House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. Today is Wednesday, February 12th. It is 2pm we are here in Conference Room 325.

Welcome to all the testifiers and members are either here or on their way, or some of them will be watching from their office and then join us later for decision making because they're trying to multitask and do many things at once.

So for those who are wishing to testify today, I would request that you keep your testimony to two minutes, and I will kindly ask you to summarize at that point.

If you are testifying via Zoom, I would ask you to keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify, and then turn your video off and mute yourself at that point.

If you have technical issues, please use the chat function and contact these great folks who are helping out with technology, and they can help you straighten that out. Don't send me any messages, though, because I don't get them. If you are disconnected for some reason, don't panic.

Just try to rejoin and then I'll find out that you've come back and I'll try to fit you in so you can provide your testimony. If the power goes off in the building here and we have to reschedule the meeting, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so everyone knows when we're going to be meeting.

If you're testifying via Zoom, please don't use any copyrighted or trademarked images, because that kicks us off of YouTube, and that's a problem because we want the public to watch us. And if you're testifying here in the room, please come up to the podium so that everyone in TV land can see you and then. And hear you.

And then I'll ask you to. And please don't just stand on your testimony. If you could give us the highlights of your testimony, that would be helpful so that everyone knows what's going on. And if you've been in my hearings before, I ask you not to use jargon or acronyms or things.

We really want to be understandable to the public. And so if you would help me by speaking in plain English, not legalese or in code, that would be great. I appreciate that. And I'd ask you to just conduct yourself with aloha and, you know, avoid profanity or any rude behavior.

It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We can all work together. Okay, let's go ahead and get started. We have a full agenda. And let's start out with House Bill 1002 relating to the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission.

This measure, beginning July 1, 2025 extends the term of the Oversight Coordinator for the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, authorizes the Hawaii Correctional System Commission to review the coordinator's performance and make a recommendation to the governor as to whether the coordinator should be retained.

And it clarifies that the Oversight Coordinator has the general authority to inspect agencies and correctional facilities without notice. And I want to acknowledge and thank the chair Belatti for her work on this in the previous committee. So first up, we have the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Director Johnson. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, I'm Tommy Johnson, Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I'll summarize my one page testimony. We provide comments on this measure. To us, it doesn't matter whether the coordinators are appointed for two years, three years, or even four years, as the original bill had indicated.

And we have no problem with her having access to the facilities 24/7 because we want everyone to know that we're a partner in trying to make the system better. And so unannounced visits or inspections are fine with us because whatever found will help us better the system. So thank you.

Sure appreciate your positive attitude about this partnership. Thank you, Director. Next up, we have Kristen Johnson, Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission or the chair of the board of the commission. Please introduce yourself, sir.

Hello, Chairman, Vice Chairman, members of the committee, Commissioner Mark Patterson, current chair of the Hawai'i Correctional System Oversight Commission. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Stand on my testimony. But I really wanted to reiterate, you know, when you folks formed the commission in 2019 for we went into a process of hiring an oversight coordinator Covid hit.

And so we went almost three years with no staff and the Oversight Coordinator. And that has taught us a lot. And now since 2022 with the hiring of the oversight coordinator.

We stand in front of you with everything that you've given us since in terms of staff and an Oversight Coordinator, asking you to really consider giving the commission a little bit more ability to manage our leadership of our staff so that we can truly sustain all the work and the reform efforts that we hope to do in partnership with the DCR at this particular point in time.

The bill, if we're looking at four years or more, will allow us that ability to manage the leadership, manage the reform efforts, and everything that we're putting into play at this particular point in time. So I sincerely thank you for this time and opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Kat Brady, Community Alliance on Prisons.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. Kat Brady, testifying in strong support of this measure for Community Alliance on Prisons. I know that all representatives know two years is not enough time to really get traction and make change.

So we were kind of happy with the four year extension, but actually after doing some research and talking to other people, I'm on all sorts of national lists. Six years would be better because then they would be not subject to politics. It would be in between the terms. So that would be really good and we support that.

It was changed from four years to three years with no explanation. So nobody knows what that's about. So we're pushing for a six year term so that the commission can actually focus on its mission, which is to help the department transition from a punitive to a more rehabilitative restorative system.

And it just would give them time to actually do that. So thank you so much. We hope you support this bill.

Thank you very much. The other testimony we've received from individuals and also from ACLU Hawaii are all in support, but they've not indicated they are here to testify unless they've changed their mind. Carolyn? Yes. Please come on up.

We didn't know you were going to be here, so please come on up and introduce yourself and proceed.

Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. I want to. I'm Carolyn Eaton. I am a taxpayer and I bring energy and hope to this legislative session and really want to.

I followed the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission practically since its first meetings and I'm a very strong supporter and want to second the idea that our coordinator serve a six year term.

Thank you very much, Ms. Eaton. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1002? If not questions. Members? I would. Chair Belatti, did you want to mention anything?

Or do you want to do it later? We'll do it later. Yeah.

Okay. I, I just, just. So members and the members of the audience know, and members of the committee know. I've talked to Chair Belatti and, and requested that. That she provide some background information about her rationale for the changes in the bill in a previous committee. But we can discuss that during decision making. Okay. Any. No.

No questions? Okay. If not, we'll move on to the next measure. Thank you very much to all the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 677 relating to identification.

This measure requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in collaboration with various agencies and upon request of the inmates to assist inmates in obtaining the inmates civil identification card, birth certificate, Social Security card, and other relevant identification necessary for successful reentry into society as soon as practicable.

It requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to initiate the process of obtaining identifying documents for inmates released to work furlough, extended furlough, or community placement programs by providing the forms necessary for the inmate to obtain civil identification cards and other identifying documents to the inmate as soon as practicable.

First up, we have Director Johnson or his designee.

Good afternoon. Chair, co Chair, Committee. We currently support the bill.

Could you introduce yourself, please.

Oh, yeah. My name is Christy Yokoyama. I'm the acting Corrections Department Program for Reentry Office. Okay. So we currently support Bill 677 with regards to, we are currently working with the city and county to get the new machines for the rest of our facilities and also to replace the one existing at Halawa.

So we will continue our efforts with city and county. We also have continued our efforts with birth certificates and also with Social Security cards. So if you have any questions, you can just let me know Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We have written testimony from the Department of Human Services and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Are they here today? Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Please proceed, Ms. Woodward.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure today. Native Hawaiians continue to be disproportionately impacted by Hawaii's criminal justice System, comprising approximately 37% of the state's correctional facilities, while representing only 21% of the state's general population.

So ensuring those who have served their sent receive their identifying documents in a timely manner, meaning before their release, ensures they're able to secure housing, apply for jobs, and travel back to their homes if incarcerated out of state. So I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote and mahalo for your consideration.

Thank you, Ms. Woodward. And we have Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. This time we get our Kristen Johnson.

Yeah, we got to mix it up a little bit. Hi, everybody. I'm Kristen Johnson. I'm the Oversight Coordinator of the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. We do support this Bill. We want to acknowledge DCR's really hard work and partnerships with the DMV, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We want to get everyone used to saying that. A new name, a new name, a new paradigm. And so let's keep saying the name, please. Go ahead.

Okay. So we do want to acknowledge the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's partnership with the Department of Motor Vehicles, but there's still a lot of work to be done. And so we want to acknowledge that as well. We really believe that reentry starts on day one. And so we agree with you.

As soon as possible and really, really agree with day one. So thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Coordinator Johnson. Next, Kat Brady. Community Alliance on Prisons.

Aloha again. Community Alliance on Prisons is in strong support of this measure. We did a little research. 21 states have laws aimed at helping folks get ID. 17 states have permanent ID cards that they give to people who are being released. Hawaii and nine states provide state ID cards.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Texas and Washington. We think it's really. Well, we know it's really, really important because without ID, you can't open up a bank account, you can't get a job, you can't find a place to live. So it's absolutely crucial for reentry. And we really support this Bill.

And I hope you guys too.

Thank you very much. We received written testimony in support from Waikiki Health, Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii and from numerous individuals, including Carolyn Eaton. Would you like to provide testimony today? Yes. No. If you do, come on up, please. Okay. Thank you very much. I refer everyone to her, Ms. Eaton's written testimony.

That's all the testimony we have received on House Bill 677. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify? Yes. We see you former Representative Gannadin.

Senator Gannadin, Deputy Public Defender for the, Office of the Public Defender. We are in support of this measure. Apologies you didn't get our testimony. Just for a bit of context.

This comes from a finding of the Native Hawaiian Justice Task force report from 2012 in which individuals were asked what is the most pressing issues facing indigenous peoples in this community regarding incarceration. This was one of the findings. This was made law in 2017 by this body. It was the first Bill passed by former Representative Cedric Gates.

It's taken this many years to get this far. With much consternation with possible partnerships with the Department of Human Services, the DMV, other organizations. We hope that you pass this measure.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 677? If not. Questions, members. Representative, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to make a comment to appreciate the Directors Commission and everyone taxpayer just your heart to promote this important part of our society. And I'm very motivated and inspired by all of you. So thank you.

Thank you. Representative Shimizu, any other questions or comments? If not, we'll move on to the next measure. Thank you to the testifiers. Next, House Bill 1183 relating to allowance on service retirements.

This measure includes certain law enforcement administrators and employees of the Department of Law Enforcement as Class A members of the pension and retirement systems and provides guidance for the computation of retirement benefits similar to police officers. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Budget and Finance.

I refer members to the written testimony from Department of Budget and Finance. Next, we have the Department of Human Resources Development.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this measure. We provided written testimony, but I'll just summarize that.

And introduce yourself so everyone knows you.

I am Brenna Hashimoto, Director of the Department of Human Resources Development.

Thank you for being here today.

Also known as DHRD. We are in support of this measure.

We believe it's an important step in the right direction to make sure that we can incentivize recruitment and retention of individuals within the Department of Law Enforcement and leadership roles to incentivize individuals who may already be Class A or Class B Members and would have to relinquish that status in order to accept positions such as the Director, Deputy Director, and some investigator positions.

And so we're in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next, we have the Employee Retirement System of the State of Hawaii with comments. Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas. Vice Chair Poepoe. I'm Thomas Williams, the Executive Director of the Employees Retirement System. And I'm pleased to have the opportunity to testify this afternoon and provide comments. You do have our written testimony? It is intended to provide clarifying and technical amendments that is intended to help implement the intent of this particular bill.

And of course, we're willing to work with any of the stakeholders to assure that those amendments are incorporated. And of course, I'm available to the extent you have questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Williams. And finally, we have the Department of Law Enforcement. Mr. Asuka, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Brandon Asuka. I'm the Executive officer for the Department of Law Enforcement. So the Department of Law Enforcement strongly supports this measure as an agency as a whole in its infancy stages. We are concerned about, you know, our legacy and I guess, succession planning.

And although we like to promote from within, we'd like to give the governor the ability to appoint the most qualified individual to lead our agency. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all that we've had sign up to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1183? If not, questions, Members? Any questions? If not, we'll move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 1045, making emergency appropriations for law enforcement personnel costs.

This measure makes emergency appropriations for fiscal year 24-25 to the Department of Accounting and General Services and the Judiciary for payroll and fringe benefits for affected Department of Law Enforcement personnel. First up, we have the Judiciary with written comments in support. And next we have Department of Budget and Finance.

Neal Miyahira for the Department. What this bill does is provide...

In support?

In support. This is our bill. What this bill does is provide the fringe benefit cost. Because when payroll is run well, one department pays for another department's employees. They run it through an account, and fringe benefits are assessed. When the original budget was put in, all the funding for the sheriffs were in law. And then what the Legislature...

That's a budget category you're referring to?

No, no, it was in the Department of Law Enforcement. What the Legislature did, in its wisdom, is moved out the salary money and put it in Judiciary and then put it in a, in the DAGS, Accounting and General Services. But they put only the salary money in. So when the, when the payroll's run, the fringe benefits are assessed because they're not a General Fund program. So this pays for the fringe assessment. And we also have a declaration for the expenditure ceiling in 25.

Thank you very much. Next we have Department of Law Enforcement.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee. So my name is Russell Fong. I'm the ASO for the Department of Law Enforcement.

What's an ASO? You gotta tell us all about that.

Administrative Services Officer.

Thank you.

Sorry about that. So the Department of Law Enforcement strongly supports this House Bill. And as a Budget and Finance actually said, that when everything was transferred over, only the salary went over and not the fringes. So this bill, House Bill 1045, covers the payroll and fringes benefits to the DLE personnel.

So. And it gets transferred from the Department of Accounting and General Services and the Judiciary. So the amount that the appropriations is 7.1 million, and that's broken down by 2.4 for the Department of Accounting and General Services. And the difference is 4.6 million from Judiciary. So thank you for this time.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1045? If not, questions, Members? No questions. Thanks very much to the testifiers. We will move on to the next measure, House Bill 664, relating to gun violence prevention.

This measure establishes the Office of Gun Violence Prevention to conduct community outreach on gun violence prevention, develop and administer a grant program for gun violence prevention, and develop and administer a gun violence resource bank. The measure establishes the Gun Violence Prevention Special Fund and appropriates funds into and out of the Special Fund and appropriates funds.

First up, we have the Attorney General on Zoom. Oh, in person. Even better. Thank you so much. Please come on up, introduce yourself. Proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. My name is Melina Sanchez. I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the Department of Attorney General's Office. We provided written testimony with comments on HB 664. First, since the bill involves grant monies, we recommend incorporating appropriate standards for the awards of grants by the new office.

Second, we'd like to point out that there appears to be overlapping responsibilities with the proposed new office and the existing Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission codified under Chapter 134 of Hawaii Revised Statute.

And what we recommend is to avoid any confusion or duplicate duplication of efforts, we recommend that the committee consider amending the bill first to consolidate the Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission responsibilities and into the new office and then repeal Chapter 134c. We'd be happy to work with the committee and thank you for allowing me to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have written testimony from the Department of Budget and Finance. Anyone here in person? No. Next, we have testimony from the Department of Law Enforcement in writing. You want to present orally? No. Okay. Next, we have testimony in support from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in writing.

And you want to present in person? You're most welcome to. Deb Nehmad.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. Thank you for this opportunity. I'll be short. I'll stand by my written testimony and just emphasize that now that the U.S.

Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has decided that there'll be more streets, more guns allowed on our streets, that this kind of common sense measure to study gun violence, to educate, to gather the statistics, is needed now more than ever. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next person said they wish to testify is Sarah Sumadi, Everytown for Gun Safety. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Sarah Sumadi. I'm the Regional Director of Government Affairs for Everytown for Gun Safety, which is the largest gun violence prevention organization with 11 million supporters across the country.

And here in support of HB 664. This vill would bring Hawaii in line with peer gun safety states which have such offices like California, Washington, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York.

And Office of Gun Violence Prevention enables the state to approach the crisis of gun violence from every angle by serving as a centralized hub that ensures laws are reaching their maximum potential and increasing public awareness of things like secure firearm storage and erpo, as well as administering funding for life saving violence intervention programs.

Thank you so much for your time and we urge you to vote in favor of this legislation.

Thank you very much. Next person who said they wish to testify is Erica Yamauchi. Everytown and Moms Demand Action, Hawaii Chapter.

Mahalo Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm Erica Yamauchi. I live in the Kaimuki area of Honolulu. I'm a gun violence survivor, mom of two in our public schools and I also teach myself at University of Hawaii. I'm standing in strong support of this bill and representing our three local groups and more than 2,000 supporters statewide.

I just wanted to highlight one part of my written testimony in that I'm really excited about the possibility for this kind of office in the state to not only have the ability to convene and coordinate efforts to meet our gun violence prevention goals, but as well as pull down federal funding, which I think is really critical.

We're leaving a lot of money on the table when it comes to community violence intervention right now and that can come from both the federal government as well as philanthropy. So I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next person who wishes to testify is Michael Rice. On Zoom. Not present. In opposition. Next person who said they wanted to testify is Jessica. Don't have a last name. Not present. Next person that said they wanted to testify was Todd Yukutake. In person. Or on Zoom? Not present with comments.

Next person that said they want to testify is Elna Nagasako. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha to the committee. I'm here in support of HB 664. So I'm a physician with a background in public health as well as healthcare quality improvement.

And although I was born and raised in Hilo, I spent many years in Missouri working on community health with a variety of community organizations, academic faculty, as well as a regional hospital system there.

From that experience, I just want to attest that it is essential to have an impact if you're going to have an impact on a community health outcome, that it's essential to have data to focus efforts. Backbone organizations help convene different stakeholders as well as a hub for community partnerships.

Having an Office of Gun Violence Prevention would allow resources to be sent in the areas where they're most needed. It would avoid duplication of services and efforts and engage community members so that these interventions can be successful and effective.

Now, although Hawaii has a strong record in the area of gun safety, the rate of gun deaths in the state has increased markedly over the last decade, which actually outpaces the increase, the rate of increase in the national statistics.

So protecting the lives of our community members and making prudent use of limited resources, it's too important to have efforts that are unfocused, uncoordinated, and ineffective. And so for this reason, I really hope that you support this bill and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Dr. Nagasako. We have numerous other testifiers, total 37 in support, nine in opposition, three with comments. I see many other people here that look like they might want to testify. I don't know if anyone signed up, but could you raise your hand if you want to testify? Okay.

Anyone else who, for any future bill, if you have not signed up to testify, I need you to go over and sign up over here at the table so that I can be better prepared. But for this bill, let's go ahead and start with you first. And then there was someone over here that wanted to testify.

Yes, please go ahead. Introduce yourself and proceed.

My name is. Chairman Tarnas, members of the committee. My name is Chris Marvin. I'm an army veteran who lives in Nuʻuanu. I'm in strong support of this bill. I did submit written testimony, just did not click the radio button to also be in person, but here I am. So thank you for the opportunity. Strong support of HB 664.

I'm testifying in my individual capacity, but I also am a member of the National Everytown Veterans Advisory Council, which is a group of veterans who advises the nation's largest gun violence prevention organization. And so I see what has been done in other states. Hawaii always hopes to be a leader and is a leader in gun violence prevention.

But quite frankly, many other states are outpacing us. Massachusetts passed an omnibus bill last year. California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey are all doing amazing things. They have done similar things to this. They have created offices of gun violence prevention. So to keep up with, I think Sarah called them our peer states.

This is something that we need to do. Since the bruin decision from the Supreme Court, the gun purchases registrations in the state are up 280%. So that has opened the floodgates for people who want to buy guns. Though the process is somewhat onerous, they're accomplishing this. They are buying guns. There are more guns out there.

More guns means more gun violence. And so it only makes sense that we have a centralized place at the state level to deal with gun violence, to help legislatures have data when many of these bills are coming through your desks all the time.

And with that, I would just strongly ask you to pass this bill and give us an Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Person over here that wanted to testify, please come on up and introduce yourself. Thank you.

I thank you for the opportunity to testify. Should I go talk to her after this?

After your testimony, if you could please give her your name and affiliation, that'd be great.

Sure. So my name is Deborah Harada. I live in Kaneohe. I'm coming forward because I've witnessed firsthand the impact of gun violence on family members of mine. I would encourage you to. I'm in favor of this bill.

My hope is that we can do the preventative work to avoid the tragedy that we see and hear about over and over due to gun violence. Preventing gun violence is in the best interest of everyone.

Creating an office at the state level would allow us to continue Hawaii's leadership in this area and protect our communities with a coordinated effort. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If you could. Yeah, thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 664? Yes. Please. Welcome, Mr. Dunn.

Thank you very much. As members of the committee, you remember I'm Dennis Dunn, the retired Director of the Victim Witness Kokua Services in the prosecutor's office. And I'm here testifying in support of this measure because I've always said, ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

If I could have done anything over my career to help to prevent the violence that I saw visited on the people that I worked with, I would have done it. And I think this is something that we can do. It's an easy measure. Some people seem to be opposed because they think it's bureaucratic.

It's something that will allow all of us to focus our efforts. And I think that, as other people have spoken, is what we need. We need to focus our prevention efforts on gun violence. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 664? If not, questions members? Representative Shimizu, please proceed.

Excuse me. Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure who I'm addressing this question to, but.

You need to pick.

Okay, I'll pick eenie meenie miney mo. Let's see. Attorney General, can I ask a question please? I think your testimony referenced an existing. Was it your testimony that?

Yes, it was 134C.

Existing gun violence?

Yes, it was the Gun Violence Violent Crimes Commission, codified under Chapter 134C.

Right, so that is an existing commission that is operating to this date?

My understanding it is.

Okay. So I guess my question would be what is the difference between the commission, the existing commission, and this new office that's being proposed?

I think in our comment section we gave the responsibilities, there was an overlap. So the way we viewed the bill was that it made more sense to have them include their responsibilities within the Department of Law Enforcement, to have just one agency looking into it, rather than having various people within the public, the judiciary, the Attorney General.

There's a list of various people who have to be members of this commission, have meetings, and so forth. So by incorporating the powers and duties within this new office, it will make things much more better and people can go into that.

I'm sorry I didn't get to read your testimony thoroughly. So are you saying that the commission and this new office would be combined into one entity?

No, not combined. Just the powers and the duties would be. The responsibilities of the current commission under 134C would be incorporated within the law enforcement new office. That's how we perceive the way the bill was written. And then repeal the 134C.

So you'll have two separate entities still?

No. You would repeal. Once we incorporate the responsibilities of the current commission into the new office, we would recommend repealing 134C.

I'm sorry, I thought that's what I asked if you would be combining it and you said. I heard no, it's not going to be combined.

Combining in the sense that we wouldn't require the same commission members. It would be primarily the law enforcement.

Right. So you would have one entity versus two separate entities and this would be under the Department of Law Enforcement.

Correct.

Okay, that's very important. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you, representative. Any other questions members? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 508 relating to fireworks.

This measure amends Act 67, Session Laws of Hawaii 2023, to appropriate funds for the Illegal Fireworks Task Force for fiscal year 25, 26 and fiscal year 26, 27 and to extend the sunset date of the act from June 30, 2025 to June 30, 2020 31st up, we have Department of Transportation by zoom. Please proceed.

If you would please unmute yourself, turn on the video and provide testimony. Department of Transportation, that'd be great. If not, we'll move on and maybe they'll come back when. They'll alert us when they come back. Next up, we have Department of Law Enforcement.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Jared Redulla, the Deputy Director for law enforcement. Thank you very much for hearing this bill. The Department is in strong support of this.

The main benefit of this bill is that because it's task force funding, it will allow us to pay the other agencies that work with us and importantly, the very expensive logistics that go with enforcing the law regarding fireworks. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Deputy Director. Next we have Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Ernest Robello. I'm a lieutenant with the Narcotics Vice Division of the Holland Police Department. The Honolulu Police Department supports this bill. And in General, we support all legislation. Which helps to reduce the use of Illegal fireworks to prevent tragedies such as.

The most recent one this past New Year's Day. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We've received written testimony from numerous individuals and one other person has said they would want to provide testimony. That is Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society on Zoom. zero. In person.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Member Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. We're in strong support of this measure and you have our written testimony. I just wanted to share. You know, that task force has interdicted nearly 200,000 pounds of explosives at our port since its very. Since its inception not that long ago.

And we think they've more than proven worthy of financial support from this body and we hope that you'll pass this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. In total, we've received 19 testimonies in support for an opposition. And that was all the individuals that said they wanted to provide oral testimony. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 508? If not questions, Members? Seeing none. No. Okay, okay. No questions. Thanks very much to the testifiers.

We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 648, relating to guardianship and conservatorship services. This measure establishes a two year pilot program in the probate court and family court of the First Circuit to fund certain guardianship and conservatorship related court resources in situations where the respondent does not have sufficient funds to pay for one or more of the resources and the court has deemed the resource or resources beneficial. Measure also requires the Judiciary to submit reports to the Governor and Legislature and appropriates funds. First up, we have the Judiciary with written testimony in support in person. Please introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, Representative Tarnas and House Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Roland Lee, Director for the Office of the Public Guardian. And I am, I'm not sure if I'm speaking on behalf of the Judiciary as probate or if this is going to be for testimony.

Roland, I think we have you as a later testifier, but you can just go ahead and present your testimony.

Thank you very much. So the Office of the Public Guardian is in support of House Bill 648 as it stands, with funding for Kokua Kanawai services and for Guardian Ad Litem services in a two year pilot program to expand services for people under guardianships or that have something to do with guardianships.

But what we would like to ask, respectfully ask the Legislator to do, is to delete lines, line 17, which quote says and physicians letters and unquote on page one, and also remove lines one through four on page two and also remove lines 12 to 17 on page three. And this is in regards to professional evaluations. We support the Kokua Kanawai services as well as the Guardian Ad Litem.

But as far as the evaluations, we really do feel that the burden of proof should be on the petitioners and that the court should not be put in a position to have to furnish information to itself by administering evaluations for a respondent because that might be disadvantageous for the respondent. So you have a written testimony, and I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much. I would encourage you to submit your testimony on time in the future. It's very difficult for us to read your late testimony and be able to be prepared to incorporate your suggested amendments if we get them late.

I apologize.

Yeah, just. If you could just try next time. Yeah, we, this Committee really tries to alert the public well in advance for our hearings. We publish our hearing notices well in advance with the hope that you do submit on time testimony. And you're a busy guy, I get it. But in the future, that would be very helpful if you would submit testimony on time. Thank you. Okay, let's move on. Daintry Bartoldus, Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities, or her designee.

Aloha, Chair, Committee Members. My name is Che Silvert. I'm with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. I will summarize our testimony, which is in offering comments. So we as the Council have been hosting a working group at the pleasure of Representative Tarnas for a Guardianship Conservatorship Working Group that we've been meeting since 2023.

It was designed or started to kind of identify if Hawaii would be really good for a uniform law, and then that working group quickly shifted and realized that Hawaii was not ready to do a uniform law in this area. But then we shifted to what are some of the issues that this particular guardianship and conservatorship courts face? And in those conversations, which we've had for about a year now, this specific measure is one of the discussions that came out of it.

I just wanted to highlight that we're offering comments just because of the nature of the working group and the different people we're representing. But this did come out of discussions, and these were needed tools that would help the courts make better decisions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony in support from the Executive Office on Aging, AARP Hawaii. Also testimony from Louis Erteschik. On Zoom. Please proceed.

I'm on Zoom. Good afternoon. Good to see you, Representative Tarnas.

Good to see you, sir.

We participated in the working group, and so obviously, yes, we're in support of the bill. The working group couldn't agree on much, but they did agree on this. So I think that means that it's obviously a good idea if everybody was able to support it. These are basic due process protections that, quite frankly, Representative, I'm a little surprised that Judiciary budget doesn't already include this.

I'm surprised that there isn't currently in the law a provision for these kinds of services for people that are indigent. Because becoming a ward under a guardianship is a, while some people need to have a guardian, it's clearly a major infringement on a person's life and their liberty. So we think this should be in the base budget of the Judiciary. So I think to that extent, this pilot program is an excellent idea. I think it'll demonstrate the need for it, and so we appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. There's numerous other testimonies in writing in support. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in person? On Zoom? If not, questions, Members? If not, no questions. Just thanks to the people who are working together on this task force and thanks to Che with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities for facilitating the group. You've done a lot of good work, and I'm glad to see that we've got a measure that we can move forward.

There's a lot of other work that we need to do, but I appreciate your good efforts. Thank you. And to everyone else who's been participating, it's very helpful. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to the next measure. Just so if you notice on the hearing notice, we had House Bill 1000, relating to identification processing.

We deleted that from the agenda. It's because the Senate vehicle is moving and we're going to wait for the Senate vehicle to come over, so that's why we took it off the agenda. We've got a lot of bills we're trying to hear on this side in the House so we chose to wait for the Senate vehicle to cross, and we'll consider it when it comes over to the House. Next measure, House Bill 1001, relating to settlement of claims related to the Maui wildfires.

This measure makes General Fund appropriations for fiscal years 25-26 and 26-27 to fund the settlement of claims related to the Maui wildfires. It establishes the Maui Wildfire Settlement Trust Fund to be administered by the Attorney General. First up, we have the Attorney General on Zoom. In person. Oh, lucky me.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, sir.

Deputy Attorney General Randall Nishiyama. We submitted our written comments in support of this bill. This bill funds the state's share of the wildfire settlement agreement for the compromise and settlement of claims. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony in support from Maui County Council Chair Alice Lee, and we received testimony from Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We will basically stand on our written comments--sorry they're late--and we do basically agree with enacting measures to keep litigation costs down and get necessary monies to the affected people as expeditiously as possible. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. That's all the testifiers that have signed up to testify or sent in written testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1001? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, chair. Question for AG, please? I read someplace that the settlement was for a four-year payout and you are asking for a two-year payout. I was just wondering the rationale on that.

We're holding the monies in trust for the period of time, so while there is a two-year appropriation period. At this point, the timeline is rather unclear as to how quickly we can get the settlement payments out, so that's why we're asking for the monies in two years.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Any other questions, members? No? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers and thanks to everyone who worked together to actually come up with this global settlement and to the Supreme Court for saying, 'yes, we can move ahead and actually start paying those who qualify for these settlement of claims.'

Okay, next Bill, House Bill 1174 relating to the procedure for payment under protest lawsuits. This measure allows for the interest earned on payments under protest in the litigated claims fund to be paid in non taxation cases if the claimant prevails.

It also establishes a procedure for the disposition of monies and refiling of actions when a payment under protest suit is filed prematurely. First up, we have Tom Yamachika with Tax foundation of Hawaii. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair and members. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Tom Yamachika speaking. This bill is similar to House Bill 1805 that was introduced and heard by this committee and passed out last session. The basic issue is that the statutes provide a means of challenging payments made to the government when the payer doesn't think it's lawful or fair.

But what has to happen is that the lawsuit has to be filed within 30 days after the payment.

Now, because of a Supreme Court decision that happened that requires formal agency action before the lawsuit can be maintained, it's possible for an agency against whom this kind of suit's been filed to say, oh, I'm sorry, we haven't reached a final decision yet.

And if they hold on to the money for 30 days, they can basically keep it without any chance of judicial review because the time period will have lapsed. So this bill will fix the loophole by saying, okay, in that kind of situation, agency, you got six months.

If you decide within the six months, you can keep the money, but the court suit goes forward. If you don't, you got to give the money back. So that's basically what this bill does. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we received on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1174? If not, questions members? Seeing none. Thanks very much for your good explanation, Mr. Yamachika. We're going to move on.

Next measure: House Bill 990, making appropriations for claims against the state, its officers, or its employees. This measure makes appropriations and approves payments for claims against the state, its officers, and its employees. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Transportation on Zoom. Please proceed.

Yeah. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Larry Dill. I am the Highways Administrator for the Department of Transportation. I see that I have not updated my Zoom profile, so I want to clarify. I am the Highways Administrator and no longer with just the Kauai District, but at any rate, DOT does support this measure and we want to express our gratitude to the Office of the Attorney General for their support and hard work in bringing these cases to settlement. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony in support from the Attorney General in person. Lucky us. Thanks for being here. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I am Deputy Attorney General Skyler Cruz. We support this bill. The bill has eight claims on it which total $2,338,335.75. Those claims are described in the testimony, attached to our testimony in Attachment A. Since the bill was introduced, nine new claims have been added for a total of $3,572,898.47.

Those claims are described in Attachment B to our written testimony. With the new claims, there are a total of 17 claims for a total amount of $5,911,234.22. We ask that the bill be passed with amendments to add the nine new claims. I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony with the updates on the newly settled claims. Next, we have testimony from the Department of Budget and Finance. Not present. I refer members to the written testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 990? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, we'll move on.

Thank you to the testifiers. Next, measure, House Bill 997 relating to court ordered payments. This measure requires the judiciary to contract with a collection agency or licensed attorney to collect delinquent court ordered fees, fines, settlement sanctions and court costs.

It repeals the authority of the judiciary to contract with a collection agency or licensed attorney to collect delinquent restitution. It expressly allows courts to specify a period of time or installments for payment of fees and restitution.

Requires courts to hold payment compliance hearings once per year or as soon as practicable until all fees, fines and restitution are fully paid and requires a defendant to appear and show cause if the dependent fails to pay in full within a time specified by the court or fails to pay three consecutive installments.

The measure also makes corresponding amendments to related statutes. First up, we have the Attorney General, Trisha Nakamatsu. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Trisha Nakamatsu appearing on behalf of the Department. Department is in strong support of this bill and we thank you for hearing it. Chair this bill is meant to address a Supreme Court case that just came out last year in 2024 called state fee Fay.

That decision upended basically a long standing practice in our district courts whereby the courts would set proof compliance hearings that help to facilitate situations where the defendant is unable to pay their fines, fees and recitation all at once. And so essentially a payment plan or they're allowed to pay over time.

So this bill would provide a couple of different solutions to address that. First, for fines and fees, currently criminal cases can't the fines and fees can't be referred to collection agencies as is routinely done in traffic cases. So this bill would allow for fines and fees to be sent to collections.

However, it would remove the ability for juvenile monetary assessments or restitution to be sent to collection agencies. We just for various reasons don't feel that that's appropriate. And there are other ways that those things can be handled in case okay, so that's one thing.

In addition, in cases where the court feels it's appropriate to allow somebody to pay over time, particularly in restitution, it would apply to fines and fees. But most important, perhaps in restitution cases, the current statute and one of the key words that State v. Fay turned on was the word default when someone defaults in their payments.

But there's currently no definition for what default means or how the court would determine when someone is in default. So this bill would provide both a definition and a mechanism for the court to determine when default occurs. And it would give the courts discretion on how often to set proof compliance hearings.

It would make certain requirements if somebody is in fact found to be in default, they'd have to come back a little bit more often, though still at the discretion of the court.

And the let's see, there's one other thing is that, oh, essentially this would bring things back to the way they were pre Fay in the sense that proof compliance hearings would be allowed. So it wouldn't necessarily require any additional resources or manpower in that sense available for questions, if any.

Thank you very much. Next, we receive written testimony from the judiciary with comments not here in person. Next, we have testimony from the public defender.

Mr. Gannadin, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair Sonny Gannon, Deputy Public Defender Officer of the Public Defender. Apologies, our testimony came in a bit late. We did testify, of course, on the sister measure, SB1316, which was heard by the Judiciary Committee in the Senate this morning. This bill is about charging defendants who are not yet in default.

We implore the Members of the Committee and those listening to actually read the State vs. Fay case.

It's quite clear, we believe that this is an issue about separation of powers, that the Legislature should respect the wishes of the judiciary in its decision, both in its written decision by Justice Eddins with no dissent, as well as its submitted testimony today. It's never been easier for a complaining witness to file civilly.

And we thank the office of the prosecutor at various county prosecutors to assist individuals in filing for individuals against defendants who are charged criminally from the Fay case. Although it's in our testimony, we believe it's necessary to just read it into the record.

The court said the financial obligations were not meant to prolong criminal justice oversight, creating a type of shadow control that surpasses the original sentence. The court remarked that from the outset, court monitoring of freestanding restitution orders unnecessarily burdens defendants and wastes judicial resources.

We hope that the Legislature respects the desire of the judiciary to not do this anymore.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Gannadin. Next. Pamela Ferguson Bray, Crime Victim Compensation Commission, State of Hawaii.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair Members. My name is Pam Ferguson Bray. I'm the Executive Director of the Crime Victim Compensation Commission. The Commission runs a restitution recovery project that collects court ordered restitution from inmates and parolees.

We published an article with the council state government describing our success and our efforts to collect from that population, which is not the subject of this, but we know a lot about restitution as a result of that project. We strongly support this provision that allows for a proof of compliance hearing.

Proof of compliance hearings have been found to be an effective tool for restitution collections in the district court and to apply that to circuit court will ensure that more victims have access to the justice that they deserve. Failure to collect restitution shifts the burden from convicted offenders to pay for crime related expenses back to crime victims.

And you know, while there's often discussion about whether or not offenders can pay the expense of crime and that it's unfair somehow to make them pay restitution, it's equally unfair, more unfair to have crime victims then have the burden of enforcing their own restitution orders because the court fails to do that, over 40% of Americans can't afford an emergency expense of a few $100, which includes our victims.

So many of them, if they did not receive timely restitution, will not be able to recover from the emotional and financial impact of crime. We did a study of restitution cases out of the CEJIS system from 2003 to 2018.

What's the CEJIS system?

It's the criminal justice database system. So we found that the mean restitution order was $303 for misdemeanors, and the mean restitution order for felonies was 1,300. So those of you who are attorneys, you know, there's a comment about, oh, it's so easy to file a civil suit.

It's not easy if you have a $303, you know, restitution order and you go out in this town, we know this from the victims that call us. You go out in this town and you try and hire an attorney to enforce a $303 order or an order that's a little over $1,000, you're not able to.

And that's why we hear from victims. We get calls about the desperation and frustration and the violation that victims feel about the system. I think there's a quote I've included from the Administrative Director of the Courts after a series of articles about problems and issues in the restitution system in Hawaii. Mr. Miley.

Clearly, offenders failure to pay restitution is a difficult, complex and long standing problem, but is one that absolutely has to be addressed because of the hurtful impact it has on victims and because non compliance with court orders undermines public trust and confidence in the justice system.

We hear so much lately about the rule of law and how important that is. This is part of the rule of law is making sure that court orders are enforced for the people who are brave enough to come forward in this system and protect us all by testifying and engaging in the system. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Finally, we have Denis Dunn testifying and support in person.

Thank you so much. Again, Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. I feel very strongly about this particular measure and I'm testifying in support. I would ask your indulgence for me to read through my testimony since I think it is important to provide context to the issue we're talking about here.

I'm testifying full support of this measure as it touches on the principles that are the foundation of our criminal justice system. These principles underlie the process by which we establish the dimensions of harm caused by an individual criminal act.

In its simplest form, the establishment of a process of proof of compliance hearings is at the heart a direct means of requiring accountability for criminal offenders. And how do we measure this accountability? It is through the process of restitution, possibly the most critical element in demonstrating that we truly have a system that administers justice.

The terms restorative justice and rehabilitation are but hollow platitudes without the full and accurate establishment of the amount of restitution, the requirement of its payment by the offender, and a meaningful process of collection.

While we can tinker around with the elements of the process that this bill establishes without basic adherence to the principles stated above, any claim that we have a fair and just system of criminal law is disingenuous and without merit.

The effectiveness of our restitution process puts our feet to the fire in testing any credibility that we have in declaring that our legal process fulfills the high deals that we so often hear loudly proclaimed when comparing our justice system to others that we consider to be inferior or corrupt. Why then is restitution so important?

It is typically the only concrete measure by which we assess the harm caused by an offender. While psychological harm and traumatic emotional injury are abstract concepts, restitution measured in dollars and cents provides a means of quantification that can be understood and appreciated by both victim and offender.

Restitution that is fulfilled can have a significant impact on the financial restoration of of a crime victim. It is also a meaningful act that provides concrete evidence of an offender's willingness to take responsibility for their actions. Successfully competing restitution obligation is the very first step in offender rehabilitation.

Failure to be a restitution, in my opinion, clearly demonstrates that an offender is not sincere about their willingness to take responsibility for their actions, nor are they serious about embarking on a passion path of rehabilitation. For me, restitution is the price that offender must pay to successfully re enter civil society.

So this brings us back to the bill. I'm open to ideas about how to make the process work better. I do know that in District Court we have compliance calendars at work. I think Circuit Court can make it happen too. We so often hear statements about restorative justice being casually thrown around.

True restorative justice is focused on restoring crime victims, beginning with financial restitution. Restoration through restitution. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 997? If not, questions, Members?

Representative Shimizu, I have a question. Is Judiciary here? Judiciary is not here. Maybe I can just pose it to Attorney General. The testimony from the judiciary said that if this bill is implemented, they will need additional staff and funding to implement this.

Yes, Representative. I believe the concern from their testimony is that currently, the way the bill is written, it actually goes slightly beyond what State BFA may have done. Because State v. Fay undid, a longstanding procedure that's held in district court, circuit court.

Our understanding this is not in the practice, has never been in the practice of having proof compliance hearings. And I believe the judiciary was pointing out that if this is to apply to circuit court, then that would be a new mechanism that they would then need additional resources to, to do.

And so they were, I believe, suggesting that it be limited to district court. But we do understand that the victim advocates community may be, may have other opinions about that.

So there, there may be some amendments to the bill to address that concern.

Yes, we would be open to that and we're happy to help assist with language if the Committee would like.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Any other questions? One question. This is a bill from the Attorney General, correct?

It is.

Did you work with the judiciary in preparing this bill?

I can't remember at what point we began discussions with the judiciary. We have spoken with them more recently and so we do understand their concern.

Their testimony is scathing. In a polite way is scathing, yes.

Well, they didn't want to come out.

If I read between the lines, they didn't want to come out and just say this is not workable, you know.

Oh, I believe there's, there's, you know, I, I believe the concern as, as I indicated the concern from their testimony is that this would apply to district court and circuit court and it was never, in their view, never should have been applied to circuit court.

So, and they are not incorrect if upon a reading of the bill, it actually would apply as written to both district and circuit court.

So with regards to limited to district court, we're absolutely willing to discuss and if there's any possible middle ground to discuss with the victim advocates community based on what their concerns are, and if that can be met as well, then we're also happy to discuss that.

Okay. I note that Senate Bill 1316 was heard and passed out of Senate Judiciary.

It did, and I believe that one, they decided to limit it to the district court.

And I think that I would really encourage the Attorney General to work with the public defenders in the judiciary to figure out language that actually complies with the Supreme Court decision instead of going beyond it and in words of the public defender, maybe even being contrary to it.

And I'm sorry, just a quick clarification. When I say go beyond what State v. FA Did, I mean that State v. Fay, in a practical sense only applied to district court because district court was the only one that was already in the practice of having these proof of compliance hearings. What State v. Fay did is it said that the courts were not allowed to have these proof compliance hearings.

Judiciary also expressed other concerns that they feel this measure, problems that this measure would cause and they're in the process of discussing alternative options. And they think that if this bill passes, it would place significant strain on their resources and staff and it wouldn't be. They wouldn't be able to implement it.

So I think this needs more work. I appreciate that this is your effort from the Attorney General to figure out how to implement the decision that came out from the Supreme Court on state fee fae. But it clearly needs more work. So I appreciate that. You started the process. Thank you. Any other questions, Members?

If not, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 364 relating to animal control. This measure establishes the spay and neuter special fund to reduce pet overpopulation, including the free roaming cat population, and authorizes an income tax designation to provide revenue into the special fund.

It requires that female cats over the age of 3 months and male cats over the age of 5 months be surgically sterilized with certain exceptions. It authorizes county animal control authorities to establish and enforce a permit program to allow the responsible breeding of cats and establishes minimum requirements for breeding permits and penalties and it appropriates funds.

First up, we have the Department of Taxation with comments, Aloha Chair, Vice Chair.

And Members of the Committee. Garrison Kurth, on behalf of the Department of Taxation, we've submitted testimony about the Administration of this bill. Essentially our involvement would be with the checkoff program option as a funding source of this program. So what that means is a taxpayer, when they're doing their taxes, could check a box.

If you're an individual and you have at least $5 refund coming to designate that $5 to the fund. A married couple with $10 refund could designate each $5 to go towards it. So the Department has no issues administering the bill.

The only request we had was that if it does move forward, we put this under the Hawaii Revised Statute, Section 235.102.5, which is where all the other checkoff options are housed. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Jason Omick with DLNR, and we stand by our written testimony in support. Available for questions.

You want to summarize and give us the highlights of why you think it's a good bill?

Well, for sure. In our testimony, we indicate that there's significant impact from feral free-roaming cats on the landscape and devastate our native wildlife both through direct predation and through the spread of toxoplasmosis.

I'm sure you guys have heard about this, but--so free-roaming cats are known predators and, you know, this is a serious health risk to our native species, especially the Hawaiian monk seal. So with all those things said, you know, having--reducing the amount of free-roaming cats in the environment would be--would really help our native species here in Hawaii.

Thank you very much. Next testimony is from the Department of Budget and Finance.

Good afternoon, again. Neal Miyahira. We're offering comments. We don't think we're the appropriate department to administer this Special Fund. We have no expertise in this area and we think it'll be just more efficient if you want to do this, appropriate money to the counties and let them or another agency to do this.

Thank you. Next we have written testimony in support from Animal Rights Hawaii. Next, we have testimony with comments from the Hawaii Board of Veterinary Medicine.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Kerrie Shahan. I'm the executive officer for the Hawaii Board of Veterinary Medicine. The board appreciates the intent of this bill and offers comments. The board is concerned that early sterilization of both male and female cats can lead to difficulty in treating lower urinary tract infections and urethral obstructions, so they would request a change to lines--let me restate that.

The board would request the Legislature consider amending Subsection A on page four, lines 11 to 15, by deleting paragraphs one and two and have it read as follows: A: 'It shall be unlawful for any person to own a cat over the age of five months unless the cat is surgically sterilized.'

The board also has some concern that this may pose a hardship on those individuals with limited income or on neighbor islands with limited veterinary care. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm here if there are any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Pacific Pet Alliance. Welcome. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Lynn Muramaru, and I represent the Pacific Pet Alliance. We're a Hawaii nonprofit that promotes responsible pet ownership through education and advocacy.

The Pacific Pet Alliance respectfully submits testimony for your consideration in opposition of this bill, and the reason why is that when we look at this bill, it seems like the intent is to merge four separate issues into one bill, and I think by the testimony that's been submitted so far or presented so far, when organizations say we support or we oppose, they're only really looking at one section.

For example, the different sections are the sterilization, the age of sterilization, second one is setting up a Spay Neuter Fund, third is addressing the concerns from the community and conservationists regarding free-roaming feral cats, you know, and then the last one is setting up a cat breeding permit system. Okay.

So I reviewed--I read all 171 pieces of testimony from the earlier hearing, okay? And a lot of testimony just says I support or I oppose, but it doesn't say which section, you know, so it's really not clear, and from looking at the overall bill, it seems like the intent is to address the free-roaming feral cat population and looking at ways to manage and control that.

And so that being, if that's the intent of the bill, then what I would like to respectfully request this committee to consider is to remove the cat breeding permit because the cat breeding permit targets the cat fancy. Okay, when I say cat fancy, I mean the people that show cats and--because I can't think of anybody who intentionally breeds just regular domestic cats.

May I ask you to summarize, Ms. Muramaru?

Okay, so basically that's it. There's already two Senate bills that address the Spay Neuter Fund. You know, we don't--we certainly agree that the conservationist aspect, the cat fancy, agrees with that. We're just asking if you would consider removing the cat breeding permit section from the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Grant Sizemore, American Bird Conservancy on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Grant Sizemore. I'm speaking today on behalf of American Bird Conservancy and our members. It's nice to see a bill about cat management that has received broad support. It has earned that support because it focuses on areas of common ground among diverse stakeholders.

And contrary to the previous testimony we just heard, it really focuses on the pet cat population, which is key. This bill will turn off the tap of unintended pet cat reproduction, which is essential to addressing the cat overpopulation crisis in reducing harms to Hawaii's threatened and endangered wildlife as well as risks to public health.

The management strategy that's being proposed here is highly popular among cat owners and all Hawaii residents. In fact, a recent study found that about 70% of all residents supported mandatory pet cat sterilization.

Now I understand that some submitted comments seek to authorize use of resources from the proposed Spay Neuter Fund to intentionally rerelease cats back into the environment, and I just want to say that the conservation community would strongly oppose such an amendment and it would unnecessarily drive a wedge into an otherwise widely supported bill.

I also understand from the previous testimony that the Hawaii Board of Veterinary Medicine has requested that the age of sterilization be five months for both male and female cats. I fully support this change and recognize that it is consistent with recommendations endorsed by by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

So in closing, I strongly urge your support for House Bill 364 HT1. This bill would support responsible cat ownership and take necessary steps to address the cat overpopulation crisis. Please refer to my written testimony for additional information, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you, Mr. Sizemore. Next, we have written testimony in support from the Kauai Albatross Network, Hob Osterlund. Next, we have testimony in support from the Hawaiian Humane Society. Ms. Kendrick.

Chair Tarnas, members of the committee, Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. We're proud to stand with our conservation colleagues in support of this measure. The need for better access for no and low-fee spay/neuter across our state is intense, and this is an attempt to set up a statewide funding mechanism with multiple revenue sources in order to address that gap in resource availability.

We are--we do understand Budget and Finance's concerns about housing this bill, but we would urge this committee, if they are going to move it from B&F, to find another state agency where it might be housed.

Simply dividing the funds by county, say by population, is not an adequate way to address the real needs as some of our neighbor island counties, despite having lower populations, have greater needs for this sort of funding. So that's why we were encouraging a statewide decision-making body in order to allocate the funding.

We would also acknowledge this conservation interests in reducing the free-roaming cat population, and while we can certainly expend any funds that this measure would raise in spaying and neutering pet cats, I have to point out that the most effective thing that we are doing right now as a community to reduce the free-roaming cat population is spaying and neutering that population, so I do think that conservation is a bit shortsighted in its opposition to allowing the use of these funds for TNR, but we will support this measure either way. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony in support from the Hanalei Watershed Hui. On Zoom? Not present. Next, we have testimony from Joseph Edhlund, veterinarian.

Good afternoon, chairman, vice chairman. I'm a veterinarian, been a veterinarian for 45 years. I did my first spay about 50 years ago. This is a very, very complex problem, and I've looked over the bill briefly. There's some major problems with it.

First off, even though I'm in support of much of the things that have been said--for example, TNR programs require 70% compliance to have any major effect on populations--estimates of population of cats in Oahu is somewhere between 300,000 and a million cats, which means that we need to neuter-- what is that, 70% of 300,000--we need to neuter 210,000 cats in order to have any significant effect.

We do need to control the problem--totally in agreement with DLNR and the need to do this, but actually, it's to have a serious effect on cats on Oahu through trap neuter release programs, and depending on the modes of funding--I know that one of the modes of funding here is going after the cat breeders--there's no cat breeders that are having any issue or any connection with the feral cat problem.

This is a big, big issue. It needs big, big funding in order to take a serious stride in getting it under control. Like I say, we need to get 210,000 cats neutered. That's a lot of money to get those cats neutered and a lot of effort to make that happen. Thank you for your time.

Certainly. Thank you for your time.

Open to questions. Yes.

I'm sorry, what was your name?

Dr. Joseph Edhlund.

Thank you, Doctor. We received in total, 69 testimonies in support, 24 in opposition, and six with comments. One other person said they wanted to testify: Vivian Tolner on Zoom. Not present? Okay, is there anyone else wishing to testify? If you could introduce yourself, please.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. My name is Emily Sarasa. I'm testifying in support of HB 364 because it's a modest compromise between really different interest groups who are all trying to address the same issue. I was former president of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund at the law school here.

I wrote my thesis on the cat issue, actually, so this is a very important bill for me. If I could make any amendments to it, I would amend Section Two, Subsection F to lower the fine for violations of Subsection A to only $100. I think a $500 fine is ridiculous for allowing your cat to be outside and then also allow the fine to be waived if the cat owner can show proof of sterilization within 30 days of the violation.

If possible, through this bill or maybe a resolution, I would also direct the Department of Ag to amend Chapter 4-29 of Hawaii Administrative Rules to require that cats imported to the state are sterilized before entering the state and also--or be part of the permit program before entering the state.

It doesn't make sense to have that inconsistency. Opposition from the cat breeders that are present, I think that's interesting, but we also have a backyard breeding problem here for both cats and dogs and those people are not present. People who are breeding cats are basically breeding an invasive species, so I think the state has a vested interest in preventing that or regulating it completely.

And also important to note that the new Spay Neuter Fund will not affect existing Spay Neuter Funds for TNR, so I think that any opposition to this bill is maybe also shortsighted. Thank you. I hope you support this bill, and I'll see you around.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Aisha Aoki on Zoom.

Aloha, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for allowing me to come and have some testimony. My name is Aisha Aoki. I am the vice president of our Cat Fanciers of Hawaii club, local club.

There are--although we do support the feral population control, there are a lot of issues that we see within this bill to mirror some of the other testimonies that were here today. Our concern is that the bill doesn't truly address the feral influx. We don't see how pet populations are contributing to this.

Also with that is, there's no rerelease of trapped and neutered animals, so if these trapped and neutered community animals don't have any homes to go to, they're just on a track to get euthanized because our Humane Society systems, our fosters, our other people who are fostering these animals are already at capacity.

So it's unrealistic to say that we can't rerelease these fixed animals, and I get that we have a problem of them attacking our native species. Separate from that, I myself am a cat breeder and we are regulated by the Worldwide Cat Fanciers Association, and that is our governing body.

We have catteries registered with them, we have cats registered with them, we have our litters registered with them. We have strict rules and regulations that we also need to abide by, especially for all our cats that are being shown in our shows. People are not investing their money in purchasing a purebred cat just to let them out.

That's obviously not where their money wants to go if their cat gets out, gets hurt, gets killed by accident. I personally--even if it's against, you know, recommendations--I personally spay and neuter my kittens, each one before they go out, specifically so I am not contributing to our feral cat population.

Many of the breeders--and there's not many--so, you know, there might be a misconception that there are all these cat breeders on island or within the state. Realistically, under our Cat Fanciers club, we only have maybe 12 to 15 breeders, so if you're expecting all these monies to come in from our breeding permits, it's not realistic.

Could you summarize, please?

Sorry. Yes. So, you know, it's unrealistic to expect--and we're responsible breeders. We have contracts, we have rules and regulations that we expect our owners to abide by. So this is just targeting responsible breeders. You're talking about the backyard breeders and irresponsible people having, you know, other litters.

They're not going to follow these rules as they're not already, and they probably won't care about paying a breeder's fee, and they're going to continue going about what they're doing. So we think that this is unfairly targeting a small, small population of responsible breeders, and other parts of this bill do need to be reviewed. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 364? May I ask again? If you have not signed up to testify, we'll need you to go over and give your name. You can come on up now, but after your testimony, if you could give her your name and affiliation?

And for anyone who's testified--who wants to testify on future bills, if you have not signed up, please go and sign up at the table over here. Please go ahead and introduce yourself.

My name is Duane Inoue. I'm a cat breeder. I'm a member of CFA, Cat Fanciers, Hawaii. I have major concerns about this bill. As the doctor mentioned, he had an estimate of what the problem is. There's no mention in this bill what--how many feral cats are out there?

How many breeders are out there? How many hobby breeders? How many backyard breeders? I mean, there's no mention. So we don't know what the scope of the problem is, and the state has identified cat breeders--CFA cat breeders--as the ones, and there's no mention of backyard breeders and none of the testimonies talked about backyard breeders.

They're the ones that are causing the feral overpopulation. Now, please note that northern Las Vegas banned breeding. They have a penalty of $500 or $1,000 for--of not following the law. They found that the animal control authorities couldn't monitor all these backyard breeders. So there's these businesses popping up that are squealing on their neighbors to get rewards.

I mean, that's how bad it is and that's the problem we're going to get. You're not going to get enough funding for backyard breeders. You're going to get only like $9,000 from CFA breeders.

Therefore, I think what we need is a, more study, a work group of all the stakeholders, CFA, TICA, Humane Society, pet owners, breeders, and discuss what we need to do rather than shoot--like she mentioned--four different things and hope that it hits the wall and stays on the wall. That's my--

Thank you, Mr. Inoue. Thank you for your testimony which we have received. I just didn't know you were here in person to testify. Ma'am, would you like--he did. Okay, great. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, chair. I have a question for Humane Society. I heard some numbers mentioned, but do you have any estimates on the feral cat population per island?

No, we don't. We've tried a couple of different methods for getting that information and have been unsuccessful in coming up with any kind of a solid number. There are formulas that you can use based on the human population, but Hawaii's year-round breeding cycle really doesn't make those terribly applicable to our environment, so we don't have a good number for you. I'm sorry.

Right, but we can agree that that's a very big number and a major part of this discussion as far as the problem is the feral cat population?

Yes, and if these funds would be applicable to doing--to supporting TNR work, then I agree; the funding needed to do that at scale would be significant.

Can I ask a follow-up, chair?

Certainly.

Budget and Finance mentioned that they would not be able to administer this problem, suggested funding the counties. What if we were to fund Hawaiian Humane Society? Would you folks be able to take on that program?

Well, we regularly solicit funding for our TNR management program and we'll continue to do that, but the intent of this measure is really to fund this work statewide and we don't operate statewide as an organization.

Understand, but let's say we start on Oahu. Would you folks be able and willing to work--

We're already engaged in free-roaming cat spay and neuter on Oahu with county funding and we have a GIA application in for the state for additional funding, which we would love your support for.

So is that a yes or a no? I'm sorry.

It's a yes, we're engaged in this work and we'll continue to do so.

So, yes, you would be willing to take on more funding to expand that program?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Anyone else having questions? Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 366, relating to renewable energy. This measure requires contested cases, environmental assessment cases, or environmental impact statement cases involving renewable energy projects over 20 megawatts in size, except cases that involve any forms of incineration, to be appealed from an agency's decision directly to the Hawaii Supreme Court for final decision. It requires the cases to be prioritized and decided expeditiously. First up, we have testimony from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Long time no see, sir.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Tom Eisen with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We stand on our submitted testimony. It has comments acknowledging how our earlier comments were addressed in this present House draft one. So if you have any questions, I'm available.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Public Utilities Commission.

Hi. Good afternoon. Daniel Park on behalf of the Public Utilities Commission. We submitted written testimony providing comments. To summarize, we've pointed out that HRS 269, 1551 already provides that any final decisions and orders from contested cases before the Commission can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court for a final decision. And we've also submitted several amendments for the Committee's consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have received written testimony from the Judiciary in opposition, from Kauai Island Utility Cooperative in support, from 350 Hawaii, Sherry Pollack in opposition. And we have received testimony with comments from Hawaiian Electric on Zoom. Not present.

Next, we have testimony in writing from Ted Bohlen. And finally, testimony with comments from Onaona Thoene. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 366? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 992, relating to solicitation of funds from the public.

This measure revises registration fee reporting and enforcement requirements for charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities, with Chapter 467-B HRS requirements. Removes duplication of registration fee and reporting requirements for charitable fundraising platforms and perform—and platform charities. First up, we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, and the Members of the Committee. My name is Eunice Park, Deputy Attorney General, here to provide testimony in strong support of this Administration Bill.

This Bill provides housekeeping measures for Act 205, which was passed during the last legislative session, and it will also allow for easier administration of the new registration and reporting requirements for the fundraising platforms and affected entities. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Great. Yeah, please stick around. That'd be great. I think there might be some questions. Next, we have testimony from Margaret Richardson from GoFundMe on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I'm Margaret Richardson, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at GoFundMe and thank you again for having us here.

GoFundMe is a trusted leader in online fundraising and charitable giving and we enable fundraising for individuals and charitable organizations at scale with best-in-class trust and safety protections, including our industry-leading GoFundMe giving guarantee.

In response to the devastating Lahaina Wildfires in August of 2023, over $65 million was raised on GoFundMe from individuals around the world. Despite its good intentions, Acts 205, as enacted, poses significant risks to charitable fundraising in Hawaii.

If left unchanged, it would slow down donations, impose administrative burdens on charities and on platforms, and reduce support for Hawaii residents, especially in times of crisis. We share the goals of the Office of the Attorney General and the Legislature and appreciate elements of HB 992, including eliminating the 10-day waiting period and the bonding requirements.

However, based on GoFundMe's nearly 15 years of experience supporting online fundraising for individuals and nonprofit organizations, including the ongoing challenges associated with California's AB 488, we believe this Bill does not go far enough to eliminate the obstacles that could unintentionally restrict charitable giving.

We note that an additional Bill, HB 1254, has been filed, which includes the proposed remedies, including creating departmental discretion in implementation and later effective date of July 1st, 2026. Additional concerns that are not addressed in HB 992 include reporting requirements, donor data retention, and onerous written consent and vicarious liability.

To address these, we support the proposed approaches within HB 1254. We're grateful to the Attorney General's Office for allowing us the opportunity to convey our concerns directly with them and we look forward to continued collaboration. We appreciate the Committee's thoughtful approach to ensure Hawaii's charitable sector remains strong, transparent, and effective.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 992? If not, questions, Members? I do have a question. Or you want to ask a question? You go first.

Sure. Thank you, Chair. I guess maybe this question is for Chair. Are we going to hear HB 1254?

It's not on the agenda today.

Okay. Sorry.

Question for the Attorney General. I would like your reaction to the suggested amendments from GoFundMe.

We've had meetings with GoFundMe and have discussed, at length, about their proposal. We did have some concerns about GoFundMe's proposal and would prefer that HB 992 be passed as is, without any amendments.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 228, relating to license plates. This measure authorizes the counties to adopt rules for the use of electronic license plates and for intentional obscuring a license plate with a cover or shield.

It prohibits the use of license plate flipping devices and establishes minimum and maximum fines. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Transportation on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Larry Dill, for in support of this measure. These devices would possibly potentially serve to frustrate our efforts to move forward with our safety initiatives whereby we would capture, via automated enforcement, license plate information to address violators of red lights and speeding.

So this would be a deterrent to our efforts to improve the safety of our system. And so we are in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we received written testimony with comments from city and county, Honolulu Department of Customer Services, and from three individuals. Two in opposition, one in support. Is there anyone here wishing to testify on House Bill 228 or on Zoom Seeing non questions Members? Anyway, if not, we'll move on. Thanks very much to the testifiers.

Next measure, House Bill 1358 relating to the Public Land Trust Working Group. This measure appropriates monies to the Office of Hawaiian affairs to facilitate the hiring of necessary staff and the purchase of equipment and professional services. On behalf of the Public Land Trust Working Group. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Welcome.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Representatives. Mahalo for the opportunity to come before you. My name is Stacy Ferrero, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and we stand strongly on our submitted testimony. If I may just provide a few comments on our strong support.

I just want to bring a notice to this body that the public land trust inventory that we have currently is based off of 1.8 million acres of land, and that inventory was done back in 1981, and it was incomplete at its inception. There continue to be ongoing gaps in our state land records.

Federal and county lands are not included in the current inventory. Neither are submerged lands and parcels without tmks. So we're not truly getting the full extent of what the public land trust revenues should be. Payments to OHA have continued to fall short. In 2016, OHA commissioned audit to be done on the inventory.

And at that time in 2016, it was found that the gross receipts for public land Trust revenues was 394 million, implying that OHA should have received in 2016, at least $78.9 million. And so if we fast forward to 2022, there was an increase of our payment, which was set back in 2006 at 15.1 million.

It was increased to 21.5 million. So still very much short of that audit that was done back in 2016, stating that it should have been at least 78.9 million.

Now, if we look forward nine years from when that first audit was done, nine years is a long time for review to be done, and we are asking for that review to be done in this Bill.

If we were to use that $78.9 million that was called out in that audit and we adjusted it for inflation, at minimum, 2.5% annually in 2025, OHA should be getting an annual payment of $98.2 million.

Excuse me, Ms. Ferreira, you're running out of time. If you could really focus your comments on the Bill, we realize you could do a lot if you got more funding. Correct? We haven't been providing.

And so I guess the impetus of me sharing the disparity of why we need this audit is because it has been incomplete. It has not. An audit has not been done by this body, by the Legislature.

And for us ever to be able to see the full 20% that is required by law, we need this inventory to be done. Mahalo.

Yeah, thank you. I didn't mean to cut you off. I just wanted to help the Committee understand why this particular bill was important to us. Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good afternoon, Chair Members of the Committee, Ian Hirokawa with DLNR. We'll just stand on our written testimony in support of the major and also offering comments and be available for any questions.

Thank you, Ian. Remember, we gotta give us the highlights.

Oh, I mean, I think we just, again, we just, you know, support the work of the Public Land Trust Working Group. And, you know, again, we just want to stress, though, that with regards to the PLTIs and that.

I'm sorry, the Public Land Trust Information System, which is the computerized database, you know, that was created, you know, we rely on data and information provided by the. What we'll call the agencies that manage those specific lands.

So we would just say if there are discrepancies or errors that come up, that I think we say that, you know, zero, we want them to work with those agencies to correct any discrepancies. We're just collecting the data and putting it into the system.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Hirokawa. Thank you. Next we have testimony we received from numerous individuals. The total count is we've got 44 testimonies in support and two in opposition. And the next person that said they want to testify is Kimmere Horson. Not present. Next we have.

The next person said they want to testify is Jermaine Myers on Zoom. Not present. Next person, Cavallo White. Mr. Guerin or Ms. Guerin. Not present. Next, Sherry Broderick.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. I was appointed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as a member of the Public Land Trust Working Group. And I have throughout my professional career helped and worked for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

I was actually the attorney at the 1978 ConCon to draft the provisions in Article 12 that created OHA. I have been involved many times over the years in efforts to make an accurate and complete inventory, the efforts to have accurate and complete reporting Act 178. This is a very good working group that has been created, and I'm optimistic that we may be able to actually come to a conclusion. We did do a long report. In my testimony, I gave you the link to the report that was filed in the Legislature. So we did a joint report, the OHA reps and the state members.

We drafted an OHA supplement because I wanted to collect all the information from over the years about what the issues are and what the problems are and everything from OHA's point of view so that we'd be in one place. But out of respect to the state members, I thought that OHA could do its own at this stage. I think it's really critical that we get the funding to be able to do this kind of an analysis.

As the DLNR rep pointed out today, the DLNR relies on the agencies for reporting both on the lands and whether or not they're in the public land trust and on the revenues that the agencies are giving. DLNR doesn't have the resources to be able to check the information. The state agencies don't necessarily have the expertise on staff to do abstracting like DLNR does. They have the ability to abstract property. So I think that what we need is a third party independent. So nobody says, oh, it's OHA or it's state.

And I think it's really important not just for Native Hawaiian people to have complete and accurate inventory and complete and accurate revenue reporting, but it's also important for the general public. I mean, we should have a complete and accurate inventory. So that is not to say anything about the current Public Land Trust information system. But if you do go to the website, you will see a long list of caveats of issues that are issues relating to the inventory that we do have. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Broder. Thanks for your good work.

Oh, thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on HB 1358? If not questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much. And the testimony from Ms. Broder is very informative. I would urge Members to read that and check on the references that are in the testimony and additional resources.

I appreciate the work you put into that. And thank you to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for your work to facilitate the working group and move that forward. It's very important work. And to DLNR for doing your best effort to try to make sure that information is accurate.

We have a long way to go and we've got to. We have to deal with this issue. Very important. Okay, let's move on. House Bill 1007 relating to the Hawai'I Community Development Authority. This authorizes the Hawai'I Community Development Authority to cooperate with or assist public and private sector entities to engage in projects that improve the state.

The measure establishes the Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Improvement Program under the Hawai'I Community Development Authority. Repeals the Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Improvement District and Board. First up we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Mary Ellis, please come on up to the rostrum since everybody wants to see you in TV land.

And if you could summarize your testimony.

I will summarize. Thank you very much.

After you introduce yourself to everyone so they know who you're a famous person, but not everyone knows you.

I am Mary Alice Evans, the Director of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development attached for administrative purposes to the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. We stand on our testimony in strong support of this measure.

I am the co chair of the Tod Council which was created by this Legislature to D means means Transit Oriented Development Council. And we see this measure as making transit Oriented Development much more attainable. And we strongly urge you to support it.

And if you could, really briefly, for those who don't know Transit Oriented Development, just briefly. You're a good planner and you know that you can explain it really briefly.

In lay terms, Transit Oriented Development is locating mixed use mixed income communities with slightly higher densities around rail stations, transit hubs and bus corridors both on Oahu and the neighbor islands to allow people housing with other community services and transit choices that will help avoid locating sprawling subdivisions in our best ag land.

Although I do support housing in marginal ag land.

I just wanted you to explain what Tod Transit Oriented Development means. This is a good educational opportunity for our Members and the public. So I wanted to avail myself of your expertise.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Evans. Next we have testimony support from the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. Next we have testimony with comments from the Department of Land and natural resources.

Mr, Hirokawa.

Good afternoon, Chair. Members of the Committee, Ian Hirokawa with DLNR. We're offering comments. What we're asking is just a minor amendment to page 21, lines 8 and 9, just to delete the phrase including property already devoted to a public use that's in the condemnation statute.

We're just concerned that that phrase could, if read broadly, could imply that the HCDA would be able to condemn other government lands, so lands under DLNR or set aside to another agency. So we just would request that phrase be deleted.

Thank you. And when you refer to HCDA, that's the Hawaii Community Development Authority.

Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Hirokawa. And now we get to hear from the Hawaii Community Development Authority.

Thank you very much. I'm not as famous as my colleague Mary Alice Evans, so I will introduce myself. I am Craig Nakamoto. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Community Development Authority, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. This is our Administration Bill, and this bill is very important to us.

So I'm going to take a little bit of time to kind of explain why we're doing this, and I'm going to be open to questions. So the bill is really in two parts. The first part is to allow the Hawaii Community Development Authority to assist other state and county and private sector entities with projects.

And these would be projects that go beyond our community development districts. The Hawaii Community Development Authority has been in existence, especially in Kakaako, for almost 50 years, since 1976. And through that time, the staff and others have amassed a lot of expertise and experience in developing infrastructure.

Our board has authorized us to go out and use that expertise to help other state agencies assist other state agencies. We've done so helping the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations with their kitchen build at the Women's Correctional Facility. We worked with DLNR, Mr. Hirokawa and. Mr. Tsuji, the Department of Land and.

Natural Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources, on a feasibility and market study for Waiakea Peninsula, also known as Banyan Drive. So the changes to our Findings and Purposes section, it really kind of reflects the evolution of the responsibilities and roles of the agency to current.

And by just making those changes, we'll be able to help other state public sector agencies and the private sector. And I think it adds to government efficiency as well by us being able to use our expertise for that purpose.

Great. Thank you very much, sir.

Okay, second part. Sorry, second part. And I'm open for questions on this, as Ms. Evans stated. So we have a transit Oriented Development Improvement District in our statute. This was created in the 2022 Legislature to direct us to build transit Oriented Development infrastructure in Tod areas. It came with four county boards.

This is in addition to the five boards that we currently have. So we would have a total of nine boards. So the two reasons why we're asking to remove these boards is one, because of the existence of OPSD that does the planning, the existence of the transit Oriented Development intra agency Council that prioritizes TOD projects.

There's a lot of community engagement and a lot of community representation on the TOD Intra Agency council as it is. So we don't see the need to have four county boards as well. It seems redundant.

I think the second reason is as I mentioned, these four county boards would really add to our five boards that we have now. And I think removing them would simplify, administratively simplify the burdens attached to that program by making a program and, and it would report up to the General Authority board, which is 17 Members.

The other change we made, and I'm open for questions on this is with respect to the assessments against real property. So this was kind of a relic of what we have existing. And we took it, I think in 2022 to insert it into this bill.

What the changes we've made, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of Committee is to change it to a user service fee to kind of take this away from a kind of a lien on real property.

These cost sharing take it away from a, you know, Lien on real property and take it away from like an assessment so, so as to not make it like a. Like a tax on real property which we don't have the authority to do. So we've changed it to a user service fee. But the purpose is the same.

Sometimes when we have improvement district projects that let's say it's to build a, improve a sewer on a specific street. These are off site infrastructure improvements. And we would seek in some cases to proportionally sort of charge establish fees for benefiting landowners along that street.

And we would follow the same sort of procedure we do with any kind of improvement project. We identify the project, we estimate the cost, we see what landowners were benefited and not benefited. And then we would establish these user fees.

Typically we've done those through rulemaking when we did it for Kakaako and we could do it a similar way for, for this. But again we just tried to move this away from that lean on real property and, and avoiding look, making this look like a sort of a tax on real property.

And then the other part of the bill just clarifies our condemnation, that we have condemnation powers for this part of it, which are important, but of course, in my mind, needs to be exercised very judiciously at all times and as a last resort. So I, I'm open for questions.

Please stick around. That'd be great. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nakamoto.

Thank you.

We received written testimony from the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support and two individuals, one in support, one in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 1007? If not. Questions, Members? I do have a. zero, yes, please go ahead, Represent Belatti.

I have numerous questions, I think, for Mr. Nakamoto, but I'll try to refrain.

Go ahead, go ahead.

But this is complicated and this kind of rushed through Waterland, which I was sitting on, but we just didn't have enough time to dig into it. I guess the first thing is for the condemnation around Transit Oriented Development areas, are there specific projects already in mind that are prompting this clarification of the law?

Senate Representative Belatti the answer is no. The answer is no. Because we had to come in to make some changes to the boards and get, you know, we move the boards to a program kind of structure.

We just thought it might be good to just clarify that we have this condemnation powers under this section of our statutory framework, but we do not have any right now projects where we're contemplating condemnation.

Okay. For the areas that are TOD, I mean, I'm thinking of places like where rail is coming through town. And can you conceive of any places that you might, that there might be a request from a private entity where you're in a public partnership or something and that you'd ask for that authority?

For condemnation?

For condemnation?

Well, I can think.

Let me back up.

Oh, sorry.

It. This, These TOD zones are contemplated for the rail line, correct?

They are. They are.

then how far. What is the range around the.

I think it's a half mile radius, generally.

Okay. So as rail is coming through, I'm thinking especially in urban Honolulu, do the areas of Kakaakumakai fall into that TOD arena? So that this could have impact on bills. Moving on regarding Kaka Akumakai currently.

Yeah. So the closest station to Makai around that half mile radius is the station that's at Hale Kauila. So the, you know, Kakaako station. So when you count half mile, it just barely touches on Makai.

And then there's a rail station also nearby Aloha Tower.

Correct. But that.

And then there's also going to be an area going through the evil A area. Correct. So we're talking about large tracks of very potentially important lands for development. And I, I know that you're saying you're just coming in and maybe clarifying things, but this is actually quite a broad expansion of your powers. So.

So around very important lands.

So, Representative Belatti, let me again just clarify. When this section of our statute was first examined in the 2022 legislative session, there were questions about what our powers were gonna be. Because I think the same questions that you're raising now were brought up in 2022.

And this section of our statute directs us to do infrastructure kind of work. It is not intended to be vertical construction. It's not intended to be vertical construction. But the same thoughts that you have and the same concerns you have came up the where we might use condemnation.

Representative Belatti, just again, for an example, is if someone asked if we had to do a roadway, you know, reconstruct a roadway or do a roadway improvement, and the right of way needed to be a little bit wider to meet current county standards, there is a possibility that we may need to condemn certain parts to achieve that roadway with.

But again, this is really for infrastructure development, not for vertical. But it was the same concerns that were brought up in 2022. So I think we address it in the statute that this is for infrastructure only.

Please go ahead. Your questions are very informative. So please, please help us out. Go ahead.

I think we might want to relook at that, because I don't know if it's as limited as you say it is as it may be fleshed out. But again, this is only my second look at this.

Well, Representative Belatti, I'm willing to entertain amendments to further amendments to 206 and this part to say that the work we're going to do under here is for infrastructure only. If that gives you assurances. I think it's stated elsewhere.

But I am happy to provide some language to the chair, Vice Chair, and either point out that it's there or provide that assurances. Because like I said, Representative, this bill is important to me and the agency, and I want to see this go through this time.

Thank you. Mr. Nakamura, maybe one more question. Certainly. And this is sort of connected and it's. Again, this is. We're looking at this in pieces, right? So when you have. You talk about the section that has assessments against properties and you're shifting it from property liens to user service fees. Can you explain what that is?

Because as I look at those areas that you're talking about, there have been beneficiaries of those infrastructure developments or there may be beneficiaries who's the user that's being charged or contemplated in this, where this language is being changed.

So I'm going to, so it's a good question. I'm going to try to explain it in the context of again, a sewer line that goes down main street of a place and it's an upgrade to maybe a bigger sewer line and there's maybe 20 potentially benefiting, you know, landowners, right, that would benefit from that off site development.

So we would probably do rulemaking and public hearings to, you know, say that we're going to assess or, you know, charge a service fee and then we would charge it or establish it against benefiting landowners. So as an example, if one of and they have to be benefiting.

So if one of the land owners didn't need or didn't benefit from that particular project that we did, there wouldn't be a benefiting landowner and therefore we wouldn't proportionally charge them a service fee.

One other example is maybe there's an established building on one of the parcels and they don't benefit by the sewer upgrade, then we might not consider them a benefiting landowner.

On the other hand, a fully developed parcel with a building on it, if we did street, sidewalk, gutter, curb and maybe drainage improvements, that same, you know, condo, fully developed condominium might benefit from that. So we may deem that a benefiting landowner and charge a fee.

And I think the question you're going to ask next is right, is who's ultimately going to pay for that? So off sites, off site, off site infrastructure. In the case of a parcel that's not yet developed yet, not that developed, shouldn't say not that developed yet, but not developed, the developer could take that cost.

Let's say the cost to that developer is $100,000. The developer could take that cost and could include it in the development cost and then it would sort of be part of the total development cost for that project. Or the developer could, I think, apportion that cost out to individual unit owners.

I think either way, Representative Belatti, these off site infrastructure improvements that help a parcel or benefit a parcel, I think in some way, and I think it's unavoidable, it's going to end up impacting something with that project because if that 100,000 goes into the development cost, I think it'll affect the per unit cost of those units.

So it'll affect the buyer if it doesn't get passed on that way. And it goes to be passed on as part of the HOA fees as an example, it's still going to go to the cost of home ownership and it goes along with HOA other HOA fees, maintenance fees, property insurance, mortgage, all those things.

So I just want to tell you that I have no other way to explain this and I want to tell you that that is how it might go.

I think that's actually a really good explanation because we did not get that explanation in the Waterland Committee. And I guess the question is, you have building A that comes in in year one and you have building two that comes in in year three. How do you apportion the cost in a fair manner?

And frankly, what I'm really concerned about are the luxury developments that are probably going to go up in this valuable real estate. And we're going to be paying the cost versus those individuals who, if it ends up looking like a lot of Okakaako, looks like frankly they should be paying for the infrastructure.

Well, and how do we ensure that? Okay, so the first step is we identify a project, you know, sewer, and then we identify benefiting landowners and then we would apportion that cost, the cost of it, a portion of the cost, not the whole thing, but a portion of the cost.

And we would base it based on frontage area, frontage area or, or parcel size, the denominator being all of the square feet of the parcels on that street. And then the numerator would be benefiting parcels. So that's how we would do it. And it would be something that the landowner would have to pay.

So whether a parcel came up for development, parcel A at year one, year two or year three, it would still be a service charge or a user fee on that parcel. And I think this is a. We've done some of these ID projects in Kakaako, what we call improvement district projects, where there has been an assessment.

And to your point, Representative, this way of cost sharing kind of passes on some of the cost of off site infrastructure to projects that benefit along the street, whether they be luxury projects, as you say. But it also could be affordable home projects. Affordable projects, to be honest, it would be whether they benefit.

Thank you. This is a really complex and I'm surprised that more people are not weighing in given the areas that you are going to be touching. But thank you, Chair, for indulging in my question.

Yeah, but Representative, you Know, if you want, I'll go back and with the Chair's indulgence, I'll look back and I'll look for language in the statute and if it's not clear already, we'll, you know, we can clarify that. It's really infrastructure only, just to give you assurances. But I want to see this bill passed. So.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Certainly. Any other questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Question. Thank you, Chair. Question. So the fee is not a one time fee, it's a annual fee. Is that what I heard?

So it is a one time fee that's going to cover their proportionate cost of the improvements. And it could be paid over time. It could be paid over time.

So, related to Representative Baladi's question, if the owner changes and they upgrade the use, how does that fee get adjusted accordingly?

It doesn't necessarily get upgraded or changed. Because I think once we set that user fee, that user fee is attributable to the land and that is the fee that's going to get paid. It doesn't get up increase just because the use gets increases because it's for the proportionate cost of a part of the infrastructure improvement.

Yeah, I guess maybe the thought is maybe it should be adjusted because the benefit is profiting a user that taxpayers invested in, so it should increase accordingly, maybe.

I think I would counsel against that, Representative Shibizu, because I think what we're saying is there's a cost, let's say 1 million of putting in this sewer and at that point in time that is the cost and proportionally it's going to be divvied up among the benefiting landowners.

If we were to try to increase that cost over time, I think we'd have to go out and you know, have people buy in again to it, or they'd have to be, we'd have to go out with some kind of, you know, public hearings and, and, and, and get that approved. I follow you, Chair.

Can I get one more question? Yes. So the current Transit Orient Oriented Development Infrastructure Improvement District Board is currently under the hcda, is that correct? It is.

So just because I'm simple minded, I'm just wondering, when you replace that and you establish this new Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Program, is that like a total staff change and everything or is it just implementing a broader scope as was discussed?

So Representative Shimizu, it's not a, it's a good question. Because the structure that within HCDA is often not easy to understand. So it does not change the staffing or anything. It doesn't affect that.

What we're asking for really is a structural change in the board so that we really replace the four county boards which haven't been really constituted and, and replace it with the existing 17 Member at large board. They're gonna have governance over this program.

Okay, thanks. Thanks for explaining that. That makes it clearer. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Other questions? Members, just a brief question for you. Yep. On your testimony, third paragraph, first page, the very end of it, it says, given the evolution of the HCDA's responsibilities, this section should be revised to reflect the current responsibilities and roles of the hcd, the cda.

Does that mean that you want to make additional revisions than what are in the Bill? Sorry, no. Or that this Bill makes the revisions that you want to make?

This Bill makes the revisions we're going to make. Just want to in the findings and purposes.