Scott Settle, managing principal at Settle Meyer joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss bills still alive in the legislature after first crossover, including subsidy reforms to make housing development more financially viable by making changes to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHR F), Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), and Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF), permitting and historical review reforms, and land use and zoning reforms, as well as some creative new bills to ease the severe housing shortage in Hawaii. Attorney Scott Settle is the managing principal of Settle Meyer.  He has over 30 years of experience in real estate, business and finance law including the development and operation of various commercial and residential projects here and on the mainland.   He also serves as Chair of the Affordable Housing and Economic Development Foundation which promotes access to affordable housing for lower income families. Q. There’s been a lot of discussion this session about reforming affordable housing programs.  What’s different about the approach lawmakers are taking this year? Affordable housing is a complex problem—there’s no single fix—so we’re seeing proposals that address financing, permitting, land use, and even some new, creative strategies. The state’s understanding of what drives the housing shortage and solutions has improved over time, and that’s reflected in the legislation moving forward this session. Q.  So, now that we’ve passed the first crossover deadline, what’s still on the table? There are a lot of bills still alive that aim to increase the stock of affordable housing. Some focus on subsidy reforms, like changes to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHRF) and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), to make development more financially viable. Others look at streamlining permitting and historical review to speed up approvals. We’re also seeing land use reforms that could open up more areas for housing, as well as some innovative new ideas. And, of course, there are a few controversial bills that didn’t make it past crossover—so we can talk about what’s still in play and what’s off the table for now. Subsidy Reforms: Making Affordable Housing Development Financially Viable Q.  Several bills this session focus on reforms to key financing programs like the Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHRF), the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), and the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF). What changes are being proposed, and how would they make it easier to build affordable housing? This session, lawmakers are looking at ways to make affordable housing financially viable both for middle-income earners like teachers, firefighters, and healthcare workers (who often make too much for subsidized housing but not enough to comfortably afford market rate rentals) and for those who need more deeply affordable housing (e.g. those earning less than 50% or even 30% of the area median income).  The legislature is trying to come up with a number of tweaks to subsidy programs with good intentions, but whether they will be counterproductive or successful is hard to predict.  Some of the proposed subsidy reforms aim to address both needs, but there are concerns that certain changes could have unintended consequences. Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHRF) Reforms SB71 is a particularly controversial change to the RHRF program and a good example to showcase some of the debates happening right now. It proposes a major shift in how the Rental Housing Revolving Fund awards loans, including through efforts to target different income groups, reducing the amount spent per unit, and replacing the current method of determining how funding awards are allocated.  For example, it would: Remove financial feasibility and project readiness requirements (which currently ensures projects are financially and practically viable and ready to proceed within one year, reducing the chances that funds are wasted on projects that end up falling through due to unrealistic budgets or schedules) Prioritize fund allocation in the following order: First, projects with perpetual affordability commitments Then, projects with additional subsidies through HUD programs or LIHTC (provided that the prioritization of these first two categories only applies until awards equal the forecasted housing demand for families earning between 50-60% of the AMI) Third, mixed-income projects (only until awards equal the forecasted demand for 120-140% AMI units) Finally, all other projects that are limited to “qualified residents” (defined as Hawaii residents that don’t already own other residential properties) Within these categories, preferences would be given to: Multifamily units near transit stations Projects owned by an organization required to reinvest surplus back into housing, owned by a government entity, or required to be eventually conveyed to a government entity; Perpetually affordable projects; Developers who request loan terms under five years; and Projects requiring the least amount of state funding per unit. On the plus side, this bill would likely steer more RHRF funding to projects located on state lands and projects that will stay affordable in the long term due to perpetual income-based rent restrictions. It might also help steer some funds towards 120-140% AMI projects, which could help increase housing stock for the missing middle, which is a real need. The downside is that a five-year loan term is unrealistic for most affordable housing projects, which already face tight financing constraints. If this passes, many private developers may shift to building market-rate housing instead. The total removal of readiness and feasibility criteria further risks wasting resources on projects that are destined to fail. Prioritizing the lowest per-unit cost could also make it much harder to build the more deeply affordable units we need for those making smaller incomes. When combined with the preference for perpetual affordability, it could also lead to poor-quality housing that will likely fall into disrepair over time with no incentive to renovate.  Several other bills have also proposed more targeted changes to RHRF, with some similar goals: HB1409 – Prioritizes funding for affordable housing near transit hubs HB432 – Creates a Mixed-Income Subaccount within RHRF to support workforce housing (up to 140% AMI) HB417 – Establishes a Housing Efficiency and Innovation Subaccount to allow HHFDC to create new financing tools, similar to the DURF program. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF) loans SB944 (LIHTC) – Expands the LIHTC program by allowing credits to be transferred, sold, or assigned, making it easier to finance projects. HB1009 / SB1229 (Extending DURF Equity Pilot Program) – HB would make a DURF pilot program permanent, allowing repayment of DURF loans through unit equity and giving the state long-term stakes in projects (SB1229 is similar but instead extends the program through 2030 and gives preference to projects developed using Section 201H). SB40 (HHFDC Bond Recycling) – Authorizes HHFDC to use revenue bonds for bond recycling, which could increase available financing. HB1411 – (Prioritizing Local Residents) Authorizes prioritization of potential tenants who live or work within five miles of a project. HB1096 – (Changes to LIHTC Tenant Preferences) - Removes existing tenant selection preferences in the LIHTC program for disabled veterans and spouses of deceased veterans. HB1325 (Tenant Relocation Assistance & Right of First Refusal) – Requires developers of affordable housing projects under HHFDC to assist tenants facing displacement by: (1) Granting a right of first refusal for a comparable unit at an affordable rate or (2) Providing relocation benefits and support services. Developers must also provide clear information on how tenants can access assistance and maintain communication with displaced tenants. Permitting and Historical Review Reforms: Speeding Up Development Q.  The permitting process is a well-known bottleneck for housing development in Hawaii. What legislative efforts are moving forward to make permitting faster and more predictable? One of the biggest challenges to building affordable housing in Hawaiʻi is the long and unpredictable timeline for approvals—especially when projects get caught in long environmental or historic preservation review processes. For example, Hawaiʻi’s State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) plays an important role in protecting historic properties, but the review process is slow and backlogged. This delay makes financing difficult because developers can’t predict whether a project will take months or even years to clear. The problem is also growing as more buildings from the 1970s and later become technically “historic,” even when many don’t have significant cultural or architectural value. This session, lawmakers are looking at ways to speed up reviews while ensuring real historic resources are protected. For example: Key Historic Review Reform Bills HB830 / SB1002 – Requires third-party review if SHPD can’t process an application within 60 days (SB1002 requires the applicant or a sponsor/housing authority to cover the cost of the third-party consultant). HB1008 / SB70 – Requires DLNR to determine the impact of a proposed housing project within 90 days (HB1008 applies to state affordable housing projects; SB70 applies to all housing projects). HB1144 – Allows DLNR to hire non-civil service technical and professional staff to speed up processing. SB15 – Updates the definition of “historic property” so that a building must actually qualify for the historic register or have cultural significance to Native Hawaiians or other ethnic groups. Other Permitting Reforms to Speed Up Housing Development - beyond historic review, there are also efforts to streamline the broader permitting process, some of which are more controversial than others: SB66 – Requires counties to approve certain building permits within 60 days if plans are stamped by a licensed engineer or architect. HB367 – Exempts certain types of structures from permit requirements if they aren’t located within Special Management Areas (SMAs) HB661 / SB1074 – Allows already-approved projects to continue while environmental review challenges are being resolved HB732 – Raises the cost threshold for SMA permits to $750,000 and allows single-family homes under 3,500 square feet to qualify for minor permits, which could reduce red tape for smaller projects. Land Use Reforms: Changing Where and How We Build Q. Several bills this session deal with zoning and land use. What are the biggest proposals that are still alive? Compared to past years, there are fewer major land use reforms in play this year. However, two notable proposals could impact agricultural workforce housing and county authority over development costs: HB826 – Expanding Housing Options on Agricultural Land - would allow county planning commissions to issue special permits for agricultural workforce housing and other residential uses (long-term rentals and fee-simple ownership) on agricultural land; aims to address the housing shortage for agricultural workers while maintaining some county-level oversight. SB38 – Restricting County Authority to Raise Development Costs - would prohibit county councils from modifying or imposing conditions on housing projects that would increase their cost; applies to 201H developments (affordable housing projects that receive regulatory exemptions); critics argue this would undermine local control over housing policies and limit a county’s ability to address infrastructure concerns, while proponents argue that by the time a project reaches the county council approval stage, it has already gone through an extensive planning and negotiation process such that having to retool budgets at the final stage introduces unnecessary risks and uncertainty into the approval project. New Ideas Q.  Beyond the traditional subsidy and regulatory reforms, are there any new or creative proposals still moving forward? Yes - in addition to traditional subsidy and regulatory reforms, some outside-the-box proposals are still in play. They are a mixed bag: these bills explore rent caps, private equity restrictions, deed restrictions, zoning safeguards, supportive housing funding, algorithmic pricing bans, and pro-housing initiatives. Rent Controls & Tax Incentives SB1133 – Rent Cap & Long-Term Lease Tax Credit - would allow counties to cap rent increases based on the Consumer Price Index, landlords would be prohibited from raising rent beyond the county-determined percentage, would also create a Long-Term Residential Lease Tax Credit for landlords who lease units for at least a year, with credits that can be carried forward for up to three years. Private Equity & Speculation Taxes SB1033 – Private Equity Homeownership Restrictions Would impose a steep excise tax on hedge funds, private equity firms, and large trusts (those with over $50 million in assets) that hold single-family homes instead of selling them. The revenue would go to a Housing Downpayment Trust Fund to help local buyers afford homes. Programs to Preserve Local Homeownership HB739 (Kamaʻāina Homes Program) – would provide funding to counties to purchase voluntary deed restrictions from eligible homeowners and homebuyers. Zoning & Housing Supply Protections SB25 (No Net Loss of Housing) – Would require counties to offset any housing density reductions by increasing allowable housing elsewhere, with the aim of preventing an overall reduction in residential capacity. Funding for Affordable & Supportive Housing HB1410 – Supportive Housing & Infrastructure Funding - would restructure the conveyance tax to a marginal rate system and adjust taxation for multifamily properties based on per-unit values; revenue would go to: A new Supportive Housing Special Fund for services supporting affordable housing; The Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF) to finance infrastructure in high-density, transit-oriented areas. Regulating Algorithmic Pricing & Pro-Housing Policies SB157 – Ban on Algorithmic Rent Pricing  - would prohibit the use of algorithm-driven rent pricing tools (which some say artificially inflate rents); the Attorney General’s Office would oversee enforcement and launch a public education campaign. SB1632 – Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) Working Group - would require the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) to create a statewide pro-housing action plan under the “Yes In My Backyard” initiative; aims to streamline housing approvals, expand zoning capacity, and increase homebuilding in urban areas. New Housing & Financing Programs SB572 – Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) Loans - would expand financing options by allowing nonprofit Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to administer loan funds for housing. HB1298 – Government Employee Housing - would create a revolving fund and rent-to-own program specifically for state employees. HB1007 – HCDA Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program - would expand the role of the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) in transit-oriented development and infrastructure improvements. HB89 – Teacher Housing Vouchers - would provide financial assistance for teachers struggling to afford housing. Specialized Housing & Affordability Measures SB1462 – Historic Properties Income Tax Credit Program - would reestablish a tax credit program for restoring historic properties, aiming to incentivize adaptive reuse of older buildings. HB1294 – Agricultural Workforce Housing Working Group - would establish a task force to address housing challenges for agricultural workers. HB741 – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Financing & Deed Restriction Program - would allocate funds to counties for grants to help homeowners finance ADU construction and purchase deed restrictions to keep ADUs affordable. HB833 – Community Land Trust Equity Pilot Program - would authorize HHFDC to create a five-year pilot program offering a line of credit to community land trusts for acquiring, renovating, or building housing.  Would be fundedthrough the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF) and sunset in 2030. What’s Off the Table (For Now) Q.  Not every proposal made it past crossover. What are some of the most notable affordable housing bills that didn’t move forward? A number of bills that aimed to reshape housing policy stalled this session, including efforts to tax vacant homes, restrict rent increases, and change affordable housing financing rules. These proposals stalled for now, but some of them tend to resurface over and over.  Issues like vacant homes, zoning policies, and rent stabilization remain part of the broader housing debate, so we may see modified versions of these bills reintroduced in future sessions.  Here’s a rundown of some key measures that didn’t advance: Vacant Homes Tax SB1214 – Would have imposed a General Excise Tax (GET) surcharge on residential properties left vacant for 180 days or more to discourage long-term vacancies and encourage more housing availability. Building Code & Zoning Changes HB1 / SB120 – Would have blocked updates to the state building code (a move seen as potentially making housing construction cheaper but also potentially slowing the implementation of the latest safety and efficiency standards). SB48 – Would have required a cost impact assessment of new building code updates before they take effect. SB67 – Would have banned inclusionary zoning requirements (which require developers to include affordable housing in their projects) for housing designated for Hawaiʻi residents. Affordable Housing & Rental Market Policies SB70 / HB762 – Would have restricted access to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund by only allowing government agencies or nonprofits with a mandate to reinvest all financial surpluses into housing to apply for funding. SB156 – Would have given tenants, nonprofits, and government agencies a first right of refusal (ROFR) to purchase affordable housing properties when their LIHTC restrictions expire. HB693 – Another attempt at rent control, this bill would have capped how much rent can increase over a 12-month period to prevent rapid spikes in housing costs. Takeaways Q.  What’s the big picture takeaway so far from this legislative session? I think we have a mixed bag – some ideas are better than others, but overall, I think there’s a shift towards balancing immediate housing needs with long-term sustainability. The bills moving forward reflect a mix of traditional subsidy reforms and creative new proposals to make affordable housing development more realistic. The state is starting to think more comprehensively about affordability, not just in terms of direct subsidies, but also through streamlining regulatory barriers.  For everything that does make it through this session, the next step will be ensuring that the reforms get put into practice effectively, which means a strong focus on how these bills are executed, monitored, and funded. Public-private partnerships will be crucial to turning these ideas into tangible results and making sure we aren’t shooting ourselves in the foot. To learn more about this subject, tune into this video podcast. Disclaimer:  this material is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.  The law varies by jurisdiction and is constantly changing.  For legal advice, you should consult a lawyer that can apply the appropriate law to the facts in your case. ...read more read less