Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Good afternoon and welcome to the Committee on Housing for the Hawaii State Senate. It is Tuesday, January 27th at 1pm in Conference Room 225. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we have to enter this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 1pm Tuesday, February 3rd in this room 2 to 5. And a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website. We'll have a one minute time limit for testifier.

If there are temporary technical glitches during your term to test turn to testify via Zoom. We may have to move on to the next person due to time constraints. We appreciate your understanding and remind you that the Committee as your written testimony. I'd like to welcome our Members. Looks like we have a full house today.

Our Vice Chair Senator Hashimoto, our brand new Member Senator Elephante and returning Members Senators Rhodes and Fevella. Okay.

We have five measures on today's agenda, the first of which is Senate Bill 2060 relating to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund which authorizes HHFDC with the approval of the Director of Finance to transfer monies between the Rental Housing Revolving Fund and its sub accounts without legislative authorization.

It authorizes the Director of Finance to transfer monies from the RHRF to its mixed income sub account for FY2026 to 2027 and appropriates funds. The Chair will just note that for this Bill and the next Bill Bill they're both dealing with the Rental Housing Revolving Fund and the mixed income sub account. They're both works in progress.

And so we're going to the plan is to defer decision making until Tuesday, February 3rd at 1pm in this room 2 to 5. But we'll do the hearing now and we'll take the testimony now and ask any questions now so that we can air out some of the issues. All right.

Our first testifier for SB2060 is HHFTC in support. Thank you. Catholic Charities Hawaii in support.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair. I'm Betty Den mark of the Catholic Charities Hawaii. We support Red Bell Housing for the workforce. We know that the workforce is struggling. We support tier 2 funding.

However, we're also concerned that transferring money from the mixed or into the mixed income subcap could weaken the ongoing effort to reduce the affordable rental housing for our lower income populations under 80%. So we urge the Legislature to balance the housing needs of the higher income workforce.

Those lower income populations, many of whom are also in the workforce and those families are really Struggling not only with rent, but housing. I mean not only with rent, but also with food and other costs. Our elderly are also frequently vulnerable.

So we just want to work together to ensure that both sides are a priority for the state. Homelessness or any homelessness is really a top priority also. And in order to do that we need to focus also on that lower income population who's at risk of falling into homelessness greatly.

Basically, we support this Bill, but we also support the resident halls evolving time as a proven tool for assistive housing for that lower income population. We look forward to working together to ensure that the diversity they are all met. Thank you.

Thank you. And just to be clear, we'll have a one minute per testifier time limit. Our next testifier is Housing Hawaii's Future in support followed by roars and Cares in support. Are they present?

Present on Zoom, Chair?

They are or they're not.

Roar Cares is present on Zoom.

Okay, please proceed. You have 60 seconds.

Hello, Angela Melody Young. So I am getting my real estate license to become an agent. I already did my class so I passed my test. And yes, so I just have a few like similar concerns as Catholic Charities about the lower income population. For example, I think in 2060 it's focused on tier 2 projects.

So this is for teachers, nurses, firefighters. And within this classification is there also going to be consideration for Tier 1, which is lower income special needs persons and those within the disadvantaged circumstances demographic. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2060?

Aloha Chair. Matt Robert Holomu Collaborative I did. Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members Matt Proberg. Holomua Collaborative we did submit written testimony late this morning on this measure. It may have not gone through. My apologies if it did not come in late or if it did come in late, hope you can see it. We do support this measure.

The mixed income sub account is an important account and provide providing HHFDC a little more flexibility in accessing these funds will help allow us to achieve affordable housing more quickly and affordable renting more quickly for our local working families. Mahalo.

Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2060? Okay. If not Members, any questions? Senator Elefante.

Request for Director Minakami. Good afternoon, Director. Could you provide the Committee with your current balance of your rental housing revolving Fund and your mixed income sub account? Do you know those figures off the top of your head or for the mixed income sub account?

There is no funding in the account right now. Okay. For the rental housing revolving fund, I like to note that there's a difference between encumbered funds versus committed funds. When we receive funds that are appropriated, we then award them to projects. The funds are not encumbered until the projects close on the loan.

So to close on a loan, a project must receive building permits, insurance. Everything must be in place. All the other lenders must be in sync before loan closing occurs. That typically takes about a year to sometimes two years after the commitment is made.

So our uncommitted balance in the rental housing revolving fund is roughly about $100 million and that will be awarded in the current year. Funding around for context, we awarded about $300 million in 2025. So $100 billion, yes, it's a lot of money, but there's much more demand for funds than what we have available right now.

Okay, thank you, Director. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any further questions?

Members? Okay, Our next Bill today is Senate Bill 2063 relating to the rental housing revolving Fund. Revises the mixed income sub count within the rental housing revolving Fund by modifying the priority list for project funding and adding new project priority criteria.

It authorizes Fund transfers between the mixed income sub account without legislative approval, authorizes conveyance tax revenues deposited into the rental housing revolving Fund to be transferred to the mixed income sub account and appropriates funds.

Our first testifier like I said again, the chair's inclination is to defer these two measures to Tuesday, February 3rd to go over them to make some further edits. Our first testifier is HHFTC with comments.

Present our custom.

Thank you HPHA in support thank you Housing Hawaii's future in support Stanford Car Development in opposition Catholic.

Charities with comments Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Betty Larson with Catholic Church Hawaii. We recognize this the very real concern that the Legislature has for our homeowners or for our people who want to become a homeowner but who are locked out of that market.

We feel this is a very important issue but however that programs like the Dwelling Unit Resolving Fund or other programs, mechanisms like that would be a better way to address it.

The Legislature to separate the issues of for sale and rental housing because we feel each one of them really demand a more focused approach and a different approach. We strongly urge them to keep the rental housing revolving Fund for rentals and to look at another mechanism for the for sale initiative.

This could create more initiatives for creativity, diverse types of housing, etc. So we urge your support for language in SB2060. We refuses the furthest Bill or to amend it to keep These two important issues separate. Thank you.

Thank you. And finally, we have ROARS and CARES in support.

Angela Melody Young testifying in support. So the new criteria considers rental and for sale housing projects at the minimum level to be revenue neutral and projects with a perpetual affordability commitment. But to cover those outside of the Tier 2 classification, I think perhaps an amendment could be considered.

Projects serving the public housing needs, the senior demographics and those with disabilities. So then it would also be considerate of those from lower income families.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2063. Okay, Members do have any questions? Okay, we'll move next to Senate Bill 2062 relating to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, which establishes the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund equity program as a permanent program to be administered by HHFTC.

Authorizes HHFTC to purchase equity in for sale housing developments for qualified residents of the state using monies in the Dwelling Unit Revolving fund to lower the initial purchase price. Establishes equity repayment requirements.

Before we begin the testimony, the Chair also notes that we intend to defer decision making on this Bill to Tuesday, February 3, 1pm in this room and that we're also inclined to use this Bill as the vehicle for the allocation of rental housing Revolving Fund and DIRF projects, as well as amendments to the rental Housing Revolving Fund mixed income sub account as discussed in SB 2060 and 2063.

And I'll go into further detail during the after the recess for decision making in this year. Okay. Our first testifier. Is HHFTC in support?

Yes, Chair, we're in strong support of this measure. The equity pilot program was created to lower the barrier for buyers to attain home ownership. The pilot has been very successful. There are 83 units that have been committed.

Of the $10 million which we are allowed to commit to the program, the pilot program, 7.6 million, has been committed to projects. And also importantly, making this program permanent will allow us to pair our DIRF loans with the equity pilot or with the equity program. This allows us to provide funding earlier in a project's capital stack.

So basically, we contribute equity in the construction of projects which is repaid with shared appreciation by subsequent buyers within the project. So. So it's a project that can move projects forward. It's a fiscally sound program also, which ensures that the state has paid back its investment with some appreciation.

Thank you. And I should also clarify, the Chair wants to clarify that the next Bill, SB 2069, the chair intends to use that as the vehicle for the amendments to the DURF Equity program, both the contents of this Bill as well as the next Bill.

All right, our next testifier is Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and Support. Thank you. Land Use Research foundation of Hawaii in support. Hawaii Appleseed in support. Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Stanford Car Development in support. ROAR and Cares in support. Not available on Zoom Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Okay, Our next bill is Senate Bill 2069 relating to the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund: authorizes HHFDC to use existing funds in the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund for the Equity Pilot Program established under Act 92, Session Laws of Hawaii 2023.

And again, the Chair wants to note that will be using this as the vehicle for amendments to the DURF Equity Program in both this bill as well as the previous one. Our first testifier is HHFDC in support. Thank you, and Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB 2069?

If not, any questions, members? Okay. And we'll move now to SB 2070, our last bill today relating to housing. It authorizes HHFDC to designate certain for sale housing units as permanently affordable. It requires HHFDC to adopt rules to implement the Permanently Affordable for Sale Housing Program.

Repeal certain requirements as defining a qualified resident, remove certain restrictions applicable to the transfer of real property developed and sold under Chapter 201H HRS. Our first testifier today is HHFDC in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, members, what this bill attempts to do is create a different way in which we manage our affordable units. Right now for for sale affordable units, they're subject to a 10 year buyback restriction, in which case after 10 years, units can be sold at market rates.

So we're looking at as a means to keep the units affordable, but also allow home buyers to gain meaningful equity so they move up the housing ladder. So under this proposal, there would not longer be a buyback restriction or share depreciation.

Instead, home buyers could sell the unit at any time, but the rate of appreciation would be tied to an index. And what we're looking at using is the long term rate of appreciation for multi-family units on Oahu, which is about 4.5% per year.

So if a home buyer wanted to sell their unit in three years, they could, but their price would be capped at 4.5% compounded appreciation per year. So that allows home buyers to gain equity in their units but also keep the price relatively affordable.

And I'll give you a real life example, the Kapiolani Residence Project was completed in 2018. One bedroom units there were sold for as low as $400,000. Today, those same one bedroom market rate units, which are identical to affordable units, are selling for over $700,000.

And in two years, all the affordable units can be sold as market units because the 10 year buyback period will have expired. Under this program, if someone wanted to sell their unit today, an affordable unit, the price would be roughly about $540,000. So that's substantial equity for the home buyer.

They can move the housing ladder, but is still considerably more affordable than market pricing. So we're trying to strike a balance here of keeping units affordable but allowing home buyers to gain equity.

And it also deletes the provision that you have to be a first time home buyer to participate in our programs because the intent again is to allow home buyers to move up the housing ladder.

Thank you and we'll have questions for you later. Thank you. Our next testifier is OPSD in support. Thank you. Stanford Car Development in support. White Appleseed in support. And Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2070? If not, are there any questions? Okay, Chairs, questions for HHFDC.

Actually, before we get into this bill, I wanted to clarify. So, for the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund Equity Program, how much funding would you be asking for this year?

We would just use our existing balance in DURF, so no additional funding.

You don't need any additional funding?

No.

Okay. Okay. So then moving back here. So these 10 year restricted units that you're talking about, are they mostly produced under the 201H-38?

That is correct, yes.

So, do you need this bill? Do you already have the legal authority to designate these units as permanently affordable if you so choose in your negotiations with developers?

No; 10 year buyback requirement is required.

In statute?

yes.

You talked about eliminating the first time homebuyer requirement. But to do so you would actually remove the ban on all ownership of other residential property?

Yes.

Why is that necessary?

It's to be as flexible as possible. Again, the intent is, again, we're looking at creating an inventory of homes that is available for local households. So as long as you occupy the unit, I mean, that's the intent. It's an owner occupant pool of units.

So yes, you can own an interest in other property. But, as long as you own and reside in the unit that is subject to the restriction, you should be able to live there.

So, an owner of multiple residential properties and a landlord of multiple families would be able to live in this, in these units.

Given the type of units that are built under 238, they're not typically not luxury units, so you know, they're workforce units.

But legally speaking?

Legally speaking, yes.

Why can't we just - is there, is there anywhere else in the statute that requires first time home ownership other than the provision prohibiting ownership of other residential real property?

I don't...that prohibits first?

That requires first time home buyer status. Statute doesn't require first time homebuyer status, does it?

It's under the definition of a qualified resident, I believe.

No, but the qualified resident definition only requires that you own no majority interest in other residential real property. So, if you take that out. Well, so there's actually no first - if you dispose, if you own a lot of residential real property, if you sell it all before you buy one of these, you would still qualify.

Yes.

So, there's never a first time home buyer required?

I'd have to go back and look at that.

Okay, and when you say affordable, you mean 140% of AMI, is that correct?

Yes. Affordable units are up to 140% AMI.

Okay. How much does the - how fast - what's the rate of appreciation of the 140% AMI figure on a yearly basis?

Well, that would depend on how much of a discount there was initially for the 140% AMI unit.

No, I just mean how much do income levels rise in Hawaii?

Well, the rate of appreciation for real estate has been about 4.5%.

I mean incomes.

I don't know offhand.

Okay, so under this program, these units would in perpetuity have to be sold to other 140% AMI.

No. After the first sale, they would be sold income unrestricted. The reason being it becomes administratively very difficult for a home buyer who is just a regular person to try to find another person who meets a certain income qualification level. So we're thinking about administration of this restriction.

Also, it gets very difficult if you start placing AMI restrictions on, you know, just regular homeowners.

But the...so, let's say you buy the home and then you sell it 20 years down the line. The maximum price you could sell it for would be the original price plus the appreciation, the 4.4% per year?

Yes.

And if at that time, you know, it's very expensive, that's totally fine. And it can be sold to anyone. If at that time, let's say incomes stagnate and let's say the 4.4 keeps going up. And so as a result, in 20 years in the future, what was originally a 140 AMI unit is now 200 AMI.

So you could sell it to somebody making 200 or even 1000% of AMI.

Well, it still would be - the market would dictate how high prices can get. So if income stagnant, that probably means prices would stagnate also.

But in the example you gave, I think you would probably admit that incomes have not risen from, you know, by 75% since 2018. Right?

Well, that just, yes. And that shows how much of a discount these units were sold to initially. There was a large gap between the affordable prices versus the for sale pricing in 2018 when these units were sold.

What if these, what if the - instead of tying it to real estate appreciation, what if it were tied to income growth?

That's probably quite a bit less than I'm guessing. That's probably 3% or less. And the difficulty in that is I'm not sure if home buyers would accept that when they're looking at purchasing a unit and I'm not sure if developers will accept that when they're planning units. So, they would not use 238.

There has to be some, I would say, predictable rate of appreciation that home buyers can count on.

But they're already less attractive than the example you gave, the central, where that appreciated much faster than 4.4% per year.

Which example?

So you're creating a new category of units. There's an existing category of units that were initially affordable at 140% of AMI, but then after 10 years can appreciate to whatever the market can bear, which can be very high, the price can double.

So, those are more attractive than these units where the appreciation is strictly limited on an annual basis.

Yes. For those buyers who wait out the 10 years, they do receive a one time windfall and those units are lost to the affordable inventory. But there are also many buyers who don't want to commit to living in a unit for 10 years. And for that reason alone, they don't consider purchasing an affordable unit.

That's been a concern by developers and for them it's the velocity of sales. How quickly can they sell units so they can start construction? And what we hear from developers and home buyers is that committing to a studio or one bedroom for 10 years, that is a tough sell.

Are there a lot of these unsold units in 201H-38 projects?

There are. It takes a while for them to to sell. And before there's a certain number of units that must be sold before developer can break ground. So, it does take some time.

Can you, can you provide the committee with information about the sales velocity of these restricted units under existing 201H-38 projects?

We can look at that.

Okay. And just, you know, I, I think this is an important distinction, the distinction between income and property price appreciation, because I think it's, it's important in a lot of ways.

But if there's a program that's called the Permanently Affordable for Sale Housing Program, I think people will think that it will be permanently affordable and at least tied to some AMI level. And you're proposing a program that's not tied to any AMI level?

Yes. Again, that's to allow equity growth because that is important for home buyers when they're deciding whether or not to buy a home.

But maybe the, maybe the name of this program is...

Or we could change the name?

Permanently Local for Sale Housing Program?

Right. A local workforce housing program.

Go back to the definition of qualified resident under 201H-32: are you - what other - where else is that used, that definition? It's used throughout your statute, isn't it, Chapter 201H?

There is quite a bit of reference to the qualified resident definition. Yes.

So, by amending that definition, you would open up all of your programs?

So again, this is a mindset shift where we're looking at our program, not just being for so called first time buyers or those who don't have property, but to basically open it to residents of Hawaii, to local residents to expand the reach of our programs.

What would you say to someone who says, you know, "There's so many people who can't even afford one home and you're opening up all of your programs to landlords of multiple homes. Why can't they just live in one of their units?"

I think in most cases those landlords would live in their units. Again, the types of units that we produce under 201H, these are workforce affordable units. So there are not luxury units.

Senator Fevella.

Yeah, soo the understanding that I guess people is going to be listening is that we try to put residents that cannot buy, cannot afford all of these things in homes. Then you saying that if we lock people down for 10 years, people not gonna buy the units. Is that, is that what you're saying?

If we lock people for 10 years, they're not gonna buy the unit?

Some will, but there are others who will not.

Okay, so the ones that don't like buy, they probably own houses already. Because I'll give you an example. No, let me give you an example. Don't tell me no, because the program work.

Because I could tell you right now, Frank Fossey did that in my community more than once. And before they even build the houses, the houses were sold, but they had to not sell the house for 10 years.

They could open up the market after 10 years they can sell them whatever the market at the time, never have restrictions. But for 10 years they had to live in the house. And you know what, those houses were being sold very quickly because it was affordable, was reasonable, and they could move in a multi-family.

So, you telling me that all that would drastically change within the last 20, 25 years? People don't want to be locked into something like that. What are they doing Hawaiian homes, where they lock into a 65 year or 100 year lease. There's plenty scenarios that there are.

It's just that you need to make it available, you need to make it affordable, and make it reasonable that people will. You know, like the saying, if you build it, they will come, they will come.

But the standards of what you guys are trying to do, instead of just trying to work with this, you're just saying that these guys, you're going to open them up to guys who own multiple houses.

Even if you see local market, right, you say to the local market, right, you still going to have people that own multiple properties and they could just get around the system and move into that house because you got to be occupied. You think they're not circumventing and doing that now? They are, they are.

Because the ones that have is always going to have; the have nots, not going to have. So having this lock in and what Senator Chang was saying, it doesn't, the program doesn't sound of what is being listed for. Because how are you going to justify the prioritized?

So, for me, I don't own a unit, I don't own a house, but then I like buy it. I cannot compete with the person that owns home because they have equity already. You see what I'm saying? So this should be, and I thought that was something that you guys is providing as our government agency to help people.

Workforce housing, same thing. Because I don't know anybody that police officer or workforce housing in a workforce own 5, 6 units. They're looking to buy the first unit and most times they want to stay there more than five to 10 years.

So why don't you give, you know, why don't you? See that, that's what I'm understanding when you was dialoguing with Senator Chang. What I don't understand is you just writing it off with not any numbers. You're saying that we're not going to be able to sell those units if we lock them into 10.

But then you don't come with any numbers or statistics.

No, I'm not saying that. We currently have a 10 year buyback and units are being sold.

So yes. I'm not saying that doesn't work. It clearly does.

Right.

What you're saying is it's hard to sell?

It's harder to sell. Yes.

What is the statistics and the number of these units that is being affordable sent out there? What is the percent of the - not anybody else. What is the percent of the struggling of selling these houses?

And it depends. Also for a single family home, yes, someone could commit to 10 years easily. But compared to a studio, that's much harder.

The only reason why I say that it's kind of hard because when you're saying that it still not justifying for it. The only reason why I see that is because he worked in my community in Gentry. Yeah, I know plenty of guys who bought their first home. It was a studio.

They sold the studio for a lot more money they could put down into a new home. But they was locked in for 10 years. And those units, especially with the townhouses in my community, Ocean Point and Gentry, they sold quick, really quick because that's what they're standing on. That this is what they can buy.

They know in 10 years maybe they're gonna be a little bit more and they can resell that house and probably move on. But some people, they, they - I am sorry, I cannot get the numbers.

Would be good if you can just probably maybe give me, maybe give us some numbers on the statistics on how much of these houses are being left on the market because they never like sign a contract or locked in for a 10 year buyback.

Again, the 10 year restriction is only coming up because we're looking at not having a tenure restriction and having a permanent restriction.

Yeah.

Thank you Senator. Further questions members? Senator Elefante.

Yeah. So is my understanding of this region, correct me if I'm wrong Director, you still - would there still be a tenure provision in it or would the removal of a tenure that would at the time of resale.

There would not be a 10 year restriction; current units would be grandfathered in to the ten year program, but going forward the new program would apply.

Which would be tied to the 4.4% appreciation or index that they could sell at and then eliminate the 10 year restriction on the resale.

That's correct, yeah.

Versus currently now at 10 years. They could sell it and it'd be. Open in the market. Yes. And we would lose that. Yes.

So, it can kind of be a little misleading because if we're talking about designated as permanently affordable, it's - there's sort of a dichotomy there.

Okay. We can change the title to Workforce Housing permanently. Workforce, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

So, Director, I mean we, we did pass SB 2060 in 2024, Act 38, which provides the alternate pathway to 201H-38, which is pretty similar to what you're proposing now, except that that alternate pathway required all of the project units to be exclusively for qualified residents.

And now you're saying only 50% of the units need to be for qualified residents. So, I guess what you're saying is developers, have any developers done projects under that alternate pathway?

No, there have not been any projects under that alternate.

And you believe that reducing the threshold to 50% would interest developers?

It likely would. I think the concern is that developers do rely on some amount of investors or non-owner occupants to sell their projects.

Will this new program be a mandatory program? You just said that the previous iteration.

It would be a mandatory program. Yes.

So, the previous iteration would go away? That would no longer be an option?

Yes.

The previous program is the most successful housing stimulus program in Hawaii's history.

I don't know if the 10 year buyback - I don't know if you call that a successful stimulus program.

Well, more units have been built under 201H-38 than any other.

Yes, under 238, but not under the - I don't think the buyback program is a stimulus program.

But it's a component of a very successful program.

Yeah.

Have you received feedback that changing the terms of the program in this manner would be broadly acceptable to the market?

We have, we have spoken to developers and a key aspect is that the rate of return has to be high enough so, that buyers will accept this. If it's set too low, we've seen what happens when the rate is set too low.

For example, there's this Sky Ala Moana project where the rate was set at 1% for 30 years. From what I heard, there were just a handful of units that were sold. So, the city had to go back and revise that restriction.

So, we know it has to be something meaningful because when buyers are committing to a unit, they expect some appreciation. They want to move up the housing ladder. This is their vehicle to move the housing ladder.

So, Dean, how long do you think you need to prove that it's working? Five years, eight years?

I would say give it at least five years.

Okay. Then we can, we can see if this is a good policy move. Because right now, we're just kind of, we can take in the information and see what people are saying, what will stimulate it, but we don't really know yet, right, for sure.

So, it could be an optional pilot if you wish.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Are you proposing to revise, to amend the existing 201H-38 program?

Not under this proposal.

Why would you put in a separate section?

Rather than just put this under 2038? I suppose it could. It just gets very long, 2038.

Also, the bill says the corporation may designate a for sale housing unit as permanently affordable. So, it doesn't seem like it's written to be mandatory.

Well, that could be changed to a shell.

You would want it to be a shell.

It would be the program going forward to replace the 10 year bidet program.

Okay, so you would not - you would be fine with it being placed under 201H-38 directly off the top.

Of my head, I don't see an issue with that.

Okay. Okay. That's all the questions that I have. Members, any final questions for the Director? Thank you for the, for the discussion. Okay, so Members, we're going to, we're going to go into a brief recess and then we'll come back for decision making on one Bill. Good afternoon. The Committee on Housing is now back for decision making.

So the only Bill that we will be dming on today will be Senate Bill 2069. All of the other bills, Senate Bill 2060, Senate Bill 2063, Senate Bill 2062 and Senate Bill 2070 will be deferring decision making until Tuesday, February 3rd, 1:00pm in this room. 225.

And again, the Chair is inclined to consolidate the rental housing revolving Fund, mixed income sub account bills into Senate Bill 2062.

Chair's inclination will be to require that rentals be primarily at or below 140% AMI to expressly include any and all forms of financing, including but not limited to equity, credit enhancement and collateral, to prioritize perpetual affordability, to give HHFTC the power to transfer funds into and out of mixed income sub account, and also to include a list of projects to be funded, primarily rental and for sale TOD projects.

But that, like I said, will be Deferred until Tuesday, December, February 3rd, at 1pm in this room. Okay, so for the Bill that we are going to be decision making on Today, Senate Bill 2069, the chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments.

We'll be inserting the contents of Senate Bill 2062 with the following additional amendment from HHFDC to amend Section 21 H, B, lowercase BE.

A buyer shall repay to the corporation the corporation's purchased equity and equity percentage share of the net appreciation in the property, if any, in the buyer's unit upon on the earliest of any of the following occurrences in the Committee report. We'll also note that HFDC will not be requesting any funding.

Any questions or discussions? I don't know if they're not requesting any funding, but we're removing the cap of the funding. Right.

But they're not requesting new funding.

That's right.

Okay. Okay. Any other questions or discussions? Okay. If not. So For Senate Bill 2069, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

Chair votes I Members SB 2069 passed with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Elefante. Aye. Senator Rhodes, Senator Favela.

Aye.

Chair recommendations adopted. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the agenda.

And there being no further business, this hearing is adjourned.