concerns a 99-year leasehold residential condominium project and HCDA’s rules for sales, income restrictions, and buyback pricing. HCDA supported the bill and said the House draft clarified unclear provisions and would help move the project to pre-sales. Testimony and committee questions centered on whether the project should remain owner-occupied in perpetuity or allow investor purchases after an initial sales period. HCDA explained that the bill was revised to make the project feasible in the market, that 60% of units would be income-restricted for buyers at or below 140% of area median income, and that the remaining units could be sold without owner-occupancy restrictions. Some members and testifiers expressed concern that the bill had shifted away from the original owner-occupancy vision and could become an investment property model, while others argued the changes were necessary for the project to pencil out and compete with fee-simple developments. No vote was taken during the discussion shown. The committee also heard SB 2050 SD1 HD1, which would allow chiropractic students in accredited programs to engage in clinical practice beginning July 1, 2028. The Hawaii Board of Chiropractic and the Hawaii State Chiropractic Association supported the measure, and one testifier described personal experience with student chiropractic care in California. Members questioned why the board requested delaying implementation until 2030, and the board said it needed more time to develop rules because it meets only a few times a year and rulemaking is lengthy. Finally, SB 2102 SD2 HD1, on industrial hemp in commercial feed, was introduced; the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity offered comments, the Department of Health raised concerns about regulating pet food and possible jurisdictional conflict, and a farmer testifying in support suggested narrowing the bill to federally approved livestock feed rather than pet food.

Transcript Highlights:

• within the state of Minnesota, it's a very important segment for those folks that are at 80 to 60% AMI
• within the state of Minnesota, it's a very important segment for those folks that are at 80 to 60% AMI
• Ami within our communities St Peter Ami within our communities St Peter would<00:29:34.840> take

Bills: HF2148, HF2693, HF2542, HF1141, HF1770, HF1489, HF1709, HF244, HF1266, HF807, HF2619, HF1340

Keywords: affordable housing, local control, revolving loan fund, community partnerships, Minnesota housing policy, housing, locally controlled housing, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, housing infrastructure bonds, state bonds, bonding bill, supportive housing, permanent supportive housing, homelessness, veterans housing, senior housing, manufactured home parks, community land trust, single-family housing, multifamily housing

Transcript Highlights:

• And there's a part where you want to shift the AMIs higher. I mean, the percent...
• <00:15:35.640> So,<00:15:35.760> the are generally capped at 60% AMI.
• So, the are generally capped at 60% AMI.
• households above 60% AMI. households above 60% AMI.
• So, that would be for households who earn more than 60% AMI.

Bills: SB2069, SB2177, SB2342, SB2060, SB2544, SB3011, SB2061, SB2552

Keywords: SB2069, Hawaii housing, HHFDC, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund, equity pilot program, housing affordability, homeownership, first-time homebuyer, for-sale housing, transit-oriented development, TOD, transit-oriented development zone, bus route, bus stop, critical workforce housing, health care workers, educators, law enforcement, correctional officers

Summary: The House Housing Committee opened its Friday morning hearing by noting potentially catastrophic flooding on the island and acknowledging that some members were absent helping their communities, so quorum for voting was uncertain. The committee then heard testimony on several housing-related measures, with most bills drawing support from housing agencies and community organizations and little or no opposition in the room. On SB 2069 SD2, SB 2177 SD2, and SB 2342 SD2, witnesses largely supported the measures. HHFDC supported SB 2069 and SB 2177, and HPHA supported SB 2342. For SB 2342, HHFDC raised concerns that the bill would alter the Qualified Allocation Plan outside the normal open, public process required by federal law and could exclude stakeholders; Kathy Charities echoed those concerns and also objected to changing point allocations in ways that could raise rents and weaken long-term affordability. Members questioned HHFDC about how the QAP is normally updated, the meaning of the point system, and whether a legislative working group could mandate changes; HHFDC said recommendations would still need public hearing and board approval. The committee also heard SB 2060 SD2, which would create a mixed-income subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund. HHFDC said the subaccount would likely use tier-two funds, estimated at about $100 million total, to support mixed-income projects above 60% AMI, citing Front Street Apartments as a possible example. Members asked about project selection and funding needs. On SB 2544 SD2, OHA opposed the bill’s Chapter 6E-related exemptions and mandatory review timelines, arguing that burial review protections should not be weakened and that the SPEED Task Force process was a better venue for streamlining. The sponsor later clarified that the bill was not meant to eliminate the 60-day review process but to make the deadline clearer. For SB 3011 SD1, which concerns public housing and pet ownership, HPHA and several humane organizations supported the measure, saying it would help low-income residents and seniors keep pets and benefit from animal companionship. HPHA explained its existing pet policy, including deposits, monthly fees, and restrictions, and said the requested funding would support ADA-accessible pet areas and related administration. Finally, on SB 2061 SD2, HCDA supported the bill while OHA opposed it unless protections for Hawaiian Crown and Government lands were strengthened. Committee members questioned the project’s 60/40 split between income-restricted and market-rate units, the 10-year owner-occupancy restriction, and the procurement exemption; the sponsor said the exemption was tied to a real estate transaction and that the project would still use 103D-like solicitation procedures. No votes were taken during the hearing, and several items were left for later action because quorum was uncertain.

Bills: HF1143, HF1548, HF1340, HF2549, HF2559, HF1673, HF2740, HF2507, HF2461, HF2381, HF2695

Keywords: education funding, unemployment aid, special education, Minnesota statutes, appropriations, housing, redevelopment, local government, trust funds, community development, HF1340, housing infrastructure bonds, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, MHFA, affordable housing, supportive housing, permanent housing, adaptive reuse, area median income, AMI

Bills: HF1143, HF1548, HF1340, HF2549, HF2559, HF1673, HF2740, HF2507, HF2461, HF2381, HF2695

Keywords: education funding, unemployment aid, special education, Minnesota statutes, appropriations, housing, redevelopment, local government, trust funds, community development, HF1340, housing infrastructure bonds, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, MHFA, affordable housing, supportive housing, permanent housing, adaptive reuse, area median income, AMI

Transcript Highlights:

• It just seems half the units 140% AMI.
• >> Uh, so for the 60% units, it's going to be 140 and below. >> You have a ballpark AMI range?
• Is it affordability for people in the 80% AMI, 60% AMI? What AMI range are you talking about?
• Is it affordability for people in the 80% AMI, 60% AMI? What AMI range are you talking about?
• though to reduce it to uh below 60% AMI though to reduce it to uh below 60% AMI but<01:01:01.760

Bills: HB1604, HB1713, HB1722, HB2270, HB2401, HB2515, HB1979, HB1593, HB1743, HB2122, HB1756, HB1837, HB1729

Keywords: agriculture, housing, workforce, land use, zoning, public-private partnerships, tax credit, school impact fees, impact fee exemption, school facilities authority, residential development, housing shortage, affordable housing, infill housing, land dedication, fee in lieu, school construction, developer exactions, fair share contributions, education contribution agreement

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1604, which would create an agricultural workforce housing group within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to address shortages of farmworker housing. The department said it supported the bill’s intent but emphasized that the group’s early work should focus on gathering data and surveying farm operators to assess actual demand, to avoid “mission creep.” Testimony from the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Housing Hawaii’s Future, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce was in support, with one witness suggesting a housing advocacy nonprofit be added to the working group for balance. The committee then discussed HB 1713 on school impact fees, which would clarify exemptions for certain affordable housing projects and exempt new residential developments of fewer than 100 units. The Attorney General’s office said the bill should define “low to moderate income households” because that term is not defined in chapter 302A. HHFDC, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and others supported the measure, arguing it would reduce administrative burden and remove barriers to housing. Members questioned whether the bill should instead repeal the school impact fee entirely; supporters said they also favored full repeal but viewed this bill as a more feasible step. The School Facilities Authority also explained that about $28 million in school impact fees had been collected across four districts and none had yet been spent, and discussed how recent nexus requirements limit how the funds can be used. HB 1722, relating to residential condominiums, drew extensive testimony and questioning. HCDA supported the bill and explained that it amends the 99-year leasehold pilot program created by Act 97 of 2023 by reducing owner-occupancy restrictions from 100% of units to 60%, allowing some rental or subleasing flexibility for the owner-occupied units, and permitting up to 40% of units to be sold to qualified residents after being on the market for more than 60 days. HCDA said the original restrictions, combined with rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and competition from nearby projects, made the pilot project difficult to market and finance; it said the changes are needed to make the project feasible and competitive. Supporters including AP Hawaii, Kila LLC, and project representatives said the amendments would help make the demonstration project in Kakaʻako viable. Some members raised concerns that the changes could weaken long-term affordability and questioned why certain ownership language was being deleted if rentals would still be restricted. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Bills: HB63, HB64, HB184, HB200, HB47, HB48, HB2, HB9

Keywords: water project fund, New Mexico Finance Authority, NMFA, Water Trust Board, water infrastructure, wastewater, drinking water, flood prevention, watershed restoration, water storage, conveyance, delivery, water treatment, recycling, reuse, municipal infrastructure, local government finance, capital outlay, grants, loans

Bills: HB2240, SB896, SB2060, SB2152, SB2315, SB2544, SB2577, SB2580, SB99, SB2110, SB2115, SB2259, SB2382, SB2442, SB2485, SB895, SB2112, SB3019

Keywords: appropriations, legislative expenses, auditor, legislative reference bureau, state ethics commission, ombudsman, government transparency, education, capital improvement, reporting, transparency, technical expertise, rental housing revolving fund, HHFDC, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, mixed-income housing, mixed-income rental project, affordable housing, low-income housing, housing finance

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not just for AMI and below.
• And households earning 50 to 60% AMI.
• 19,328 units for households at 60% AMI 19,328 units for households at 60% AMI and and and below.
• So just want to AMI below statewide.
• <00:12:09.360> and 19,328 for 60% AMI and 19,328 for 60% AMI and under.<00:12:11.360> We

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing heard two resolutions. STR 48 SD 1 called for a comprehensive strategy to adopt updated building codes, with testimony listed from several groups but no one appeared to testify. The committee later deferred the measure, noting it was very similar to House Concurrent Resolution 67 House Draft 1. The committee then took up STR 6D1, which urges the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to develop a plan to produce enough housing to meet state demand. HHFDC testified that the resolution misstated the scope of low-income housing tax credit units and emphasized that the state’s housing need is much larger than previously cited, with a recent study showing about 33,000 units needed for households at or below 60% AMI statewide. HHFDC supported planning but said any plan must be realistic and account for private land constraints. A member raised concerns about rising leasehold costs and affordability for homeowners, and HHFDC responded that rental affordability can be maintained more readily than for-sale housing. The committee adopted HHFDC’s proposed amendments to STR 6D1, including deleting a clause about overbuilding, revising the shortage figures, and adding language referencing Senate Bill 26 and the affordable housing land inventory task force. The committee also amended the resolution to focus on density and timing of development for projects identified by that task force. The measure passed with amendments, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• will approve them only for the units at 120% AMI or below.
• at, say, the 100% AMI level versus the 120% AMI level, and that, of course, changes the project's finances
• <00:23:05.760> level 100% Ami level versus the 120% Ami level 100% Ami level versus the 120%
• as those are the ones that or higher Ami as those are the ones that or higher Ami projects<00:57
• <00:57:43.440> again those between 60% and 140% Ami again those between 60% and 140% Ami again

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related measures. SB 38 SD2 drew mixed testimony on changes to 21H projects, with HHFDC supporting and county and community groups split between support and opposition. In discussion, members focused on how county legislative bodies can alter projects in ways that increase costs, including changes to AMI mixes and fee waivers. The committee later recommended passage with amendments, limiting county changes that would impose stricter conditions than HHFDC, stricter AMI requirements, or reduced fee waivers; the motion passed with one member voting with reservations and two members excused. A major portion of the hearing focused on SB 71 SD2, which would revise the rental housing revolving fund. Catholic Charities Hawaiʻi, Hawaiʻi YIMBY, and NAAP Hawaiʻi opposed the bill, arguing it would weaken support for deeply affordable units, eliminate the 5% set-aside for households at or below 30% AMI, and create a funding gap for households between 60% and 120% AMI. Supporters of the bill, including public housing and some development interests, emphasized the need to redirect funding and make the program more flexible. In decision-making, the committee described the bill as making comprehensive changes that would narrow Tier 2 toward higher-income projects and favor shorter loan terms, then moved it out with amendments. The committee also heard and advanced several other measures with little or no opposition: SB 40 SD2 on state finances, SB 378 on HHFDC, SB 572 SD1 on housing, SB 1229 ST2 on the dwelling unit revolving fund, and SB 602 on the Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority all received support testimony and were moved forward. For SB 65 SD2, HPHA and other agencies supported the measure, and HPHA testified it sought roughly $8 million to $10 million for repair and maintenance of units not covered by CIP funds. The committee also took up SB 826 SD1 on the low-income housing tax credit, where HHFDC, the Tax Foundation, and DHHL expressed confusion over the bill’s intent and whether it would bar state agencies from using LIHTC financing; no action was taken on that item in the excerpt. SB 944 SD2 on LIHTC transferability drew support and a suggestion to keep clarifying language that notifies the tax department, and the committee indicated it would keep the provision in.

Transcript Highlights:

• Amy Ichikawa: Hi, my name is Amy Ichikawa.
• Women and girls Amy Ichikawa: definitely need this in the state of Texas and nationwide, really.
• They were begging for help as men were Amy Ichikawa: being placed in their cells and their lives have
• Amy Ichikawa: This bill provides legal protection to defend women's single sex spaces such as locker
• You can be both Amy Ichikawa: for equality and single sex spaces.

Transcript Highlights:

• Both you and Catholic Charities have testified as to the presence of 30% AMI tenants in these 60% AMI
• <00:18:38.240> units<00:18:39.080> how Ami tenants in these 60% Ami units how Ami tenants
• For this one, for example, someone could win an award at serving people at 140% AMI.
• Over 30% of LIHTC units are being rented by tenants at 30% AMI who are severely cost burdened.
• <00:36:25.800> and<00:36:26.079> up Ami and up Ami and up uh<00:36:28.240> over<

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of housing measures focused on streamlining approvals, reshaping financing programs, and expanding affordability requirements. SB 27 would exempt state-financed housing developments from County Council approval; SB 38 would bar county legislative bodies from changing housing proposals in ways that increase project costs; SB 25 would let counties reduce housing capacity in one area only if they offset it elsewhere with no net loss; and SB 379 would require perpetual affordability covenants for HHFDC projects and prohibit affordable housing in special flood hazard areas. SB 378 would create an HHFDC working group to identify mixed-use Maui properties for possible acquisition, SB 414 would authorize condemnation proceedings for a new Lānaʻi access road tied to disaster recovery, and SB 13 would eliminate the state income tax mortgage interest deduction for second homes. Testimony was mixed across the bills, with state agencies and housing advocates generally supporting faster permitting and more production, while county planners, NAIOP, Catholic Charities, and others raised concerns about local control, marketability, financing feasibility, and long-term affordability enforcement. A major portion of the hearing centered on the rental housing revolving fund. SB 70 would limit eligible applicants to government agencies or organizations that reinvest all surplus into additional housing; HHFDC said most developers would not object in principle but questioned how the surplus requirement would be enforced, while NAIOP and Catholic Charities opposed it as too restrictive and difficult to monitor. SB 71 would amend the fund’s preference criteria and eligibility rules, and SB 163 would require HHFDC to prioritize projects with the shortest repayment terms and highest unit production per dollar per year. HHFDC and some advocates supported the goal of faster recycling of funds, but NAIOP and Catholic Charities warned that shorter loan terms and narrowed preferences could burden developers and disincentivize projects, especially for lower-income tenants. The chair indicated SB 163 would be deferred and its concerns folded into amendments to SB 71. In decision-making, the committee voted to pass SB 27, SB 38, SB 70, and SB 71 with amendments, and SB 25 unamended. The chair said SB 27 would be amended to include projects with a state financing commitment and a report note that such projects still undergo 21-38 review; SB 38 would receive technical changes and language preventing county bodies from imposing cost-increasing conditions; SB 70 would add language addressing enforcement of the surplus requirement and a preamble citing the need to recycle taxpayer-financed housing value; and SB 71 would be amended to incorporate concerns raised in SB 163, including a broader preamble and revised priority criteria. SB 163 was deferred, while the other measures on the agenda were heard but no final action was described in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Amy.
• Amy.
• Amy.
• Amy.
• Amy.

Summary: The Insurance and Banking Subcommittee met to hear and vote on several bills, with all measures reported favorably. The first major item was PCS for HB 175 on payment stablecoins, which would create a Florida regulatory framework aligned with the federal GENIUS Act so issuers can choose state regulation instead of federal licensing. Members asked extensive questions about how stablecoins differ from other digital assets, whether Florida would need federal approval, and what impact the bill would have on the Office of Financial Regulation; the sponsor and OFR said the state framework would mirror federal standards and that any workload increase was currently indeterminate. The PCS passed unanimously after testimony from OFR and the Florida Blockchain Business Association in support. The committee then approved CS for HB 961, which streamlines electronic signature requirements for salvage titles and certificates of destruction, and HB 1415, a DFS stablecoin pilot program allowing certain stablecoins to be used for licensing and regulatory fees. HB 1415 was amended to remove authority for a Florida coin, limit the pilot to established stablecoins with at least $1 billion market cap, and require secure custody through a public depository or custodial bank. Members discussed how any interest or revenue would be used, with sponsors saying the pilot was still exploratory and intended mainly to cover program costs. Both bills passed favorably. HB 1039, establishing a state cryptocurrency reserve, also passed after a strike-all amendment moved administration of the reserve from the CFO’s office to the State Board of Administration and tightened eligibility to cryptocurrencies with a $100 billion market cap over the prior 12 months. Supporters argued the bill would create a framework for future diversification and investment in established digital assets, while several members raised concerns about volatility, reporting frequency, and the meaning of new terms such as qualified liquidity provider and secure custody solution. The committee also passed CS for HB 951 on penny rounding for cash transactions, with an amendment clarifying cash transaction definitions and treating money orders and gift cards like credit-card transactions for rounding purposes.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the 61 to 80% AMI, what some folks will call workforce AMIs.
• That's the 61 to 80% AMI, what some folks will call workforce AMIs.
• The separate AMIs or whatever, are any of them utilizing different AMIs in their projects?
• They're all using multiple AMIs, correct.
• That question about AMIs, that's where you see that there.

Summary: The Committee on Community Affairs held its first meeting and heard presentations focused on affordable housing implementation under the Live Local Act. Florida Housing Finance Corporation described its role in administering rental and homeownership programs, including SAIL, SHIP, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, disaster recovery efforts, supportive housing, and the Live Local funding and tax incentives. Officials said the first year’s $150 million Live Local rental allocation was fully committed to 23 developments producing 3,171 units with mixed-income set-asides, and they outlined how projects were selected through competitive solicitations tied to statutory priorities such as mixed-use development, publicly owned land, foster youth, rural areas of opportunity, redevelopment, and housing near military installations. They also discussed the tax credit contribution program, the missing-middle property tax exemption, sales tax rebates, and the year-one ad valorem exemption for qualifying affordable projects. Members asked detailed questions about the data and program design, including the use of area median income figures, per-unit subsidy levels, county targeting, tenant relocation during redevelopment, and whether the programs were helping lower-income households. Florida Housing said it uses competitive scoring and data from the Schimberg Center and that redevelopment projects are supposed to include tenant relocation plans. The homeownership portion of the presentation covered the Hometown Heroes program, which provides down payment and closing cost assistance to first-time homebuyers, with exceptions for active-duty military and veterans. Staff said the program has assisted more than 21,000 families and leveraged over $6.5 billion in first mortgages, and members asked about repayment rates, credit scores, and whether participants were staying in homes long enough to show the program was serving intended buyers. The committee then heard from OPAGA on two required Live Local evaluations: affordable housing strategies in other states and affordable housing policies in Florida. OPAGA reported that Florida has a high share of cost-burdened households, with 1.5 million households cost burdened and 1.4 million severely cost burdened, and that Florida’s counties and municipalities reported more than $1.4 billion in affordable housing expenditures in fiscal year 2023-24. The report identified 13 innovative out-of-state programs, with three considered high-potential for Florida implementation, and summarized Florida local government practices such as SHIP-funded homeownership and rental assistance, expedited permitting, mixed-income zoning, rehabilitation programs, and interlocal cooperation. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• What a lovely day to introduce the support of Amy Agbani on the floor.
• What a lovely day to introduce the support of Amy Agbani on the floor.
• Amy Agbayani.
• <00:19:03.840> there speaker's door Amy agani is right there speaker's door Amy agani is right
• Amy Agbayani, a fearless advocate for civil rights, education, and equity.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. feasible to provide 30% Ami units the feasible to provide 30% Ami units the reason<00:13:09.880
• <00:13:23.040> units to reduce the amount of 30% Ami units to reduce the amount of 30% Ami
• I don't think any landlords would accept a 30% AMI tenant over a 60% or 59.9% AMI tenant.
• And therefore, if a 30% AMI tenant is living in a unit for 60% AMI, they're paying 60% of their income
• is living in a unit for 60% Ami they're is living in a unit for 60% Ami they're paying<00:23:32.240><

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing heard testimony on several housing-related measures. Senate Bill 65 would appropriate funds to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority for rehabilitation and repair of public housing units. Testifiers from the Department of Human Services, HPHA, Catholic Charities Hawaii, and Roar Cares supported the bill, emphasizing that repairing vacant units is a fast, cost-effective way to increase available housing for homeless and elderly residents. HPHA later told the committee it had 139 vacant units, with an estimated average repair cost of about $73,000 per unit. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 65 with amendments, including an appropriation of $10,147,000, and the motion passed. The committee also considered Senate Bill 40, which would allow HHFDC to secure a line of credit or other indebtedness for the bond volume cap recycling program. HHFDC supported the measure and explained that Act 35 had provided a $150 million line of credit for fiscal year 2025 only, so this bill would extend that authority; HHFDC said the bonds involved would be revenue bonds. Roar Cares supported the bill, while the chair asked whether the Legislature would need to pass such a bill annually. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage with amendments to specify revenue bonds and noted the administration should study other ways to secure the line of credit without annual legislation. For Senate Bill 35, which would create a Housing Efficiency and Innovation subaccount within the rental housing revolving fund and allow fund transfers without legislative approval, HHFDC and several others supported the measure, arguing that more flexible fund movement would improve efficiency. The committee adopted a recommendation to pass SB 35 with amendments, including language prioritizing projects on state or county land or projects by entities required to reinvest surplus into housing, and noting nonprofit developers could qualify for prioritization. Senate Bill 42, which would repeal certain 30% AMI set-aside and preference requirements for rental housing revolving fund projects, drew opposition from Catholic Charities Hawaii, which argued the bill would reduce the supply of the most vulnerable housing units, while HHFDC warned it could reduce production of 30% AMI units. The committee deferred SB 42. The final bill discussed was Senate Bill 75, which would establish a working group to revise the state’s qualified allocation plan and related rental housing revolving fund loan terms and report back to the Legislature. HHFDC and others offered comments, while Catholic Charities asked that the bill be deferred, saying HHFDC already had the capacity to work with the community without a new law. Roar Cares supported the concept but urged broader stakeholder inclusion. In decision-making, the chair said the committee report would note concerns about prior QAP revisions and the need for more transparent, ongoing stakeholder participation, and the committee recommended passage of SB 75 without amendments. All recommendations were adopted, and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So my name is Amy Doyle.
• I have a question, Amy, Leo Sikis. Yeah.
• Because that would be great, Chris, for the mill to get to Amy, and I'm happy to talk to Amy or whoever
• Amy, just a question on that. I apologize.
• Thank you so much, Amy, for your comprehensive presentation.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities subcommittee on workforce supports met with Chair Andrew Lerault presiding. Members completed roll call, approved the August 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Amy Doyle, director of the Behavioral Health Workforce Center at the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission. Doyle described the center’s launch in September 2024 and its legislative mandate to study behavioral health payment rates, workforce needs, and licensure/certification barriers, with an emphasis on recruitment, retention, capacity building, diversity/equity, and sustainability. She also shared data on unmet behavioral health needs, ED boarding, workforce shortages, aging and turnover in nursing and direct care, and the need to improve data collection on non-licensed workers and populations such as people with developmental disabilities and autism. Committee members asked questions about what provider types were included in the workforce data and whether DDS-related residential and direct support roles were captured. Doyle said the center is still working to define and measure the full behavioral health workforce, including non-licensed roles, and welcomed follow-up on missing data sources. Members suggested additional sources such as CHIA and the Association of Developmental Disability Providers’ workforce survey. Doyle noted that the center is working with CHIA and that new licensure renewal surveys for behavioral health and allied mental health professionals will begin in 2025, which should improve future workforce data. The discussion also touched on the Health Policy Commission’s broader workforce findings, including nurse attrition, burnout, low wages, and the importance of career ladders and advanced training. Doyle said the center’s first policy recommendations will come from its rate study, expected in the next one to two months, and will likely focus on capacity building and sustainability. After the presentation, members thanked Doyle and discussed subcommittee leadership. Chair Lerault announced he was stepping down, and Chris White volunteered to serve as co-chair; the committee agreed to move forward with that arrangement and to revisit FY26 goals once new leadership is in place. The meeting then adjourned by motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• Amy this morning, so Ms. Amy, would you please call the roll? Chair Yeager, here.
• Amy, very much.
• Amy. Members, by your vote, we will show HB 1311 to be reported favorably.
• Amy, would you please call the roll? Chair Yeager? Yes. Vice Chair Cassel.
• Amy. Members, by your vote, we will show HB 271 to be reported favorably.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and heard four bills. HB 1311, relating to legal tender, ratified DFS/OFR rules to implement last year’s gold-and-silver legal tender law, repealed a prior repeal provision, and clarified the definition of custodian for electronically transferable gold and silver. The sponsor said the bill was a technical follow-up to ensure the law could take effect; members asked about the need for the bill, consumer awareness, and banking industry input. A technical amendment was adopted, and the bill passed favorably. HB 1343 would create an optional high school elective on property and casualty insurance that could satisfy pre-licensure education for a 440 insurance license after graduation. The sponsor said it would help students enter the insurance workforce or gain consumer literacy. An amendment directing DOE and DFS to develop the curriculum was adopted. Testimony from insurance groups and others supported the bill, and members spoke in favor of the workforce benefits. The bill passed favorably. HB 1291 addressed the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA), aiming to strengthen its long-term solvency by creating clearer triggers for funding remedies and expanding covered services. Public testimony focused heavily on families affected by birth injuries, with a parent and NICA board member describing the lifelong care needs of medically fragile children and the importance of stable funding. Members expressed sympathy and support, and the sponsor said the bill increases access to reserve funds, authorizes casualty insurer assessments, and preserves benefits. The bill passed favorably. HB 271 would cap bail bond rates at 6.5 percent for foreign and alien bail bond insurers as well as domestic insurers, to create a more even competitive and tax treatment across carriers. The sponsor explained that out-of-state corporations had an advantage under current reporting and premium rules. There was no public testimony or debate, and the bill passed favorably. The committee then adjourned.