Transcript Highlights:

• Next up, we have the HHFDC in support. HHFDC stands on its written testimony. Thank you so much.

Bills: SCR63, SCR8, SCR160, SCR90, SCR93

Keywords: disability, accessibility, healthcare communication, sign language interpreters, deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, auxiliary aids, building permits, seniors, health care, safety modifications, county regulations, expedited processing, housing ladder, move-up housing, subsidized housing, public housing, affordable housing, housing mobility

Summary: The House Committee on Human Services and Homelessness heard several resolutions focused on disability access, housing, and support for Native Hawaiian beneficiaries. SCR 63 SD1 would have the Disability and Communication Access Board study communication needs in health care settings for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind and revise provider guidance; testimony was strongly supportive, including from the board, a physician, and a family member who described harmful delays in care, and the committee later recommended passage as is. SCR 8 would require counties to act within 45 days on completed permit applications for home modifications needed for an older adult or person with a disability; testimony noted delays in permitting and financing, and the committee recommended passage as is. The committee also heard SCR 160, which urges state housing agencies to create a “housing ladder” program to help individuals and families move from subsidized to unsubsidized housing. Hawaii Public Housing Authority and other agencies supported the concept, and DHS described its family self-sufficiency program and said prior federal resident-services funding had declined over the past 20 years. The committee acknowledged the program may already exist in some form but still recommended adoption of the resolution as is. SCR 90 would ask county planning departments to establish kupuna-friendly building permit requirements for parking accessibility in private businesses. The committee moved it forward with an HD1 for technical amendments; a member raised concern that the measure did not specify the age threshold for “kupuna,” and said they would vote with reservations. Finally, SCR 93 would direct DHHL and the Statewide Office of Homelessness and Housing Solutions to develop a coordinated support and stabilization pathway for Native Hawaiian beneficiaries experiencing homelessness or very low income. DHHL said it is already operating a transitional housing effort called Ka Leo Opu Mama for about 18 beneficiaries using more than $6 million in federal Nah Ho Sa funds, with no dedicated state funding, and the committee recommended passage as is. The meeting ended with the chair thanking testifiers and members and adjourning the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> you would be better asked to HHFDC. >> you would be better asked to HHFDC.
• HHFDC<01:26:56.719> in<01:26:56.960> support. HHFDC in support. HHFDC in support.
• Thank you. >> Thank you. >> HHFDC in support with comments. >> Thank you.
• Thank you. >> Thank you. >> HHFDC in support with comments. >> Thank you.
• HHFDC in support with comments. >> Thank you.

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:

• directors of HHFDC.
• HHFDC. HHFDC.
• First testifiers, is HHFDC in support. is HHFDC in support.
• is HHFDC with comments. is HHFDC with comments.
• relating to HHFDC. relating to HHFDC.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard and then took action on a series of housing-related bills concerning HHFDC, HPHA, inclusionary zoning, nonprofit housing trusts, housing project exemptions, the rental housing revolving fund, and a new for-sale housing program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC and HPHA, with additional support from groups such as Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Holo Collaborative, the Kobayashi Group, and others. On SB 2424, the Kobayashi Group argued the bill would help open housing to a broader pool of local households, including buyers slightly above income limits who still cannot afford market-rate housing. On SB 2342, the chair asked HHFDC for final figures on rental housing revolving fund appropriations since 2016 and was told the amount was about $1.1 billion, including conveyance tax revenue. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 2189 with amendments, noting concerns about transparency and accountability in HHFDC’s loan-award process; SB 2190 with amendments; SB 2234 with amendments; SB 2177 with amendments; SB 2194 unamended; SB 2342 with amendments; SB 2060 with amendments; and SB 2070 with amendments. The committee deferred SB 2195 and SB 2196 after testimony comments, and deferred SB 2063 because the chair said SB 2060 would be used instead as the vehicle for mixed-income subaccount changes. SB 2424 was discussed in hearing but then deferred in decision-making pending legal advice on issues including owner-occupancy, county income restrictions, buyback rules, and county council approval. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2062 and its proposed SD1, but deferred that measure because the relevant changes had already been incorporated into SB 2060 SD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have a question for HHFDC.
• HHFDC, thank you.
• Can I ask a question, HHFDC? I have a question for HHFDC. This is a really simple question.
• HHFDC... Aloha. Thank you.
• I have a question for HHFDC.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 834, which would change restrictions on transfers of real property under chapter 201H, HRS, and was discussed in the context of Hawaiian homelands and HHFDC-funded projects. Supporters, including HHFDC, DHHL, and individual testifiers, said the bill would clarify that Hawaiian homelands should not be subject to the 201H buyback and appreciation restrictions, while preserving affordability requirements tied to federal mortgage and tax credit programs. HHFDC explained that the main concern was the buyback/share-appreciation provisions, especially for DHHL projects using LIHTC or similar financing, and said aligning the statute with DHHL’s program goals would not be a problem. Members questioned whether removing the restrictions could weaken affordability protections, and whether the state could still prioritize beneficiaries and workforce housing, but no vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up SB 759, which would add the DHHL chairperson or designee to the HHFDC board of directors and adjust quorum requirements. DHHL and several supporters argued the measure would give Hawaiian Homes a seat at the table, improve access to HHFDC funding sources such as tax credits, private activity bonds, and revolving funds, and help leverage limited resources to reduce the Hawaiian Homes waitlist. One testifier supported the bill but urged safeguards to prevent favoritism or abuse of power, and another raised concerns about whether a DHHL representative would need to recuse from voting on projects involving DHHL. HHFDC testified that DHHL projects still must compete under the same criteria and set-asides as other applicants, and that the board already includes multiple public and executive representatives. Members pressed on whether DHHL could achieve the same informational goals without a voting seat, and whether the added board role would create leverage or conflicts. The DHHL witness said a nonvoting role could provide information, but a voting seat would be more useful for decision-making and advocacy. The discussion also covered DHHL’s use of LIHTC, rent-to-own models, transitional housing, and other layered financing, as well as the broader need to coordinate state housing resources. The transcript ends during continued questioning, with no final committee action or vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, if not, Chair has a question for HHFDC. Good afternoon, Chair Chang.
• Our first testifier is HHFDC in support. Aloha, Housing Committee.
• Our first testifier is HHFDC in support. Thank you.
• <00:12:23.760> to statutory language requiring hhfdc to statutory language requiring hhfdc
• legislature our first testifier is hhfdc legislature our first testifier is hhfdc with with with

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:

• Our first testifier is HHFDC. Thank you.
• Our first testifier is HHFDC. Comments: Thank you.
• I have a question for HHFDC.
• <00:21:29.279> in is hhfdc in is hhfdc in support support support support<00:21:33.679>
• Senate Bill 378, relating to HHFDC.

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:

• Up next is HHFDC. Good afternoon. HHFDC is in support. Thank you. And HCDA. Okay.
• Up next is HHFDC. Good afternoon. HHFDC is in support. Thank you. Um, and HCDA. Okay.
• The other two agencies, HHFDC lands.
• But HHFDC people had an appetite for.
• So, you know, again, HHFDC is balance.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees on Housing, Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, and later Water, Land, Culture and the Arts and Housing, heard several resolutions related to affordable housing and the East Kapolei transit-oriented development area. SCR 48 and SR 47 proposed declaring that affordable housing credits are perpetual until redeemed, and testimony from DHHL, OPSD, and NAIOP Hawaii supported clarifying that intent. The committees voted to pass SCR 48 and SR 47 unamended. The committees then considered SCR 107 and SR 101, which were amended to make clear the resolution applies only to the City and County of Honolulu and will be carried out in collaboration with the Department of Housing and Land Management and the Department of Planning and Permitting. Those measures were recommended for passage with amendments and adopted by the committees. In the later joint hearing, SCR 68 and SR 63 addressed the East Kapolei TOD project, urging DLNR to transfer certain parcels to HHFDC and urging HHFDC to work with HCDA on the non-housing portions of the project. Testimony from DLNR, HHFDC, HCDA, and DHHL focused on the balance between housing and revenue-generating or light industrial uses, the need for an EIS and market study, and the possibility of MOAs to memorialize agreements. After discussion, the committees amended the resolutions to prioritize rental housing as well as for-sale housing and to require MOAs before the board, then passed SCR 68 and SR 63 with amendments by unanimous votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our first testifier for this bill is HHFDC in support.
• Our first testifier for this program is HHFDC in support. Next we have Nahal Omi in support.
• Our first testifier for this bill is HHFDC in support. Next we have Nahal Omi in support.
• They could reach out to HHFDC to process the application.
• Our first testifier is DLNR in support, followed by HHFDC in support. Thank you.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related measures, with most witnesses supporting bills aimed at expanding affordable housing tools and financing. SB 1169, creating a Community Land Trust Equity pilot program, drew support from HHFDC and Nahal UI, which said revolving funds would help community land trusts build permanently affordable housing more efficiently. SB 1200, establishing a workforce housing regulatory sandbox within HHFDC, also received support from HHFDC and others, though HHFDC noted concerns about whether the measure could be read to preempt county permitting and zoning powers. SB 511, which would require county legislative bodies rather than HHFDC to approve certain housing project exemptions, prompted HHFDC to suggest revised language and a possible processing deadline for applications; the discussion focused on avoiding indefinite delays and clarifying county and state roles. SB 1283, creating an emergency home loan assistance revolving fund, was introduced with comments from the Department of Budget and Finance and HHFDC. SB 612, on rent-to-build equity agreements for exempt housing projects, drew support and questions about how many affected projects are rentals versus for-sale units. SB 944, extending and expanding low-income housing tax credit provisions, received support from Sugar Creek Capital, Hawaii Housing, and the Chamber of Commerce, while the Tax Foundation raised a technical concern about inconsistent use of the term “taxpayer.” HPHA-supported bills SB 1413 and SB 1412 were also heard, along with SB 1632, which would direct DBEDT to develop a comprehensive action plan for a local housing market; testimony on that measure was strongly supportive but included calls to examine constitutional and legal issues and broader market-structure concerns. The committee also began discussion of SB 1033 and noted it was closely related to SB 1131, with the chair indicating an inclination to move only one of the two similar tax proposals forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:16.679> in for the testimony hhfdc in for the testimony hhfdc in support chair<00:21
• Vice Chair, for the Tony HHFDC in support. Thank you.
• Vice Chair, for the testimony, HHFDC in support.
• HHFDC with comments. Department of Taxation with comments.
• <00:36:02.800> with testimony hhfdc with testimony hhfdc with comments comments comments comments

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:

• Our first bill today is Senate Bill 662, relating to transportation, which requires HHFDC to transfer
• Our first bill today is Senate Bill 662, relating to transportation, which requires HHFDC to transfer
• Our first bill today is Senate Bill 662, relating to transportation, which requires HHFDC to transfer
• Okay, if not, the chair has a question for HHFDC.
• Yes, we were in negotiations with the city for HHFDC to transfer maintenance responsibility of the roads

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing met on February 11, 2025, to hear Senate Bill 662 and Senate Bill 66. SB 662 would require HHFDC to transfer the public roads in the Villages of Kapolei to the City and County of Honolulu by January 1, 2026, and would authorize county police officers to enforce the statewide traffic code on all public streets and highways. Testimony on the measure was in support from H50, the City and County of Honolulu, and an individual testifier. HHFDC Executive Director D. Minomi said the agency had been negotiating with the city over a $60 million transfer of road and infrastructure maintenance responsibility, but no formal agreement had been drafted; negotiations were paused when related bills were introduced. He said that if the bills do not pass, HHFDC would continue negotiations because the amount is less than the estimated cost of rehabilitating the roads itself and would free up staff time. The committee recommended SB 662 be passed with amendments, including a deferred date and report language referencing the ongoing negotiations, and the recommendation was adopted with aye votes from the chair, vice chair, Senator Kino, and Senator Kuha. The committee then heard SB 66, which would require counties to issue building permits within 60 days when applications are stamped and certified by a licensed engineer and architect and other conditions are met. Testimony was mixed, with the Department of Planning and Permitting for the City and County of Honolulu in opposition, and several groups including the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, RMS Sales, Hawaii Realtors, NAHawaii Chapter, BIA Hawaii, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce in support; several individuals also testified both for and against. The State Historic Preservation Division testified with comments. In decision-making, the chair recommended SB 66 be passed with technical, non-substantive amendments and with additional amendments from the State Historic Preservation Division, including requiring a complete application and specifying qualified professionals under SHPD rules for architecture, archaeology, architectural history, and/or physical anthropology. The committee adopted the recommendation by a vote of the chair alone, with no objections noted. The hearing then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our first testifier is HHFDC in support. Our first testifier is HHFDC in support. Thank you.
• Chair for HHFDC. Hi, Mr. Minoami.
• HB 1740 HD2 relating to HHFDC.
• Removes a prohibition against HHFDC.
• <01:30:06.320> Chair's relating to HHFDC. Chair's relating to HHFDC.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• HHFDC<01:43:21.600> with<01:43:21.920> comments. HHFDC with comments.
• HHFDC with comments.
• HHFDC in support. >> Thank you.
• HHFDC in support. >> Thank you.
• which the HHFDC which the HHFDC may<02:20:56.960> transfer.

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the HHFDC 576. Yeah, I have a question.
• Our first testifier is HHFDC in support.
• Okay, I just, uh, Chair has a question for HHFDC. Yes, Chair.
• <01:09:56.760> and only testifier is hhfdc and only testifier is hhfdc and support<01:09:59.800
• <01:32:47.080> must property whichever is sooner hhfdc must property whichever is sooner hhfdc

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Housing and Public Safety/Water and Land hearing first took up HB 1096, which would repeal statutory tenant-selection preferences for disabled veterans and spouses of deceased veterans in state low-income housing. HPHA testified in support, saying the change was a housekeeping measure because the same preferences already exist in administrative rules and could be adjusted later to align with other local preferences, while also noting the federal VASH program provides stronger veteran housing support. Several members questioned why the preference should be removed at all, emphasizing that veterans have long been underserved and asking for a stronger justification; the committees ultimately deferred HB 1096. The later Housing/Hawaiian Affairs agenda heard HB 606 HD1, a measure to extend Act 279 funding and related exemptions for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Supporters argued the bill would give DHHL more time to use the $600 million appropriation to acquire land, work with developers, and address a wait list of about 29,000 applicants, while also helping restore Hawaiian communities and reduce the Hawaiian diaspora. Opponents focused on accountability and oversight, saying DHHL needs clearer plans, measurable goals, and stronger safeguards before receiving more money, and warning that prior spending and strategic-plan changes had reduced the number of applicants served. The committee also heard testimony that the bill would help DHHL fulfill long-standing obligations to Native Hawaiians and that the housing need affects the broader state, not only Hawaiian Home Lands beneficiaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have Dean Minami from HHFDC with comments. Zoom. Zoom.
• Dean Makami, Dor with HHFDC. Um, you have our written comments.
• Um, first of all, there is a whereas clause that states that HHFDC is apparently overbuilding units for
• So just want to point that out for context and regarding the requirement that, you know, HHFDC prepare
• <00:03:18.800> is clause that states that HHFDC is clause that states that HHFDC is apparently

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:

• Our first testifier is HHFDC in support. And Housing Hawaii's Future in support.
• Our first testifier today is HHFDC in support.
• Our first testifier today is HHFDC in support. >> Chair, Vice Chair, members.
• Um, chairs, questions for HHFDC. Okay. Um, chairs, questions for HHFDC.
• In the committee report, we'll also note that HHFDC will not be requesting any funding.

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:

• Vice Chair, for the testimony, HHFDC in support.
• Vice Chair, for the testimony, HHFDC in support.
• <00:26:43.679> in testimony hhfdc in testimony hhfdc in support<00:26:46.760> thank
• Vice Chair, for the testimony, HHFDC with comments.
• HHFDC.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing on a series of housing bills. HB 1432 and HB 1428 drew support from HHFDC, and HB 1428 also received testimony from Hawaiian Community Assets, which said housing counseling funding is needed to meet demand for financial education tied to affordable housing, and that such counseling can help reduce evictions, prevent foreclosure, and stabilize households. HB 833 on community land trusts received broad support from HHFDC, county housing officials, community land trust representatives, and a local developer; testimony emphasized keeping housing affordable in perpetuity, but also asked for clearer access to financing, longer repayment terms, and inclusion of additional land trusts in the bill. Peter Savio argued that community land trusts are the best way to control demand and keep housing tied to local incomes. The committee also heard HB 19 on the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund, which HHFDC said should be made permanent because the pilot has been successful, with 81 units in the program and $7.4 million of the $10 million allocation already committed. HHFDC said the fund helps stalled for-sale projects by providing state equity that revolved back when homes are sold. HB 529 and HB 432 were also heard; HB 432 would create a subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund for projects above 60% AMI, and HHFDC said this would help finance housing for households at 65% and 80% AMI. The bill drew support from several housing, business, and industry groups. Several other housing measures were discussed with mixed testimony. HB 419 had HHFDC support, Limby Hawaiʻi opposition, and support from the Grassroot Institute and others; members asked about whether councils approve these projects in one or multiple readings. HB 527 and HB 416 also drew a mix of support and opposition, with questions focused on county approval timelines and whether state-financed projects would still go through normal local review. HB 417 on the rental housing revolving fund prompted questions about how it differs from the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund and whether it should be more flexible for mixed rental and for-sale projects. HB 418’s proposed working group was noted as potentially unnecessary because HHFDC said a public working group was already being formed. HB 1411 on housing preference raised questions about what happens if a recipient changes jobs, and HB 374 drew an Attorney General’s Office recommendation to remove a duration requirement to avoid possible constitutional travel issues. HB 373 and HB 1492 were also heard, with strong testimony from Peter Savio in favor of a broader trust-based model for affordable housing. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:37:31.040> should that point you internally hhfdc should that point you internally hhfdc
• Um, so the employees have to know that HHFDC has to produce.
• Um, so the employees have to know that HHFDC has to produce.
• Very quickly, what this program does is allows HHFDC to buy down the price of a unit, and HHFDC is paid
• This is part of a collaboration between HCDA and HHFDC.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• within HHFDC, requires counties and within HHFDC, requires counties and nonprofit<00:01:34.640> organizations
• Authorizes the corporation to HHFDC.
• employees at at HHFDC employees at at HHFDC um<00:41:31.680> are<00:41:32.160> considered
• Uh, chair has some questions for HHFDC.
• Uh chair has some questions for HHFDC.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees heard testimony on five housing-related measures. SB 2232 would create a three-year tiny home grant pilot program within HHFDC, with annual reporting to HHFDC and the Legislature; testimony was mixed, and the bill was later recommended for passage with amendments, including a full-time housing development specialist, a residential-use-only restriction for the tiny homes, and a blanked appropriation. SB 2192 would bar county down-zoning that reduces housing capacity unless equivalent capacity is added elsewhere in the county; it drew support from housing advocates and comments from planning officials, and was also recommended for passage with amendments. SB 2378 would clarify insurance requirements for single- and multifamily projects seeking expedited county permitting; engineers and housing groups supported it, while one testifier opposed it, and it was recommended for passage with a technical amendment. SB 2524 would appropriate funds to the City and County of Honolulu for housing-related departments to comply with prior acts; the Honolulu department supported it, and members asked about prior spending and funding sources. SB 2398 would require residential housing utility availability maps; the Honolulu Board of Water Supply opposed the bill as written, citing infrastructure security, accuracy, liability, and administrative burden concerns, while supporters said it would improve transparency for developers. The chair proposed amendments to make the maps broad and geographic rather than parcel-specific, remove contested-case and reliance provisions, allow disclaimer language, and change the date; the bill was then recommended for passage with amendments, with one member noting reservations. All five measures were ultimately passed out of committee with amendments, with votes recorded and some members excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I'm very open to looking at all of these concepts with the staff at HHFDC.
• at HHFDC. at HHFDC.
• So, to be clear, I think that HHFDC has the wrong balance.
• You know, you're perhaps the most experienced HHFDC board member nominee that I've seen in my time as
• more<00:18:53.360> resources Should HHFDC be devoting more resources Should HHFDC be devoting

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing heard and acted on three measures related to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC) and affordable housing policy. First, it considered GM 681, the nomination of Garth Yamanaka to the HHFDC Board of Directors. Yamanaka testified that he supports using all available tools to increase housing production, including open space and park dedication where feasible, more revenue-neutral and workforce housing, and a broad mix of housing types. Senators questioned him on priorities such as perpetual affordability, state- and county-owned projects, and whether HHFDC should focus more on revenue-neutral housing; he generally supported greater flexibility and more options, while emphasizing the need to consider feasibility and local market needs. The committee recommended GM 681 for advise and consent and adopted that recommendation unanimously, with Senator Fevella excused. The committee then heard GM 764, the nomination of Susan Coons to the HHFDC Board. Coons said she supports prioritizing state and government lands for affordable housing but stressed that the government cannot solve the housing shortage alone and should continue to engage private and nonprofit partners. In response to questions, she said HHFDC should give greater priority to perpetual affordability and could potentially devote more resources to revenue-neutral, income-blind housing, but she cautioned against blanket policies and said decisions should be guided by data, community needs, and project readiness. She also supported the idea of a 100,000-unit housing plan and said HHFDC should focus on more specific policies and projects. The committee recommended GM 764 for advise and consent and adopted the recommendation. Finally, the committee considered HCR 83, which supports using the dwelling unit revolving fund for pre-development costs through interim loans for government affordable housing projects. HHFDC testified in support and explained that it already has authority to make pre-development loans, but the resolution would provide policy support and comfort to the board. Members asked about loan security and default; HHFDC said such loans would typically be secured by land collateral and that it would not expect to forgive the loans. The committee agreed to pass the resolution with amendments, including adding committee report language about default and collateral and noting HHFDC’s existing authority. In a joint portion with the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, the committees also took up HCR 98 HD1 and recommended it pass with amendments to clarify that the countywide housing pattern book applies only to the City and County of Honolulu and involves collaboration between Honolulu housing and planning agencies. All recommendations were adopted, and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, this bill exempts certain positions under HHFDC from the requirement that employment actions
• and job descriptions of HHFDC officers and employees be subject to approval by the director of DBED,
• contracts for HHFDC and HPHA.
• It limits employment contracts for HHFDC and HPHA to not exceed 3-year terms.
• and HHFDC and HCDA salaries are not to exceed 99% of the salary of the governor. terms.

Bills: HB2241, HB1163, HB1514, HB1696, HB2021, SB2135, SB2466, SB2727, SB3082, SB3097, SB2861, SCR100, SB3096, SB99, SB2138, HB2289, HB2319, HB1711, HB2270, SB3138, SB3076, HB1642, HB2338, HB2171, HB1785, SB2881, HB2505, SB2552, HB1518, HB1815, SB3125, SB3234, SCR162, SB2614, SB3118, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB2158, HB1718, HB2207, HB1801, SB3229, SB2338, SB3069, SB2600, HB2300, HB1800, HB1960, SB2999, SB2060, SB2866, SB2239, HB1741, HB1713, HB2023, HB2417, SB2877, SB2598, SB2921, SB2645, HB2547, HB2275, HB2452, HB2329, HB2339, HB1838, HB1509, HB1661, HB2271, HB2272, HB2344, HB1888, HB1707, SB2340, HB2474, HB1576, HB1853, HB1804, HB1854, HB2095, HB2050, HB472, SB3215, SB2247, SB2400, HB1618, HB1802, HB1969, HB1541, HB2310, HB2498, HB2443, HB2218, HB649, HB2104, HB1710, SB2802, HB1973, HB1974, HB1894, HB1891, HB1890, SB177, SB2101, SB3320, SB2487, HB2429, HB1870, HB1839, HB2583, HB1391, HB2094, SB2671, SB2673, SB2892, SB2057, SB3245, HB306, HB2592, SB3157, SB3204, SB3324, SB2580, SB2074, SB411, SB3025, SB2934, SB2567, SB2125, SB3238, SB2367, SB2599, SB3007, SB2001, SB2756, SB3029

Keywords: renewable energy, income tax credit, solar energy, wind energy, low-income households, energy policy, commercial drivers license, non-domiciled, federal regulations, commercial learner's permit, citizenship, lawful residency, Department of Transportation, workers' compensation, vocational rehabilitation, injury recovery, employment services, return to work, commercial driving, driver's license