Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts

Attention...

All right, good afternoon. We're gonna go into a quick reset.

Good afternoon. We're convening the Senate Committee on Transportation, Culture, and the Arts here in Conference Room 224. It's 3pm, Thursday the 30th. Let me start by saying there have been a number of false alarms going off because of the rain. So in the event that we experience that again, we will recess until that's over.

In the event that there's some sort of catastrophic loss of connectivity or power and we have to defer our rest of our agenda, we're going to be deferring it to the end of our agenda Tuesday, February 4th, at 3pm here in Room 224. That doesn't count. Okay, so we have a number of bills up this afternoon.

Attention, staff and visitors, be advised we are experiencing some malfunctions to the fire panel. Please disregard. This is a false alarm. Mahalo.

We have everyone's written testimony, so we'll give everyone opportunity to come up and testify, but limit comments to two minutes to make sure we have time to get to everybody, especially since we're probably going to get interrupted another 85 times before the end of this.

So that said, up first is Senate Bill 282, relating to uncrewed aircraft offenses, which increases the penalty for using an uncrewed aircraft in the furtherance of the commission of a felony. Testifying first is the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye, Senator Elefante. I'm Daniel Hugo representing the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu. This bill is part of our legislative package, and we are strongly urging support of it. Drones are going to be the new frontier in crime.

It's a new name then.

Yes.

Unscrewed aircraft.

Microsoft Word constantly give us that autocorrect.

So it's drones. Okay.

Drones, yes. In our testimony, we point out to the different ways that criminals have been using these, including to violate sex offender registration requirements, to case burglaries, and in some cases, to plan and commit murders. The intent, primary intent of this bill is to create a strong deterrent to further innovation with drones and felonies. But, of course, we also reviewed the Public Defender's testimony. In any case where the Legislature thinks it's appropriate to mitigate, it can provide for a lesser penalty, and the Modica rule will control there.

The problem that we point out in our testimony is that under the operation of the Modica rule, even if you identify it as a class B felony, it's going to be a class C felony because putting this at the lowest grade of offense means that essentially all felonies committed with drones are going to be graded as class C felonies. So this bill addresses both of those problems, the deterrent effect as well as the Modica problem. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Testifying next is... Excuse me. Should have been an updated order, but Council Member Addison Bulosan from the Kauai County Council in support and Office of the Public Defender. Thank you. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? If not. All right, thank you, everyone.

Maybe we should continue the discussion then. Prosecutor's Office, can you come up? Yeah. Just curious, because there's so many activities and people using drones, and so does the bill cover... It's only the usage of the drone.

In the furtherance of a felony. So this is somebody who's already committing a felony, but they use a drone to facilitate it. One of the big concerns about drones, of course, is that you can use them at great distances. It's also much easier for people to act with impunity when they think that they won't get caught.

So how do you know if they're in violation?

So, I mean, the investigative methods differ. Some counties with much more sophisticated computer technology sections can track down the drone. In North Carolina, they just followed the drone to the sex offender's house and saw that he had been flying it over to evade the restrictions on meeting with children.

I think at one time we dealt with the usage of drones when it started to become very popular. And I'm not sure if we passed the laws, but I remember there were laws that we dealt with previously with regards to, you know, someone having the drone set up in their neighbor's, you know, sort of peeping Tom kind of thing. So do you know if we really actually pass those bills that's in statute right now?

Yes. Last year, the Legislature did pass the Uncrewed Aircraft Offenses Act. So there are a wide variety of offenses. The issue here is that right now, effectively all of them are class C offenses.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions? All right, if not, thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1032, relating to campaign finance, which amends the prohibition against foreign nationals and foreign corporations making campaign finance contributions and expenditures, and so forth. Testifying first on SB 1032 is Free Speech for People. IT, are they with us online?

They are available, Chair.

Good afternoon. Mr. Bonifaz, are you with us? Okay, why don't we see if they'll be there in a few minutes and move on. Up next, we have testimony in support from ILWU Local 142, UNITE HERE Local 5, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, League of Women Voters. Global Business Alliance in opposition, and Our Hawaii in support and seven other individuals all in support. That's all the testimony we have. Moving back just for a minute to Free Speech for People.

Are you guys with us online? All right, let's move on. Are there any questions? If not, thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1160 relating to consumer protection, which prohibits the sale of tickets at a higher price than the original price charged by the primary venue ticket provider. Testifying first is DCCA. Thank you. Up next is the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Han with comments on the bill. We've recommended an amendment to clarify the scope of the bill is for events in Hawaii. Our recommendation stems from our research into New York's anti-scalping case law which survive a Commerce Clause challenge because of a similar. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is the Chamber of Progress, opposition. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding SB 1160 for the record. On behalf of Chamber Progress, the tech industry association supporting public policies to build a more inclusive society in which all people benefit from technological advances, I'm here today to express some concerns around SB166.

Consumers benefit significantly from various resale options in a dynamic and fiercely competitive online ticketing industry. Many people face personal, professional conflicts that make it challenging to purchase tickets within brief windows offered by primary sellers. So for example, someone might not have a last minute work trip or a family event that clashes with a major ability to purchase tickets.

In these cases, a resale market offers a valuable second chance to access access tickets. Or in the instance of someone having, say, season tickets to a game or something that they can't attend, to be able to recoup some of that cost by providing an opportunity for someone else to enjoy these live experiences.

I think really what this bill is attempting to do is address individuals and scalpers who are potentially using nefarious things like deceptive links or technology. And I don't think this bill is really attempting to go after the robust and online platforms for resale and ticket transferability.

So I think there needs to be some kind of striking of that balance because I don't think the intent of the legislation is to really go after online ticket sales, which provide consumers with an opportunity to purchase tickets, transfer their property, and hopefully experience wonderful live events.

So there's a way in which we tailor the solution of the legislation to be more in line with individuals and scalpers and deceptive practices, rather than going after the robust and hopefully pro-competitive and pro-consumer online marketplaces for transferability of tickets. Thank you.

Thank you. Testifying next is Manoa Valley Theatre in support. BAMP Project in support. Rick Bartalini Presents in support, and a number of individuals, I'd say about, I don't know, 15 people in support, one with comments, and one opposed. That's all the testimony we have this afternoon. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure?

If not, are there any questions? If not, thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, which is Senate Bill 344 relating to highway safety, which requires skateboard users under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while operating a skateboard. And testifying first on 344 is the Department of Transportation. Good afternoon. Thank you. Next is Honolulu Police Department. IT, are they with us on Zoom?

Yes, I am.

Oh, good afternoon.

I can't get my video to... Okay, you can hear me, right? So this is... Good afternoon, Honorable Chair Chris Lee and Members of the Committee. This is Major Stason Tanaka of District 7, East Honolulu, Honolulu Police Department. I stand on my written testimony in support of Senate Bill 344 relating to highway safety. And I'll be available for questioning.

Thank you very much. Up next is the Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition in support. That's all the testimony we have on SB 344. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? All right. If not, thank you very much.

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 106 relating to pedestrians, which authorizes pedestrians to act contrary to the statewide traffic code when a reasonably careful pedestrian would determine if there's no immediate danger. And testifying first on 106 is the Department of Transportation. Thank you. Next is the Department of Health. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Member of the Committee. I'm Lola Irvin representing Dr. Kenneth Fink for the Department of Health. And I really appreciate the opportunity to provide comments from public health. So in public health, we uphold the vision for optimizing health for everybody in Hawaii.

And we're so glad that we can still talk about health equity and social justice in the State of Hawaii, and so appreciate your leadership for that. While the process in terms of what's happening globally is that vehicular drivers and pedestrians share the roadway and there's consideration for everyone to own the road.

And so we have an issue though in terms of in Hawaii and what happens across states in the US where pedestrians are targeted in terms of just not creating a safe environment for pedestrians to walk and then targeting them. Unfortunately, we do have data in terms of targeting them with punitive efforts and also profiling by race and ethnicity. And from a public health perspective, only 25% of adults, by the way, meet physical activity requirements. So we hope everybody is walking where they can and carrying your bags when you can for strengthening too.

So we're hoping that we can create a really a culture of safety where everybody owns the roadways and everybody has the right to walk or to drive safely. And so we thank you so much for the opportunity to provide comments on the pedestrians freedom to walk.

Thank you. Up next is the Office of the Public Defender. Thank you. Honolulu Police Department. IT, are they with us online?

They are not available online, Chair.

Okay, thanks. Moving on, Kauai County Council Member Addison Bulosan in support. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support. Hawaii Bicycling League in support. Hawaii Public Health Institute...

An emergency has been reported in this building. Please...

Right. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Nate Hix, Hawaii Public Health Institute, in support. This bill is about making sure when people are wanting to cross the road safely, they can do so without penalty. Jaywalking laws that have been repealed in other areas have not led to any increase in danger or incidents with pedestrians.

And so we just want to make sure when pedestrians do cross the road safely, they're not getting penalized. This is, I think, pretty straightforward. Those who are going to continue to walk or going to walk dangerously would still be in violation of this law if this were to pass. And so this is not creating a more unsafe environment than what we have. So giving people the freedom to walk would be a great improvement. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Next is the Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition. Are they with us online?

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Hawaii Self Advocacy Advisory Council in support. Get Fit Kauai in support. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support. And Hawaii Workers Center in support. And additional support from about a dozen or so individuals and one opposed. Is there anyone... Sorry. We have signed up to testify with us Kealoha Madriaga online and Germaine Meyers.

Kealoha is not available on Zoom Chair, but Germaine is.

Hi, good afternoon.

Aloha, Chair. My name is Germaine Meyers. I respectfully oppose Senate Bill 106. Walking is great for all of us. Yet similar to a car needing boundaries and lanes to drive within, pedestrians need sidewalks and crosswalks. In a 5 mile per hour driving zone, it may be safe to cross a one lane road without a crosswalk.

However, most walk roadways are 50 mph and higher with two or more lanes going in opposite directions. This situation causes danger for everyone, the car and the pedestrian, when the pedestrian is allowed to use their discretion to cross in an unmarked crosswalk, especially during nighttime and or with high rain and high wind conditions.

Imagine the speed and weight of buses, 18 wheel trucks, SUVs, and cars versus a human on two feet, a kupuna, or keiki human on two feet. I personally see pedestrians making poor judgments at crosswalks by walking with headphones on and not paying attention to ensure the cars stop before they proceed crossing the street.

I've also witnessed pedestrians crossing roadways without crosswalks, forcing cars to stop one lane at a time and cringing when a car didn't see the pedestrian and having to brake hard to avoid hitting the pedestrian. For these reasons, I strongly oppose Senate Bill 106. Ke Akua pu. God bless all of you.

Thank you very much. And lastly, late testimony from Leigh Ann Lopez in support. Is there anyone else here with us this afternoon wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions?

Sorry. Chair, I was hoping to testify.

Yeah. Abbey with Appleseed, I believe.

Yes, thank you. Thank you. I'm so sorry for not making it in person. We having some flooding challenges at my house. But aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Abbey Seitz. I'm the Director of Transportation Equity with Hawaii Appleseed.

We're testifying in support of SB106, which will allow pedestrians to cross safely on the street outside of marked crosswalks as long as they do so safely. Currently, jaywalking tickets on Oahu are between 130 and $180, which we believe are quite steep given that that is higher than some driving related violations such as speeding. Based on some data that we collected last year from the Judiciary, we found that this these high finds impact over 5,000 residents, mainly in dense urban areas of Oahu.

There are now over 60 million people living in the United States in areas where there has been reduced or repealed jaywalking laws in some form and that they have shifted those resources towards investing in pedestrian infrastructure structure. And we believe that is now. Now is the time for Hawaii to be this one. I'm available for questions, and we wanted to thank you for this opportunity to hear the measure and also provide testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify? If not. Okay. Any questions? Still no. Just one for Abbey, if you're still with us actually.

Yes, I am. Thank you.

All right, thanks. You know, this is not the first year we've had this discussion. There's been a number of variations on the conversation going on in the last year or two. I think the Senate had moved out similar legislation last year to the House. One of the things that came out of that sort of side conversation tangentially was recognition that in other states, when you're a pedestrian wanting to cross the street, whether it's a crosswalk or anywhere else along the roadway, as long as you're present at the side of the curb, there's an obligation then, legally, for drivers to recognize and stop to allow you to cross.

But here in Hawaii, as I understand it, the law is that, as a pedestrian, in order to cross in a similar circumstance, you're obligated to actually step into the roadway first, and then drivers have an obligation to stop. Which strikes me as a little bit dangerous.

Yes, that's correct. It is, you know, often, and I think that's maybe misunderstood by many people, is, you know, when you're standing on the right side of the road, you expect even at crosswalks to, for folks to stop, and often that is sometimes not the case. So, as you mentioned, that is an issue, I think, that could be addressed through legislation to require vehicles to stop not only when a person is physically in the roadway, but also when they're waiting at the side of the street at a crosswalk.

Thanks. And just follow up with DOT, I guess just to that...

Attention. An emergency...

I think they're just shutting off the alarms at this point. If there's a real emergency...

Fire exit stairway.

Sorry. Just following up on that conversation about pedestrian safety. Knowing that, I guess, there are other states that have a law which has an obligation for drivers to stop before pedestrians put themselves in harm's way, would you guys be opposed to change like that to Hawaii law?

Yeah. You know, on our testimony, you know...

You should come up to speak into the mic. Thanks.

Yeah. Based on what we observed over the last four years, there's a lot of pedestrian crashes and fatalities, serious injuries, even within crosswalks. So, you know, anytime like that, where you have an unexpected crossing, I mean, it does present a lot of danger to both pedestrian and drivers.

So if we amended the statute to say that when you're about to cross and you're pedestrian standing on the side before stepping out into the travel way, it would be the obligation then at that point for a driver to stop, to allow you to then step into the street and cross.

I mean, we'll probably look more to it, but I would think, even as a driver, you don't necessarily know what the intention of that person wanting to do. And so it could cause confusion again whether stop, don't stop. And so I think it's still an unsafe situation.

Is there a safe way to cross the street then?

You know, you can cross at the crosswalks, and we've signalized intersections, even though law does allow at unmarked crosswalks at intersection you can also cross.

Okay, thank you very much.

Can you hold on a second? But continuing with that discussion, though, there's a good part to the bill and the concerns that we can all raise oftentimes. I can see, I'm here at Chinatown, where my residence is on Oahu, and I can see because of the closeness of the road, you know, it's narrow. So to me, I think it's okay. I mean, we all do that. We want to go across the street to the restaurant or to the, to the, to the another store that's available or retailer. But the concern is, and I don't think it's mentioned here, the size of the roadway.

And I can see heavy intersections or areas that the roads are wider. And here on Oahu, you have more Hilo, not too bad, you only get one way. You know, I mean, we don't have wide roads. But here it's kind of unfortunate that we have to address the number of cars on the road.

And we're good about that as well. But with the span of the road size is kind of concerning because this doesn't address the size of the roadway. So one can be as an example, Vineyard or, you know, where you have the one way with two lanes and the other way coming down with another.

You don't know what the pedestrian is going to do. And so I have an issue with that because there's crazy drivers around no matter what. So, you know, how far are we going to do with, with preventing accidents and make sure that the drivers recognize that there are problems. But you know what? They don't care. They're on the road. They gotta get to somewhere. So the activity of the drivers here is not safe. I mean, we know that with the fatality data that you folks give to us all the time.

So, I don't know, Chair, if it's important to say, well, if a road width is this much, then it's allowable, like Chinatown or downtown Honolulu. But what happens when you have the wider roadway, and this doesn't apply. Right? I mean, it doesn't tell us that. That's one concern I have.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, wider roads, faster cars, and so forth and. Yeah, I agree.

Okay. All right. And I don't know if it's legal anyway to subject a bill, you know, that you can do this on a certain. I guess a, the measurements of the road or whatever. I, you know, that's not my expertise. Yeah, but. But you're getting it, though, right? I mean, I think we recognize this is Hawaii. It's kind of different, you know, that we have areas like Chinatown, you know, like downtown, where it's just a nice place to get to without the crosswalks, but... Okay. All right. Just a concern I have, if somebody can come out with some language or whatever. Okay. I appreciate you being here.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, there's no further questions. Thanks, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1009 relating to parking, which establishes a state accessible parking space enforcement fine for parking in spaces reserved for persons with disabilities or EVs, and adjust the fines accordingly. Testifying first on SB1009 is the disability and Communication Access Board. Good Afternoon.

Lee, Vice Chair Inouye and Members of the Committee. My name is Kirby Shaw. I'm the Executive Director of the Disability and Communication Access Board, AKA DCAB. DCAB stands on its written testimony supporting the intent of SB1009, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Up next on 1009 is the Department of Accounting and General Services.

Okay.

Deputy Comp. Accounting and General Services. We stand on. Our testimony is submitted.

Thank you very much. Okay. Up next on 1009 is. Oh, we have DAGS on here. One individual, Brenda Jackson, in support. That's all the testimony that we have signed up. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure?

If not, may I testify? May I testify in support?

I'm sorry. Could you please identify yourself?

Oh, yes, my name is. My name is.

Oh, yeah, there you go.

Sorry, I. Thank you. My name is Germaine Myers. I'm in support of this bill. My sister does not have her legs and so we usually need to go into a handicap parking so that we can take out the. Safely take out her wheelchair, et cetera. So it does sometimes get hindering.

It gets an issue when we go there. And a car that doesn't have a handicap sticker is parking in that stall. But also, I would hope that legislation can add more handicap stalls to parking lots than what currently is required. Kekopu, God bless all of you.

Thank you very much. Mahalo. Anyone else on this measure wishing to testify? If not, other questions?

Sorry, Chair. Michael Arakaki from DAGS is on Zoom.

Yes, Mr. Arakaki, did you want to testify in addition to the earlier commentary from DAGS?

No. Okay. I'm fine.

Okay, thank you. So, on 1009. Oh, right. Are there questions from the Committee? I have just one, actually. Mr. Arakaki, I guess we're not going to waste your time here. You showed up, so we got a question for sure. Thanks.

I should know, in your testimony, you had raised a question, or DAGS had raised a question about where the revenues would go from fines in this case and asked that it go to the DAGS Parking Special Fund or thereabouts.

So my understanding of reading this is that this establishes a new penalty that is in addition to what currently exists. So does what currently exist if someone is to park in a illegally park in a stall reserved for someone with disabilities, that currently is its own existing fine that goes into the DAGS Special Fund, is that right?

That's correct, yes. So under this statue, all funds collected. Should be deposited into the State Parking Revolving Fund.

So in this Bill, there's the way I read it, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's an additional separate fine that's established specifically for deterring people from parking in these kinds of stalls improperly. And the Bill has that go into, I think, the General Fund. The General Fund right now. But the existing find is not touched.

So DAG still collects that, is that right? Yes. So you're asking for the additional funding to go into the special Fund, correct? Yes. Okay, well, thanks very much. Thank you.

That's your request?

That's your request? Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. There's no other questions then why don't we go on to the next measure?

Can you ask then the, I guess the first testifier. What was his name?

Sorry, did you have a question on 1009?

This is the. Are we still. We're just going to move on if you have a question. No, no, that's fine. We'll move on. Okay, thanks.

So, moving on to Senate Bill 820 relating to vehicle titles, which reduces the period in which a transferee is required to forward the certificate of ownership, to the Director of Finance when a title of vehicle is transferred from 30 days to 14 days. Testifying first on 820 is the Office of the Public Defender. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. The Office of the Public Defender opposes this measure. We're not sure what it's trying to solve here. Of course, any issue about ownership, potential crimes. We don't believe that shortening the time period for which individuals need to file with the state will solve any of those issues. We believe that 30 days is a reasonable time that people understand they've been using for decades to transfer title. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, we have testimony from the Department of Customer Services, City and County of Honolulu in opposition, and one individual in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? Seeing none. Are there any questions? All right. If not, thank you. Let's move on to the next measure, which is Senate Bill...

Did you call Austin?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Senate Bill 1095 relating to license plates, which removes the decal size restrictions for special number plates and don't have any testimony. Anyone signed up to testify in this measure. Is there anyone who wants to testify in this measure this afternoon? If not, there's no one to ask questions of.

So why don't we move on to the next measure then, which is Senate Bill 215 relating to towing companies, which changes fees that a towing company may charge to tow vehicles left unattended on private and public public property and allows towing companies or parking management companies to charge a fee for placement or removal of vehicle immobilization devices and makes other amendments.

And testifying first on 215 this afternoon is DCCA.

Thank you. With comments. Up next is the Hawaii Insurers Council with comments and with one individual in support. That's everyone who had submitted testimony. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? Seeing none. Are there any questions? All right.

Seeing none. We move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1117 relating to transportation, which renames the Electric Bike and Moped Rebate Program to the Electric Mobility Rebate Program, expands eligibility, prohibits individuals under 15 years of age from riding electric bikes, amends the age requirement for helmet use, allows a number of other things. So testifying first on SB 117 would be the Department of Transportation. Thank you. In support. Maui Police Department. In support. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Ulupono Initiative. Good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Mariah Yoshizu on behalf of the Ulupono Initiative. We stand in support of our written testimony or we offer our written testimony in support, and we offer a few amendments for consideration. These would be including the definition for higher speed e-motos or out of class vehicles that go more than 28 mph, as well as, in addition to amending the HRS section 196-2, also amending HRS section 291C-1 to ensure consistent definitions across the statutes. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Up next is Hawaii Bicycling League. In support. Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. Support. Moped Doctors, Inc. Oh, yeah, please, you just. Yeah, just state your name.

Good afternoon, Senator Lee and Senator Inouye and all Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for having us here today, despite all the emergency things going on. We at Moped Doctors. My name is Manabu Sato, and we, we are representatives of Moped Doctors, which is a moped service company that's been in Hawaii for about 15 years.

We oppose this bill because of certain things that are involved. The bill is actually sort of a chimera because there's a lot of other bills that are currently on the dockets on both the House and the Senate side that covers these different disparate elements here, such as renaming the e-bicycle and e-moped rebate.

You have House Bill 670, which does that on its own, specifically just for that purpose. Then you have like Senate Bill 484, which also covers the e-moped and rebate program. So that alone would be covering that. And then you have requires the age change for helmets and people under a certain age.

They have SB 745 in the works right now, and that would require all riders with high speed bicycles who are under 18 to have a helmet. And then you have HB 537, which requires all operators of two wheeled vehicles to wear helmets. So basically there's a bill, a very sweeping helmet bill that doesn't just go after certain specific parts of like this bill does. HB 537 actually requests that everyone on a two wheeled vehicle in Hawaii, regardless of age, wears a helmet. So that's actually addressing that issue far more than this one is.

This is actually addressing it way more than SB 117 is. And then they want to raise the minimum moped age. We believe that this bill is a little bit of a chimera and there's a lot of good intent in there, like the rebate program. But we also believe that there could be some overreach in terms of the other elements of the bill, which can be addressed better separately and additional bills that are currently on the dockets on both the House and the Senate side.

And we believe that this bill should possibly just be deferred for that reason that there is not a central focus. And a little bit of it, little bit of it can be across purposes. There's some parts of this bill that we support, but then there's enough that we oppose that makes it difficult for us to support it completely. Thank you.

Thank you. We have additional commentary...

I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Sorry. Additional testimony from another four individuals in support. And I believe online, Germaine Meyers, if you're still here.

Yes, I'm still here, Chair. Thank you. Aloha, Chair and Members, My name is Germaine Meyers. I respectfully provide comments on Senate Bill 1117. I support most of the Senate Bill. However, I strongly oppose only three proposed items. I oppose electric bikes riding on sidewalks, and I oppose mopeds using bike paths.

They go faster than bikes and should remain on the road and follow road rules. Respectfully, electric bikes also belong on the road or in bike paths, not on sidewalks. Electric bikes are stealth. They don't have any sound to warn pedestrians they're approaching and also vehicles that are reversing from our driveway. Most electric bikes don't ride below 10 miles per hour. They go faster than a manual pedal bike. Most prefer to travel in the opposite flow of traffic.

And most also don't have control of the electric bike when they need to make a quick hard stop and are unable to make a hard stop without causing themselves and others injuries. Electric bikes should use bike paths or travel on the road in the same direction as the flow of traffic. Lastly, I oppose prohibiting rebate program from families with a four wheel vehicle. I would hope that you would amend it so that to allow someone to have a four wheel vehicle at the same time they apply for the rebate.

Some families consist of a single mom or dad and a child or children. Parent needs vehicles to work to go to work. A 15 year old or older child may need an electric bike to go to school or college. Giving this family access to the rebate program will support the family trying to sustain or improve their lives. Sometimes a parent needs the car to drive long distance to work, but also an electric bike for short distances to reduce vehicle gasoline expenses. Ke Akua pu. God bless all of you.

Thank you. Okay, does anybody else want to testify in this measure this afternoon? If not, Member questions. I appreciate that. And let me just say for the record, for the folks who might be watching, the way I read this bill, there's a current e-bike and moped rebate program, which is only available to folks who are either students or low income or don't own a car.

So what the bill actually does is open it up beyond that to everybody while still providing an additional bonus for the folks who need that help that are in those current three classes. So just for the record, to put that out there. Okay. If there's no further questions on this... Vice Chair.

Chair, who manages the rebate program, DOT. Okay. How has it been handled? Or come on up. So this would increase the rebate program in actuality? Right?

Correct. It would increase the amount. And in our, in our testimony we submitted, we had some comments where we would shift it from a Highway Fund to General Fund because of the amounts coming in. You know, it could be substantially more.

Okay, you're gonna give it to the General Fund?

Or no, the rebate come from the General Fund instead of from the Highway Fund.

Oh, okay. I got it. Smart. Okay, thank you.

Okay. If there's no further questions, thank you.

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 367 relating to transportation, which prohibits the issuance of a certificate of inspection for a moped or motor vehicle that has been altered, installed or otherwise modified, which will increase the noise emitted by the vehicle beyond that, as it was equipped from the factory.

And Testifying first on SB367 is the Department of Transportation. Thank you. Up next is Motorcycle Industry Council in opposition, Citizens Against Noise in support, Trade Winds Hotel in support. Don Ballaron.

Not available on Zoom, chair.

Thank you. In support. Oh, Mr. Sato, I believe. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everybody. Again, I'm Manalis Otto. I'm with moped doctors. There was also one element that I left out previously. This considers the issuance of a certificate of inspection, or safety inspection, as commonly known. And I believe this Bill also addresses not just mopeds, but motorcycles and cars, too, because this is motor vehicles here.

Now, currently, I've spoken with other inspectors in my counterpart industries of the car and motorcycle industry, and they said there is no sound check system. Moped safety inspectors myself have to do sound checks currently, and there's no such precedent for motorcycles and cars at this time.

However, the introduction of having to do an extra step for car and safety inspectors and motorcycle safety inspectors when the fact that the increased amount of new vehicles in Hawaii are EVs and are quieter and reduces the necessity of such a thing might be an extra burden on these mechanics shops and motorcycle shops and car shops that already have to invest a lot of amount of time and effort to pull off much more complex safeties than for mopeds. We in the moped industry have gone.

Please cease operations and leave the building. You.

I hope that doesn't count toward my two minutes. Okay. So anyway, we are opposed to this Bill because we believe that it shouldn't burden the already overburdened safety inspection programs at this time. And we believe that, as in the moped safety inspection industry, we have done a good job in bringing down the number of loud mopeds.

There we go.

And there are more and more e bicycles on the road now, which reduces that noise. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. And plus, there are other bills on the docket right now that also addresses noise and safety inspections.

Thank you. Thank you. We have an additional 29 individuals submitting testimony and support and one individual with comments. Is there anyone else here with us? Sir, please come forward. Good afternoon.

Prescriptions. I'd like to say that I'm from Trade Winds Hotel. I've lived there for 13 years. And the noise has gotten worse. And I'm sorry to say that I think somebody needs to do something about it. There are such things as water concerns, there are ocean concerns, there are air concerns.

Nobody thinks about what we hear every day and every night. And it's, I'm on Ala Moana. I called the police. They say it's not ours because that's a state highway. Nobody does anything about anything. But people can find excuses. And I think it's.

If the Legislature at some point doesn't do something about noise pollution, then you're not doing your job. Thank you for your time. I appreciate all of you.

Your name.

Paul Rege.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there someone wishing to testify that's still online who hasn't yet testified? If not anyone else here in the room? Not. Are there any questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you everybody.

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 30 relating to mopeds, which requires all moped drivers to wear a safety helmet when driving regardless of age. And testifying first on Senate Bill 30 is the Department of Transportation. Thank you. Up next is the Office of the Public Defender. Thank you. Up next is the Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon, Major Stason Tanaka of District 7. I stand on my written testimony in support of Senate Bill number 30. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, moped doctors.

Senator Lee, Senator Noy, all Members of the council. I'm Manalis Otto speaking to the mic here. We oppose the requirement of helmets for all age moped riders because there is currently a more universal Bill that's currently on the dockets under House Bill.

Not understanding about House Bill 537 which requires all two wheeled vehicles and all ages of all riders of two wheeled vehicles get a helmet. So we believe that that Bill addresses this issue and renders this Bill somewhat unnecessary in that regard. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Testifying next is the Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition.

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. In support. And we have two individuals also in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions? Mr. Sato, real quick, just one question. We come up for just a moment. Thanks.

Just in the process, we have a bunch of House bills moving, we have a bunch of Senate bills moving, but we don't typically see those unless they actually pass and cross to do the other chamber for further consideration. So I haven't had a chance to look at the bills you've mentioned.

But the Bill you had mentioned that would require helmet wearing for all riders of all two wheel vehicles.

That is correct.

That's new to me. Is that something that you then testify and support for?

I haven't testified because that Bill has not come before the. It has not come out for testimony, public testimony yet. So my position on that is not finalized at this point. But I do believe that helmet wearing for certain segments of the moped wearing population should be necessary.

But I don't think that at this point that it should be applied to everybody universally. One thing that I forgot to mention is that moped do have accidents, just like cars and motorcycles in Hawaii. But statistically speaking, over the last few years, moped fatalities have been the single lowest class of fatalities in every category, including pedestrians.

Pedestrians maybe one to two actual fatalities happened from moped accidents a year in Hawaii. That includes all the islands. That's the lowest. It's lower than motorcycles and cars and bicycles and pedestrians. So that's one thing to consider, that it might not make a real difference in terms of reducing that from one to zero.

And I wish we could reduce it to zero.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions? If not, thank you. Let's move on to the next measure, which is the last measure on our agenda. Senate Bill 95 relating to vehicle safety, which creates additional fines for any individual found operating a vehicle or moped without a current certificate of inspection. And testifying first on SB 95 is the Department of Transportation. Thank you. Next is the Office of the Public Defender. Thank you. And Moped Doctors.

Hi again. We at Moped Doctors, and as a safety inspector, we oppose this for additional fines for any individual found operating vehicle on moped. Now, the thing is that this again addresses the fact that car vehicle inspectors do not require sound checks at this point. But if you have... Okay, but if this bill goes forth, that would require a radical change in terms of the noise functioning safety inspection roles of car inspectors, which are the vast majority of inspectors on this island.

And again, I understand, like the earlier gentleman said, there is a noise concern in Hawaii, but we have already addressed that, at least on the moped inspectors parts, because we are the first one in the safety inspection program to do noise. At this point, there's an increased number of EVs and e-bicycles and e-mopeds that are reducing that. And we believe that we have done our job in that regard, bringing them down.

And we believe that enforcement of current laws on noise, disturbing the peace, what have you, would be more prudent than to naturally, than to actually have additional laws or greater fines on top of punishing people who are caught without safety certification. Those people should be punished with the laws that are according to the way they're done as they exist now. And if that enforcement can be done, this may be unnecessary. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on Senate Bill 95? Seeing none. Are there any questions? All right. If not, thank you, everybody. That's the last measure on our agenda. So we're going to take a quick recess and then go into decision making recess. Oh, I'm sorry. One Sec.

I apologize. I'll note on one of our earlier measures, SB 1032 ,on the agenda. Like to go back to since we do have a minute here. I believe that testifier on Zoom was not able to join us, so I'd just like to extend that opportunity. Believe you're with... Sorry. Could you state your name and organization?

Yes, thank you. Chair. I apologize that I stepped away from my computer previously. Thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is John Bonifaz. I'm the President of Free Speech for People. We're a national organization dedicated to defending our democracy all across the country, and we strongly support SB 1032. We submitted written testimony.

I just will make brief remarks here in addition to to that testimony. And thank you for giving me the time. This bill would end foreign influence corporate spending in state elections in Hawaii. It is part of a national movement, really, where there are bills pending in a number of states to do this.

This is a loophole that has been created by the Citizens United ruling of the US Supreme Court in January 2010, which now allows foreign investors to subvert existing federal law and through the corporate form influence our elections all across the country.

So Hawaii has the opportunity to lead along with the State of Minnesota that's already enacted this, the cities of Seattle and San Jose, and to ensure that self government in Hawaii is protected. This is also a bill that stands in solidarity with the prior work that the Hawaii Legislature did with respect to Citizens United.

This would chip away at the worst abuses of Citizens United, allowing multinational corporations to dominate elections. The only thing we would urge with respect to this bill is that it be amended to include language from the prior bill that you, Senator Lee, had introduced in the last session, SB 3243. There were key legislative findings and definitions of foreign influence corporations that did not appear in this version. We would urge that language from the prior version be amended and included in this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody have any questions for...

Yes, what's his name again? Sorry.

Yes, my name is John Bonifaz with Free Speech People, and we did have written testimony as well that we submitted.

Don't we already have statutory requirements with regards to not accepting foreign contributions? Isn't there one already in the books?

Thank you for that question. It's a very important point.

And reason I ask is I'm a former Mayor of Hawaii County, and during that time I remember specifically, and that's when the influence of the Japanese contributions to heavy development and activity, you know, building hotels. And I remember specifically that we were all told not to accept, and there were law that we couldn't accept any contributions. So what's the difference with what we have in statute to what we're having with 1032?

Thank you. It's a very important question. I appreciate it. So you're absolutely correct. Federal law, which applies to state and local elections as well on this matter, is very clear that foreign nationals may not spend money directly or indirectly in any elections.

The difference, however, is that after the Citizens United ruling, it created a loophole where foreign investors could subvert that existing prohibition through the corporate form. When they have significant ownership of a corporation, they can use the corporate form to influence elections through the expenditure of corporate general treasury funds. So President Obama at the time of the Citizens United ruling, warned about this now opening up the opportunity for foreign influence in our elections. And that prediction is sadly proven to be true, which is why this bill is so critical.

I understand. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any further questions? If not, we'll take a quick recess for decision making. Recess.

Good afternoon. We're reconvening the Committee on Transportation and Culture in the Arts for decision making on our 3:00pm agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 224.

We just heard a number of bills, beginning with Senate Bill 282 relating to uncrewed aircraft offenses, which increases the penalty for using an uncrewed aircraft in the furtherance of the Commission of a felony. Noting this goes on to the Judiciary Committee. We'd like to recommend passing this as is any discussion, if not Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB282 is to pass unamended. Chair Lee. Aye. Vice Chair goes aye. Senator Elefante. Aye. Senator kanuma. Aye. Senator Decourt. Aye. Measures adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 1032 relating to campaign finance, which amends the prohibition against foreign nationals and foreign corporations, campaign finance, contributions and expenditures. We'd like to move this forward. Making a recommendation to pass it with amendments.

Adopting the recommended amendments from Free Speech for People, reinserting a section that was left out from the prior Bill. Senate Bill 3243. Okay. And we're back. So recommendation is to pass with amendments.

Any discussion, if not Chair's recommendation on SB 1032 pass with amendments. Chair Liu. Chair Lee. I'm sorry. Vice Chair, aye. Senator Elefanti, Senator Kanuha. Senator DeCourte. Aye. Bish. Adopted. Mr.Chair.

Thank you very much. Moving on to Senate Bill 1160, relating to consumer protection, which prohibits scalping for ticket sales. I recommend moving this on to the Consumer Protection and Judiciary Committees with amendments. We're going to adopt the AG's recommendations in Section 3, adding for any event held in the state clarification and then adding in severability and, and that's it. Any discussion? Not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 1160 with amendments with five Members present. Any voting with reservations. Any no votes. Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure, Senate Bill 344 relating to highway safety, which requires skateboard users under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while operating a skateboard. Seeing zero, Recognition is just passed with amendments, technical amendments.

Kind of curious to see if there's more testimony on this in the Judiciary Committee as it moves along. Any discussion? If not, Vice Chair, thank you.

Chair's recommendation on SB344 to pass with amendments with five Members present. Any voting with reservations. Any no votes. Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. We've gone to Senate Bill 106 relating to pedestrians, which authorizes pedestrians to act contrary to statewide traffic code when a reasonably careful pedestrian would determine there's no immediate danger. I'll note this is a measure that came up last year, actually probably a couple years.

We had moved a similar measure out last year, but we had made amendments to it. So I want to make similar amendments. So the recommendation on this would be to amend it similar to last year. And the reason for this, we understand some of the a lot of the supporters arguments to take this step and also obviously some of the concerns being raised about how implementation would go and what that actually means and safety and so forth.

So we'd like to limit the application of the measure to those areas more than 200ft outside of a crosswalk. This is the measure that had passed out and had been considered last year. And the reason is because, in particular rural areas and some areas in my district where you don't have urban areas with a lot of crosswalks and intersections, you can go miles without a single crossing and you need a legal way to actually cross the street in those cases in particular.

So I'll note the second part of the discussion, which was about the pedestrians having to physically step into a roadway in order for drivers to actually have an obligation to slow down and stop to allow them to cross, whether in a crosswalk or not.

I understand DOT has been doing a lot of work working on putting in signals and crossing beacons and things like that. But there's, you know, a ton of places throughout the state where that just isn't the case and won't be for some time and we just don't have the resource to do it all.

So in those cases, wanted to send this on to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration by adding in the language similar to what other states currently do, which is letting a pedestrian on the side of the road signal that they want to cross so that a vehicle can then stop without them having to physically put themselves out into the road in harm's way before a car has an obligation to slow down.

So we'll add in defective date to the measure so we can see what the testimony looks like and give the agencies and so forth an opportunity to take a look at that. But I think it's probably worth discussion because it seems like we obviously have some issues to resolve currently.

So, Chair, then we're talking about areas not where there's a traffic signal?

Yeah. For the first part of the bill, yeah. It would be more than 200ft outside of an intersection or crosswalk.

Chair, thank you. Appreciate the discussion recommendation. As I have done in past reiterations of this bill, I have voted in opposition, primarily because of the Department of Transportation's concerns with pedestrian fatalities. So I'll be voting no.

Chair's recommendation on SB106 is to pass with amendments with five Members present. Note that Senator Elefante is a nay. Anyone voting with reservations? Any additional nay votes?

No for me.

Okay. Measures adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1009 relating to parking, which establishes a state accessible parking space enforcement fine for folks who are illegally parking in spaces reserved for persons with disabilities or EVs. To recommend moving this along with a couple amendments based on the conversation. We'd like to adopt the Disability Communications and Access Board recommendations to change the name to the State Reserved Parking Space Fine throughout the measure.

And just noting the questions from DAGS. We're not intending to change the funding going to DAGS for parking management that currently is part of the existing fine system, but for the additional fine that is being proposed, those additional funds would go instead to the Safe Routes to School Special Fund.

So that especially for folks who have disabilities, and we obviously don't have a lot of infrastructure that accommodates everybody everywhere, there's a little more funding to go in and try and help create safer sidewalks, streets, crosswalks, and all the rest of that kind of thing. This goes on to Ways and Means and Judiciary for further consideration. Okay. Any discussion on that?

Chair, quick question. Are we able to include a notice on the sign that says that there will be this dollar amount fine if you violate and park in the parking? Or...

Let me, let me get back to you on that. For the moment, maybe we can just note that in the committee report.

And probably just to add further on the discussion. It depends because your parking stalls. So this, are we talking about areas that the state has responsibility for parking, but if it's in a mall or something, then it's out of the jurisdiction I think for the state to put the sign. Yeah.

I think if it's a private mall, the state does not put your signs into their parking areas. Right? Yeah. Just to make a note that. So your request is probably state facilities, I mean state parking. So you're... So any roads, the highways that are under the jurisdiction of the state are your state highways. And if there's parking along the street, who manages that? City and county or the state?

Yeah. We'll note that in the committee report as it goes on to the next set of committees.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 1009, 1009 is to pass with amendments with all, with five Members present. Any with reservations? Any no votes? Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

All right, thank you. Noting the next few measures, Senate Bill 820, Senate Bill 1095, Senate Bill 215, we're going to defer those till Tuesday the 4th. That's next week, Tuesday, at the end of our agenda for decision making.

And that's at 3:00.

At 3:00. End of our 3:00 agenda. Yes. Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 1117 relating to transportation, which renames the e-bike moped program.

Excuse me. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. So you're referring to the deferment on SB 820, 1095, and 250. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay.

No problem. So on the e-bike measure, SB 1117, this is similar to a measure that passed through the Senate and House last year, but also includes language this year trying to clean up the I think situation out on our streets, prohibiting reckless e-bike usage, people doing wheelies down the middle of streets, that sort of thing.

And cleaning up a statute currently which has some loopholes that and through state law currently allows those of youth and really any age to ride, to legally ride high speed electric bikes that can go really as fast as they're physically capable, often faster than cars.

So we'd like to move this forward with amendments adopting the Ulupono recommendations, creating a definition for e-bikes over 28, that can go over 28 miles per hour or over 750 watts. And that'll be a new electric motorcycle definition, which will require your typical licenses, insurance, and all the normal things that typical motorcycles do, as well as aligning that with mopeds and everything else.

Secondly, adopt the recommendations from Hawaii Bicycling League restricting class 3 bikes to under 15 years old to align with other states. Adopting Germaine Meyers' recommendation and testimony prohibiting electric motorcycles and mopeds in bike lanes. We'll amend Chapter 291C, respectively, to account for all of that as well as what else is in the bill.

And finally, we'll blank out the funding, putting those amounts in the committee report pursuant to the recommendation from the Ways and Means Committee to which this would go next. And finally, make technical amendments and add any defective effective date.

I have a question. DOT, in past previous, when we addressed the speeds for new vehicles, such as those that became arrived in Hawaii, you know, those motorcycles that had... And I can't remember the name of those kind of like, motorcycle cars thing. And I think we used the mileage as 20. No.

To not over 25 miles, but now it's 28. So did we change the laws to other statutes that required 25 miles per hour? Now we're using, did you say 28 miles? Yeah. Why are we using 28, which is an odd. Either called 25 or 30 miles? It's interesting.

I'd have to check, but I think... that power that 28 miles per hour....

Oh, they can go over 28. Oh, okay. Okay. I was just curious because when we allowed other foreign vehicles and trucks to use our highways, it was recommended with these new, I guess, mobiles. It was like no more than 25. So it's kind of interesting if... Well, now you're identifying anyway whether it's an electric bike or a moped. But interesting to note. So maybe that 28 came from Japan or some foreign country because the maker of the vehicle maybe... Yeah. But just curious.

I can speak to that. Our current laws are outdated and use older definitions. And so part of the measure here updates the definition of e-bikes into three classes, which are ubiquitous around the country. So we're aligning with what manufacturers in the rest of the states are doing, and 28 is that. Yeah.

Interesting. Okay. Chair's recommendation then...

Can I just add comment? Chair, I want to thank you. I know this is an issue that impacts all of our districts, so I'm in support of this. And I know you worked really hard with all the stakeholders to look at ways that we can have structure our laws as relates to this issue. So thank you.

And then, Chair, I just wanted to mention, I know I had mentioned when we were in recess. But just allowing e-bikes on public sidewalks would be difficult for me to support just because of the fatalities that have been going on in my district. So respectfully, I will be voting no. Thank you.

Okay. Vice Chair.

One second. With five Members present. Any voting with reservations? The Vice Chair will be voting with reservations. Aside from Senator DeCorte already identifying a no vote, any voting with reservations then? Okay. Any nay votes? Motion, the bill passes.

Thank you. Next to Senate Bill 367 relating to transportation, which prohibits the issuance of a certificate of inspection for a moped or motor vehicle that has been altered, installed, otherwise modified in any way which will noticeably increase noise emitted by the motor vehicle.

Recommendations to Defer this till Tuesday24 at the end of our 3pm agenda, so we can take another look at that. Finally, onto our last two measures. SB30 relating to mopeds requires moped drivers to wear helmets. Recommendation on this is to send it on to the Judiciary Committee for further look. Passing as is any discussion.

Chair's recommendation on SB30 to pass unamended, with five Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? No for me. Okay, measures adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much. And lastly, SB95 relating to vehicle safety, which creates additional fines for those found operating a vehicle or moped without current certificate of inspection. Recommendation is to move this on similarly to Judiciary for further consideration, as is. Discussion? No.

Chair's recommendation on SB95 is to pass unamended, with five Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? No vote for me. Measures adopted.

All right, thank you very much. That's the end of our first hearing agenda. Thank you everybody for your patience through all the audible interruptions. Hopefully it's better next time. Aloha.