House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay.

Good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Waterland. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the chair. Rochelle Lamasao is the Vice Chair. Today is Thursday, January 302025. It's 9:00am and we're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. I got my cheat sheet that I'm supposed to read. Everybody has.

I'll give everybody basically two minutes to testify. There's no hard deadline, but after two minutes, I will ask you to sum up your testimony. Please stick to the merits of the Bill and not go off off track. And for you that are on Zoom the Chat will only be chat chatting with the Zoom the Zoom people.

Is that your official title or the live streamers? If you get disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responding, responsible for bad Internet connections or if you get cut off.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademark or copyright images while zooming in with that. First up, we have HB299 relating to Hawaii invasive species consoles.

First we have Hawaii Invasive Species Council in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Chelsea Arnott on behalf of the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council, which is co chaired by the directors Sharon Hurd and Dawn Chang and just want to put our testimony in support of this Bill and just emphasize that HICC funding is really put out for gap filling between gaps between agency mandates and also supporting the enhancement of tools and technology for prevention and management of invasive species through research.

About 70 to 80% of our funding goes out through a competitive grant process. That really helps us understand what the priorities are going into a year of what those priorities for invasive species management are needed. So I'm available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have DLNR Dave Smith. zero, Ryan.

Since I'm closer to the mic. Good morning, everybody. Ryan Kanakaole, Department of Land and Natural Resources. We stand on our testimony in support and are here for any questions. Mahalo.

Okay, next up, we have Hawaii Department of Ag in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on its written testimony and support.

Very good, Cedric. Okay, next up, we have Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species.

Christy, throwing my pen at you. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. CGAPS is in strong support of this measure. What the Hawai'i Invasive Species Council does is it really extends the agency's capacity. Multiple agencies that have some role or responsibility for invasive species, it's not duplicative.

It really extends where they can't cover and what they need.

And when you look at the projects that have been funded throughout the years through the hic, you'll see a lot of that work go towards research and development because we don't have the tools, technologies or knowledge to be able to control the breadth of things that are that we're seeing in our landscape.

I want to also mention that the grant proposal review for HISC funding is actually done by Members of the HI agencies. So we all get together, we review the grants, we talk about where the gaps are or the extensions are needed, decisions are made, and it is passed by the full HSC Council.

Again, those are the leads of the agencies of the hic. Thank you so much for the opportunity. We urge your support. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Sierra Club in support. Are they on zoom?

Zero, sorry. Good morning, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. This is Wayne Tanaka with the Sierra Club, Hawaii. We stand in support of this measure.

You know, the HIsCs have and the ISCs that work with them and all the agencies, they've really proven themselves, I think, in how effective they are in using very limited resources to kind of tackle some of our most challenging biosecurity issues across the landscape.

I just wanted to point out that if you look at their track record, the benefits they've provided to every island, to every district, it's remarkable.

And so we just respectfully ask, and I know you're probably going to zero out the appropriations, but to the extent that you're able and winning, that you provide them with more resources, because we're really at an inflection point, I think in terms of our fight not just against the crb, against the LFA and all of these other emerging invasive pests, but future introductions that could have long lasting and devastating impacts on our landscape and our future generation.

So, happy to answer any questions, but I'd ask you to please support this measure. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Brian. Sorry, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Brian, are you here?

Brian is here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the Hawaii Farm Bill will stand on its written testimony in support.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Kingdom of the Hawaii Islands in support. No, they're not Here, Anybody else on zoom? Seeing none. We have approximately 30 other people in support. Nobody in opposition. Is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Hunter Hevelin. Here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union, we'd like to testify in strong support of this measure.

Assessment of our membership across the state found invasive species to be a top priority issue amongst our membership, which is echoed by a recent survey by the Department of Agriculture of over 500 producers statewide who similarly reflected invasive species in addressing their prevalence and problems for farm viability to be a top issue.

So we strongly support passage of this measure. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up we have HB 1220, relating to invasive species. First up, we have Hawaii Invasive Species Council in support.

Aloha, Chair. We'll stand on our written testimony in support.

Okay, next up we have Department of DLNR in support.

Good morning, everybody, again. Sorry. Ryan Kanaka‘ole, DLNR. We stand on our testimony in strong support of the bill and are here to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up we have CGAPS. Christy in support. Is it better if I say it that way?

CGAPS is fantastic. Thank you. You did quite well though. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species, CGAPS. We are in strong support of this. This is very likely, this particular anemone which some call majano, some call mangano. The scientific name is majano.

And as I used to be a marine biology teacher, I'm going to be using majano. Pardon me. This species, it's an invertebrate, but it can move by itself. Anemones will release their foot and move to an open area of the reef. It was very likely part of a marine aquarium release onto the reef.

One of the patch reefs in Kaneohe. And it has been cryptic until recently, where Division of Aquatic Resources conducting a follow up survey from another outplanting of a species of coral from an aquarium release found that this had spread. The only way that we know that we can legally potentially control it at this point may be tarping.

That is highly difficult. We will need to do restoration and that's why the funding in this bill really pays for both sides of that. The team is here. I probably overspoke on my techniques, but there's no legal way to control marine invasive species. That is one of the challenges we're finding in the marine environment. So I urge your support of this. Happy to provide more information about it. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Kingdom of Hawaii Islands in support. Are they on zoom? Nope. Next, we have an individual, Mo Radke, in support. That's all the testimony that we have received. Is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The department believes we submitted testimony on this measure in strong support. We'll stand on that testimony. Mahalo.

Sorry, that was my mistake. I skipped you guys. Okay, is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Yes, Representative.

I have a question for, I think it's Hawaii Invasive Species. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair. As a newbie, how would I track the history, the progress, and the status of what has happened and what is in progress?

Mahalo for the question. Chelsea Arnott on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. Is the question regarding the majano tracking that, or are you talking about the funding for the Hawaii Invasive Species Council? Just to clarify.

Specifically for the majano.

Okay, mahalo. I actually would defer to Brian Neilson with Division of Aquatic Resources. He's their administrator.

Aloha, Rep. Brian Neilson, administrator for Division of Aquatic Resources. Appreciate the question. So we do do monitoring of all invasive species outbreaks that we respond to. And so we have specific data, and that data is put into a report. We also put out annual reports of all the different invasive species that we've responded to throughout the year. And happy to share those reports with you if you're interested.

Yes, I'd be interested. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up, we have HB506. Chair, relating to conservation enforcement. First up, we have ELNR in support.

Chair Jason Reduda, on behalf of the Department, will stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Malama Pukea Waimea in support. Nope. Next we have. Well, that's all the individuals that I have registered to testify on this measure. Wait, hold on. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Thank you, Chair. I think we're dealing on. So we had a testimony in opposition from Mr. Vanderkamp. I'm not sure if he had a chance to review it, but basically, and this is more critical of the sitting county because they apparently bought a boat and then for 500. For 800. Sorry. I need to 587.

And then they, you know, then they sold it shortly after for 61,000. Any chance that you guys bought it?

So again, Jason Radula, DOE cares Chief. Not a chance. We did not buy that boat.

Okay, but you know, of it. And I mean, I guess their point being is it feels like. And again, this is a sitting county. They purchased a boat. It wasn't. It doesn't seem like it was used or repaired. And then they got rid of it pretty quickly.

And then also he raises the question of $50,000 for shipping to boats. And his question is, why not buy locally? Why not buy locally? Why $50,000 for shipping?

So I really can't speak to what Mr. That gentleman is writing about. I can tell you that we use the normal state procurement process, and many times a mainland vendor will bid and become the lowest responsive offer based on the specifications we put out.

And so in those cases, you know, we do go with the lowest responsive offer. However, you know, we do welcome local vendors into the process and. And they're welcome to make offers as well. We do use the normal process.

And then you include shipping right into that calculation. So shipping plus billed is more than you'll go with the local vendor.

I mean, when we put out our specifications, the total price includes all delivery charges, taxes, and everything else.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

You can stay there. I got a question. Thank you. Good. Very good question. So there's departments in the past that would order direct from the mainland. And the mainland companies, since they don't do a lot of business in Hawaii, they won't pay get. Are you guys ensuring that the mainland vendors are actually paying their get?

I know in the past we've made it a point that their offer has to include all fees related to the purchase, and that includes any sales tax, delivery charges, and those kinds of things.

I can't remember whether the state get was a part of that, but in our specs, we do include a statement saying that it has to be the total price, including all fees. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. Go ahead.

DLNR, please. Question is, regarding this corrective action that's included in this Bill. Is this enforcement or corrective action currently being done or is this a totally new scope?

Is this regarding the Doe Care 506?

Yeah, that's correct. That's for coral reef. 506.

Sorry. zero, are you looking at the preamble?

Yeah. This Bill. 506. Appropriate funds for equipment and enforcement for coral reefs. So I was just wondering what is the scope of the current action being done and is this going to allow you to do additional work?

So I think the proposed funding is going to go towards marine enforcement. The Bill language does include information pertaining to the protection of herbivores in the waters around Oahu. But primarily the funding being proposed is focused for marine law enforcement work, particularly in our near shore fisheries, specifically targeting, amongst other things, herbivore protection.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 915 relating to water use. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Director Ciara Kahahane from the Commission on Water Resource Management. To briefly summarize our comments, we support the use of alternative water sources and the proposed amendments to Section 174C-51.5HRS. We defer to the Department of Health on whether the requirement for a recycled water manager should be removed as per section four of this bill.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Department of Agriculture in opposition. Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Department of Health with comments on Zoom. Oh, you're here. Okay. Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have an individual, Jacqueline Ambrose, in support. Nobody on Zoom? Nope. And is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

I have a question.

Sure, go ahead.

For Department of Agriculture. Thank you. I just wanted to know... I can see in your testimony. It discusses how authorizing residential and mixed use developments to be included in irrigation projects as defined in Chapter 167 of the HRS. How is that burdensome to the Department of Agriculture? Can you just explain about the effects?

Sure. So the Department of Agriculture's irrigation program is primarily set up for non-potable use. Most of our systems are surface water divergence, which is is prevalent in some communities, but on Oahu not so much. But we do have throughout the state. We service agricultural farm lots, usually about five acres or greater. So we don't have any residential or, I guess, use of that nature. Our structure, our internal structure is not set up for that type of activity. We don't have heavy equipment operators. We don't have that type of infrastructure.

Okay. Do you have a suggestion as to which department this would be best suited under?

You know, I really...

You want to pass the buck on to somebody?

I don't like throwing, you know, passing the buck, throwing people under the bus because I don't like it when it happens to us. But...

Just from your experience, what department do you think would be most...

It's actually, again, I do believe that certain county agencies have appropriate equipment already, like the Departments of Water Supply. They could potentially use, you know, dual plumbing and things like that to service it. And if the R1 is coming from county plants, then it might be a better match. I really don't want to speak for anyone.

No, thank you for your perspective. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I have one more question.

Okay, go ahead, Representative.

Perhaps this is a question for the Department of Health and the Department of Ag. In the testimony, there is mention of Hawaii Department of Health Reuse Guidelines, Volume 2. Can you just provide the committee a little bit of explanation of what those reuse guidelines are and what they're meant to protect?

So I'm sorry, I wouldn't have the answer to that. My wastewater branch chief is not available to be here, but I will get back to you on what the volume two reuse guidelines are.

But we're talking about these are waters now that are going to be moved into residential areas, right? So that's why.

Yes. So the guidelines are primarily for irrigation and agriculture. So we will need to also update our guidelines to address the proposed additional use of reuse in residential areas.

Okay, and then it says that you folks are concerned about the removal of the recycled water management manager. Again, I'm a newbie, like my colleague next to me. Is that, is that someone who is designated by the project, or is that someone who is a state employee?

So my understanding is that it could be the homeowner who could be identified as the water reuse manager to make sure that they are operating and maintaining their system appropriately to maintain the safety and health of the users of that water.

If this were a larger project that was being developed and there were multifamily units being built up like a part of a large development, then would that recycled water manager be someone that the large developer is responsible for?

Yes.

And then so by this saying that this is, again, not knowing what's in the reuse guidelines, but I'm assuming because it's from the Department of Health, it means that it's protecting human health, safety, and welfare. Then the stripping of a designated recycled water manager from a large project is actually quite dangerous.

Correct.

Okay. Sorry, you're on the hot seat. One more question, Chair. Section 4 says this act shall preempt any state or county rule, ordinance, policy, procedure, guideline, or other material that precludes or restricts the installation of or use of a dual line water supply system in a residential or mixed use development as authorized by this act. Do you know what those county rules, state rules, ordinances, policies, or procedures we may be exempting broadly?

No, I don't. We will have to do some additional research into the ordinances of the counties as well as... I, we would know what our state regulations are, but I don't... I'm not familiar with the county ones at this point.

Okay, can I ask that last question of D. Agriculture? Maybe you folks know of any of these rules, ordinances or policies we're seeking to be to preempt?

Brian Kau from the Department of Agriculture. Regretfully, I do not.

Okay. If this moves forward, which it likely will. I think it's, again, being new to this. Any information to the committee about this would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, go ahead.

Department of Agriculture, I think. I'm just wondering. This bill would, as I understand it, mandate a requirement to use dual line water supply in a development. And I think it's a good idea. Obviously, cost and practicality is a factor. Would it be possible to just introduce the idea to consider looking into what is involved in providing dual line provision?

I am not an expert in building codes, county building codes. I do believe that there have been some precedent in the past in Hawaii on dual plumbing developments. We, the department hasn't necessarily been involved in those activities, as I believe a lot of the dual plumbing is situational dependent on where the non-potable water is coming from.

What about for like farming irrigation?

There are several instances right now where a farming subdivision has both potable water from a county as well as state water from my division to service the irrigation needs versus say a residential farm dwelling. However, in those cases, the irrigation systems again are, they're located in very specific places where traditionally large scale plantation had taken place. So these irrigation systems are in existence for the most part, not always.

Okay, understood. Thanks for the explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 502, relating to land use. First up, we have Attorney General with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. I am Deputy Attorney General Miranda Steed. The Attorney General just has a brief comment on this bill. The purpose of this bill is to temporary allow for counties to use the declaratory ruling process instead of the normal district boundary amendment process to redesignate certain agricultural lands to rural lands.

Article 11, Section 3 of the State Constitution requires that when important agricultural lands are redistricted they they must have a 2/3 vote from the body doing the redistricting. In addition, it has to be done by legislatively required criteria. The Legislature has placed that criteria in Section 20550.

Thus, there are concerns from the department that allowing important agricultural lands to be redistricted through this process could potentially create a constitutional issue with Article 11, Section 3. Thus, the department recommends excluding important agricultural lands from this temporary declaratory ruling process. I'm available for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Office of Planning with comments. Not here? Okay. Next, we have Department of Ag. Oh, okay. Next we have Department of Agriculture with comments.

Chair, the department stands its written testimony.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have State Land Use Commission with comments. Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Again? Wait, we'll skip that one. Next we have Hawaii County Council in support. Are they on zoom? Nope. Next, we have Hawaii Realtors Association in support. Okay, thank you. Next, we have Farm Bureau, Hawaii Farm Bureau in support, or is that correct?

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Yes, you have a written testimony in support. And it may shock you to see that we are supporting. Let me clarify a few things. We are not advocating for removing agricultural lands out of agriculture district.

However, we have been proponents and have suggested that maybe we look at the rural designation, and let me explain why. Let me first of all start by saying we agree with the Attorney General with IAL that it shouldn't even be a consideration. And we don't believe that the counties are considering IAL.

We believe they're looking at agricultural lands that may not have true ag value or ag production value at this point. If you recall, when land districting was done, we put land in urban, we put land in conservation, put some in rural and everything else we just threw into agriculture.

So we have asked in the past for the state to look at the redistricting and maybe identify some areas where they can move it into rural where it can be a buffer, where farming is not a requirement, it can still be done but not a requirement. And that way we can protect our true agricultural lands for ag production, reduce the amount of gentlemen farms that we have pressure on, reduce other non-ag uses and accessory uses. So this is temporary.

We want to ensure that there are safeguards in place, ensure that true ag land that is an ag production or has future ag production potential is not removed. But also assist the counties in their land use policies and their land use needs. That's why we are testifying in support.

Again, we should be looking at the rural land districting, and that way we can take pressure off of real ag land and real farmers and ranchers that are trying to produce food, feed, fiber, fuel, and for culture for the State of Hawaii. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Hawaii Farmers Union in support.

Thank you, Chair. Hunter Heaivilin on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. I'll echo the sentiments of the Farm Bureau. This is an important measure that enables the effective regulation of agricultural land uses in agricultural districts and conceivably even agricultural zoning.

By transitioning what could be viewed as a residential use of productive lands away from a district that should ideally be focused on productive activities, it enables better regulatory and planning oversight. So we're in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That is all the testimony that we have. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Belatti.

Questions for, I think, likely Attorney General's Office and LUC and possibly OPSD. First up, for Attorney General, do we know and have an inventory of important ag lands so that we would know what might actually be falling into this that is of concern?

I think that might be a better question for LUC, if I could pass the buck.

Punt. Sorry, again, newbie. Not sure who gets the questions.

Thank you. Daniel Orodenker, executive officer for the Land Use Commission. Yes, we have an inventory of where IAL lands are. We do not believe that any of the lands that would qualify under this bill for redesignation would be IAL land.

Okay. So if we could get a list of that and understand where that is. So knowing that, then, LUC, do you support the AG's amendment that maybe just to be extra sure that we include this protections for IALs?

Of course.

Okay. And I think it's in the testimony of... Oh, it's the testimony of, I think Department of Ag. Sorry about that. Not OPSD. You're off the hook. I think it's Department of Ag.

Your testimony...

Good morning.

...says that. Oh. Uh. Your testimony says that the counties who take advantage of these provisions, should it be enacted, consider concurrent revision, um, of their respective ordinances, rules, plans and rules, um, of agricultural land to direct the development of large lot estates to the rural district. How, how, do you envision that happening with this Bill?

And if it's. Uh. We could take this offline if, if, it's too difficult, because I'm, I'm trying to understand this process and what this process that we're creating, um, to more rationally, as one of the other testifiers say, kind of organize our agricultural lots.

This would be a great question for our land manager, Brian Kau, but I believe he is not here, but I can get back to you with, um, that information.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 929, relating to agriculture land conveyance tax. First up, we have Department of Tax with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Garrison Kurth, Department of Tax. The department submitted testimony on comments on administration of the bill. We stand on that, and I'm here for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Department of Ag with comments.

Chair, the Department of Agriculture stands on its written testimony.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have Hawaii Realtors in opposition. Okay, next we have Farm Bureau in opposition.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony respectfully opposing this measure. Without the preamble, we don't know if this is an issue. We do believe that the intent is to discourage speculative purchasing, conversion of ag lands, basically flipping ag land.

There are different. They're blanks. Different percentages for different time periods. And again, we're not sure if this is an issue that is prevalent right now. We absolutely, heard us in our previous testimony, want to preserve agricultural lands for agricultural production. It needs to be the primary activity on ag land. We have goals to double our food production.

Farm to school, farm to state, farm to families. So we are strong supporters of preservation of ag land. However, we don't know if this is a problem, and we are just concerned about the unintended consequences, which we do list in our testimony. And I know this is not a protocol, Chair, but on the previous bill, maybe the committee may want to consider not just IAL because we're not done with IAL. The counties have not mapped or identified IAL lands. The state has not done it either.

So IAL designation needs to grow, but also maybe we'll protect our some of our A, B and C lands. You can designate which lands may not even be on the table on top of IAL for the last bill. Again, I do apologize. I should have said that in our testimony. But again, we respectfully oppose this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Hawaii Farmers Union in support.

Thank you, Chair. Hunter Heaivilin on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We stand in support of this measure as a mechanism to reduce agricultural land speculation. The inclusion of additional data we certainly welcome. Should you seek that from the Bureau of Conveyances, I think you might have an easier time getting that than myself.

But we've viewed this as a critical opportunity to reduce, we could say, inflationary pricing that has negative effects on agricultural farm viability and the cost of agricultural production in the state, which has direct impact on the extent to which local families can access our fresh foods. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments on zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We have a couple of substantive comments. One being that the bill is now full of blanks in the surcharge rates. And we're concerned because the bill cannot be scored for revenue estimation purposes in its present form, nor can it be properly vetted in its present form because of these blanks.

Second, we wanted to note, and I think the Department of Taxation said this in their testimony also, is that the people who enforce the conveyance tax, namely the Bureau of Conveyances, for the most part, are not institutionally equipped to to deal with attacks on gains because that's not something that they normally deal with.

They deal with the gross price of realty, not gain or loss, which involves calculation of basis, which many of them have no idea how to calculate. We also have a number of technical comments that are listed in our testimony. I'll be happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably another 10-15 individuals in support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Belatti, go ahead.

I have a question for Hawaii Farmers Union United and the DOTAX individual. You cite Vermont's Title 32, Chapter 236. Can you explain a little bit about what that tax looks like and does and what is it trying to target and stop?

I can say based on the current draft, it looks very similar. I believe even has the same number of years and same number of percentages. So it is intended to address, it's framed to some degree as a land gains tax to ensure or rather reduce transaction behavior that could be seen as what's commonly known as land flipping.

Right. So purchase and transition. The extent to which it's had efficacy is, I haven't learned that, or I honestly don't know how long it's been in effect. But it was particularly targeted to address capital gains on the sale of land held for a short period.

And do you know why Vermont legislators felt it was necessary to do this? Were they seeing in extraordinary amounts of land flipping? Who was doing the land flipping? I mean, I get the sense that this is about corporations that are buying up ag lands, holding them, and then flipping potentially. Is that the case?

I would think this is more, I mean, Vermont, just looking at the sort of agricultural geography, has a variety of smallholders in the many and similar in some ways to the way that Hawaii does. So I think it was likely viewed as a protection, but I would presume more focused on what could be seen as residential use or potential residential use than say, corporate acquisition. I think corporate purchase tends to maybe fall more into what we consider land banking as opposed to land flipping.

But the potential of agricultural use, that's often used as a lure, as a mechanism of passing through planning councils and commissions, wherein someone says we're going to build an agricultural subdivision and it ends up being a housing subdivision that they then flip in short order. This could conceivably ensure that it reduces the likelihood of those activities.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Representative Shimizu.

Department of Taxation. I just wanted to confirm that this is a totally new fee that's going to be applied.

Yes. Be an additional fee.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Anybody else has another question? Are you sure? Before we let Belatti go again for her second turn. Okay, go ahead, Representative.

For DOTAX, similar question to what I asked of Hawaii Farmers Union United. Do you, are you familiar with Vermont, Vermont's chapter?

I'm not, and unfortunately, I didn't see their testimony before today.

Okay. This is an intriguing idea. And I guess the issues of land banking and land flipping of especially agricultural properties is important because we want to keep ag lands ag lands. Are you, would your department have the data on the transactions of these kinds or the sales of these kinds of lands?

I'm not positive if we would have them, so I'd have to go back and ask on that. But I'm sure they're out there somewhere, so we could find out who would.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Oh, Department DOTAX. I got a quick question. So this is only for agricultural land, right. We have short term capital gains and long term capital gains tax. There's no, this tax is, this structure is not for any other conveyance tax, is there? This would be completely new. For residential, it's not in place also.

Well, it's new in that sense, I guess, and make sure I'm parsing that out right. But I mean anybody who sells a property, I shouldn't say anybody, there are some limitations, but in general, has a conveyance tax that applies to them and has to pay it. So this is a new tax. But it's also, I mean, people are already paying tax on their capital gains when they sell property. So this is a new tax we're putting on them. But is that where you're getting at or do I misunderstand?

Yes. Should this be properly under conveyance tax surcharge or should it be just capital gains?

That's a good policy question. I'm not sure. I'm here, you know, to answer. We're trying to figure out how to administer it, but by separating it, it would probably make it easier to administer.

Oh, as, you mean capital gains tax instead of a conveyance tax. Okay, thank you.

I think like Mr. Yamachika was saying, that it complicates things for the conveyance tax people because this is not something they've done or do.

Okay, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Quick question, Chair. Thank you. Farm Bureau, you mentioned some interesting comments regarding the lack of proper land classification. Do you see that as being a problem in applying this bill because of the ambiguity in your opinion?

Thank you, Representative. Brian Miyamoto here on the Hawaii Farm Bureau. What we see is not enough positive ag policies that would prevent farmers and ranchers from wanting to sell their land. We need to support the farmers and ranchers again to maintain and ensure that the land stays in agriculture instead of, as Farmers Union saying, the speculative purchasing and flipping. Again, we're not familiar with what Vermont is doing.

There are some similarities as a smaller ag producing state, but again, if we support positive ag policies, if we support the agriculture sector, if we make farming successful and profitable, there's less pressure to potentially want to flip the land and then it has a pressure of non-ag use, gentlemen farming, and all the things that we don't want to see on our agricultural land.

All right, thank you. I'd be interested to have conversation after and learn more about the things that are troubling you that we could improve on. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative. We'd welcome that.

Okay, thank you very much. No questions? We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 660, related to Land Court. First up, we have Hawaii State Judiciary with comments. Not here. DLNR in support.

Hello. Ryan Kanaka'ole, Department of Land and Natural Resources. We submitted testimony in support. However, I do have a substantive comment. We believe that Senate Bill 949 provides the best pathway forward. There's several bills out there regarding Land Court reform.

In Senate Bill 949, it calls for a working group of stakeholders that should analyze the issues and develop a transition plan if that determination is made to abolish Land Court. This would allow for an informed process that would consider all the impacts of eliminating an entire system. You know, top of DLNR's mind is the impacts that we would have on our staff at the Land Court recording branch. We're here to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Okay. Next, we have testimony from an individual in opposition. That's all the testimony that we have received in this. Would anybody else wishing to testify? Did we get yours? I don't know.

I apologize, Chair. We did not submit written on time, but we will get it to you to your office shortly. My name is Lyndsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors. And we do support the intent of this bill, which repeals the Land Court. We largely echo what DLNR said. Land Court is very difficult and it is very complicated.

And we do agree that perhaps creating a working group to really think through how to handle Land Court, how to, if the Legislature is interested in abolishing Land Court, how to go about that. So we echo DLNR's testimony, and we will get you a copy of our written. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify that didn't submit testimony? See none. Members, are there any questions? Go ahead, Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. I have a question for DLNR. So there was a, there was testimony submitted in opposition by actually an assistant registrar to the Bureau of Conveyances. She, I guess she wrote it in her individual capacity. Did you have a chance to read?

I did not.

Okay. She raises a couple of concerns that seem really serious in terms of the deregistration requirements of this particular bill. Well, you know, she alleges that it could lead to between the 350 and $4,000, you know, escrow fees for that process. She mentions quite a few, hiring of attorneys for individuals. And there...

There are quite a few people who own individual smaller pieces who this would tie up. But anyway, so given all this, I'm not sure if Chair is going to be open to following the recommendation of the Judiciary and DLNR and what I think is the realtor to go along with the SB 949 because if so, then I'll just stop asking.

So I haven't read that testimony, but I agree that there are unforeseen consequences of eliminating something, an entire system, which is why we are calling for that working group rather to think through those types of consequences. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Members. And Representative Shimizu.

Question, kind of follow up with Representative Iwamoto. Is the current situation a redundancy so that this doing away with Land Court makes it seamless for current landowners?

I don't want to say it's a redundancy or... There are different purposes. Right. For Land Court. Land Court was intended in the beginning for land, for largely large landowners to protect their title, particularly against like adverse possession claims. So in Land Court, the state actually, you know, ensures title. You know, the transfer, the TCTs, those transfer certificates of title, they have the chain of title within them. And so it's easier for, let's say developers or these large landowners to kind of know the title and that chain of title.

Whereas the regular system, it's easier for, you know, on the consumer side, the Joe homeowner to go in and record the document. But you know, there, that side, the regular side, although it's more widely adopted, easier to use. There are, you know, unanticipated consequences. People can file, you know, wild deeds and whatnot, and those play out through the litigation process, correcting those. But otherwise they have two different purposes.

We found that, you know, in just like in our testimony, that Land Court is cumbersome because of the fact that we are, a lot of these large lands are being transitioned into, you know, that Joe homeowner consumer side, they're being subdivided, whatnot. And so when these properties that are still in Land Court go to one of these like, you know, regular folk, it's a little difficult to get to go through the Land Court process. So it's easier to go through the regular process.

Chair, can I get a follow up?

Sure.

So we're forcing these landowners that are applicable to deregister, so does that incur more effort, time, cost, and also burden on the whole system because of this?

Certainly. Because of the fact that every, the, when you're calling for change and everyone has to do this deregistration, you're going to create... Even on the deregistration side, work has to be done at the Bureau. Right. So that's going to cause a swell of work going through that system. So it's going to cause an operational issue.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions?

I think for DLNR. Thank you. Actually, in the conversation, maybe my questions have been sort of answered some of them. I'm glad to hear that you're open to do the working group option instead, I think, because my questions really were about the process. Like, so many what if questions. You know, do you know how many people or owners would have to deregister?

I do not.

Okay. And, yeah, just more questions about what the, I don't know, consequences or the burdens would be on the registrants and what would happen if you can't get a hold of them in time. Lots of questions came up for me. So I agree that working through more of a methodical process is, I think, better option, but... Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up is HB 1007 relating to HCDA. First up, we have DBEDT in support.

Jimmy Tokioka. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of DBEDT. You have our testimony and we support this very strongly. Thank you very much, Chair. And I really like the new conference room. This is--for the new members this is really nice. And Rep Belatti, you're not a newbie.

Next up, we have Office of Planning with comments. Okay, thank you very much. Next, HCDA in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Garet Sasaki, Chief Financial Officer, Hawaii Community Development Authority. Executive Director Craig Nakamoto sends his sincere apologies that he couldn't be present today. He is currently traveling out of state for a funeral. The HCDA does stand in strong support of HB 1007.

Includes two parts: the first part is a housekeeping measure to authorize HCDA to cooperate with private and public sector entities, primarily other state agencies. The second part amends Chapter 206E, Part 10 to change the district to a program. Available for questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the testimony that we have. Members, are there--I mean, is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions?

I have a question.

Go ahead.

For--yeah. Oh, you already knew. Thank you. Morning. I just have--I have a question, a general question. You know, I think you referred to the portion of the bill that essentially adds the ability of the Hawaii Community Development Authority to cooperate with or assist public and private sector entities to engage in projects that improve the state.

He called it a housekeeping measure. Although this bill is really focused more on the transit-oriented development portion, this particular statement is perhaps maybe a touchy subject, considering yesterday--which is germane to this bill, and that's why I'm bringing this up--but yesterday, during the Kaka'ako Makai bill hearing, there was some talk about potentially HCDA's maybe more inclination to support private projects rather than public projects or supporting private developers over public agencies, such as Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

So I'm not sure if it's necessarily a housekeeping matter, but more of a matter that HCDA--if HCDA actually understands its responsibility in that sense, if we're going to add this language to the bill, and I guess that's just a general question. Thank you.

As a part of our--as a part of the purpose in our statute--sorry. I'm Francine Murray from Hawaii Community Development Authority.

Thank you, Francine.

Sorry, Representatives. Thank you for that question. As a part of our purpose, we are asked to collaborate with other state agencies, federal, county, and private entity. And it may seem we work more with private entity because of Kaka'ako, but on a daily basis, we work with other state agencies.

For example, at UH West Oahu, we're putting in a road adjacent to the campus. Sorry, I just ran over from another hearing, so I'm a little out of breath, but we also work with DLNR. We're constantly working with the county regarding infrastructure, so it might not be publicly seen, but we are constantly working with other agencies.

Thank you for your response. I'm just, you know, shedding light on the fact that there has been criticism, especially yesterday, in regard to HCDA's role with--especially the development of the Kaka'ako area. And, yeah, so I think this language, you know, kind of exacerbates that, that sentiment. So thank you so much for your response. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Representative Shimizu.

I have a question for HCDA. I guess the question would be these changes, as you mentioned, housekeeping, they would improve efficiency and hopefully save money in its operational costs because your function would be more streamlined, I'm gathering, from this request? In fact, can you just maybe shortly explain the improvements that will result from this change?

Thank you, Representative. It wouldn't affect any operating costs. It just would allow us to engage with other state agencies to effectuate their projects. For example, DLNR, Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation.

And you're not able to do that at this point?

Correct.

Oh. Okay. That's an important improvement. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Representative, you want to go? Belatti?

I'm not sure who to ask this question of, but there's a change in this bill that shifts assessments against real properties in each district to fees to be imposed upon users. What is that about? Page 14.

Page 14, you're looking at line...

Lines one through five.

One through five.

Because the change would remove the word district and change it to a program. It wouldn't be an assessment, it would be a user fee.

A user fee of the transit. I don't under... Well.

Can I ask Ryan Tam, our Director of Planning and Development to come up and answer this part?

Okay.

So I think the 11 of the goals of this change is to, for the TOD districts. Right. In order to allow more, I think this would allow the agency to assess other entities for the share of costs. Right, sorry.

We apologize again that Craig's not here. But currently... Again, this is Francine Murray from HCDA. Currently, in the Kaka'ako and Kalaeloa districts where we, where we have made improvements and they benefit a particular landowner, we have been able to assess them a portion of the cost. So they might make, continue to make monthly payments for some time.

And this, this line that we're talking about allows us to do that in this program. So if a particular individual is going to benefit more than the community at large, but we're putting in a road, for example, they would have to pay a prorated portion. Well, not have to, but they, they may have, may be charged an assessment or user fee. User fee. That's what this is. We currently have them in Kalaeloa and Kaka'ako for landowners.

May I ask a follow up question? What are the amounts that are then being assessed now, and what is the reduction? What would be the reduction or increase? What are your projections? And when you say users, are you now saying that assessments would be like individual condo, condominium owners? Like who, who?

In the past, it was only charged to landowners, and it's usually been a small prorated amount. And this is only for something where they would directly benefit because of these improvements.

Okay, I guess I would like to understand what, have these assessments already been done against the landowners and we've been collecting it over time?

Yes, in Kalaeloa and Kaka'ako.

Would we know, and maybe for future because it's going to go to Finance to understand what the fiscal impact of that and the change from user to, or from assessed against I guess the real property landowner, which could be a large REIT or it could be, I don't know, it could be the large like parcel versus then who is the user? Who's the user we're not taxing in this? Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Representative Iwamoto.

Yeah, thank you, Ms. Murray. It's a follow up to that. Is this a fee collected indefinitely or is it a one time fee?

There's a term limit.

Oh, there is. Okay. Because just so that the other, the committee understands, some developers in Kaka'ako do charge a community fee. And now I'm wondering if this is that fee passed on to the individual condo owners possibly. Okay. But I did want to get back to you because it sounded like you wanted to respond when it was asked whether or not this bill will allow you to work more seamlessly with other state agencies and some... And that was, it would. Because right now it's difficult. But you actually just stated in your previous testimony that you're already working with several state agencies, but this will just make it easier? I mean, okay.

This language here our attorney generals had put in, that was why we're all scrambling to, like, wait, what did they mean by this? And that's why we're trying to explain it to you now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Good question. Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1132. First up, we have Office of Information, OIP, Office of Information Practices, in support. Not here. Next, we have an individual, Kim Kordit Quarterly, in opposition. That is all we have on registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions to nobody? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 818, relating to the Waiakea Community Development District. This is--yeah. First up, we have DLNR with comments.

Hello. Ryan Kanaka'ole, Department of Land and Natural Resources. The department provided comments on this bill, and to add on, we truly appreciate HCDA's testimony and their appreciation of our concerns here and we agree with their recommendation to remove the sections of this bill regarding the transfer of title and jurisdiction over lands and leases in HCDA--to HCDA. If those sections are removed--those are sections three and four of this bill--DLNR would support a Community Development District designation for this area model.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have DLNR, DLNR, Department of Budget and Finance with comments, Hawaii Community--County of Hawaii Planning Department in support. Oh, DLNR, other--oh, HCDA? I didn't call you up yet. County of Hawaii Mayor's Office in support. HCDA in support.

Yeah. Good morning, Chairperson Hashem, Vice Chairperson Lamosao, and members of the committee. Again, as was mentioned previously, Executive Director Nakamoto could not be here because he's attending a funeral. Again, the agency submitted comments supporting in part and offering comments in part, and we stand on those comments.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have an individual by Mr. McCully in support and Browning in support. That's all the testimony that we have received. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1494, relating to sports facilities.

First up, we have University of Hawaii Systems with comments. Kalbert.

Good morning, Chair, members. Kalbert Young for the University of Hawaii. We can stand on our testimony offering comments, but I did want to reiterate the university's intention and support for the current Aloha Stadium, they said, project. Thank you.

Okay. Next up, we have DBEDT. Jimmy in opposition?

Yes. Thank you, Chair and members, for this opportunity. DBEDT stands in strong opposition to this bill. I think we sent in our testimony--you can review that--but just to add a little bit to it, I think all of us can remember events at Aloha Stadium where you had 50,000 people there, the BYU, University of Hawaii football game, Bruno Mars.

If we don't have a stadium of this magnitude or even half the size--because currently the plan is 25,000, and I can assure you that the governor and I are looking at all kinds of different methods of funding through outside resources and whatever else we can do as well as the Stadium Authority. It's all hands on deck, and to turn around into a different direction now, I think we would be not doing justice to the stadium project and the people of Hawaii. So thank you for this opportunity, Chair and members, and we'll stand for any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have DAGS in opposition. Keith Regan or DAGS.

Yes, hi. Gordon Wood for the Department of Accounting and General Services. Department stands on its written testimony in strong opposition to this bill. I'm available for any questions you may have.

Okay. Next up, we have, in-person, Aloha Stadium Authority in opposition.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. We are in strong opposition to this lapse of the appropriation. We are deep within our negotiation phase with Aloha Halawa District Partners for state project documents, including a development of a new stadium and the redevelopment of the new Aloha Stadium Entertainment District. And this will--the lapse of the money will stop all procurement and then have to, you know, delay in a new stadium opening. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Stanford Carr in opposition. Is he on? Nope. Okay. That's all the testimony that we have, written testimony that we have. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Representative Vice Chair Lamosao. Since you haven't asked the question, you get priority.

Yay. This question is for Director Tokioka. I want--you mentioned that there--you guys are seeking outside funding for, like, for the build out of the stadium. I wanted to know if we have a mechanism of receiving outside funds.

Yes. I, I can't go into the details of that because I'm not Budget and Finance, but it's my understanding in talking to Louis that we do. There is a process for that.

Can you explain that a little bit, like, to your--what your conversation is with--?

Well, until we get the money, I'd rather not get into any of those details, with all due respect to the people that we have been talking to, but I can tell you, if you look at the governor's track record with the Benioff Foundation, and we've had two buildings that he put money into, so we're talking to a lot of different people, and I can tell you that the discussions have been positive because, you know, everyone who has a passion for Hawaii and its people understands that on this island, you need a significant venue to have those types of events. And right now, we don't have it.

I think the biggest venue--and Kalbert, you correct me if I'm wrong--is the Stan Sheriff. I think it's bigger than the Blaisdell, and that's 14,000? Okay, so it's 10,000. And I guess if you put people on the floor, then that's a little bit more, but we don't have anything bigger than that.

I know for a fact--I've worked with producers who wanted to bring Pink to Hawaii, and then when we found out--when they found out there was nothing big enough over the sizes that we have, she didn't come. And there's a lot of concerts, concert promoters. Live Nation was the person that I was in--people that I was in touch with, and for a big concert like that, they cannot come.

I think the last big one, which was in the open grass at West Oahu, it was a Korean boy band that came, and they said there was 20,000 people estimated there. You know, right now we're doing concerts at Aloha Stadium in the parking lot, but, you know, as good and as successful as it has been, that's not what people in Hawaii would be proud about. They do a great job with it, don't get me wrong, but we just feel the necessity to have a bigger field.

And I know part of the discussion is talking about Ching Field. You know, you would have to expand it by a lot, and with all due respect to the introducer of the bill, you would have to expand it a lot. Then you have the students and some young students that are going to the university mixing with, you know, other people that will be there for different reasons and I'm not sure that that would be the best use of that facility.

So, I hope that answers the question. And as soon as we know, if there's people that are--and we've had great discussions with, you know, philanthropists, so I know that the governor is 100% pursuing all types of different methods of funding.

Okay. My chair allowed me to make a comment. I just want to make sure that what you're saying about, like, these outside funding that we could potentially have is that you're confident that we will and then we can look forward to potentially, like, having a stadium and hearing more about those plans.

Yes, we...

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else that hasn't asked that many questions? Seeing none, okay. Representative Shimizu.

Question for--I think this would be the Stadium Authority, and the question is--thank you, Chair--would be, if we were to make this change, which is quite significant to say the least, would the state incur, like, legal action against us? And also if you could comment on the possible delays in the completion of a stadium which should be ready for the 2028 UH football season.

The latter part of the question is that it would stop all momentum towards that. We wouldn't be making a 2028. It wouldn't be in Halawa. The funding lapse would not allow any further development at the Halawa site.

With respect to litigation, the Aloha Halawa District Partners has spent quite a bit of money on consultants and due diligence on the property so far in advance of our negotiation of the project documents, but can't speak of any litigation. Hope not, but they always have the right to, you know, seek legal, or seek compensation for the money that they spent so far.

Right. So obviously Halawa wouldn't be ready, but if, again, this went through and they switched it to Ching Field, would that stadium be ready for 2028?

That's something I would defer to Kalbert on, but I believe no, not even close to 2028.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, members. Any other questions?

Okay. None. We are going to move on to HB 1316. First up is DLNR.

Hello. Ryan Kanaka'ole, Department of Land and Natural Resources. DLNR supports this measure and we offered comments and we stand on our and testimony and here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Okay. We have four other individuals in support of HB 1316. Anyone here in the room wanting to testify? Seeing none. Anyone on Zoom? One. Okay. Is it Annie Leighton?

Good morning. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Okay. My name is Annie Leighton, born and raised here in Kauai. I have been advocating for regulation of commercial use in Wailua River for many, many years. There have been no rules since 2016. This House bill is a great start, but what I would like to know is how do we establish numbers? To whom?

To which companies would these commercial stickers be issued to? Would it be to companies who have, even though there's no rules, have continued to obey the rules? Would they get preference or is this going... Are these permits and stickers going to be issued to just every random person who has been renting kayaks on the river for years? And I also stand by my testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. No one else on Zoom. All right, any questions, Members, for testifiers? Oh, wait.

Thank you. DLNR. Thanks for being here, Alan. You heard Annie Leighton's question. Can you answer that?

Sure. And I appreciate her testimony. Good morning. I am Alan Carpenter, Assistant Administrator with State Parks. And we have two categories of users considered commercial in Wailua. So I would actually, with all due respect, I'll dispute the fact that there are no rules for the river.

We do have commercial use rules for the river, and we have 18 permitted commercial kayak vendors within the park who have been there for many years. They're subject to our rules because they operate within the state park boundaries, and so they are controlled by permit conditions.

They pay us fees, they have insurance, their guides have to be lifeguard certified, et cetera, for public safety. They're regulated. They can't operate on weekends, and they don't. And they have time slots, so they mitigate overcrowding of the river. The second category of user is the one that has been proliferating.

Those are commercial rentals, and those rentals take place outside of the park boundaries. They are unregulated by our commercial use rules. So it'd be similar to you or I renting a car at the airport. We can drive into the park, into Kamuli launch ramp at Wailua. That's not considered a commercial vehicle.

So you rent a kayak outside the park and you bring it in yourself. That's not considered a commercial use either. This attempts to deal with that problem because that has proliferated off site. They're flooding the river, and particularly on weekends when local residents want to recreate.

Perhaps the greatest reason to illustrate the need is an event relayed to me by one of your colleagues, Rep. Evslin, who is a, you may know, an avid paddler himself and coach. Earlier this month, the state or the, the Kauai paddling championships for high school, they're held on the river, and it was on a Saturday.

None of our permitted commercial operators were on the river, but the parking lots and the river was full of these people who brought in their kayaks, rented off site, crowded up the parking lot, and someone called, someone called enforcement. And so parents were faced with the unenviable position of either getting, having their vehicle cited for illegal parking because there wasn't any room left and watching their child race or exiting the park and missing the race. Right. So those are the kinds of conflicts that illustrate the need to regulate the outside vendors. Does that help?

Thank you. Yeah, that helps. Thank you, Alan.

Okay, Members, any other questions? Rep. Poepoe, go ahead.

Thank you. I don't think my question is for Parks, but it is for DLNR. Just thinking about this bill, I, you know, I completely support the intent and what it proposes to do, but my question is a little bit broader. I think DOBOR might be the best. But just considering a permitting or a registration process for all kayaks.

I'm wondering if the Department has considered that as well. Because when a kayak is found lost at sea without a person on it, it's a pretty big production that involves the Coast Guard, first responders, media to try and track down owners and determine if someone's missing at sea. So I'm just curious if that's something more broadly the Department has considered.

Thankfully, to answer, we have considered that, and I believe there was prior legislation or has been trying to push for, for example, ocean recreation management areas across the state that would allow DOBOR to effectuate these types of commercial use permitting rules and regulations that would be enforceable beyond the State Parks jurisdiction. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right, seeing none. We are going to recess for decision making.

Okay, hold on here. Let me get organized.

Okay. Gaveling back in on our 9am agenda. We're heading into decision making. First up, we have HB 299 relating to Hawaii Invasive species. Council Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1 and to zero out the appropriation and put 400, $204,250,000 in the Committee report.

And for all the bills going forward, in case I forget, we're going to defect the date till July 1st, 3000 and do technical amendments if needed. And that's a blanket statement if I forget to state that. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, we are now voting on HBA299. A recognition of the Chair is passed with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your foundation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have HB 1220 relating to save Mike Lee and Scott Matayoshi Bill. Right. Kaneo Ibe. So the Chair's recommendation is to zero out the appropriation and put $200,000 in the Committee report and that's it. Any concerns or reservations seeing none. Chair. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1220. Recommendation of the Chair is passed with amendments noting the excuse absence of Representative Woodson. Chair and Vice Chair, Vote Aye. Any Members voting no. Any with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much, Members. Next up, we have HB506 relating to conservation enforcement. The Chair's recommendation is to blank out all. All the amounts and put the pass it out with an HD one, Blank out the amounts and put the amounts into the Committee report. So any concerns or questions? Seeing none.

Vice Chair, we're voting on HB506. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Any Members voting no. Any Members voting WR? All Members vote Aye. Chair, your condition is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much, Members. Next up we have HB915 relating to water use. This is. Okay, so this is a work in progress. I will state before, I mean beforehand, I pushed this up because I. I want to hear the conversation and I think the conversation should be heard.

I don't think this bill will pass because it's very early and we need to have this conversation some more. So I will push this out. It's going next to the Department of. It's going to the Agriculture Committee.

So the Chair's recommendation is to take Department of Health's recommendation and within the Committee report for the Agriculture Committee to see if the Department of Ag is the proper agency to house this. So and that's it. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

All right Members, we're voting on HB915. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments noting the excuse absent of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting no. Anyone voting with reservations? With reservations for Representative Shimizu. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much, Members. Next up we have HB 502 relating to land use. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1 to take the AG's amendment and not allow IAL. And this is going to Judiciary.

And for the I'll take Brian's Farm Bureau's comments and for the Next Committee to see if looking at AB and C grant, AB and C grade lands and we'll put that in the Committee report and defect date and tech amendments. Any comments or concerns seeing? None. Right. Share for the vote.

All right Members, we're voting on HB 502. Recommendation of the Chair is to vote with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting no. Any vote? Anyone voting with reservations? All Members vote Aye Chair. Your combination is adopted.

Okay, next up we have HB2. Sorry, HB929 relating to agricultural land conveyance tax. The Chair's recommendation is to defer this because I don't think conveyance tax is the proper vehicle to do this. It should be under capital gains versus conveyance tax. And I would like to expand ban the discussion. Not just agriculture lands, but old property.

But I can't do that because of the title. So Chair's recommendation is to defer this. Next up we have HB.

Can I ask a question?

Go ahead.

Just because I love it that you said you want to expand it to all properties. So is that to say you would want higher capital gains taxes on all property sales?

Well, no, I'm not saying that. It would be interesting to have the discussion is what I'm saying. But conveyance tax is not the proper vehicle. Next up we have HB660 relating to land court. Chair's recommendation is to. Well, Chair's recommendation is to defer this because I agree with the AG.

SB949 is probably a better vehicle and is a better vehicle and a better way to go about this to create a working group and really study the situation before it gets eliminated. Or is it the Judiciary? Judiciary? Oh, Judiciary stated that.

But DLNR then agreed with the Judiciary. Yes.

Okay, very good. Next up, we have HB 1007 relating to HCDA. This is housekeeping according to HCDA. Representative Belatti, you wanted to put something in the Committee report.

I think it's just further questions about assessment of the user fee in Kalailoa. And in the next Committee, HCDA can expand upon assessments and taxes against either real property owners versus users.

Okay, very good. We'll put that into the Committee report and tech amendments and Defect date to July 1st, 3000. Any concerns or reservations? Seeing none. Oh, reservations. Reservations. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members were voting on HB 1007. Recommendation of the chairs passed with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting no. And also noting the reservations of Representative Iwamoto. Anyone else voting with reservations? All other Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation.

Thank you very much. Next up is HB 1132. I would defer to the Vice Chair.

I'm going to just defect the date and we're going to pass this as an hd. Do you want any questions? Okay. No vote for representative. Okay. All right. We're vot any other questions or nos? Okay.

We are now voting on HB 1132, recommendation of the Vice Chair's to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson and the no vote. Representative Iwamoto. Anyone voting with reservations? Any. All Members vote Aye. Vice Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, moving on. Next up, we have HB818 relating to Banyan Drive basically. And HCDA Chair's recommendation is to create. We're going to create the special district, but we're not going to transfer the land. So. So we're going to take ACDA and DLNR's comments about DLNR retaining the land and that's it.

Any concerns or comments? This is. I'm sorry. This is 1494.

818. Sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry. Banyan Drive on the Hilo. So Good.

We're voting on 8 HB818, the recommendation of the chairs to pass with amendments noting the excuse absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting no. Anyone voting with reservations? All Members with reservations for Rep. Shimizu. All other Members vote Aye. Chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much, Members. And next up, we have HB 1494 relating to sports facilities. Okay, so the chair's recommendation is to make the stadium exempt from the billboard law so we can. There is discussions about taking donations and naming rights of the stadium. So we're going to allow the stadium authority to do. Well, the Halawa.

What is this now? The Halawa Redevelopment District to do this. So we're going to exempt. The Chair's recommendation is exempt the stadium from the. From the billboard law, allowing them to do naming rights. Allowing them to accept donation for the naming rights. And I'm going to blank out the location for. On page two.

So for the Next Committee, it's going to the Higher ED Committee so they can look into this. Put in the Committee report for the next Committee to look at where it should be located. Any questions or concerns, you can vote. You're conscious on this one.

So just to confirm your. You're preserving the lapse of appropriations.

Yes, that will be for the finance Committee to take up. They're lapsing the funds and they're reissuing it back. So they have. Well, that's the way I understand it. So any questions or concerns. My concern is protecting current.

Excuse me. My concern is that we are protecting the. The current NASD development.

Yeah. By lapsing the funds and reappropriating it. It should be. Okay. They actually have a longer time frame. Right. Is that. Well, funds would be appropriate to the stadium. Okay. Okay, we'll do that. Appropriate. Well, appropriate.

Okay, so we are reappropriate to UH. I mean, we're still currently. Reappropriate to UH.

Okay, no, we're going to reappropriate it back to the stadium.

Okay.

Okay. That's right. Good. Good catch. Thank you. I missed that one. And we're going to blank out the location on where it should be. So Members, vote. You're conscious. If you wish to vote. No, that's fine. Thank you very, very much.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB 1494. Recommendation of the chairs to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting? No. Anyone voting with reservations? With reservations? With reservations for Rep. Iwamoto. Anyone else voting with reservations? All other Members vote Aye, Chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much, Members. That's the last bit. No, we have more. HD 1316. I will defer to the Vice Chair.

Last one, Members. So we're going to pass out of HD1 for this measure and we're going to adopt the recommendations by DLNR. So on page two, line 17 of the bill to add conditions of use to allow for weakened restrictions and other necessary rules for alleviating current commercial rental impacts.

And then we're going to change the word vessel. I'm sorry? Use the word vessel instead of watercraft for consistency with their administrative rules. Any questions? Okay, Scene nine can take the vote as well. All right. Voting on HB 1316. Recommendation of the Vice Chair is to vote. Sorry.

Is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting? No. Anyone voting with reservations? All Members vote Aye, Vice Chair. The predation is adopted. Thank you. Thank you very much, Members.

Now we are adjourned.