Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1301 relating to historic preservation, which establishes conditions under which archaeological
• inventory surveys and reconnaissance surveys are required, as well as which archaeological permits may
• The practice of archaeology may be temporarily revoked, and it makes other modifications to the composition
• We'll be available for any questions. archaeological work. this this is a push archaeological work. this
• permits we are in full archaeological permits we are in full support<00:42:21.119> of<00:42:21.280

Bills: SB1406, SB521, SB3247, SB1654, SB1112, SB1301, SB2443, SB2996

Keywords: historic preservation, burial sites, DHHL, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, DLNR, Department of Land and Natural Resources, section 6E-8, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Hawaii Register of Historic Places, National Register of Historic Places, cultural resources, archaeology, land use review, environmental review, state historic preservation officer, Hawaiian home lands, project permits, consultation, concurrence, nonconcurrence

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures affecting Hawaiian affairs, historic preservation, water access, and land governance. SB 1406 would let the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands assume historic preservation review for projects on lands under its jurisdiction, except for properties listed or nominated for the state or national historic registers. DHHL supported the bill, while a descendant testifier strongly opposed it, arguing that burial and preservation review protects ancestors and should not be streamlined or reduced. No questions were raised and the bill was moved on after testimony. SB 521 would require DHHL to work with county water boards or water departments to provide potable and agricultural water on Hawaiian homelands, with agreements made public. DHHL said it already works with counties but objected to the bill’s mandatory language, saying it could undermine the department’s discretion and independence. A public testifier supported the measure, and committee discussion focused on how water requirements could affect subsistence lots and infrastructure decisions. The committee then took up SB 3247, which would create a Royal Mausoleum Commission within DLNR to oversee preservation, operations, and outreach at Mauna Ala. State Parks said it valued existing collaboration with the aliʻi trusts but wanted clarity on roles, coordination, and funding if a new commission is created. The Royal Order of Kamehameha strongly supported the bill as a culturally grounded way to protect the site, while several other testifiers opposed it, saying the real issue is the curator selection process and warning that a commission could add bureaucracy and delay. The committee also heard SB 1654, authorizing transfer of certain state lands to DHHL, and SB 112, which would add the DHHL chair or designee to the Hawaii Community Development Authority; the Attorney General and HCDA offered technical and policy comments, with HCDA opposing the board change and DHHL supporting participation to protect beneficiary interests. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Bills: SB14, SB217, SB586, SB856, SCR12, SCR24, SB 14

Keywords: regulatory reform, state agencies, efficiency, rulemaking, judicial review, SB 217, Historic Texas Freedmen's Cemetery Designation Program, Texas Historical Commission, Freedmen's cemetery, freed slave burial site, cemetery designation, historic cemetery, African American history, Black cemetery, burial grounds, cemetery preservation, historical marker, medallion, property owner notice, adjacent landowners

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have eight museums plus the Historic Preservation Office of Archaeological Studies.
• NAGTA is not simply an archaeological or museum law.
• And some of these fines, have they come up through archaeological...
• So this field archaeology school is designed to address both ends of that spectrum.
• The field of archaeology is fundamentally changing.

Transcript Highlights:

• protection of marine archaeological protection of marine archaeological resources<00:19:20.480><
• <00:23:41.279> resources protects Marine archaeological resources protects Marine archaeological
• had guidelines on Marine archaeology had guidelines on Marine archaeology since<00:34:41.839>
• <00:40:36.560> report made what archaeological report made what archaeological report mandatory
• archaeological archaeological sites<00:42:07.000> as<00:42:07.119> was<00:42:07.319>

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, March 6, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here to discuss DCA's role in the archaeological field training program.
• We provide public archaeological services under state and federal rules and regulations, such as the
• through our diverse programs of public archaeological services. research, outreach, and education.
• The regulatory requirements are what trigger... the archaeological study.
• an archaeological resource under that particular law.

Transcript Highlights:

• I said, past projects, archaeological I said, past projects, archaeological surveys,<00:34:16.879
• So, in archaeology, if you finding.
• establish a set of archaeological establish a set of archaeological monitoring<00:49:02.000>
• either one do an archaeological either one do an archaeological inventory<00:49:10.480> survey
• to hire someone to write archaeological to hire someone to write archaeological monitoring<00:49

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:

• they don't have to consult or contract with a private consultant who is a subject matter expert in archaeology
• they don't have to consult or contract with a private consultant who is a subject matter expert in archaeology
• they don't have to consult or contract with a private consultant who is a subject matter expert in archaeology

Bills: HB1527, HB1823, HB2490, HB2223, HB2325, HB2104, HB2593, HB2592, HB1927, HB1553, HB1964, HB1918, HB1990

Keywords: gambling prohibition, Aloha Stadium, University of Hawaii, amateur athletics, state lands, coastal resilience, Maui, Mantokuji Bay, coastal erosion, environmental protection, Native Hawaiian, spiritual sites, historic preservation, economic development, burial sites, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, cultural history, archaeology, Hawaii Revised Statutes, civil service

Summary: The committee first heard HB 1527 relating to gambling. The chair outlined hearing rules, including a two-minute limit and a warning that bills not heard would die. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support from a prosecutor, Honolulu Police Department, and Stop Predatory Gambling, all arguing that casinos and sports betting increase crime, sex trafficking, harassment of athletes, and broader social harm. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee moved on without questions or action taken on the bill. The committee then heard HB 1823 relating to coastal zone management and HB 2490 relating to coastal resilience. For HB 1823, DLNR, the Office of Planning, and Maui County testified, with Maui County supporting the measure and its proposed amendments. For HB 2490, DLNR expressed concern about exempting a proposed Mokuji Bay pilot project from permits and regulation before a long-term plan is finalized, while the County of Maui, the Mokuji Soto Zen Mission, and the Office of Planning supported the bill as a coastal resilience pilot. The mission described severe erosion, sea-level rise impacts, and years of unsuccessful efforts to stabilize the shoreline; its consultant said the study is leaning toward nature-based and hybrid solutions. In questioning, members and DLNR discussed whether the bill should say the project “shall” or “may” be exempt, and the chair indicated the language would be adjusted to preserve DLNR discretion and to change the lead agency reference to OPSD. No vote was taken in the transcript. Finally, the committee took up HB 2223 relating to historic preservation reviews. SHPD said it stood on its written comments, while OPSD and DHHL supported the bill. DHHL argued the measure would streamline reviews, improve transparency, and help address long wait times for its projects, saying it could alleviate burden on SHPD and better serve beneficiaries. Representative Shimizu questioned whether the bill would create redundancy and expand government rather than strengthen SHPD, noting a separate staffing bill already exists. SHPD responded that DHHL is uniquely subject to 6E review and that the bill would not waive federal or state historic review requirements; the discussion also touched on possible federal-style grant support and the existing memorandum of agreement between SHPD and DHHL. The transcript ends during questioning, with no final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• We initiated an archaeological field school to fill critical gaps in The sector.
• So, archaeological survey work is required for both of those activities.
• So, I assumed it would have an archaeological aspect to it. Mr.
• I also want to further express my support for the Archaeological Field School.
• That will be a one-time initiative for an archaeological field school.

Transcript Highlights:

• On page 10, lines 8 to 16, to add conducting an archaeological field study, archaeological excavation
• , or on-site archaeological monitoring.
• an archaeological field study archaeological<00:55:08.000> excavation<00:55:08.680> or
• <00:55:08.880> on-site archaeological excavation or on-site archaeological excavation or on-site
• <00:55:11.920> to archaeological monitoring and finally to archaeological monitoring and finally

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:

• This includes Eevee kuna archaeological<00:50:01.440> sites,<00:50:02.079> structures,
• archaeological sites, structures, archaeological sites, structures, cultural<00:50:03.280> landscapes
• Uh, we got archaeological surveys, which identify significant sites before construction begins.
• There's also archaeological monitoring.
• Even in areas where archaeological work was previously done, it is not always clear, and there's a lot

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Speed Task Force met on December 15, 2025, with members participating in person and via Zoom. After roll call and introductions, the chair filed the previous meeting minutes without objection. The chair then gave a report on outreach presentations statewide about the task force’s permitting-simplification work, noting appearances before groups such as the Chinese Chamber, Small Business Regulatory Review Board, General Contractors Association of Hawaii, Hawaii Chamber, and the Land Use Commission. He also introduced the new task force coordinator, Reginald K. T. King, and outlined a January 6, 2026 process for member-submitted recommendations, including first-come consideration and structured debate. No public testimony or member questions were offered on these items. The task force heard a presentation from the Building Permit PIG. The presenter said the group reviewed 79 SWAT recommendation forms over seven meetings, with participation from 15 disciplines and about 270 hours of work. The group’s findings emphasized workforce shortages, inconsistent plan quality, limited departmental resources, and a lack of centralized tools for applicants to self-resolve issues. Recommendations focused on building a workforce pipeline, expanding training on codes and technology, and developing a universal platform, including AI-assisted review tools. The presenter also raised offsite construction, including factory-built, modular, tiny homes, and ADUs, as an area needing clearer state and county alignment to speed permit review and support housing needs. No public testimony or Q&A followed, and discussion and voting were deferred to the January 6, 2026 meeting. The task force then began the Chapter 6E Historic Preservation PIG presentation. The chair described historic preservation as a broad process covering research, protection, restoration, rehabilitation, and interpretation of significant properties, including burial sites and iwi kūpuna, and said Chapter 6E is intended to guide responsible development rather than stop it. The presentation explained SHPD’s role and the complexity of 6E review, including archaeological surveys, monitoring, and preservation plans. Early findings highlighted uncertainty in sensitivity determinations for iwi kūpuna and subsurface resources, repeated review of the same projects, and staffing and technical capacity shortages among SHPD and consultants. Public testimony was closed and no immediate Q&A was allowed; further discussion and voting on recommendations were scheduled for January 6, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• and historic sites and archaeological and historic sites and Minnesota<01:08:48.920> digital<
• Hub um oral histories and archaeological Hub um oral histories and archaeological collections<01
• archaeology across the state.
• archaeological archaeological sites<01:21:49.920> provides<01:21:50.280> an<01:21:50.440
• The request is $7.5 million for the statewide survey of historical and archaeological sites.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• take advantage of past archaeological take advantage of past archaeological inventory<00:49:48.359
• I think the intent of referencing archaeological inventory surveys within that section of the bill was
• projects to conduct archaeological projects to conduct archaeological monitoring<00:54:54.599>
• inventory surveys within archaeological inventory surveys within that<00:56:15.640> section<00
• comma or archaeological comma or archaeological resources<02:48:09.800> um<02:48:10.040><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 946 on wastewater management, which would clarify that the ban on discharging wastewater or raw sewage into state waters after 12/31/26 applies to treatment plants. Testimony was in support from the Department of Health, Maui County Council, Mayor Bisson, and individuals, and no one testified in opposition. SB 849 on wildlife conservation would prohibit intentional taking, harming, or killing of the Hawaiian hawk (ʻio) and increase penalties for taking native aquatic life, wildlife, and land plants; DLNR supported the bill, noting the ʻio was delisted federally in 2020 and that the measure also updates penalties and adds a rehabilitation/community service option. No questions were raised, and the bill drew support testimony only. For SB 330 on invasive species prevention, the Attorney General raised a supremacy clause concern with language requiring state enforcement of federal quarantines and recommended reverting to a prior version with a catchall for federal regulation. The Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species supported the bill as a way to close a biosecurity gap, while the Department of Agriculture said it supported the intent but wanted to avoid acting without a cooperative agreement with USDA and suggested deleting the portion allowing action without such an agreement. The committee also heard SB 1393 on public land use, which would require the School Facilities Authority to consult with DOE and other agencies before land conveyances or leases and repeal a requirement that DOE transfer title upon request; both SFA and DOE supported the measure, with DOE emphasizing the need for early communication and consultation, and members asked about possible disagreements or stalemates. The committee then heard SB 321 on private roads and ways, which would deem certain privately owned roads and similar ways transferred to adjacent owners or community associations if conditions are met. The Hawaii Land Title Association said the bill as drafted would create uncertainty and proposed a court process to clarify ownership and create a recordable order; written support came from the Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii, Hawaii Financial Services Association, and one individual. SB 66 on housing permitting would require permit decisions within 60 days for certain housing projects and deem permits approved in some circumstances; DLNR’s historic preservation office supported the intent but noted county historic preservation roles, OHA suggested amendments to clarify county duties, and DPP opposed the time limits as risky for health and safety reviews, warning about back-and-forth review cycles and possible mismatches between approved plans and field work. Realtors, NAIOP, Hawaii Food Industry Association, Hawaii YIMBY, and the Maui Chamber supported the measure, while Lahaina Strong, Hawaii Good Neighbor, and two individuals opposed it. Finally, the committee heard SB 1170 on expeditious redevelopment of affordable rental housing, which would speed permits for rebuilding permanently affordable multifamily rental housing damaged by natural disasters and exempt certain projects from EIS requirements. HHFDC supported the bill, citing the Front Street Apartments rebuild and the long SMA permit timeline on Maui, and the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development supported the intent while suggesting technical placement of amendments. Testimony in support also came from the Maui Chamber of Commerce and Joe Blanco, who described difficulties rebuilding a project originally developed under older statutory requirements and said the bill’s added language addressed those issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• Since then, I've become part of an archaeological inventory study that the property owner, Avalon, is
• become part of an archaeological become part of an archaeological inventory<00:38:47.920> study
• survey of uh that uh an archaeological survey of uh that was<00:40:31.359> very<00:40:31.680>
• the archaeological the archaeological significance<01:06:04.359> we<01:06:04.599> know
• registered and recorded archaeological registered and recorded archaeological significant<01:06:

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 707, which would create a state income tax deduction for contributions to Hawaii 529 college savings accounts and conform state law to federal changes allowing 529 funds to be used for K-12 expenses. The Department of Taxation said it could administer the bill as written. The Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities supported the measure but asked that ABLE accounts be included and that the program title be changed; the Department of Taxation indicated the title issue could be a problem because the bill’s expanded purpose may not fit the current program name. No vote was taken. The committee then heard House Bill 617, which would fund a Bachelor of Science in Nursing program at the University of Hawaiʻi Community Colleges. UH Community Colleges supported the bill, and Maui nursing staff testified that faculty recruitment is challenging but manageable, clinical placements are available, and the campus already has a statewide RN-to-BSN pathway; they said the new program would create two tracks, including a four-year BSN option. Members also heard support from several organizations, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, nursing groups, and health care associations. No action was taken. Next were several UH-related measures. HB 718 would fund faculty and staff positions at the John A. Burns School of Medicine; the dean and other supporters testified in favor. HB 1279 would create a medical education liaison position tied to Project ECHO; the Attorney General raised constitutional concerns about statewide concern and grant standards, while an individual witness supported the concept but suggested the bill should focus on liaison/support functions rather than program administration. HB 1169 would consolidate conference center revolving funds, and HB 1168 would authorize up to $800 million in UH revenue bonds; UH’s CFO said both were procedural/housekeeping measures and supported them. On HB 1168, members questioned debt service, possible uses, and whether deferred maintenance would be included; the CFO estimated annual debt service could be about $33 million to $41 million at current rates, said likely uses could include student housing and research facilities, and said deferred maintenance was not the current strategy. The CFO also explained that revenue bonds require both legislative authorization and a Board of Regents resolution approving the project and amount. Finally, the committee heard HB 548, which would authorize revenue bonds and appropriations to acquire the St. Francis School campus for UH Mānoa. UH supported the bill but noted the property is privately owned and not known to be for sale. A supporter described the site as a unique 11-acre parcel contiguous to the main campus and urged the committee to seize the opportunity for future generations. No vote or final action was taken on the bills in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• activities, but the rest of the projects are required to follow KRS 174.210. archaeological activities
• <00:25:09.279> excavations $250,000 for archaeological excavations $250,000 for archaeological
• <00:25:22.000> contracts<00:25:22.400> are<00:25:22.640> under the archaeology
• contracts are under the archaeology contracts are under review. review. review.
• House Bill 1 carveout was able to actually proceed with the development archaeological study and the

Keywords: 00:01 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:47 Approval of Minutes 01:07 Airport Projects 12:17 Riverport Projects 38:27 Electric Vehicle Charging Program 54:10 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met on July 15, 2025, approved the June 4 minutes, and heard updates on aviation and riverport funding programs. Commissioner Mark Carter of the Kentucky Department of Aviation reported on the $200,000 grants for general aviation airports included in House Bill 1, saying the money is being used mainly for hangar projects, fuel trucks, parking lot resurfacing, airport equipment, crew cars, and public education efforts. He said about 25 hangar-related projects were reported, with an estimated 60 T-hangars and four or five box hangars supported, and noted that the grants are often used to match federal funds. He also said the state’s jet fuel tax revenue generates about $23 million annually, up from about $19 million in 2021, and that most airports are now compliant with the ADS-B/VOR-related reporting system required in budget language, which has improved reported operations and may help airports qualify for FAA grants. Members asked about the pace of airport projects, the limited number of contractors for hangar construction, and whether airports could finance hangars themselves. Carter said timing has generally been good, though federal projects have slowed somewhat and contractor capacity remains a challenge, and he said there is no statute preventing airports from financing part or all of a hangar project. Questions also focused on the long-term need for hangars and the effect of the jet fuel cap, with Carter saying general aviation airports still have significant hangar demand and rely on state assistance because hangars are a key revenue source. Jeremy Edgeworth of the Transportation Cabinet and Brian Wright of the Kentucky Association of Riverports then reviewed riverport projects funded through House Bill 265 and House Bill 1. Edgeworth said the cabinet’s riverport grant program awarded $500,000 in each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026 for 13 projects under an 80/20 match, and that House Bill 1 provided $7.5 million per year for public riverports with no local match. He described completed or underway projects at multiple ports, including equipment replacements, dock and road repairs, material handling upgrades, mooring cell rehabilitation, and a waterline loop at Owensboro. He said $12.6 million of the KPRCM funds had been awarded across 20 projects, with about $2.4 million still to be awarded later in the fall. Wright said the riverport investments are helping ports replace aging assets, expand capacity, and match federal dollars, but he also said the statewide capital need remains large, with the current list of top projects already in the $90 million range and longer-term needs still estimated at $60 million to $90 million. Members asked about timelines and future needs, and Edgeworth said many of the larger projects will take two to five years because of permitting and coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• monitoring is required, archaeological monitoring may be a mitigation measure that we identify.
• And like I said before, that might require archaeological monitoring, documentation, or a commitment
• archaeological monitoring documentation or<03:39:45.359> a<03:39:45.600> commitment<03
• a similar agreement for archaeological a similar agreement for archaeological resources<03:55:19.840
• Um, I'm rambling archaeology review.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The task force held its first meeting, beginning with roll call and introductions of members and participants in the room and on Zoom. The chair emphasized Sunshine Law transparency, noted the meeting was on September 11, and opened public testimony on the orientation report. No one testified in person or on Zoom, and the chair observed a moment of silence in remembrance of 9/11 before moving into the agenda. The chair then reported on several orientation presentations given statewide between July 18 and September 5, including meetings with transit-oriented development, the Maui Chamber of Commerce, the Kona-Kohala Chamber, the Japanese Chamber of Commerce on Hawaiʻi Island, the Hawaiʻi Island Chamber of Commerce, the Hawaiʻi Island Native Hawaiian Chamber, and the Capo Chamber of Commerce. The main presentation item was a detailed overview from Kauaʻi County on its permitting process. County staff explained that zoning and building permits are handled separately on the outer islands, with zoning focused on form, character, and compatibility, and building permits focused on health and safety. They described a two-tier zoning system: ministerial permits that are automatically approved if not acted on within 30 days, and discretionary permits that go to the planning commission and can become lengthy contested cases if there is intervention. They also discussed special management area review in coastal areas, which can add time, and explained that building permits must conform to what was approved in zoning. Kauaʻi County staff also outlined the building permit process, including online and in-person submission, coordination with planning, engineering, water, wastewater, health, and fire agencies, and the county’s fully electronic review system using ProjectDox and related software. They noted that applicants are encouraged to check zoning, water, wastewater, and floodplain issues before hiring someone to prepare plans, especially for homeowners. The county shared permit and utility statistics and said the public can check permit history through Click2Gov. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided; after the Kauaʻi presentation, the chair opened a question period for members.

Transcript Highlights:

• the historical Commission to determine whether a cultural resources survey, also known as an archaeological
• entities that have utilized federal grants to expand broadband are being required to conduct archaeological
• These archaeological surveys can cost thousands of dollars to lay work for months.
• ran into this problem where they had to spend an extra $100,000 and take an extra 10 months for archaeological

Transcript Highlights:

• the Historical Commission to determine whether a cultural resources survey, also known as an archaeological
• entities that have utilized federal grants to expand broadband are being required to conduct archaeological
• These archaeological surveys can cost thousands of dollars to conduct. lay work for months.
• into this problem where they had to spend an extra $100,500,000 and take an extra 10 months for archaeological

Bills: HB3713, HB3953, HB4055, HB4272

Keywords: telecommunications, local exchange companies, universal service fund, rate maintenance, business expansion, broadband access, internet service, multiunit residential properties, urban areas, affordability programs, fiber-optic cables, public land, construction permits, environmental impact, notification requirements, municipal projects, infrastructure, facility relocation, public right-of-way, 1184

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:03:02.040> flags<00:03:02.760> that Challenges also included the history and archaeology
• So, right below us, you know, there’s history and archaeology.
• And so, the archaeology was another consideration. >> Things there were churches, houses, and tenement

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 4809 addresses the disparity that property owners of historic or archaeological sites face
• Currently, owners of buildings designated for the construction of historic or archaeological sites face
• relating to the authority of an owner of property that qualifies for an exemption as a historic or archaeological
• relating to the authority of an owner of property that qualifies for an exemption as a historic or archaeological
• relating to the authority of an owner of property that qualifies for an exemption as a historic or archaeological

Bills: HJR34, HB6, HB18, HB39, HB107, HB114, HB138, HB247, HB300, HB647, HB748, HB762, HB793, HB1240, HB1275, HB1397, HB1584, HB1700, HB1875, HB1894, HB1965, HB2071, HB2254, HB2340, HB2350, HB2516, HB2712, HB2713, HB2715, HB2760, HB2842, HB3088, HB3104, HB3260, HB3479, HB3575, HB3687, HB3788, HB4163, HB4187, HB4205, HB4370, HB4384, HB4655, HB4753, HB4809, HB4850, HB5195, HCR90, HCR98, SJR60, SB203, SB317, SB719, SB801, SB867, SB1071, SB1232, SB1319, SB1483, SB1633, SB1798, SB1978, SB2233, SB2363, SB2603, SB2607, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2928, SB3038, SJR5, SB4, SB9, SB21, SB23, SB27, SB34, SB40, SB75, SB213, SB458, SB482, SB493, SB840, SB841, SB843, SB912, SB1241, SB1253, SB1350, SB1388, SB1423, SB1535, SB1559, SB1789, SB1951, SB2037, SB2143, SB2155, SB2544, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2308, HB2525, HJR34, HB1393, HB26, HB388, HB2712, HB1633, HB685, HB762, HB2286, HB1606, HB1458, HB1240, HB2791, HB3146, HB1397, HB2061, HB647, HB4738, HB2563, HB128, HB581, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB793, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3104, HB5180, HB1584, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB2254, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB4205, HB5652, HB3687, HB2025, HB3395, HB2495, HB138, HB18, HB1700, HB4655, HB2516, HB1894, HB1965, HB300, HB2713, HB39, HB114, HB24, HB3088, HB4163, HB3479, HB2842, HB519, HB609, HB1275, HB1592, HB3348, HB120, HB6, HB247, HB1533, HB2421, HB2273, HB2464, HB2011, HB3575, HB3788, HB4370, HB4809, HB5057, HB5084, HB5534, HB5668, HB3424, HB2715, HB2564, HB2760, HB2765, HB2898, HB3260, HB3800, HB4396, HB5195, HB4341, HB43, HB5686, HB2467, HB2468, HB2518, HB4310, HB4386, HB4490, HB180, HB5323, HB2, HB149, HB4945, HB2434, HB2529, HB3161, HB3745, HB4044, HB5155, HB5667, HB4996, HB2697, HB2492, HB2355, HB2282, HB2001, HB1902, HB1866, HB1445, HB1443, HB1306, HB1024, HB908, HB305, HB285, HB449, HB171, HB47, HB3464, HB2637, HB4263, HB5436, HB4429, HB3986, HB3966, HB3510, HB2560, HB2026, HB2688, HB4076, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB1978, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3038, SB3045, SB1538, SB719, SB3071, SB3065, SB823, SB3062, SB719, HB39, HB114, HB138, HB247, HB300, HB762, HB793, HB1275, HB1584, HB1700, HB1894, HB1965, HB2254, HB2340, HB2350, HB2760, HB2842, HB3088, HB3104, HB3260, HB3479, HB3575, HB3687, HB3788, HB4163, HB4205, HB4370, HB4655, HB4809, HB5195, SB1978, SR508, HJR34, SB963, SB1383, SB1883, SB1968, HB2525, HB112, HB117, HB557, HB783, HB869, HB876, HB1039, HB1201, HB1347, HB1359, HB1650, HB1788, HB1904, HB1955, HB2370, HB2849, HB2853, HB3066, HB3169, HB3178, HB3179, HB3196, HB3241, HB3567, HB3672, HB3715, HB3720, HB3883, HB3954, HB3976, HB4070, HB4098, HB4222, HB4327, HB4359, HB4412, HB4683, HB4755, HB4894, HB4926, HB5115, HB5165, HB5320, HB5437, HB5499, HB5596, HB5650, HB5651, HB5654, HB5656, HB5658, HB5659, HB5661, HB5662, HB5665, HB5666, HB5670, HB5671, HB5672, HB5674, HB5676, HB5677, HB5678, HB5679, HB5680, HB5681, HB5682, HB5688, HB5694, HB5695, HB5696, HB5699, HCR46, HCR59, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR111, HCR142, HB112, HB117, HB557, HB783, HB869, HB876, HB1039, HB1201, HB1347, HB1359, HB1650, HB1788, HB1904, HB1955, HB2370, HB2849, HB2853, HB3066, HB3169, HB3178, HB3179, HB3196, HB3241, HB3567, HB3672, HB3715, HB3720, HB3883, HB3954, HB3976, HB4070, HB4098, HB4222, HB4327, HB4359, HB4412, HB4683, HB4755, HB4894, HB4926, HB5115, HB5165, HB5320, HB5437, HB5499, HB5596, HB5650, HB5651, HB5654, HB5656, HB5658, HB5659, HB5661, HB5662, HB5665, HB5666, HB5670, HB5671, HB5672, HB5674, HB5676, HB5677, HB5678, HB5679, HB5680, HB5681, HB5682, HB5688, HB5694, HB5695, HB5696, HB5699, HCR46, HCR59, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR111, HCR142

Keywords: HJR 34, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, real property, border counties, U.S.-Mexico border, United Mexican States, border security, border security infrastructure, landowner, county tax base, local government, tax relief, property value increase, infrastructure improvements, voter approval, November 2025 ballot, mental health

Transcript Highlights:

• A project may proceed without an archaeological monitoring plan or a comprehensive archaeological inventory
• The project might proceed with just archaeological monitoring rather than a very invasive archaeological
• <00:13:27.360> resources<00:13:28.360> or cultural and archaeological resources or
• without um like an archaeological without um like an archaeological monitoring<00:15:40.959>
• <00:16:06.680> monitoring with just archaeological monitoring with just archaeological monitoring

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing, land use, and preservation bills. HB 1008 HD2 would require the Department of Land and Natural Resources to complete historic preservation determinations for state affordable housing projects within 90 days and create sensitivity-based review pathways. HHFDC, DLNR’s State Historic Preservation Division, and written testimony from DBEDT supported the bill as an expedited process for projects unlikely to affect significant historic resources. Members asked how the bill would define significant versus non-significant historic properties, how it would interact with Kapakai analysis, and whether burial councils had been consulted; SHPD said the bill would not replace Kapakai review and that burial councils had not been included. Written support also came from OHA, Hawaii Realtors, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce. HB 1093 would clarify the Hawaii Public Housing Authority’s powers relating to housing projects. HPHA supported the measure, saying it would align definitions with prior law and help deconcentrate poverty by allowing mixed-income rebuilding. The director also said the bill was increasingly urgent because of reported federal HUD priorities that could affect public housing and Section 8 funding. HB 1096 HD1 would repeal state low-income housing preferences for disabled veterans and spouses of deceased veterans, with HPHA saying federal veteran programs such as VASH are a better mechanism and that the state preference has not been used in years. HB 1411 would allow HHFDC projects to give sale or lease preferences to applicants who live or work within five miles of a project; HHFDC and the Hawaii Chapter of NAIOP supported it as a way to keep residents connected to their communities, while members raised constitutional concerns about broader local-preference policies. The committee also heard HB 367 HD1, which would create county permit exemptions for certain agricultural and maintenance activities. Written testimony included opposition from the Department of Planning and Permitting and support from the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Grassroot Institute, and others. A public testifier opposed the bill, arguing that permit exemptions could worsen safety and compliance problems. Finally, HB 826 HD1 would allow county planning commissions, by special permit, to authorize residential housing in agricultural districts for agricultural workforce housing, long-term rental, or fee simple ownership under certain conditions. HHFDC supported it as a faster alternative to lengthy state land-use redistricting, but the Department of Agriculture, Land Use Commission, and Office of Planning and Sustainable Development raised concerns about food production impacts, due process, service provision, jurisdictional conflicts, and the use of special permits for what could amount to district boundary changes. Public testimony was mixed, with some support and some opposition. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.