House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Tuesday, February 11th20252:00pm here in Conference Room 325. Welcome, everybody. Thank you so much for being here. Through your testimony, you help us do a better job as legislators. I really appreciate you taking the time to be here.

And for those who are watching us online and providing testimony online, thanks to you as well. For those who are providing testimony, I'd like to ask if you could keep your testimony to two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point.

If you're testifying via Zoom, please mute yourself and keep your video off until you're testifying and then turn it off again after you're finished. Use the Zoom chat function to communicate with our technical staff only to work out any issues you have. Don't try to send me any messages because I won't get them.

So I'm not being rude, I just don't get them. If you're disconnected, don't panic. Try to reconnect, and I'll try to fit you in as soon as you come back in. If the power goes off here in the building and we have to reschedule, we'll post appropriate notice so everyone will know when we're meeting for further consideration.

If you're testifying on Zoom, please do not use any trademarked or copyrighted images. It kicks us off of YouTube, and that's a problem. Please as well conduct yourself with aloha and please refrain from profanity or any uncivil behavior. As I say, always it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.

We can actually do good work together with our different ideas and opinions. Okay, let's go ahead and get started. First up, we have House Bill 606 relating to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

This measure extends the Act 279 Special Fund to June 302028 deposits the funds into and appropriates funds out of the Act 279 Special Fund to eliminate its wait list, and requires the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to submit a strategic plan detailing the anticipated uses of the funds appropriated, and we want an annual report.

First up, we have the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Good evening, Mr. Watson.

Collie Watson for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Good afternoon. Noon. Chairman Tarnas and Vice Chair Poipoi, as well as Members of the Committee. We are very strongly in support of this particular Bill. We basically just about used up the 600 million. We need $6 billion because we have over 29,000 on our wait list.

So obviously the second 600 million. We've kind of laid it out as going to the second phase of the 28 projects we have. So we ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And thank you for your good work with your team. You're making great progress. Appreciate it. Next person who said they wanted to testify is Philip Shane Pale, Kupaa Lahui Alliance.

Aloha. Aloha. This is my testimony. I'm not going to read it. I just want to make one important point. Aloha Mahino and Chair Tarnas. I just wanted to say that this Bill is really important, I think, to the Native Hawaiian community. I've been involved in activities, activism for Hawaiians on the street and all over.

I think that one of the biggest issues that we've been looking at, at least for the last 20 years, as far as I can remember, has been the diaspora. Hawaiians leaving Hawaii at such an alarming rate. I think the Hawaiians are leaving Hawaii more than any other ethnic group from Hawaii. I think that is just so problematic.

And this is one way to actually really address this particular issue. So many Hawaiians that we know personally in my family had just really forced to leave. Right. They can't afford to live in Hawaii. So I just wanted to really impress on that.

That particular issue, which is the diaspora, again, you feel very helpless when you think about these issues, especially that one. I think this Bill really provides a lot of hope for us who are in the community, have been active for many years.

And I think this really would address the overall issue of Hawaiians actually leaving Hawaii, which I think is not a good thing. And I think it's something for you guys to consider. But mahalo Nui for your time.

Mahalo, Mr. Pali. I appreciate your advocacy. Next person that said they wish to testify is Kimmere Horson. Not present on Zoom. Not present on Zoom either. In support. That's all that said they would. Sorry. That's all that said they wish to testify. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 606 online? Anybody? Nope. Okay.

If not questions, Members? Not a question. Just something that let people know this measure is an important one. There are other measures that we'll be hearing as well that will keep this idea moving forward to try to figure out how we're going to come up with another $600 million.

It was great to be able to do it once when we had a lot of cash available. That's not the current situation. This is a priority for this Committee. So we're going to try to keep working on it, so stay tuned. Okay, let's move on to the second Bill, House Bill 1086 relating to housing.

This measure exempts any development of homestead lots or housing for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands from General excise and use taxes. First up, we have the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

I will stand on our testimony.

Zero, come on. Director Watson, we need you to stand so that everyone on TV can see you and tell us why this is such a good idea.

Okay. Well, obviously we can get the waiver of the GET have a really good impact on the net cost of the housing on the back end.

So we obviously, whatever little bit we can take off of the actual eventual cost of the House would really be helpful, especially when you look at the people we're trying to service, which are those that are fairly Low income. So definitely this helps.

Thank you. And your testimony that everyone I encourage to look at it also reminds us about the Governor's emergency proclamation. You want to tell us a little about that?

Yeah. We were able to take advantage of the Governor's emergency proclamation, which gave us a waiver on not only the GET, but the school impact fee. And we've kind of laid out, you know, how it is actually from a dollar amount perspective, especially with the GET as well as school impact fees.

I'll just add on the school impact fees. You know, I think it's actually appropriate we don't get charged because we'll deal.

With that Bill later.

Let's just talk about GE tax. So I just wanted to make sure that Members and the public know that your testimony has a lot of good information. And I wanted to make sure they understood about the emergency proclamation already exempting you. It's already done from GE Tax.

Okay.

And then you have provided us with an estimate of the GET savings if this is granted going forward. Appreciate it. Thank you for your summary of your testimony. Next, we have the Department of Taxation.

Those who haven't been in my Committee hearing before, I always ask people to come up to the podium so everyone on TV can see you and that you provide us the highlights of your testimony, not just stand on your.

Oh okay. Sorry. My name is Eliza. I'm here from the Department of Taxation and the Department of Taxation can administer this Bill. We currently, because of the emergency proclamation, we currently do administer it. So we'll just make it formal. Thank you.

And if I may, for those who haven't yet read your testimony and should you specifically asked for a proposed effective date of 1-1-2026.

Yes, thank you.

Just want to make sure everyone understood that.

Yeah, great.

Thanks. Thank you very much. And next we have Tom Yamachika Tax foundation of Hawaii on zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Yamachika.

Okay, thank you. Chair Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika.

Tom, could you speak up, please?

This better?

Yes.

Okay, great. Tom Yamachika Tax foundation of Hawaii. I've submitted comments, mostly technical, but wanted the Committee to consider that Department of Hawaiian Homelands beneficiaries are already getting a bunch of benefits. And you can kind of weigh those in deciding how much additional benefits to grant. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. That's all that we've been told that would like to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1086? If not questions, Members seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you very much. Next Bill, House Bill 1307 relating to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

This measure appropriates funds to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands for water well development, for geophysical investigation, exploration and identification of geothermal resources on Hawaiian homelands on this measure. First up, Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Holly Watson again for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Good afternoon. This particular Bill is kind of a follow up on the original funding that was provided when we did an initial study. We used the 500,000.

This we're asking for about 20 million to do some slim holes as well as examine other sites as well as examine the water well development, as well as maybe picking up some consultants to assist us in the process. Obviously this is very important. We do have a several viable sources of geothermal development on the Big Island.

So if we can kind of focus it down to one site, we move forward on that. So this will help.

Okay, thanks very much. Next, we have Chamber of Sustainable Commerce testifying on Zoom. Anasazian. Nope, not present in opposition. Next, Navahine Kauopi on Zoom. Not present in opposition. Next. Richard Ha.

I'm President. I'm present. Nawahini Kahopi.

Ah, yes, Ms. Nahoopi. Ms. Kaha'o. P'I. Please proceed.

Yes, Nawahine Kahopi'I'm. A kupuna residing on Hawaiian homelands and I oppose HB 1307. So far there have been no Hawaiian Homelands beneficiary consultations, which is a condition of the Department of the Interior. There's also a conflict of interest with Mr. Michael Kalakini, who is the Hawaiian Homes East Hawaii Commissioner and is also the Director of Puna Geothermal.

This environmental, this project for me reeks of environmental racism. So so far in Hawaiian homelands we have airports, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, ports and petroleum storage tanks, asphalt plants, spills, leaks, illnesses, asthma, cancer clusters, cell towers, wind farms, solar farms, military bases that test illegal substances like white phosphorus and depleted uranium that leave our lands uninhabitable.

And now we have another toxic poisonous project that's to be located in a residential area of Hawaiian homelands, namely one of the places sites is in Kauaihai.

Kailapa Puna residents have already been crying out for decades for help when subjected to blowouts of hydrogen sulfide, killing animals and surrounding vegetation and at sometimes forcing the residents to evacuate when a 2,200 pound hydrogen sulfate poisoned their community. This sulfate is highly toxic, causing headaches, loss of breath, nausea, vomiting and in extreme cases death.

It's also extremely flammable. There are 600 residents in Kalapa Hawaiian homelands and you are proposing to put this project in the middle of their community, threatening their safety, health and well being.

My suggestion is not to waste 20 million taxpayer dollars when this project is not wanted by the beneficiaries, by Kailapa residents who don't want it, and also the surrounding community. Some of them are multimillion dollar gated communities who also are opposed to this project.

Thank you, thank you very much. Next we have Richard Ha on Zoom not present in opposition. Next person named Kim On Zoom. Please proceed. Kim.

Vice Chair. My name is Kim Koch and I oppose this. Many of you know me by my other projects which require me to learn process, community consultation and procedural guidelines. These projects also caused my family to move to Kau. Kau is almost off grid in a sense.

Many do not have water or power, no public Internet or wi fi and it is still a very subsistence way of life. The thus proper procedural outreach needs extra attention. I can tell you this proposal has not been discussed with the community, much less the beneficiaries.

In fact, what has been discussed is DHHL threatening to gate off the only Ocean access for 20 miles each way. These meetings are routinely canceled, rescheduled randomly and occasionally you'll get a post on social media. This is not proper outreach, notification or consultation, especially for a rural community most without Internet.

DHHL completed the sketchy EA on the South Point complex in 28 with no mention of geothermal explanation. In fact, they claim that a fondi by speaking to 15 people. No cultural impact assessment or anything was completed. It was a total sham.

I would oppose giving any money much less $20 million for this project until they complete a full EIS. And encourage them to stop threatening the beneficiaries and local communities with cutting off all access via gates. If you must pass something, have them complete an EIS before. Before funding any projects.

We didn't want the windmills, we don't want geothermal, and we really don't want gates blocking off our only access to the sea. What we do want is transparency and proper community discussion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Isaiah Kanoel Smith on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi. I reside in Kau as well and I'm providing this statement in connection with the proposed construction of a geothermal plant at South Point. I have significant concerns regarding the environmental, social and economic impact this project will have on the area and its residents.

The beach and surrounding ecosystems are home to diverse marine life which may be threatened by industrial activity, potential pollution and habitat disruption. The local community, which relies on the beach for fishing or recreational use could suffer economic consequences if the area becomes less accessible or attractive due to industrial development.

Alternative sites farther from sensitive coastal environments should be explored to minimize ecological and community disruption. I have personally observed the natural State of the beach and surrounding areas which would be permanently altered by the plant's construction. Residents, including myself, has raised concerns reflecting the widespread opposition to the project.

And I wouldn't suggest giving any money to any development where the water coming from. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Nana Honua Manuel on Zoom. Not present in opposition. Next, Hazel Kua Hivinui on Zoom. Not present in opposition. Next, Fernanda Kuahibinui on Zoom. Please proceed.

Could you unmute yourself please? Fernanda Kuahibi Nui. We're going to go on but if you come back on it will tell me and I'll come back to you. Okay, Next. Kimmere Horson in person or on Zoom. No H O R S E N. Kimmerer Horson in opposition, not present and Terry Napeahe on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha.

This is Terry Napeh. Terry Napeh from Hawaii Island I'm representing. I've disclose that I'm off right now from work. I work for the Planning Department. I also wanted to represent two organizations and that would be Pele Defense Fund. I'm a Member of the Pele Defense Fund organization with President Polykapuddin.

Aloha.

I wanted to just kind of give you a real quick insight of the monies being appropriated for 20 million for the exploration history of geothermal. It began in the early 80s with Don Thomas a sub thermal map of testing. That would be a popular place to have geothermal explorations and a plant.

The the best I think thermal area for a hotspot would be in Puna on the Rift. And their initiative in the 80s was to put 20 plants producing 25 megawatts for 500 megawatts in a cable pushed over to the sea to Oahu. That was pushed by the state.

It was an initiative for the state who wanted to own be the first state or I guess Department that would be owning a utilities company. At that time there were three plants that was being pushed all at the same time.

Campbell Estates Pele Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against Campbell Estates and thus you know have what we call a lawsuit that set precedents. Petty defense plan versus Patty. I would take deep research on this particular lawsuit because this is, you know it set precedents for gathering rights of our people. Also religious practices and rights.

This initiative ended because of the opposition on Hawaii island and just wanted to let Hawaiian Homes know that it is still here. The best place for this geothermal projects would be on Hawaii Island. Rift. Well, there's one plant left.

Hphgv Mike Michael Kalikny works for and our district representative for Hilo which I think is a conflict of interest. However, I just wanted to really quick let everyone know that there were 142 residents in Puna that got arrested for the. For the ill treatment that they had with the geothermal plants that were being put in Puna.

For those of you who live off. Of Ms. Mapiahi, could you summarize please? Geothermal initiative. Sure. The only geothermal initiatives that has ever happened was on Moku Okey K. And it is not going to happen. So that money, you're going to lose it.

Mahalo. I appreciate your testimony. Next testifier, Grace Bazilla on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha. I'm Grace Bazilla from Kilkaha, Hilo, Hawaii. Moku. I oppose this Bill. 20 million for this is a waste of money. And it's not geophysical investigation. Geothermal is not the reason that we have land set aside for Hawaiian beneficiaries. There are so many other things that we could use the land for.

In my lifetime, the lifetime of my grandparents, my parents, there's been so much use and misuse of Hawaiian homelands on behalf of the state, the county, private organizations, and this is just another one. And it's not what Hawaiian homelands is made for. There are, what was it? Over 29,000 people without homes.

And that's what Hawaiian homelands should be used for. Not for drilling anything. Especially I find it crazy that people on Oahu island are making decisions on something that's not just our land. But I don't know if you guys have seen how active our volcano has been, how active Kilauea has been.

And not only is this a waste of 20 million, but 20 million is not even a drop in a bucket of what the state would need to pay out. If they try to do these things, these efforts would be made.

And I can only envision the need for emergency assistance for Hawaii island that would supersede 20 million because of what they're trying to do. And you know, a lot of interesting weather type, land type elemental things happen on Hawaii island.

And you guys can spend the money, but there's so many other things you could spend 20 million on. And this is for something that we in Hawaii island are not for. We will never be for. Please find another use for that 20 million. And please, DHHL, stop trying to do geothermal on our land. This is not okay.

Mahalo. Mahalo. And then the last person that said they wanted to testify on this measure is Cindy Freitas on Zoom. Please proceed.

I'm Cindy Freitas and I'm a native Hawaiian descendant of the native inhabitants prior to 1778. I'm also a cultural practitioner. Practitioner who, who was instilled with the practice from my grandparents from Mauka to Makai, the appropriation of the 20 million for geothermal exploration on Hawaiian home lands. Aole Hiki.

No, I mean opposition of that because there's no transparency with the Department with the beneficiary especially me. I did not see consultations. It will put an uproar against the legal compliances with Hawaiian Home act and the state and federal regulation. Fair distribution. We always get short change with the beneficiary. It only goes for Low income people.

But the rest has to buy it for market price. On our home lands. Aolehiki Environmental concerns A geothermal exploration on Hawaiian homelands. Groundwater depletion, contamination, thermal and chemical pollution effects on nearby ecosystem, especially our endemic Hawaiian species. Not only are you trying to kill us, you're going to kill the animals as well. Systematic activities and land sustainability.

It causes earthquake. We have enough earthquake with the volcano naturally. Why would you do man made earthquakes? This is the land of Pele. You don't want to mess with Pele. Land subsidy and sinkholes. That's what it causes. When they do exploration around the island, they cause sinkholes. That land is no good air quality concern.

Hydroxy sulfide H2S emission is a strong rotten egg odor. Highly concentrated with HS2 is toxic. It has respiratory issues, headaches, nausea. Carbon dioxide, CO2 and methane CH4 emissions. That's another killing us. Impact a native Hawaiian ecosystem and culture site. Disturbance of endemic wild plants and wildlife.

You're going to put a strain on them as well as our plants. Potential desecration of sacred lands. This is our ancestors you're going to dig up. Especially Madame Pele.

Mahalo. Could you wrap up please, Ms. Freitas?

Okay, I will. Radioactive elements and heavy metal that's going in this and on my testimony. I had put resources where you can find all this legal stuff on there. Thank you. Have a good day. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, HB 1307? If not. Questions? Members, you have a question? Representative, Go ahead.

No, no, no.

Thank you. Chair, I have a question for Director Watson, please. Could you comment on the possible water and geothermal resource goals?

You know what? I have the staff person that's kind of focusing on that and was assigned that task so I'll let him speak. Is Durazo Kaupu.

Hello. Good morning. Good afternoon. Sorry. Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Durazo Kaupu. I'm a Member on the staff Department of Hawaiian Homelands. I work in Chair Watson's office. A little bit of background. I.

I was Commissioner on the Hawaiian Homes Commission at a time when the Commission, as a Commission initiative wanted to look into investigating geothermal resources on Hawaiian Homelands. I was the chair of a permitted interaction group that was put together for that purpose. I have since resigned from the Commission to accept the position at the Department.

But I continue to serve on this Permitted Interaction Group as a staff Member to the group. This group has been primarily responsible for the investigation that the Department is doing into geothermal resources on Hawaiian homelands and the interplay between water and geothermal resource.

As it's been explained to our Committee, our Permitted Interaction Group, you need three things to develop geothermal. You need heat, you need water, and you need permeability of the surface. So you need the heat to heat up the water.

And you need the water to be able to flow upwards to eventually tap in and to draw that heat up into some process to generate electricity. Beyond that, the science, the geophysics and all of that is beyond my capacity. But we have researched and we have consultants that we've worked with to identify these different issues.

I can speak as to the comments from people about beneficiary consultation. If chair would like to hear the department's response to that.

Let's let represent Shamizu continue his question. Then others will have the opportunity to ask questions.

The specific question was like the end goal of this initial exploratory effort. You know, you want to do this to get someplace. Yeah. So where are we trying to get to?

So our Permitted Interaction Group has made recommendations to the full Commission. And our recommendation is that we continue to pursue the steps to determine the viability of geothermal development at sites on Hawaiian homelands. The process, you start with a physical inspection. This is the geophysical side of the equation.

And then you also are doing things like what's called magnetotaluric testing.

I just want to get to the end. Can you just. I don't mean to cut you off, but we have time limits. So can you just answer the question? As far as where we're headed to, what is the end goal?

To produce information that we can go to private industry and enter into some sort of arrangement for private industry to develop geothermal electricity development on Hawaiian homelands.

Well, okay, so it'll be contracting a third party to develop this, I'm assuming that end goal that would produce power from this geothermal resource. Correct. And will you need a EIS also?

Yes, we will.

So the additional monies beyond this exploratory would be a third party contract. And where would this money come from?

So what's been proposed is that the Department enter into a public private partnership that we provide the resource and the land, that industry provides, the know how and the finances, and then they would pick up the tab for the, you know, the big examination that was needed.

Thank you. I got it. Great. Appreciate it. Thank you. Chair.

Thank you. Other questions, Members?

Hi, Durazo. Hello. So I'm glad you're here because I just coming off of Rep. Shamiz's question, how much water does it require.

For.

Or I mean, I know that this is just for wells, but if you know, everything were to go according to plan and then you do enter into a partnership and it is developed into like an energy source, is there like a ballpark of how much water it requires to operate?

I don't know that offhand. I know that water is required to circulate heat to the surface and then it gets recharged back into the ground. But I don't know the flow rates and that kind of thing. That Michael Kaleikini, whose name has come up, he does work for a part producer, he would know that.

But I can get that for you.

Okay, that would be good. Thank you.

Other questions, Members? I have questions, if I may ask. So could you explain to the Committee and to the public at what point the Chapter 343 come into play in terms of the environmental analysis, the cultural impact analysis? Is it required to do the initial work like the slim hole drilling and the, you know, the various testing?

Do you have to do some Chapter 343 analysis for that to occur, or is it only later? Could you explain that?

So my understanding, and having consulted with our ags, it is a later process. It's when we have gone through the initial validation and we're looking to change or to use raw land to develop a different use of that raw land, then we need to go through the 343 process.

And I would urge you to look at the experience that I think on the slopes of Hualalai, there was a proposal to do some just non invasive analysis and they were taken to court and they were told you had to do a 343 analysis, probably an EA. Okay, so 343 might be triggered earlier than you think. Okay.

Could you please describe to me the beneficiary consultation that you've already done and plan to do on this initiative?

Thank you for the opportunity. We have started the process. It is early in the process, our policy and our requirements for beneficiary consultation.

When there is a definitive action or decision to be made by the Commission, then we take it to the beneficiaries and we take it to the beneficiary communities that are most directly affected by our decision.

It gives the beneficiaries an opportunity to Learn to observe and then to reflect back to their island Commissioner or to the Commission in whole prior to making that decision.

The process of going through validation of the resource, what we're talking about today, the funding, that's kind of the upfront work that the Department has to do to get in a position to present something to the Hawaiian Homes Commission.

But knowing that this subject is such a big concern for a lot of community Members, including our beneficiaries, we've started the process of getting the word out. This past year, 2024, we participated in four community listening sessions. These were conducted under the auspices of an organization called nrel, It 's National Research Energy Laboratory.

They were doing some federally funded research and they asked if we would be interested in serving on their community advisory board. I did serve on that board. And in the process we offered and we did host two of these four community listening sessions.

Our commissioners, two of whom on the Hawaii island serve on my permitted interaction group, participated in these community listening sessions along with myself. The process that we followed was to get word out again to those most directly affected communities. Notice was posted on the Hawaiian Homes website. It was physically posted at the district offices on Hawaii Island.

And we went the added step to try and notify beneficiary and groups that we knew would specifically be opposed to any kind of geothermal development. We heard the name Polykapu Dedman. He was a participant in our Waimea, Hawaii listening session and had very good points to share about his.

His religious belief and his opposition to any kind of geothermal. But then we also had a lot of people like today's testimony that were in favor of the renewable resource that we can tap. So we have heard those voices. We are continuing those efforts. Just earlier this morning, I was meeting with our planning office at the Department.

We're looking to do more concentrated sessions in the specific communities that we have announced that we'd like to expand into. To date, we've only been up on Mauna Kea on the East Flank and down in the Homu'ula area, kind of in the saddle between the two volcanoes.

We'd like to use the money that we're seeking here to expand our look into Kauaihai and Kau. We haven't done. We haven't done anything in those communities yet. But people have seen those in our reports. And I think that's why there's concern coming from those communities.

But we need an opportunity to go out and specifically address those communities on this basic what is geothermal? What does it take to tap the geothermal resource? What are the safety concerns that you hear about? What are their. You know, are they valid? Are they. Is the science?

Has it come to a point where we can control those kind of effects?

It sounds like the beneficiaries in the Kawaiha, the Kailapa area and Kau area feel like they haven't had any consultation yet. So this is premature for you to be seeking funding to go do work in their area. And so that is a concern to Members of the Committee. You know, these beneficiaries feel surprised.

And it sounds like the beneficiary consultation that you've currently done, that you've already done. Do you feel like you've been able to reach into those communities?

I couldn't tell you by participant name and so forth who showed up. I do know that the. The West Hawaii listening sessions were held in Kona and two separate ones in Waimea. That was mainly because that's where our facilities are. And we were hosting the session until relatively recently.

We weren't considering moving beyond Mauna Kea and Humaula into Kawaiha and Kau. We like to do that now. That's the direction that the Permitted Interaction Group is heading. But we need to now go through the process of that directed community beneficiary communication with those communities.

Okay. And then final point. You're asking for $20 million. That's a big ask. Yes. And I think it would be useful for the Finance Committee if this Committee. If our Committee decides to move this Bill on, it would go to Finance Committee. They'll be looking at those numbers very diligently.

And I think it would behoove Department of Hawaiian Homelands to be considering what would be a smaller ask that you could do in the time that you have over the next year or two. And so that what's achievable, and that would be coming in at a lower price point.

Okay.

I mean, to consider with Finance Committee consideration if this Bill moves forward.

Thank you.

Other questions, Members, if not second time around. Mr. Shimizu, I.

I just wanted to thank the testifier for your expert sharing and apologize if I was abrupt with you. I'm just trying to get to the point.

Yeah. No need to apologize. I understand.

Vice Chair.

Thanks. Just to follow up on the beneficiary consultation, it sounds like you've done community outreach through a partnership with nrel and those meetings, but those weren't technically like official beneficiary consultation meetings.

They weren't official in the sense that we didn't start the process, but they were in the same light or in the same manner of the kind of consultation we would have conducted. We worked off of our beneficiary list to get the notices out. We posted it in the appropriate places per our administrative rules for beneficiary consultation.

Were they labeled as beneficiary consultations so that people were aware that they were in a consultation, or was it more of like an informational listening session?

It was more informational listening session and it was primarily under the NREL header. So people could have got misunderstood that.

But we made a point to try and contact specific individuals that we knew would be interested in this and they were fully aware of the department's participation and that our ultimate goal was to advance the beneficiary knowledge on the. On the issue so that we could move to the next stage in the process. Yeah.

Thank you. I think something that my family has found really useful in beneficiary consultations is getting the postcards in the mail. Right. That tells you you're being consulted, right? Or. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions? If not. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1408 relating to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

This measure allows the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to utilize the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund as collateral when the Department acts as an eligible borrower for a loan agreement under Section 184a of the Housing and Community Development act of 1992, as amended. First up, we have the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Dean Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. We stand on our testimony and support. This bill will basically allow DTHL to receive more favorable financing terms when getting loans.

Thank you. Next Department, Hawaiian Homelands.

Good afternoon. Kali Watson of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. This particular ill kind of addresses the need of or financing that's going to be required for the vertical construction, the housing, the 184 portfolio loans that come from the private banks. They are a source that typically is difficult to get.

Most banks, they look at the Department and they're hesitant to make loan awards. So by collateralizing the DIRF Fund, that will provide a certain amount of protection. And I guess we really do need this funding because with all the different units or infrastructure and projects we're putting in, vertical construction finance is going to be an issue.

So this will help address that. Thank you.

Thank you. And just so everyone's aware, is this to appropriate $75 million in FY26 and $75 million in FY27 to the dwelling unit revolving fund to be able to use as collateral. Is that accurate?

I believe it was 70 and 70. Maybe I got it wrong, but something like that.

But it's incorporation of these funds into the dwelling unit revolving fund. As collateral.

As collateral.

So they would. The funds would stay in the fund, right?

That's correct.

Okay. That's what's being proposed. All right. Thank you. Any anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1408? If not questions? Members? Seeing none. Thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1088 relating to school impact fees. This measure exempts housing developed by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands from school impact fees.

First up, we have the Department of Education.

Aloha, Chair Tarnes, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. I'm Jeanine Urasaki, Public Works Administrator with the Office of Facilities and Operations, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony which provides comments on this measure.

The Hawaii the Hawaii School Impact Fee Law plays a vital role in the development of new school facilities in designated areas where the construction of new housing directly increases the student enrollment. Other than direct appropriations from the Legislature, school impact fees are the only other source of funding to support the development of new school facilities.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes 302A 1603 specifies that anyone who develops new residences in school impact fee districts must pay impact fees and in some and in some cases dedicate lands, including all government housing projects.

The practice of requiring developers of new residential units to dedicate land to mitigate impacts on student enrollment caused by new residential developments is consistent with state and county land use requirements for purposes of essential public facilities such as parks, fire and police stations.

Although the Department recognizes the importance and need of affordable workforce and housing for the use by Department of Hawaiian Homelands and their beneficiaries, the exemption proposed by this Bill would limit funding resources and the dedication of land intended to address the impacts on school facilities generated by new residential developments.

The Department would like to continue to engage with other departments and agencies to ensure that the Department is part of the solution in addressing the needs for essential public facilities for their intended communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Thank you. Kali Watson for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. We're in favor of this. Again, the back end. It will help reduce the cost of the houses to the our beneficiaries.

I'd also note in our testimony, we do identify the significant number of land parcels we've made available to the Department of Education to construct schools on our lands at no cost or very nominal rent. So it's not like we're ignoring the need for these types of facilities. We actually help facilitate it.

But it would be very helpful if we could reduce those charges, thereby reducing the cost of housing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we next person said they wanted to testify was Tom Yamachika, Tax foundation of Hawaii. On Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii.

To summarize what we have written in our testimony, our research into what school impact fees do is basically that if you develop on if you develop new houses and the houses are likely to have children in them, then obviously you'll need schools to educate those children.

The existing set of exemptions for school impact fees basically is designed to pick up developments or buildings which are not. Likely to produce children, like commercial areas. And those we can understand. The exemptions proposed in this bill would. Seem contrary to that because there would. Be developments with people in them and the people would presumably have kids.

So the need would be there, but the satisfaction of that need would be kind of shifted elsewhere. Now, in other research that we've done, we have seen that the pot of school impact fees basically has been untouched by the Department of Education for a very long time.

There are funds into which the school impact feeds collective have been deposited. Those funds have steadily increased in size. It hasn't been much, if anything, spent out of them. There also were funds from the previous edition of the school impact fee law called fair share contributions that existed 14 years ago.

A lot of that money still hasn't been touched. So we think perhaps a better use of this Committee's time would be to get rid of the school impact fee program entirely exempted for everybody. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Hawaii School Facilities Authority.

Good afternoon. Ricky Fujitani with the school facilitator. We support this exemption. We feel that it doesn't make sense for another state agency to take fees from another for schools.

Thank you. Thank you very much. That's all the testifiers we've gotten signed up for today. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1088? If not. Questions? Members, I have a question. Oh, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for DHHL, please. Has DHHL done any calculations on what your anticipated savings would be with this waiving of the impact fees?

Well, I don't have a. I'm sorry, I don't have that amount, but we can try and calculate it. But as I mentioned, we do make lands available. We actually have provided close to 20 different sites for school facilities throughout our lands. Obviously, that's a very important part of our communities is school facilities.

We work with Kamehameha schools, we work at Punana Leo, work with all kind of different groups to provide facilities for education.

And we're actually in the process of working with Kamehameha schools to provide additional sites for their preschools as well as their resource centers that they put on our lands, as well as a cultural learning center in Nanakuli.

So it's not something we ignore, we actually help facilitate, but we do like to have a kind of a cultural bend to it. And that's why Kamehameha schools and some of these Punana Leo, you know, that's kind of more in line with our cultural perspective.

Right, I saw that in your testimony. That was very helpful. So I guess a related question would be has there been any discussion to kind of negotiate quote your credit for all of this provisions that you are actually providing a provision to satisfy an impact fee, so to speak, because you're doing it in advance maybe?

Well, one of the ways we try to, rather than going for credit, we do work with the DOE in certain cases where on the infrastructure, especially if they're looking at a site to put in a school, we'll try to maybe accommodate and put in sub outs or, you know, access roads or what have you that can facilitate that kind of construction.

But with respect to credits, no, we don't really go after credits.

Okay, thanks. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any other questions? I have a question, Kali. Have you provided sites for the Hawai'I Public schools system facilities? Yes, we have. I can give you a list. And because the list you gave is mostly Kamehameha schools, Ahapuna and Aleo, which are great facilities, great programs, but it's not the Hawaii public school system.

Right. Well, it's kind of. We do have charter schools.

You know, we see a couple of charter schools on here, so I guess that would be good. So we're not. So we're really clear because the school impact fees would go to the Department of Education. Department of Education. Right. And so it'd be good to know what you provided to the Department of Education.

The other question is, what have you paid so far in school impact fees? That would be good to know.

I'd have to get that info.

Right. But if you're asking for, I mean, just realistically, if you're asking to be exempted from them, it would be good for you to be able to say, this is how much we paid already to do date. Sure.

And then it also be good for you to say, this is what we estimate we would save if we're exempted from it. Okay. If. If this Committee decides to move it forward, it's going to Finance Committee. They should know that information. It would be good for them to know that information.

If you could provide that to them, that would be very important.

Sure, that makes sense.

And. And I would appreciate that if you would prepare for that. Any other questions, Members? Yes. Represent Perruso.

For SFA, please. So it's my understanding that the impact fees are meant to provide for new construction of schools. So it's not meant to go to the repair and maintenance, it's not meant to go to deferred maintenance. It's really just meant for new schools. Is that correct?

Right. So the impact fee law is kind of bifurcated at the moment. The policy is set by the Board of Education, yet implementation is by the sfa. So that's challenging. It's purely for new. So it can't be to repair something. It has to be for a new school. And of course, new schools are few and far between.

And as a result, very little money has been spent on the.

So that's the reason that that money hasn't been spent down is that we aren't constructing as many new schools.

Right. So as the tax foundation said, you know, there's. Right now there's a balance of $20 million that has accrued since the beginning of the impact fee program. To date, none of those funds have ever been expended. And it's very prescriptive. There has to be a nexus of the collection of the fee to where it was spent.

So, for example, so it has to be like, within the same complex area or.

Exactly. There's a nexus for. So, like, if you build a school in Kapolei, it's the impact fees from Kapolei, which probably at this time totals about $7 million. It doesn't get you much for a new school. Right.

Similarly, for West Maui, it has to be a new school in West Maui, not a replacement school, not a school that has been replaced as a result of the wildfires. New school in central Maui.

That's a perfect example that where we can use impact fees collected for central Maui, there's a nexus, and it'll be used for the building of the new school in Central Maui.

Perfect. Thank you so much for helping me understand. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers, we'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 1496 relating to education.

This measure establishes the position of Kapapahana Kiapuni program complex Area Superintendent requires that at least one at large Member of the Board of Education be a Hawaiian educator, practitioner or scholar of Hawaiian Studies or the Hawaiian language.

To be selected from a list of three nominees submitted by the President of the Senate speaker of the House Office of Hawaiian affairs and clarifies purpose and objective of the Hawaiian Language Medium education program. First up, we have the Department of Education.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tammy Chun, Deputy Superintendent. The Department of Education supports the intent of this bill. I wanted to highlight a couple of points since the Bill has several parts. So the first part is that Kaipuni education. So education in the Hawaiian medium has grown over the years.

The number of schools, number of students participating has increased. The Department of Education is currently in a strategic planning process regarding Kuaia Puni education. We're currently developing an implementation plan which will include a resource plan.

So providing that context to say that we appreciate the reference to adding a complex area Superintendent in the bill and funding that position.

However, we would request that we be given a little bit more time and we would come back at a later point, perhaps next year in the supplemental budget to ask for the position since we're not complete with the process of planning yet.

And then the second is regarding the seat for the Board of Education for Hawaiian educator, scholar or practitioner. So the process that's described in the bill is complicated. And so we anticipate that that could be problematic.

The way it's written right now, currently, individuals who meet the qualifications that are described in the bill have been nominated to the Board of Education and been served on the Board of Education. So we currently do have people that meet the description of the bill without having that be a requirement of the law.

So individuals can or organizations can encourage people to apply and people can already be nominated, recommended to the Governor, apply to be Member of the Board of Education. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next person that said they wanted to testify is Kanani Nohea Makayomoku with aha kau on Zoom. Please proceed.

My name is Kanani Nohe Makaimoku representing the Ahakaule Statewide Council for the Papahana Kayapuni. We strongly support HB 1496 and would like to add comments to our written testimony to propose the following two amendments.

First, in Section 3 of the of the at Large Members appointed pursuant to paragraph 5, at least one Member shall be a We like to add proficient Hawaiian speech seeking educator, practitioner or scholar of Hawaiian Studies or and the Hawaiian language and the second amendment that we'd like to propose is the Superintendent of Education, with the approval of the Board, shall appoint complex area superintendents for schools, including we'd like to add a proficient Hawaiian language speaking complex area Superintendent or schools.

Hawaii's public education system is built upon two official language pathways, English and Hawaiian. However, while English medium education benefits from established leadership structures and systemic support, Hawaiian medium education remains critically underrepresented at the BOE and DOE levels. This lack of representation impacts policy decisions, resource allocation and program sustainability.

We strongly urge the Committee to pass HB 1496 which will provide the necessary structural support to ensure equity, sustainability and long term success for Hawaii Melum Education. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify.

Mahalo. Next person that said they wish to testify is Mele Kaneali'i on Zoom. Please proceed.

Sorry, Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. My name is Mele Kaneali'i and I'm a proud product of the Kaiapuni program from preschool and kindergarten to high school at Ohine Kamalama and I am testifying in strong support of HB 1496.

My experiences in schools on Maui and Molokai have highlighted disparities in financial resources between the areas and HB 1496 is an important step toward ensuring that every Kiapuni students, regardless of location, has equal oversight and access to opportunities in an environment that nurtures their culture and language.

This bill is urgent due to ongoing uncertainty around federal funding, particularly from the US Department of Education and Kai Pune.

Programs depend on a mix of state, federal and category funding to operate, but with shifting federal leadership, this funding is increasingly unstable and without protections and additional leadership positions mentioned in the legislation, the programs could be vulnerable to shift in funding priorities that might jeopardize their long term sustainability.

I would also like to provide a quick comment on the concern from our state's Board of Education about numerous stakeholders who may also be interested in gaining a dedicated seat on the board.

As mentioned in their written testimony, I believe it's important to recognize and make the distinction that Kayapuni Schools are not just any stakeholders, they represent a unique and essential branch of our public education system. Rooted in the state constitution, these programs are tied to the Language of the land.

And they carry cultural, historical and linguistic significance that cannot be compared to other educational interests. It's critical that the voices of these communities involved in these programs are represented at the highest levels of educational policymaking. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Mahalo. There are 76 testifiers in support and none in opposition. And three giving comments. That's all that have said they wish to testify in person. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 1496? If not. Questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for Board of Education.

Department of Education.

Department of Education. Excuse me. The question is how many of these Hawaiian language schools are there?

So in the Department of Education, we have 22 schools that have Kaiapuni programs. Two of the schools are standalone K12 programs, and then the others are school within school. So they have a program within the school.

Can I get a follow up? Sure. From your testimony, I heard you say you were analyzing or the Department was analyzing and you needed more time for this analysis. So it made me feel like you had concerns if this was implemented before that one year period. So could you share what those concerns might be?

So there's two different parts of the Bill that refer to the Kaipuni education. So one is creates a definition of kaipuni. And so that just needs clarification. I think it refers to a complete education. And there are many different interpretations of what a complete education is.

Just in the last week, I've had three different conversations with different interpretations. So I just think that part needs clarification. The second part, which is what I spoke about earlier, was about creating a complex area Superintendent specifically for our Kaioponi schools. It is.

So a complex area Superintendent would typically supervises schools and be the line supervisor of principals. Because we have a number of schools that have a K Puni program and an English program on the same campus.

We still have to work out what does that mean that there's a complex area Superintendent responsible for Kaiapuni schools when only two of our schools are fully Kia Puni in terms of being K to 12 Kuni, no English Medium program. So I think we just need to clarify what that means in terms of the governance aspect.

So I don't think there's an opposition. I think we just need a little more time to say, sort out what the responsibilities would be.

All right.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, representative. Any other questions? If not, thank you to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 616, relating to the safety of educational workers. This measure requires the Department of Education and public charter schools to take certain steps to report incidents of harassment and implement procedures for handling harassment of educational workers.

First up, we have the Department of Education.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee, I'm Elizabeth Higashi, the Assistant Superintendent, speaking on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony which provides comment on this measure. To highlight some, summarize some of those comments.

One of the things that we definitely wanted to take a deeper look at is in regards to the potential unconstitutional use of public funds, when we look at reimbursing- reimbursing educational workers for the temporary restraining orders. Another piece that we definitely would like closer examination of is reporting of alleged harassment on behalf of the department.

We do have concerns in regards to that the harassment should reported directly from the individual versus the department because reports made by a third party on employee's behalf could be considered hearsay and could cause for further misinformation and confusion amongst the case.

I think definitely the last piece that we just wanted to point out is regards to the unfunded mandates component in regards that potential training for employees serving the temporary restraining and the leave are things that we definitely would need support with, with funding. On that, I will end our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Attorney General.

Good afternoon, chair and vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Deputy General- Attorney General Gavin Tom, appearing on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General. And we provide comments as follows.

As you know, this bill requires the Department of Education and public charter schools to take certain steps to report incidents of harassment or educational workers and implement procedures for handling harassment of educational workers. As indicated in our written testimony.

Some of these rights are mandatory subjects of negotiation and or conditions of employment pursuant to section 89-9 subsection A of the Hawaii Rights Statutes. The department recommends the amendments as indicated in our written testimony for consistency among statutes as well as the negotiation process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this bill.

I'm available to answer or relay any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Next, Lindsay Chambers.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee. I stand on my written testimony, but also wanted to provide some additional comments. It is absolutely outrageous that someone has been able to accumulate 30 TROs filed against them, the majority by educational workers, including myself.

This issue has spread unchecked from one employee to another, from campus to campus, and has continued for more than a decade. Let me provide some con- let me provide some perspective from the court. During my first TRO hearing, Judge Hilary Gangnes addressed my perpetrator and her words reflected in the hearing minutes were. Let me just give you the bottom line.

Most people have no TROs against them ever in their entire lives. The argument made by the DOE and AG that these incidents are private matters and that providing legal support or remedies to employees who are harassed and abused would be an unconstitutional use of public funds is a clear example of institutional betrayal.

Unfortunately, this misguided perspe- perspective comes as no surprise.

During my ordeal, Supervising Attorney General James Halvorson sent me a letter nine months after Judge Richard Deal granted my injunction against harassment, where he states, your perpetrator's nasty and vulgar attacks on you and other employees who interact with him regarding his children's education are unfortunately part of the duties of Haido employees involved with his children's education.

This dismissive attitude only reinforces the department's refusal to protect its workers from harassment, despite the fact that it is happening. Because of our positions and work within the DEO, the department seems to believe it is exempt from its obligation to protect its workers simply because the perpetrator is a community member.

However, should the rights and safety and well being of our teachers and staff be treated as secondary to the perpetrators that continue to harass and abuse them? In my written testimony, I provided insight into state policy and precedent from the Department of Human Resources Development regarding workplace violence protections regardless of the perpetrator.

Last session, when I testified on the Predecessor Bill to HB 616, I was asked why a law is necessary. My response is, when the Executive branch fails to protect its employees, laws are not just necessary, they're essential. They are the only way to ensure accountability and protect both teachers and students.

If we do not force the DOE to address this ongoing issue, there will be more victims. It is time for the Department of Education and the state to stop failing those who dedicate themselves to our children's future. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we have testimony from Inger Stonehill on Zoom. Please proceed. Please unmute yourself.

Okay. Hi. Thank you so much. Yes. Good afternoon, chairman, vice chairman and the committee members. My name is Inger Stonehill. I've been an educator since 2005. I'm still in Department of Education. So, yes, I stand on my written testimony. But my summary for this bill.

It's a critical bill designed to address the growing issue of violence, harassment and threats against educators. Research reveals a surge in violent encounters post pandemic, leading to increased stress and anxiety among school staff. Experts emphasize the urgent need for policy action. HB 616, excuse me, provides essential protections by ensuring accountability, clear response procedures and proactive safety measures.

For myself, when I started in 2005, I never had any problems with any parents? Sure been called names. But yes, like Ms. Chambers says, oh, I understood that maybe that was part of my job. But in 2022/23 no, that was enough when I had threats against my life.

So some of the what I found in my research, teachers reported violent encounters with parents increased from 1% to pre pandemic to 26% post pandemic. That- That's a pretty big jump. And then the mental health impact. And now this is a nationwide statistic. Nearly 70% of school staff report frequent stress and anxiety. That's including me.

I had to go to psychiatrist and get on medication for anxiety. I am no longer on that. Thank you. But, you know, that was a really tough time. Okay. So with that we wanted to create some kind of response to that and some kind of guideline because it is not consistent in the different schools that I have been at.

We wanted to mandate investigations into harassment, require reporting of physical threats within 48 hours, develop emergency safety plans for at risk educators, and as always, provide continuing annual training on De-escalation and harassment prevention. And I say those things because I experienced that. Sure.

I went for three TROs and I had to do it myself with no help. I called the police myself three times with no encouragement by my administration.

And, you know, we just want to have something that is consistent across all the schools so the teachers feel safe and you know, then consequently the students, because our- our educators, us educators, show up for our children every day. Now it's time we show up for them.

So I would like for you to consider to pass this bill to help us out. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Stonehill. That's all the testifiers that said they wish to testify in this measure. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 616? If not, questions, members? I have a question for the Department of Education. Last session we heard a bill, a very similar bill.

I had gotten assurances from the Superintendent and the Attorney General that you would work together to figure out a way to move forward without legislation. Great assurances that it was going to move forward.

I'm reading testimony from one of the testifiers that you did some work, but it was- it was poorly communicated, inconsistent, and doesn't seem to have done much- it doesn't seem to have had much impact on the DOE campuses. Could you tell us what you've done? Because we shouldn't have to deal with this here.

I'm- I'm appalled that we're still back where we were a year ago. So could you tell us what you've done?

So since last session, we did meet with Ms. Chambers, Mr. Whitwer and Ms. Stonehill and we thank you for their input in regards to things that we needed to improve in our policies.

Things that we have done was we did work with the AG's office and we are currently in progress in providing TRO res- TRO resources that we're hoping to release shortly. We also released a Visitor Code of Conduct that we developed in collaboration with our AG's office.

The Visitor Code of Conduct was released this fall and definitely with the conduct, we issued out a letter that went out to all of our families and we also made a poster in addition to social media package that we had our schools display. I do acknowledge that from hearing from Ms.

Chambers and the others, there are things that we need to continue to do in advertising and pushing out this Visitor Code of Conduct. One of the things that we are appreciative, we have seen some effectiveness with the conduct because we have had some cases 'cause

harassment has still continued where because of the Code of Conduct with some of our community members and families, we were able to reference the conduct issue letters and set strict guidelines on communication.

And also in regards to that, to set parameters and making it clear to some of those people who have violated the conduct that they could be trespassed from our campus and that we could also start to block and limit their communication with the schools.

So we do understand that we are a little delayed and in the fall that late, but we are starting to see that because of that conduct we are able to mitigate some of those harassment issues that are happening on our campuses. In addition, we do know that Ms. Chambers brought to our attention the De herd policy.

And we've evaluated it from our last hearing and we do see that there are pieces and components of it that we need to take a look at our own workplace violence policies and we can take structures from it to improve ours.

So we are definitely right now in progress in regards to evaluating how we can have clearer guidelines, policies and looking at that policy recommendation, how we can have that ready for when we start the next school year or as quickly as possible.

Okay, thank you for that explanation. One of the things that we talked about last year as well is that you had an inability, the department had an inability of finding a process server who would serve papers to a particularly problematic individual who had many, many, many TRO's against that person.

And I was assured that you were going to follow up and be able to do that. Has that been done?

My apologies, I don't know. I personally don't know, but that's something we can definitely follow up and report back to you on.

I spoke with both the Superintendent and the Attorney General about this, and you just got to get someone who's good at it, because if somebody wants to avoid being served papers, they hide, they do whatever. But there's ways that it can be delivered. And I mean, it seems like the DOE has been slow walking.

This has not been a real active effort to address it. And it doesn't seem like it is an urgent business that Department of Human Resources development emphasizes that it should be. That's just my impression from what I am observing from what's happened in this last 12 months. Questions? Members, any other questions? No. I-

I appreciate you following up on these things and this- this committee really takes this seriously. We want to protect our educational workers, and we think that you should want to protect your educational workers, too. And I know you care for them, but you've got to translate that into policies that really do protect them.

Understandable, chair. And we'll definitely follow up with you regarding the process servers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, wait, we've got one question here. Representative Perruso?

Sorry, my question is for Ms. Chambers.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks for appearing before this body today. And I know that this has been a long process for you. And I'm wondering if you have received any kind of support after leaving the department, from the department, with respect to this kind of not just changing policy moving forward, but also with respect to your particular situation.

Was there any kind of remedy or settlement or any kind of support for you?

There's been no support. I mean, I appreciate the acknowledgement that we were able to meet with the DOE regarding the code of conduct, but that was after a lot of advocating and fighting for a seat at the table for myself and other victims.

It was not done willingly or proactively, but I made the personal decision to leave the department, pull my daughter out of the department for her own safety, and find my own way to heal from this on my own.

I am sorry to hear that. And the reason I asked that question is because you are not a unionized employee or you were not at the time, you were an exempt employee. Correct. Because you were the communications director.

Correct. But I did enlist the help of HGA when it got really bad, and they were a huge support. Help me with the possibility of filing a lawsuit. But I'm sure, as you all know, on the Judiciary Committee, it is not easy to- to go through a lawsuit, especially against the state.

It's not something that someone who wants to move on and heal does, you know--

Right.

-want to go through.

I- I appreciate your perseverance and your willingness to speak for others. Thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Thank you. Other questions, members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers and we'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 329, relating to the School Facilities Authority.

This measure clarifies that the School Facilities Authority is responsible for certain development, planning and construction projects for pre kindergarten, preschool and childcare facilities, as well as workforce housing.

Authorizes the School Facilities Authority to develop workforce housing for teachers on land not owned by the DOE and allows the School Facilities Authority to use the Department of Education for certain recruitment and hiring responsibilities and partner with public and private development agencies to develop pre kindergarten facilities. First up, we have Office of Information Practices with comments. Next,

Department of Budget and Finance with comments. Next, Department of Education.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas. Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee. Sean Bacon, Assistant Superintendent for the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony providing comments.

One of the things that we wanted to point out is on page seven of the bill, lines 15 and 16, it talks about that the SFA shall use either the Department of Education or the Department of Human Resources Development for the recruitment, we're recommending that it should be one or the other, not both.

I think it could just add to some confusion in the field if DHRD and DOE were posting the same position at the same time. So we'd recommend that it be one or the other in there. We'll be available for any of their comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, the Attorney General's Office.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members. Randall Watt, Deputy General for the Department of the Attorney General. Department offers comments on this bill as outlined in our written testimony. Department recommends three revisions to the house draft

one. First, on page two, line 18, to align with the terminology used in section 302L 7 HRS and to clarify that the workforce housing is for public employees. The department suggests replacing pre kindergarten with public pregarten- pre kingarten- pre kindergarten programs and public preschools.

Second, on page three, lines 1113, to clarify that workforce housing is for educators and other education workers in public schools. That is inclusive of DOE schools and public charter schools. Department suggests revising that part to state workforce housing for educators and other education workers in public schools serving elementary and secondary grades.

And lastly, to effectuate the legislative intent of this bill, we suggest revising Section 302 A 1128 HRS to include excluding pre kindergarten classrooms after the line that says, with at which the executive office in Area Learning Administers programs. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Riki Fujitani, Hawaii School Facilities Authority.

Good afternoon. Thank you. The School Facilities Authority is a startup agency and the enabling legislation has been compounded with a series of acts that gives us a multitude of missions. This bill seeks to clarify and simplify that specifically in our enabling legislation. And it should just-

The changes should just be concentrated specifically in 3037-1703 which is where our powers are. There's a risk that as more people comment, we're changing statutes from all over the place that causes confusion and complexity. Again, our recommendation and in our testimony is to specifically just affect our statute clarifying our roles and responsibilities in our enabling legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there- Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 329? If not questions, members? Yes, Representative Perruso.

SFA, please.

So I'm curious about the part of legislation that talks about building D- oops- DOE schools on property that's not owned by the DOE. And I am assuming that you mean public land that's not owned or controlled by the DOE. But were you- Does this legislation envision building on private land?

No.

Okay.

Not at all. Yeah. So any land we build on is public lands, or if it is private lands, it gets transferred to the DOE or the SFA through the impact fee process.

Okay, great. Thanks so much. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, we'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 739, relating to housing. This measure establishes the Kama Ina Homes Program to provide funding to the counties to purchase voluntary deed restrictions from eligible homeowners or home buyers. First up, we have the Department of Transportation, Zoom or in person. Not present.

Next, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. We sent in our testimony in support. We appreciate the program's efforts to create a local housing market for Hawaii residents.

Thank you. Next, Department of Tax—Department of Taxation. Thanks for coming up to the podium.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. The Department of Taxation stands on its written testimony with two comments. One is that if this Bill should pass, could it take effect on January 1st, 2026, to allow us to make the changes? And also, a small language to clarify that the exemption not only applies to the conveyance of the land, but the conveyance of the deed restriction. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Tom Yamachika. Not present. Next, Hawaii Realtors. Ms. Garcia, welcome.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Lindsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors. So, this is a measure that was very similar to one that was passed by this Committee last week. We are supportive of the idea.

The only concern that I wanted to highlight from our testimony is that the measure—the deed restriction would be in perpetuity, which could mean decades from now, hundreds of years from now. And so, we're open to other timelines to consider for the deed restrictions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We received written testimony from AARP, but I wonder if we want to have oral testimony?

Yes.

Okay, because you didn't sign up for it, so I thought I'd ask. But I saw you there and I thought, well, I should ask. Welcome. Please proceed.

I appreciate the consideration. Thank you, Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. I'm Kaylee E. Lopez. I'm the State Director for AARP, and we stand in strong support of this legislation. You have my testimony in front of you.

You know, this issue of challenges for local residents to be able to live in the—these—beautiful islands in their home has been really 40 years in the making. Now is the time for bold action. You all, most of you, weren't born maybe, but were very young when this all started.

Many, many of us are at the point in our lives where we cannot afford to have our children move away. And what I mean by that is many kupuna rely on family members to care for them.

My mother, who needed 24/7 care, had two daughters, a daughter in law, a grandson, a great grandson, who all lived here and could care for her. So, she was able to live in her home, in Nanakuli, Hawaiian homesteads, and be in the comfort of familiar surroundings and familiar people.

If our young people keep leaving, not only do we have issues with our workforce, but we have an issue with the future of what it's going to mean to be able to keep families together, to care for one another. It is time the Legislature—this is only one of many approaches, right, to address the issue of housing, but it's a bold one, it's a necessary one.

And I really encourage you to open your hearts, but most importantly, your minds, to see how this really does begin to make a difference. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Susan Lei, Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. Not present. Online? No. Okay, not present. Testimony in support. Next, Housing Hawaii's Future, Perry Arrasmith.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Housing Hawaii's Future stands in strong support of this measure. We saw some of the language that was proposed by DOTAX and Holomua Collaborative. We support that language as well. We want this program to work.

We support the generation of locals only workforce housing and we believe that this program can accomplish just that. So, we humbly urge you to advance this measure. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. That was a good intro. Next person, Holomua Cooperative.

Wish.

Chair Tarnas, thank you very much. Josh Wish with Holomua Collaborative.

Just as you've always said, for anyone who is watching, just a quick kind of layperson's description of what the Bill basically does is essentially, the government would, under this program, provide payments to people who are buying or who already own homes, in exchange for an agreement to ensure that those homes permanently stay available for local families who are in the area.

It's laser-focused on providing workforce housing. And just one thing to note—some additional numbers to underscore the incredibly personal story that Kaylee shared—is our related organization, Holomua Collective, put out a survey late last year where we surveyed 1,500 residents about cost-of-living issues.

And one of the questions we asked was, do you think you're going to need to move to a less expensive state and 70% almost said either yes or I'm unsure.

Almost half of those said they're going to have to move within the next five years and about two thirds of those said the driver of that decision was the cost of housing, which is one of the reasons why we think this is so important. It's also a proven solution.

It has been rolled out successfully in other jurisdictions that face similar challenges that we have. It's also a really efficient use of government funding, when you look at the local housing that you are locking up for the cost that it provides.

And finally, it provides some hope that we're actually doing something, kind of along the lines of what Kaylee said. It's not the single bullet solution. Nothing is. But I think this also works really well with a lot of the other initiatives that the Legislature is already looking at this year.

So, last thing I'll note is, as Perry had noted, we did put in some suggested amendments that we had been discussing with the introducer, Rep. Evslin, who I believe has discussed it with the AGs. Many of them were meant to address some of the questions that the AGs had previously brought up.

My understanding is that that would settle—satisfy—most of their concerns. With that, I'll sit down, but thank you so much for considering this and moving along. I'm here for any questions you've got.

Thank you very much. Next, Sam Dorios.

Hi. I'm obviously in very big support of this no brainer bill, which I hope you all, the Committee, considers. I'm going to give two anecdotal stories to talk about the breadth and the depth of this problem. I work for something called the Hawaii Leadership Forum.

I do something called systems mapping and basically, that's where we get a complex problem and we map it. Why the problem exists and how to tackle the problem and how to change it. So, I've done maps—oh God, I've worked here for nine years doing systems mapping—and I've done maps on homelessness, health, education, you name it.

Housing always comes up. It's such a big problem here. It affects—I did a map on ALICE, Asset Limited Income Constrained Employed. Obviously, was a huge, huge problem for the ALICE population. Education, you know, you have families living in multi-generation homes. Families are working hard to pay the rent.

They don't have time to help their children study and excel. Health, you know, you have a family living in a moldy old shack they can't fix, and they can't keep it clean because they don't have the money and the time to do so. You know, look at the houses. How old are the houses in Hawaii?

Like, a lot of them are not in good shape. And it all comes back to housing costs. And so, that's like, the breadth of the issue.

You know, I want this Committee to know that when they tackle this issue, they are tackling something that hurts a lot of different departments, not just the one you guys are focused on. The other thing regarding the depth of this. I work for the Hawaii Leadership Forum, which is a wonderful company. They're very good to me.

I have a master's degree. I'm educated. I don't spend a lot of money. I'm very thrifty. I don't have any debt. I've never taken on a loan. I have a good amount of savings. Me and my wife have been trying to find housing for the past year or so.

My wife is a tenured Professor at UH. She—Communications. So, we have a tenured Professor in me, and we are struggling to try to make housing work. We've had serious conversations of, do we leave? And we're committed to staying.

But when you have a tenured Professor and her husband who works for a good company—we have good jobs—struggling, I can only imagine what other families in Hawaii are going through. So, please, really consider doing something about this. Apologies. I don't think this is bold action, but at least it's something.

Thank you.

Appreciate your testimony. Next, we have testimony from Maggie Ann Angr Bretzen. Not present. That's all the testifiers that we've gotten on this Bill. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes, please. Come on up and introduce yourself.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, I'm Suzanne Schuld. I'm with Aloha United Way, and Aloha United Way and the ALICE Initiative stand in strong support of this Bill. We are the authors of the ALICE Report that have, have been referenced in some of the other testimony.

And while our numbers are slightly different than what Holomua came out, we saw the exact same problem that a huge amount of households, when asked, are considering to leave Hawaii. And when we dug in deeper, 73% of them said the cost of living or accessible housing is the primary reason that they're leaving.

Three out of four of those folks, which translates to about 184,000 people in our state, are considering leaving in the next 12 months. To tag onto what the previous testifier said, I can also say we just had our closest friends just left. Same thing. Attorney and Tenured Professor. They just moved to Massachusetts.

Not known for cheap housing because they put offers on eight houses. They make good income, but they kept losing to cash buyers who do not live here.

And this Bill opens up housing for people who we do not think of as struggling individuals, but who are struggling to fight against, you know, in a whole different playing field of money that they cannot compete with.

Aloha United Way is very strong in saying that to solve our housing crisis, we are going to look at solutions that put housing for residents that residents who live and work here are living in. We cannot build our way out of this crisis. This is the type of bill that we need. I agree with others.

We do need more. But this type of work is critically important. And I strongly hope that this Committee will pass this Bill. It's innovative, it puts residents first, and it's really important. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much. If you could provide your name to our staff. Just because I hadn't gotten your name.

Suzanne Schuld.

If you could write it down for her, that'd be great. That way we have the record of all the testifiers. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? 739. If not, questions, Members? Representative Perruso.

Question for Perry or for Josh. So, it's about who has done the most analysis of how this has been—how this has played out in other jurisdictions?

One thing I can—and Perry, if you've got anything else, jump in—one thing I can tell you right off the cuff is, so Vail has had it going for a few years so far.

The Vail Indeed Program. I think in the time that they've done it, I think they have secured about 175 homes through deed restrictions for, I think, a total of about $12 million investment. I think it's came out to about a $70,000 or so average per deed restriction.

And using slightly different but similar numbers, I think Appleseed and their testimony actually had a really—and by the way, they meant to be here, but they got caught up in something else—they had a really good comparison that, I think, as of like 2020, Vail might have done something like 150 deed-restricted homes for about $10 million.

And they noted that there was also a building that was bought for 288 homes for $200 million, by the city at the same time, which is what I was getting to with the efficiency of government resources point.

I guess—I hadn't really asked my question yet, but my question was, you know, it did, you are kind of going to the point, is about the kinds of resources we would need to invest to make a discernible impact. So, I'm wondering at like the, the numbers that we're talking about.

So, you gave me some numbers for Vail. That's a completely different kind of jurisdiction than the State of Hawaii. So, do we have numbers for this Bill, for the amount that we're supposed to use for purchase of deed restrictions?

I think the amount, I think, is—so the way that we currently have it set up is that it's going through the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund, so that HHFDC would be able to utilize DIRF, to be able to offer deed restrictions under this program. So, that's the way that it's currently structured.

We also know, for instance, that penalties from the program would go back into DIRF for anyone who is violating the program. And the other thing I'd note is, in terms of effectiveness, Vail's median home price is—actually hard as this is to believe—higher than ours.

Last time I checked, I think Vail's median home price was $1.8 million. And I think on Oahu, for instance, we're at about $1.1 million. Statewide is about $800,000. So, I think there's good reason to believe, based on that evidence, that it would go pretty far here.

I guess—so I'm hearing that you don't really have a number to kind of attach to this measure.

Well, there's, there's not a specific number as, in terms of like an appropriation line item, but that's because the way that the Bill is currently structured, it doesn't technically need one because.

Yeah. So, I guess my question—I understand that it's coming from DIRF. Yeah, I get that. But I'm wondering, from your analysis, what kind of investment would we need to make in this kind of work to make a discernible impact?

Well, so that's where we can take a look at some of the other jurisdictions to see what they've done. I think when Vail started, I think they, in their case, I think they started off with something like a $5 million investment and then, they wanted to see how it would work.

The program, if memory serves, got pretty quickly oversubscribed and then they started putting more appropriations into it. The other thing that I think is worth noting, Rep., is that it also created a bit of a snowball effect in Vail, from my discussions with some of the folks over there.

So, that people then started almost creating a bit of a culture of these deed restrictions, where they wanted to get involved in restricting more homes for local families.

And I think on the Vail and Deed Program website, for instance, I believe it says that they have something like 1,000 plus deed restrictions, to date, that are even outside of the program itself. Because this started going into that kind of momentum, including apparently new developments that were built, that were deed restricted as they were being built.

So, there's the straight up investment. I think they started with five and it grew from there. And then, there was kind of the add on effect from everybody who wanted to get involved afterwards.

Awesome. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair, for your patience.

Sure. Good questions. Always good questions from our Members here. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we will move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Next measure, HB 745, relating to building codes.

This measure states, beginning on the date of the International Code Council 2024 suite of published codes is adopted as Hawaii State Public Building Code makes the most recent Hawaii State building codes adopted by the State Building Code Council.

Supersede all existing county building codes and thereafter allows counties to amend the Hawaii State Building Code as it applies within their jurisdiction. Measure also repeals the county's authority to adopt, amend and update the Hawaii State building codes for their respective county building codes. So it repeals their ability, but it actually allows them as well.

That's the way the bill is written, but they- the counties still end up being able to amend the code. Okay, HB 745. First up, we have Fire Chief Kazuo Todd, in support. Next, Department of Public Works, County Hawaii in comments. Next, Department of Planning and Permitting, City and County Honolulu comments. Next, Kika Bukoski, IBEW. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, committee members Kika Bukoski on behalf of IBEW 1260, we stand on a written testimony in strong opposition. We'd just like to add and emphasize that although we support streamlining the process, we- we understand that it can be cumbersome.

The way the bill is written is- is fairly ambiguous and we're not sure exactly to the extent that this will actually achieve the intent. We believe that it could be interpreted to allow counties to circumvent state building codes and minimum standards, which we feel runs contrary to the intent of minimum standards and codes.

Building codes and standards are- are- are for the protection of public health and safety. And given the- the last bill that we just heard, we- we definitely support affordable homes, but we don't believe that your level of income should dictate how safe your home is.

And we feel that measures like this may tend to put people with lesser means in lesser safe homes. With that, we are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support on Zoom. Ted Cafelas? No. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure? Did you want to testify in this measure?

Good afternoon. Gordon Wood, Public Works Administrator for the Department of Accounting and General Services.

Ah. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. And the department stands on its written testimony, offering comments and respectfully requesting deferral of this measure.

Thank you. We don't see your testimony, so if we could- If you could check with our valiant staff over here to find it, because I don't. I didn't get it, and I didn't get a chance to read it. Anyone else wishing to testify in HB 745? If not, questions, members?

I think I'm interested in DAGS position and wondering why they're wanting to defer.

Sir, could we have you come up for a question from Representative Belatti?

Certainly.

Can you just explain further why you'd want this measure deferred?

Okay. We want this measure deferred because we are concerned that if it is passed, it will interfere with a different process that we have ongoing within the department to amend the codes for adoption once the Building Code Council is reactivated.

And we are also concerned that, as written, the measure might result in the adoption of unamended model codes. And without those amendments, the codes won't reflect Hawaii's unique geographic conditions, seismic loading, wind loading. And also, the unamended codes don't address our cultural practices.

In the past, the state building codes have been amended to allow indigenous buildings and- and building practices, and the model codes don't- don't address any of that.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Sir, did you testify in the earlier committee on this? It doesn't- I don't show any record of your testimony.

I don't believe that- that we did. No.

Your testimony is very important. I- I- I'm glad you- You came today.

I'm glad too, yes, right.

Because we didn't get any written testimony, and you're- the previous committee, the Housing Committee.

Did not get any testimony from you.

Okay.

I'll check with our- our legislative coordinator about that. Yes.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any questions? Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you to all the testifiers for being here today. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1433 relating to eviction mediation.

This extends the period for a notice of termination of a rental agreement, requires landlords to engage in mediation and delay filing an action for summary possession of a tenant schedules or attempts to schedule mediation, and requires landlords to provide specific information in the 10 calendar day notice to tenants. First up, we have the judiciary.

Good afternoon, chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Jeff Crabtree.

It's an honor to have you here, sir. Thanks for being here.

Wow, you're very kind. So I was going to just stand on a written testimony, but I heard your admonition at the start of the hearing that that's not allowed. So give us your highlights. Just briefly, this measure would build on the success of the COVID mediation program under Act 57.

It would build on the success that we see in court ordered mediations statewide every year. And it'll just help us get to mediation faster than we currently are. And that's a good thing. So thank you. I'll be available for any questions.

And you. And you suggested 30 days?

You want to explain that, please?

Yes, sir.

It's just in line with Act 57. It's also the same timeline we're using with the mediations on Maui right now, and it seems to be working.

Okay, and this is to initiate mediation or to complete mediation?

It's to complete the mediation once it's scheduled, right, Tracy? Yes, once it's scheduled. So it gives the scheduling folks a 30 day window between the scheduling, the scheduled date and the actual completion date.

Okay, so it, what you're suggesting is that a 30 day period to. From the start of the mediation to the completion of the mediation.

Yes, sir.

Got it. Okay, Is, is there any. I guess that's really. What should we. Is there any period of time when that you would recommend that mediation start, or is that just case by case?

Well, it usually needs to be scheduled within 15 days.

Zero, and that's already in the statute or that's already in your process? Not in the statute. It's right.

Sorry. I'm checking with my subject matter expert over here because I'm sometimes getting things confused between bills.

So 15 days is in the Bill? Yes. To start mediation.

To schedule it. So it must be scheduled within 15 days?

Yes, yes, scheduled within 15 days.

And it's a full 30 days from the notice to media.

Got it. So it doesn't make it go longer.

It's 30 days total.

Yeah. And the goal of that is to help out the landlord because the landlord doesn't want to.

They have to schedule to start mediation within 15 days. And then once started, it then has to be completed within 30 days.

30 days. From the notice given to the tenant.

Zero, from the notice given to the tenant.

So basically it gives an additional 15 days.

It's a total of 30 days.

Total of 30 days. From the notice of. To the tenant. Okay. Thanks for the explanation because I wasn't quite sure.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yep. Okay. Tracy Wilchen, Mediation Center. Oh, you're the expert. So here we are. So tell us everything all over again.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I represent the Mediation center of the Pacific. My name is Tracy Wilkin. I stand on my testimony, but I will add a few comments as well, since you encourage that. I want to emphasize how important this bill is, because in addition to helping tenants and landlords, it's changing a culture.

Right now, the culture is a tenant gets behind. They don't say anything to their landlord because they're scared, they're ashamed, they're overwhelmed. Landlords don't want to be bad people, so they wait. So the hole starts getting deeper and deeper.

And we know this is a fact because some of the cases that we mediate from court, tenants are four months behind, sometimes more. And so there's no way that they're going to come up with a payment plan. And landlords are tacking on attorneys fees. So the hole gets bigger with this program.

It requires landlords to participate in mediation when tenants request it within 15 days. But our goal is to educate tenants to reach out early. As soon as they know they're going to have an issue. And so we're trying to change a culture and a mindset. Act 57 did that.

When Act 57 was in place, I mean, people were forced. They were in mediation. But when Act 57 ended, landlords continued to mediate until they one day realized, zero, I don't have to do this anymore. And so it went back.

We have an early eviction mediation program on Oahu that we continued to Fund after Act 57 was so successful. And even though the numbers are lower because landlords aren't required to participate, we have a 90% rate of agreement for those cases that mediate early. So it's a really important Bill, and I'd encourage you to pass it.

I'm available for questions.

Thank you. You've helped us out a lot so far. Okay, next we have Ms. Garcia, Hawaii Realtors.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Lindsay Garcia from Hawaii Realtors. Just echoing a lot of the comments from my colleagues here. We do support the intent of this measure and support peaceful, expeditious mediation. We appreciate the willingness to want to complete mediation by 30 days.

Our Members would prefer, if it's possible, to be able to not delay, you know, any of the court hearings. To be able to. If it's possible to have mediation be happening concurrently with the action for summary possession, that would be our preference. But we totally understand and appreciate everybody's willingness to compromise.

The other thing that I do want to point out. If it is at all possible to include emergency rent relief. Because this bill is for tenants who are unable to pay.

So at the end of the day, even though mediation is helpful, if they are unable to pay, all we're doing is delaying the process and delaying the ability for other tenants to be able to seek housing by delaying the eviction process. Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? 1433. Not questions. Members, I have one question. How about for our expert? No offense, Mr. Crabtree, but. So on page eight, line four, we have a blank number of days. Page 10, line six, we have a blank number of days.

But then on page six, line 16, the number of days is 20. Should I just change them all to 30? 30.

We're recommending 30. That's the number of days that was used during Act 37, Act 57. That's the number of days that are being used currently. For the Maui Mediation Services Early Eviction mediation program. So 15 days to schedule. 30 days to mediate.

Okay, on page six.

It says on line 16, basically, then the landlord shall only file an action for summary possession after the expiration of 20 calendar days following the tenant's receipt of the 10 calendar day notice, unless the tenant failed to attend. Should I leave that at 20 or--

We can- We can live with that because we know that landlords were. Some of the landlord attorneys were requesting that it be shortened. So we're- we're fine with that as long as you pass the bill.

Okay, we'll- we'll leave that at 20, but we'll- we'll fill in the blanks at 30.

Okay. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks for that explanation. Any other questions, members? Representative Shamito- Representative Shimizu.

Can I ask a question? Thank you, chair. Can I ask a question to the previous testifier, please? Thank you. I guess my question is, what is the difference of just extending Act 57 versus passing this new bill?

The difference between Act 57 and this new bill. So Act 57 ended, obviously, back in 2022. It's the shorter dates. So in Act 57, it was 15 days to schedule the mediation. In this bill, it's 10 days. In Act 57, it was a total of 30 days to conduct the mediation before the landlord could move forward.

This says 20 days, as you pointed out. And the reason was when this bill was originally submitted last year, we worked with attorneys and other stakeholders before it was submitted. And so that was their request that the number of days be slightly reduced and that they could live with it.

And I'm gathering that's why they're not testifying against it. And it didn't get passed last year because the focus, understandably and rightfully so, was on Maui. But that's why- that's the only difference.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thanks to all the testifiers, we'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 175 relating to property maintenance. This measure requires owners or lessees of real property to maintain their property and establishes penalty for failure to do so, with some exceptions.

First up, we have Michael Walker, DLNR.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Michael Walker. I serve as a statewide fire protection forester for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. The department has submitted testimony in support of this measure.

The prior hearing of the bill, the department submitted testimony which was incorporated into House Draft 1, which the department appreciates. And we're available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Appreciate it. It's all the testifiers we've had sign up to testify in this measure. Is there anyone here who wishes to testify in HB 175? If not, questions, members? Not, we'll move on. Thank you very much. Oh, wait. Question, Mr. Shimizu.

Can I ask question DLNR. I was just wondering, in the process, in the current process, does the leaseholder have any communication from the department of any concerns or like a warning before they served this? 30 days and there's a countdown for a fine. And- And the concern is if there's sufficient communication, you know, good win win relationship.

And if 30 days might be a hardship for anyone. Once they're like, it might be a surprise. I'm just trying to qualify the real life occurrences.

Yeah, that's a good question, Representative Shimizu. The Department of Land and Natural Resources isn't included in this bill anymore in terms of any of the enforcement or notifications. So the question should probably be answered by the Department of Agriculture or the Future Office of the State Fire Marshal.

There could be something written there into the bill as a warning notification before any kind of official citation is- is implemented.

So no one here is able to answer that on their behalf. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Welcome.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1449 relating to plant care components. This measure authorizes the Department of Agriculture to adopt rules and establishes administrative penalties to establish and enforce the Plant Care Component Program.

It appropriates funds and establishes positions for purposes of the plant care component program. First up, Chelsea Arnott. Hawaii Invasive Species Council on Zoom. Not present. In support. Next. Hawaii Department of Agriculture in person. In support.