House Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the House Committee on Housing Public hearing for Wednesday, February 12th. It's 9am and we are in room conference room 4:30. Before we jump into the agenda, just some housekeeping notes for those testifying.

In order to allow as many people as to testify as possible, there would be a 2 minute time limit per testifier. We appreciate everybody who's come out to testify today, but we need to ensure that we are adjourned before our floor session begins. So we want to make sure that we can get through our whole agenda here.

And for those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. 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 trademarked or copyrighted images and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin.

I say that every time, but we always have amazing testifiers that are and Committee Members being recycled of each other, so I'm sure we'll have that again today. That said, we will jump into the agenda.

First item on the agenda is HP576 relating to restrictions on the transfer of real Property under Chapter 201H Hawaii Rabi Statutes Vice Chair for the Testimony Hawaii.

HHFDC in Support.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Demon Akami, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation we signed our testimony and support. Basically there are some transfer restrictions in 201h that would contradict DHHL's implementation of their programs, so we're okay with waiving them for DHHL.

Thank you. Department of Hawaiian Homelands and Support.

Aloha Kayaka Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Oriana Leo, of DHHL The Department stands on its written testimony and support and I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter? HB576 seeing none chair Members Any questions?

Seeing none Next item on the agenda is HP421 relating to contractors.

Vice Chair for the testimony Contractor's License Board in opposition.

Morning. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Candice Ito and I'm the Executive officer for the Contractors License Board.

The board is in opposition to this measure as the purpose of of the one year lease restriction on the requirement that the structures be built for owner builders own use or for use by their grandparents, parents, siblings or children is to prevent the use of the owner builder exemption to circumvent contractor licensing requirements.

Lifting this limitation conflicts with the board's objective to protect the health, safety and welfare of persons contracting with the construction industry and afford the public effective and practical protection against the incompetent, inexperienced, unlawful and unfair practices of unlicensed contractors. We have our written testimony, so if you have any questions, I'm here for. Thank you.

Thank you. DCCA with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Esther Brown and I'm the Complaints and Enforcement officer for RICO, which is a agency within the DCCA. I'm going to stand on my written testimony offering comments. My comments concern the repeal of the owner builder owner occupant qualification.

So I just list some of the consequences that could flow if the measure is adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in support.

Thank you. We stand on our testimony and support.

Thank you. Grassroots Institute in support. Thank you. Contractors Association of Kauai in opposition. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB421? Seeing none. Chair.

Thanks. Vice Chair, I have a question for the DCCA, Sorry, RICO. Yeah.

Yes, sure.

Thanks for being here and for your testimony. In the testimony, you mentioned the possibility of this leading to people immediately flipping their home. The intent of the measure is just to remove the prohibition on leasing and the prohibition on selling for a year remains untouched.

Is there anything in the Bill you think that could lead to abuse of the selling prohibition?

Well, we did note in our testimony, page two, lines 8 and 9 and at page eight, lines 12 to 13 of the Bill, it's crossing out the owner occupancy requirement. So that's what we commented on. We did not comment on removing the leasing restriction.

Okay. But they still would be prohibited from selling it for the within a year. Right.

Understanding that that was stricken.

The sales portion is not stricken, just the leasing portion. Okay. Yeah, that's my only question. Thank you so much. And then a question for the contractor's licensing board. I just want to clarify. Any subcontractors would still have to be appropriately licensed. Right? Okay.

I think the problem lies within the colonies. Issuing permits to Owner builders who don't hire licensed contractors.

But won't you still need to get your electrical and plumbing plans signed off at least by a licensed contractor in order to get the permit.

Electrical and plumbing and the other contractors that they're required to hire, like licensed subcontractors, they won't need to go through the planning again. So again, the problem lies in the communist when the owner builder doesn't have like this contract.

Okay. And, but currently under the owner builder exemption, plumbing and electrical subcontractors need to be licensed, but other work could be formed by unlicensed contractors.

No, actually the owner builder law states that any subcontractor that requires a license needs to be licensed. So the owner builder needs to hire licensed subcontractors, not just for electrical installment.

Okay. And the only one though that gets verified is the plumber and electrical through the stamp plans. Okay, thank you. Members, further questions. All right, seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB367 related to building permits. Vice Chair for the testimony.

DLNR with comments.

As we stand on testimony offering comments.

Thank you. Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. Grassroot Institute of Hawaiian support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, we'll stand on our written testimony, but something we did not include and as I was thinking about the bill is to potentially expand the scope of this bill to to include things like zoning permits.

I know one issue on Kauai, for example, is 200 square foot units were exempt from a building permit, but they were not exempt from a zoning permit. So that led to a lot of confusion. And I think it's really important to exempt both of those things moving forward. So we ask the Committee to consider that. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB367? Seeing none.

Members, any questions on HB 367? Seeing none. Next item is HB 826, relating to housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

HHFDC in support. Thank you. OPSD with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Heron Setagow for the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. OPSD stands on its written testimony.

Thank you. State of Hawaii Land Use Commission with comments. Thank you. Council Member Ashley Kierkiewicz in support. Council Member Nohelani U’u-Hodgins in support. Office of the County Clerk, Council Services Division in support. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support. Thank you. Sierra Club of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair Evslin, Vice Chair Miyake, Members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. Just sharing some comments and concerns. We did submit late written testimony. I'll add to that a couple of thoughts. One is there may be a need to assess the indirect impacts that streamlining urbanization of our ag lands will have on property values and property taxes, overall cost of living.

You know, hopefully we can take a look at that and avoid some unintended impacts that this may have on its desired, you know, intended purpose, as well as on our food security. Right. 100 acres of ag lands at a time opening the door to residential might have both direct impacts on those, the food productivity potential of those lands as well as adjacent lands. And you know, I appreciate that it looks at CD like, you know, lower classifications, but these classifications are based on pineapple and sugar cane potential.

And there's other measures that are looking at ways to update those classifications, but doesn't necessarily account for traditional agricultural models, for example, that could provide a boost in our food security, especially looking at climate destabilization and breaking down supply chains.

And then the second point is I do have concerns that the colonies don't have the historical expertise or statutory focus on things like, you know, public trust, the public trust doctrine, traditional custody practices, which are constitutional. So you can't really legislate those away.

And so it may be opening the door, if and when those issues are overlooked, to conflict and challenges and again might be counterproductive to what this measure is seeking to do. So happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. LIMBY Hawaii in opposition, and one individual in opposition. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 826? Seeing none, Chair.

Chair Members Any questions? Right Seeing none Next item on the agenda is HB 525 lad housing vice.

Chair for the testimony HHFDC in support thank you and three individuals in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter. HB525. Seeing none, Chair. Members Any questions?

Seeing none the next item on the agenda is HP 252 related to managing agents Vice Chair for the testimony Hawaii.

Council of Community Associations in support Real Estate Commission with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Keating Klein testifying on behalf of. Derek Yamane and the Real Estate Commission Wilson and comments and available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Community Associations Institute in opposition.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Phil Nurney. I chair the Legislature Legislative Action Committee for CAI. This bill intends to address the problem, but it does so in a random fashion, there is no correlation whatsoever between commercial management experience and managing a condominium.

So in the Senate side, Senate Bill 801 is presently undergoing an SD1 process where basically we understand it will come out to suggest that people should have industry certifications. And we hope the Committee will consider that. Thank you. Also, I'm testifying both as an individual and for cai. I have to go to another here. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in support.

Thank you. We stand on our testimony. Support.

Thank you. Philip Nurney in opposition. Was that him? Yeah. Okay. Gregory Masakian in opposition. On Zoom.

Aloha, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Misakian and I oppose this bill and would like to just make a comment. If you see my written testimony, you'll understand the serious concerns I have with the three bills that are identical.

So this is just an example of how condominium owners are, in my opinion, mistreated by our state Legislature, where some of our legislators don't understand the scope and problems that are actually out in the industry and within condominium associations.

And HB 252, another companion measure, HB 591, so there's actually two in the house, which is a little stunning, and SB 801, which I've testified for, but I didn't know the scope of what was going on at the time. Initially, all of these three measures that were introduced basically did nothing. It changed the. The words prior to.

To before. And it added one line that said that the agent, which is the broker, not the community managers, basically the agent for the company, the managing agent, is the broker. It's one person. Community managers aren't required to have anything, and this doesn't provide that. So it was to include one sentence.

And that one sentence, unfortunately, did nothing. It's just mentioning about having commercial property experience. I implore you. I know you're housing. I wish you were CPC today, but I implore you to please read my full testimony. And I ask that our legislators respect condominium owners and in the future that the proper bills are actually put forward.

Many died this year, unfortunately, and I appreciate the time to speak. Thank you.

Thank you. There are also three individuals in support and six individuals in opposition. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 252, please state your name for the record.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Richard Emory. I did submit written testimony and opposition. In thinking about this bill, there's only one word that is a problem for this bill, and it's the word commercial. Our industry is like doctors with specialties.

Most of the people who work in our industry for the 2,183 condominiums that exist in Hawaii have gone through extensive training and extensive money to get certified in residential condominium Association management. That's not commercial management. Commercial management is a totally different real estate subset with leasing and things that don't really apply to us.

I support the language that was adopted by agreement in SB801 which basically defines a community Association manager as having an accreditation from a national organization with respect to that.

But then it's important to recognize you needed an effective date of July 1, 2027 to give the industry a chance to get people up to speed because there aren't a lot of these people out there wanting to do this work, to be candid with you.

So I'm opposed to this bill as written primarily because of the word commercial and prefer the language in SB801 which would provide more structure for buildings greater than 100 units. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 252 signature Members, any questions?

Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 709, relating to trespassing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Honolulu Police Department in opposition.

Okay, good morning, I'm Lieutenant Everett Sakai. I'll be sitting in for Major Randolph...as he's occupied right now. We're from the District 3 Aya Pro City and...area. So, HPD opposes HB 709, related to trespassing, for multiple reasons.

First, the Bill requires enforcing officers to verify that the person submitting the complaint is the record owner of the real property or authorized agent of the owner. This would involve an in-depth search of records and documents that are not regularly available to officers in the field.

Furthermore, determining that the unauthorized person or persons are not current or former tenants pursuant to written or oral rental agreement authorized by the property owner and determining if there is an ongoing or pending litigation cases requiring an in-depth investigation.

So, basically, if an officer gets called, it's sometimes—it's very hard to determine who is the actual owner of this property.

And a lot of times, you know, I know many people have subleases, verbal agreements, so it's very hard for a patrol officer on our level to have that access to actually who really has rights to kick somebody out or have somebody arrested for being there.

Secondly, the Bill also suggests that officers shall be paid for their services which implies this activity would be done by off-duty law enforcement officers. So, we're assuming either a special duty or off-duty overtime project.

So, this gets a little gray because now we have to determine who is going to be supervising these officers to doing that, in case, you know, God forbid we have to arrest somebody. Could get a little messy. So, we always like to have supervision of officers out in the field.

And lastly, to ensure this proposed Bill requirements are met, HPD would have to develop, maintain, and staff a separate team of officers just to meet the requirements of document verification and other checks required to enforce the Bill.

Like what I explained earlier, maybe we could have a unit who—I mean there's a lot of houses and a lot of residents, so maybe they can keep some kind of master, who owns what. But then again, it gets a little messy with the verbal agreements of subleases, also.

So, the Sheriff's Division of the State Department of the Law Enforcement currently conducts evictions and will be better suited to enforce this type of law. That's it.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in support.

Thank you. Stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support. Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 709? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions on HB 709?

I have a question, Chair.

Yes, Representative Kila.

For HPD.

Sorry, I know you may not be the... I know you're just giving the testimony on behalf of. Can you expand on what, why you believe DLE would be the better agency?

I know, I'm sorry. They currently do evictions for residents. The only time HPD does get called... And usually evictions are ordered from a judge, so it's, that's a little bit easier because by that time it's gone through the court process. So there's really no, shouldn't be an issue with who legally owns the property, who has the rights to the property. So by, when it gets to that point, the sheriffs are called and they do evictions. We can do evictions, but in general we don't. So I guess, yeah, I guess the whole issue about who really owns it, it's gone through the courts and I'm sure everything's been vetted out, all the history of the owner of the residence, the true owner.

But as it relates right now, right, you folks are able to trespass people before they get into that period of needing eviction, say, like a squatter?

A squatter, usually, yeah. Like I said, every instance is different. We do, we can trespass, somebody from a property. In general, we do trespasses from commercial properties in general. Like it's not too common where we do a trespass arrest for a residential home, which I believe this is pertaining to. Usually if somebody's in somebody's house and it's, you know, obviously they don't live there, we usually arrest them for either a burglary or unauthorized entry to a dwelling more than a trespass. I don't know if that makes sense or not.

No, but I understand what you're trying to get at. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any further questions? Members seeing none. Next item is HB431, HD1 relating to housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Hi. Dane Chupartoldis, Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. In the interest of time, we want to stand on our testimony and strong support. This is something very important for helping housing solutions for our disability community. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you. HHFDC in support. Thank you. Department of Budget and Finance with comments. Department of Human Services and support. Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions and support.

Morning, Chair Evslin, Vice Chair Miyake, Committee Members. Thank you. My name is John Mizuno. I serve as the Director for the Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions. First, on behalf of my office and Governor Green, we want to thank the House of Representatives and the majority caucus for the introduction of House Bill 431.

This Bill is unprecedented in funding 50 million for our Kauhali projects, along with another 12 million to HHFDC, which potentially could be focused on kalhale relating to people with disabilities and special needs. The total of 62 million targeted at housing inventory for people in need has never been done before.

The most recent point in time count In January of 2024, we did not do one. They did not do one in. In 2025, revealed 6389 people in our state were experiencing homelessness, with the majority on Oahu. These numbers are not just figures. They represent individuals and families in desperate need of our help. So here's the potential.

I'll try to make this brief. Potential to make history. Governor Green, the Administration. We need to partner with the Legislature in cutting homelessness by half. Now, Governor is very ambitious and we're very close. I think he's a little more ambitious than me on this point. He wants to cut homelessness by half by end of 2026.

My prediction is a little longer. I'm looking at maybe 2027. I do believe we can cut homelessness in half. I think our timelines are just a tad different. Chronically homeless are people that have no shelter at all living on a beachside, remote areas or on the hillside. This represents 2,000. I'm sorry, this represents approximately 4,400.

I believe we can cut chronically homeless in half so long as we have the inventory of beds, which would represent 2,200 by the end of 2026. That I believe we can accomplish. Cutting the General population of homelessness, which would be by 3200 by 2026 is kind of a tall order. I think more like a year later, 2027.

So those are the numbers. The reason I'm making an important. I'm making the impact statement of this. No other state in this nation has done that. There's no other state. If Hawaii does this, within the next couple of years, we'll have been the first state ever to accomplish this feat.

And if we're able to do that, I think then it's safe to say that we may have just provided the blueprint to successfully manage homelessness in the state in the United States, that is. For those reasons, I support this measure. I thank the Members of this Legislature and I had two friendly amendments.

I do know it might be a little hard, I got them in a little late. But any assistance on that would be much appreciated. Thank you. And I'm here for any questions.

Thank you. John. Office of Hawaiian affairs in support. State Procurement Office with comments. Office of Housing City and County of Honolulu and support County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development and support hsac Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition in support.

Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction center in support the Democratic Party of Hawaii in support Catholic Charities of Hawaii in support Aloha Chair and Vice Chair Members.

I'm Betty Lou Larson from Catholic Charities Hawaii. 62% of the homeless on Oahuara are unsheltered. We feel that this bill addresses two parts. One is the immediate and rapid development of housing that can help provide a diverse plan for them. But secondly, we also need to look at the long term in order to end homelessness permanently.

And that's the supportive housing programs that's in this bill. This will really put together a financial and integrated mechanism for the future through HHFDC to look at both development operations and the long term services. So we really appreciate your support for this and it can help so many people.

As John has said on the street and we just had a sad case last month. Catholic chairs had a medically fragile lady elder living on the streets. We finally got a merchant voucher went to find her. She just died the week before.

So this is the kind of program that she could have been in and lived her life in safety and decency until she died rather than on the street. So thank you very much for your support and we appreciate the rather large amounts of money but we feel this is really necessary to end homelessness.

Thank you. Barbara Penn, Democratic Party of Hawaii Kupuna Caucus in support. The Institute of Human Services in support. Hawaii State Youth Commission in support. Hawaii Community foundation in support. Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic justice in support. Thank you. Maui Chamber of Commerce and support Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation in support and two other individuals in support.

Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB431HD1 chair yes. Can you state your name for the record please?

This is Kaili Swan supported this bill and it. Can you put me on videos? Because you kind of blocked me in.

I'm sorry, what? What was that?

The video. I cannot. Oh, there you go. My name is Kaili Swan. I'm a strong supporters measure because this bill is pretty much important for like people with disabilities because people can afford to live on the street on a homeless. Let me explain by. I'll be a little short. My name.

I live with my mom and I pay rent. I pay like $3,000 per rent for my mom and I live. I live in the house with my mom and we. And I pay more rent than anyone else. So please pass this measure and please let me know if you have any question you may have.

Thankfully to my testimony.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB431, HD1. Seeing none, Chair. Members?

Any questions? Yes, Representative Kila.

Director Mizuno. Morning. Thank you. So I know right now the number is blank, but like the proposed amount, right. It would be 50 this year and 50 next year. Of the original money that was set aside, funding through Ohana zones and whatnot.

I know some of it with the construction, but have we gone yet into overhead costs and upkeep and maintenance?

Yes. Reoccurring cost is about, I'd say about 25% of the budget. So last fiscal year we had 30 million. It was a split between Ohana and Kauhali funds. This year, fiscal year 2025, which ends on June 30th of 2025, we have 33 million. That's all Kahale funds. One of the friendly amendments was to.

Was to provide a definition that Kauhali funds are the same as Ohana funds. There's a lot of misinterpretation and confusion. And I think you have a good point.

I think we want to make sure that both the Senate, the House and the people of Hawaii understand that they're interchangeable, that whatever was used for Ohana funds can be used through Kauhali funds and vice versa.

And then I think my concern, right, is that we've been able to Prop these up quickly under the emergency proc. But what happens when we no longer have that? Are these Kohales still technically codified and livable?

We understand that they will be. And that's one of the reasons I had one of the friendly amendments. Because of the ep, we only have one bidder. We can just go to.

You know, I don't know my friend Tom and he can charge maybe $6 million on a Kauhali project build out which may at fair market cost be only 2 million. That's the whole reason the EP is great because it fast tracks things. It doesn't avoid us from Department of Planning permitting. We still have to be in compliance.

They just come in at a later, later time and finalize that compliance. So it allows us to fast track items.

But the concern I have is the fairness of it and that's why that was one of my friendly amendments to at least make sure we have two bidders to make sure that we get fair market price on any of our projects.

And then maybe it's too early to say, but what is the end goal? Would Kahale end up being transferred under HHFDC or would it always stay under dhs?

Excellent question. The question, the difficulty is DHS doesn't really own land. We don't do that. Department of land, natural resources, DAGs, to some extent Hawaii Public Housing Authority.

So talking to Chair, I'm sorry, Director Ryan Yamani of DHS, we kind of feel good about the cadence of having our office, SOHS, manage the property, but keeping that property under DAGs or Department of Land and Natural Resources, even HHFDC, the Kalhali, once they go, we don't anticipate they're going to go away because they're going to be housing thousands of people.

To that point, I just think I'm trying to figure out DHS isn't a land manager. Right. But I think for some of the contracts you're entering, you folks service the operation, the operator, and then it's a lease to a nonprofit. Is that kind of the model that we want moving forward at this point?

Is that easier at this point?

I think to answer your question, it's good that our office manages and I agree with Director Yamani that. But we're not in the business of owning the property because of the concerns with liability and we're not experts in land management.

So at this point, all land that we get, if we were to get the ability to manage, we would make sure we pivot and either have Department of Labor, I'm sorry, Department of Land, Natural Resources, dags or Hawaii Public Housing Authority, be the land owner. We will just manage that land for the Kauhali.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Thank you, John. Thank you. Sorry Director Mizuno.

Thank you. Director Mizuno, could you just briefly for the record, clarify what your two proposed amendments are?

Absolutely, Chair, thank you very much. So the first amendment, exactly what Representative Kila brought up. We have great concern with using the emergency proclamation is great. We can fast track Kauhali. In fact, we just opened our 18th Kauhali in Waianae a couple weeks ago. We're set to open our 19th Kauhali Fernhurst YWCA next month in March.

It fast tracks our Kahale projects, which is great. But the concern I have is that fairness to the community and the state and other builders, if we are allowed to only have one builder, and that builder may charge 6 or $10 million for a project when a fair market price is only $2 million.

The taxpayers and the Legislature, we're not being good stewards of our taxpayers money. That's what we have to do.

And so, because I think the fairest thing to do is have at least two bidders bid on a contract before we open up anything that's estimated to be over $1.0 million in construction costs, I think that's the fairest thing to do.

That way we share with the Legislature and the public that this cost was based on fair market value, based on the comparison. That's one of the amendments. The other amendment, we've been hearing this a lot. I believe representative Keela may have brought it up.

There's some confusion with some of our colleagues on the Senate side and even a couple of our representatives on Ohana funds versus Kahali funds and if they are interchangeable, if they can use or if they're different. Some of the concerns is that Ohana funds are different.

They're used only for like city contracts or for services not used for build out of Kauhali. But actually, that's not true. Whatever Kauhali funds is being used encompasses Ohana funds. But because of that confusion, I think it prudent that we define Ohana funds and kohali funds as interchangeable and both can be used the same way.

And that's the second amendment that I put there.

Okay, thank you. You know. zero, you have a question. Thank you, chair. Thank you for your. I have a question for you, though, for your first proposed amendment requiring two bidders.

I mean, I think the concern, my own concern, would be to ensure that we still are moving quickly and that projects are not getting held up over a significant period of time. Waiting for. For more bidders, I guess. How often are you only getting single bid contracts?

To date, we've only got one bidder, so there's, you know, almost. No, it's hard to get other bidders because you just have one bidder for the project.

And in which case, if we were to do this, wouldn't this sort of stop you guys in your tracks if there's not?

No, there's a number of contractors that are willing to bid. They may not win the bid, but they're willing to bid on a Kahali project. The fact that some of the kahali projects might be 456 $1.0 million, they're willing to bid, which is good competition.

Why aren't they currently because the EP allows us to just pick one. So we can just pick the same one over and over and over again.

Okay, and then for the second question, you know, my understanding is that the Ohana zone program, as you stated and is in the preambula Bill, you know, was intended for counties and nonprofits. And the Kahale program, you know, I think maybe was broader.

My concern here is that if we are defining them essentially the same thing, that it would be potentially possible for the funding that was getting allocated to counties through Ohana zones to then essentially be used by the state for broader Kahale projects. Is that a. Or could you alleviate that concern for me?

Yes. The fact that we no longer have Ohana zone funds. 0. 50 million is for Kahala funds. There is 0, not one single dollar set aside for Ohana Zone funding. So by putting that in there, you guarantee that Ohana funds monies will go to the counties.

Because to date, the Kalhali Fund just says that it has nothing to do or any relevance connected to Ohana's own funding. So to date, we have not $1 that we can allocate to Ohana zone funding.

If we put that definition in there, we make it clear to the counties that funds will still continue to go through Kalhale funds.

I appreciate that. And has any Kahala funding currently yet gone to the counties or no?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Yes. Rep. Muraoka.

Good morning. Good morning, Representative.

So I have a question. I. I understand that you know the whole Kahali initiative is transitional housing, right?

No, no, sir. Actually not, Representative. Some Ka Hale, like Middle Street Kauhali, this was an encampment. These are people that lived together for. For probably over a decade. They are their own ohana. This is their own pod, their own group, their family. That's going to be a forever Kauhale. That's a Low barrier. Kauhali.

A couple of them use substance. The point is that Kauhali is going to be forever. They're going to be with each other forever. Many of our other Kauhali are transitional. We have Kauhali that are focused on getting men coming out of prison within six months, nine months, most to a year.

And then they transition out, they get stabilized, they get a job, and then they go on Fernhurst program. Same thing. All female Kauhale women coming out of corrections. Usually by the six to nine month period, they're stabilized, they got a job and they move on, either back to their home or permanent support housing.

But they're able to transition. So I would Say, yes, probably more than half of our kauhale are transitional, but there's a great number of Kauhali that are probably considered forever homes. Some Kauhali are targeted just at Kupuna. And so those Kupuna will probably live in these Kauhali for the rest of their life. So, yeah, it varies. Representative.

So just for clarification for me, because I'm not that smart, what is the difference between the Kauhale, the forever home Kauhales, and public housing?

That's actually a good question. There's a couple of differences. First of all, for the forever home Kalhale, now, if it deals with Kupuna, it's a lot different because it's more of like a medical respite setup. You have nurses there, you have a physician. I'll check in. It's a little more.

It has more security for the middle street Kauhala. The difference comparing public housing and them would probably be the rules. There are less rules that kauhala. You're allowed at least two pets that kauhale.

You're not supposed to use drugs, but if you were to come on the premises and you've partaken in substance, you're not going to be kicked out. They just want a friend to watch you in case you need Narcan.

So therein lies the difference with that Kauhali versus maybe public housing, where you're kicked out automatically if they know that you participated in substance abuse and you're living in that public housing area.

And then, last question. Can you explain to me Kahale is supposed to be helping reduce our homeless population. But you just said that you have Kahale set up for people coming out of jail, women and men coming out of jail, that they can go to this Kahala. Isn't that like a halfway house, clean and Sober House?

How does that fit into this Kohali initiative?

Actually, that's something that you can. You may make the comparison. Halfway house. I kind of look at it this way. If we reduce homelessness, we're going to reduce crime. And if we reduce crime, we're going to reduce recidivism. And if we do recidivism, we're going to reduce taxpayer costs.

If I'm the person coming out of prison and I got housing and I have to go through all the tests, the urine tests, and I have to do all these. I have to comply with all these things and get a job or get my ged, and I have support services to ensure that I do that.

I'm going to be Better equipped. Chances are if you give me housing, you help me with a job, and after six months to a year, I'm better and I transition out, the likelihood of me going to jail is a lot less than if I was just back out in the streets.

So we actually look at these diversionary programs or reentry programs as being great in addressing the root cause of people going back to prison.

Now, I understand, and maybe you can come by my office or I can come by yours later on. We have this talk a little longer.

But when it relates to the Kahale Initiative supporting relieving the homeless population versus helping people coming out of prisons, when you come out of prison, coming from Waianae, I do know a lot and we work with a lot. There are shelters, there are programs, counselors, program parole officers that help already with these.

So to hear that the Kohales are also getting in that arena brings me some concern because, you know, I speak for myself. But even for a broader community, that when we hear Kauhali initiative to help reduce the homeless population, kind of, that kind of throws a little curveball for me. Maybe we can have the conversation later.

Absolutely. And Representative, we've already, with our Kahala initiative, we've just opened up 18. We're going to try to hit 30 before the year of 20, end of 2026. We're getting over 1,000 beds inventory for houseless that we didn't have. And these are families too. And kids.

The place that you have us vets on the west side by your place, we have 75 homeless that will not be housed because of that opening. That was just a couple weeks ago. So we are significantly reducing homelessness and we believe that we can cut homelessness in half.

We'll be the first state in the nation to do that.

Yeah, let's have that conversation later. Absolutely. Numbers are different between you and what they.

Thank you, Representative. Appreciate it.

Sorry, John, one more question for me. So Farhana Zone, if there is no funding currently for Ohana zones, why do we need to broaden the definition of Ohana's own funding to encompass everything that Kohale funds?

I will answer it as respectful as possible. We don't. We're going to use Kahali funds for Ohana's own funding anyways. But there's concern that some of the legislators think that there's a difference between Ohana's own funding and Kohali funding.

Because of that, they're trying to Fund monies for Ohana zones, but that's not needed because everything's already in Kahali funds.

And that's the only reason why I humbly request an amendment just to provide a definition that Kahali funds will cover anything under Ohana zones and even be broader so that they're not concerned that now counties are getting zero Ohana zone funding. So that was brought up, Chair.

And that's one of the reasons why I'm asking for the friendly amendment because I'm just worried that some of your colleagues think that at this point we've cut off Ohana's own funding to the counties, which isn't true.

Sorry, just to clarify, I think I heard you say that Kohale's own funding shall encompass everything under Ohana zones. Yes.

Yes.

Chair, the language that I have from you right now is the opposite. Ohana zone funding shall encompass everything under Kahale funding. So I guess my concern is like, would flip it.

I would flip it. I'm sorry, I would flip it and go Kahalifans. Yeah, my bad. Okay. I just did that like with three minutes.

Yeah. Okay, that makes more sense to me then.

And thank you for the clarification that. That does make sense to me because you're right.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate, appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Members, further questions on HB 431 HD 1? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 323 HD 1, relating to teacher housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Department of Education with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Tammi Chun, Deputy Superintendent. The Department of Education provides comments on this bill. We appreciate assistance with housing for teachers and other employees. We do note in the testimony that there are costs associated with this proposal, including what the Attorney General's Office pointed out in their testimony about the cost to clawback the vouchers in the event that an employee does not fulfill the obligation that's noted in this bill of five years of service in a hard to staff school. Thank you.

Thank you. Attorney General with comments.

Morning, Chair Evslin, Vice Chair Miyake, Members. Anne Horiuchi, Department of the Attorney General. As we noted in our testimony, the bill sets forth eligibility criteria for those receiving the housing vouchers. One of the requirements is the commitment to teach at a hard to staff school for no less than five consecutive years.

At present, the bill doesn't specify any consequences if the teacher fails to fulfill the commitment. So for clarity, the Department recommends amending the bill to include provisions that would address the repayment of vouchers in such cases, and that language is in our testimony. I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. HSTA in support. HGEA with comments. Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus in support. LIMBY Hawaii in support. Mylia Pax on Zoom in support. And one individual also in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 323 HD 1? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions?

Next item on the agenda. Seeing no questions. Next item on the agenda is HB 1188 HD 1, relating to teacher workforce housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Department of Education with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tammi Chun, Deputy Superintendent. Similar to the last bill, the Department of Education provides comments. We appreciate the support for housing, however, there are costs associated with this bill. Made some technical comments.

Thank you. Democratic Party of Hawaii in support. Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus in support. And one individual in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1188 HD 1? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? I have a question for the Department of Education. The bill references like something along the lines of designated hard to staff schools. Is there an actual technical designation those schools?

Yes, there are.

Okay, thank you. Members, further questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 422, relating to school impact fees.

Vice Chair for the testimony.

Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support. Thank you. Department of Education with comments.

Good morning. Audrey Hidano for Superintendent Hayashi. We submitted testimony. We have comments.

Thank you. Hawaii School Facilities Authority with comments.

Good morning. Riki Fujitani with the School Facilities Authority. We support this. It's, this bill is about ending 18 years of motion with no action. Let's take action. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Hawaiian Home, Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support. Thank you. Office of Housing, City and County of Honolulu in support. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii in support. Hawaii Appleseed in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Arjuna Heim on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed. We are in strong support of HB 422. I got that right. And we'd just like to highlight the audit of DOE done in 2019 that it's relying on conceptual projections rather than actual enrollment trends, raising constitutional concerns about whether the fees meet the required nexus between development and school capacity needs.

They're continuing to use outdated and inconsistent data to estimate growth and have failed to update key factors as required by law. And there is no clear system to track, allocate, or report how school impact fees, funds, and land contributions are used.

And despite the collections of about 20 million now, the DOE has spent exactly $0 of this money. Meaning and meanwhile, two years ago DOE was allowed, allowed 500 million to lapse in school improvement funds. We support, we support public schools, but money impacting new housing developments such as this that aren't being put to use we believe should be repealed. Thank you.

Thank you. Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We just submitted comments to inform the Committee that there is the balance not only of the $20 million that Appleseed Center pointed out, but also another $9 million or so from the predecessor fair share contributions. And the latter 9 million has been sitting around for at least 17 years because that's when the law changed. So there's been a lot of money sitting around doing nothing and we should do something about that. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. Appleseed stole a lot of our thunder, but we are in strong support of HB 422, which would abolish the school impact fees obviously. These increase the cost of housing by thousands of dollars and this is something that you guys can do that would directly lower the cost of housing. The school impact fees for projects in the downtown area, just to consider is a little less than $4,000 a unit.

So you know, a lot of projects that starts to add up really quickly and that is passed on to either renters or home buyers. This cost isn't offset to schools, as Appleseed mentioned. You know, the $20 million has not been spent, and not to mention public school enrollment continues to go down. So we question if this money is actually being used use to build new schools and when current schools are running under capacity. So we support our keiki as well, but they also need somewhere to live. So mahalo.

Thank you. Hawaii YIMBY in support. LIMBY Hawaii with comments. Bianca Isaki, individual in opposition on Zoom.

Chair, we had 61 individuals in support and one in opposition. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 422? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Yes, Representative Grandinetti.

Sorry, is DOE here? Thanks.

In your testimony you highlight that the school impact requirements are made up of two components, cash and land dedication. We heard how the cash hasn't been used, but can you tell us about how the land dedication's been used?

It's been long standing with the state land use Commission and departments and there's a lot of rules in motion to try to get the land to us.

I don't have an exact answer but. I can get back to you.

Thank you.

Members, further questions, questions for the School Facilities Authority. Thank you for being here and for your support on this. I. That second tranche of $9 million which was mentioned by Tom Yamachika, is that also sitting in the School Facilities Special Fund which would lapse? I'm sorry. Yeah. Which would lapse. Sorry.

Is that also sitting in the school impact fee sub account within the Special Fund which would lap to the broader fund if this passes.

Right now the balances are on the impact fees, $20 million, fair share, $8 million. They're still in their respective accounts. The DOE hasn't moved them into the special funds yet.

Okay. And in that case, I mean would you support so the language here just as a school impact fee subaccount within the school facilities special Fund shall lapse and go to the school facilities special Fund for your folks use.

Should we add that Second Fund in there to lapse that Second Fund and give you folks discretion to spend that?

Yes, yes. More importantly, even the process to spend is very very complicated. First step is probably to ask for a spending ceiling from the Legislature. Next is to get authorization from the Governor or through enabling legislation. So it's very very problematic. But first action is stop the funds, stop the impact.

And then second action is figure out a way to spend those funds.

Okay.

The problem with returning it is very complicated. Because there's a nexus, right?

Yeah. No. And the intention would be for you guys to have use of the.

Otherwise it could certainly construe as a taking. It could be, you know, it's very very complicated.

And sorry. The second account is called the fair share.

They call it the fair share contribution balances as of last year. It's about $8.9 million. That does not include the land contributions which are separate and not held in accounts. It's just a slew of agreements over time. Fair share has been in existence since 1831.

Okay, so just to be totally clear here, then again, because the language here is just to lapse the school impact fee sub account to abolish the school impact fee sub account and lapse those the unencumber balance into the School Facility Special Fund.

If we were to add language that also abolishes the fair share contribution balance and laps those funds to the School Facilities Special Fund, that would give you guys at least the first step towards flexibility in using those funds.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you so much. Yes, Representative.

Director. Director, I know we also have the next Bill which talks about the operational oversight for the. For the fee. Would you need the language from the next Bill, House Bill 330 on the operational oversight to be able to encumber the funds once it's transferred to the special Fund?

Probably not. So this Bill is to end the motion. The second Bill is to streamline the motion. If you end the motion, we don't need the second Bill.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Members, further questions? All right. Thank you so much. All right. Next item on the agenda is HB 330 HD 1.

Vice Chair for the testimony.

Department of Education with comments. Thank you. Ricky Fujitani in support.

Thank you. This Bill, again, tries to streamline the motion. In the last session, what happened was, because of the Auditor's Report, what the operation of impact fees was given to the SSA, but the policy still stays with the Board of Ed. So, policy and implementation aren't aligned.

What this Bill tries to do is align policy with operation and implementation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Apple Seed with comments. Thank you. Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments. Hawaii YIMBY in support. And Grassroots Institute with comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ted Kefalas with Grassroots. We'll echo a lot of what we said at the previous testimony and just request that you all look to repeal these school impact fees. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 330, HD 1? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Yes, Representative Kitagawa.

Thank you. For school facilities authority. So, I just want to, I guess, understand the difference between this Bill and last Bill. And you kind of answered to Representative La Chica about how we did the first Bill. We made those edits. You wouldn't need the second Bill.

And I guess I'm just, you know, it dissolves the school impact district, so you wouldn't be, because right now school impact fees, right, you can only use it in the areas that was you—that we got the money for, right, like the complex areas or that district.

So, if we did the first Bill with, you know, the comments and amendments that you had kind of mentioned to Chair, does that mean that when you get that money, you can use whatever school impact fee and the fair share money for any school build across the state?

No, it has to have a nexus. So, right now, there's four impact fee districts. So, we could only use it specifically for those four designated impact fee districts. We'd have to find—we'd have to get the authority first, get the legislative ceiling to spend special funds, and then we would find projects specific to that nexus.

Okay, and you could only use the certain percent or that portion that was generated in that district?

Exactly. So, for example, Honolulu, it's only $3.2 million. For Leeward, it's $8 million. For Central Maui, 6. For West Maui, 2.

Okay, so you would only be able to use it in those areas.

Yes.

Okay. And then, okay, and I guess maybe the question, maybe it's not for you, maybe it's for DOE, but I'm just wondering, why hasn't it been spent? And that's probably a DOE question. And if we do transfer it over to you, how quickly can you get up and running to spend that money?

The first question. Yeah, it's, again, 18 years of motion. I think people have made their entire careers monitoring this, this Fund, the implementation of a very complex law that separates the land side and the construction side in two different buckets, with different formulas for each.

So, it took an entire department of people just to collect this money, yet not being spent. If you—if that balance and that power were given to us, we'd have to analyze what authority we have, specific to the spending of this, whether it can be used for new schools, preschools.

I mean, that's going to be an analysis, but that's a better analysis than trying to return the money collected over 18 years to a lot of developers or homeowners that probably aren't even around, right? That's a bigger problem.

So, it's a better problem to have to figure out how to spend all these accrued balances, which approximates to about $28 million.

Okay. Okay, so, you still have to figure that out once it gets transferred over to you?

Absolutely. So, we've only taken this over in the last six months and we're trying to figure it out.

Okay, great.

Oh, yes, Representative La Chica.

Chair, follow up question. So, so, as you shared, there's, there currently is no existing plan as to how we would use the designated funds for each of those school districts. Is that correct?

There's only one plan with the SFA. Since we've been given the authority by the legislature to the new Central Maui School, we will use that money in building the new set—the new Central Maui School—and that's approximately only $6 million.

Can you share what is the process, as to how we get to authorizing the use of the fee and how challenging it is? So, how can we get, like, how difficult is it to even use and draw down on the Fund?

So, we think we have the authority for Central Maui because that was in the legislative appropriations. We are doing a request to BNF and, and to, to get the ceiling allowable for special funds—special funds, the process to spend, we don't have discretion just to spend it. There's a ceiling amount.

So, we're requesting the use of that $6 million ceiling, and we're working with BNF to do that. So, then, we meet the two requirements, right? Authority and ceiling, ability to spend, and then we think we can effectively spend it when we build the new school, which is additional capacity in Central Maui.

That same kind of analysis has to be applied to, to the Honolulu, to the Leeward, to West Maui.

So, for the, for this process to spend on the $20 million, there would have to be a legislative—it would have to go through the Legislature. So, via a Bill. We would have to pass a Bill that has appropriation, or would it have to go through a budget request in the next session?

Yeah, we're talking with BNF on what's the proper way to do that on a spending ceiling for the Special Fund. It may require, in the Budget Bill, a ceiling of that Special Fund's use of those funds.

And does it have to go through a board of education public hearing?

No, the Board of Education process is only on the policy side in setting up the impact fees, which are, right now, four different areas.

But in order to spend down the balance in how to administer the current funds for the existing districts, we wouldn't need to do a public hearing on those?

Our initial review of our power, which we've taken over recently, is that, no, it's just given general authority that we can do it. So, we have a project in Central Maui. If we were to get in projects in Leeward or other districts, then we could look at that too.

And then going to the ledge on allowing us to spend the ceiling amount in the Special Fund.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I have one final question, so I just want to clarify. So, we have HB 40—422—which abolishes, repeals the fee and abolishes the Fund. HB 330, which we're on now, which would put the Fund under your folk's discretion and allow you folks to collapse the district, as I understand.

And as you said, during HB, or HB 422, that if we pass that, then we wouldn't need this Bill. Do you have a preference on the direction on, on which, you know, aside from the political hurdles of passing either of these, just from, you know, an administrative standpoint, what is your preference?

Stop the motion.

Okay.

Don't streamline the motion.

Okay, thank you, Appreciate that. Members, further questions?

Sure. Grandinetti.

I could feel it burning.

I'm sorry. I hesitated because I feel like some—I didn't get to read the Auditor's Report, but I'm looking at the recommendations really briefly and they don't say to abolish the school impact fee. They say to fix it. So, I'm wondering why you want to stop.

Oh, next year we'll be in front of you with an idea to fix it.

Okay. Okay.

But the first step is to stop the madness. Second step is to figure out a better way. And you know the world has changed, right? This thing started in 1831 with fair share. It evolved to this impact fee which again, nothing has come of it.

We need something, given the modern times, the needs for urban schools. You know, it has to be different. And what we have now doesn't work.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Members, further questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 350 HD1 related to energy. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Hawaii State Energy Office in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Marina Tomey, Hawaii State Energy Office. In the interest of time, we'll stand on our testimony in support with the recommended amendment.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in support.

Thank you, we stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. The Solaray Corporation with comments.

Hi, yes, I'm on Zoom. Can you hear me okay?

Yes,

Thank you. Well, good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Will Giese. I am the Senior Director of Government affairs for the Solaray Corporation.

We own two companies, one called SunEarth and one called AET, which together are the largest domestic manufacturers of solar flat plate collectors in the United States. We are celebrating our 50th anniversary this year. So excited to be here.

Our company is owned and operated here in Hawaii. But I offered comments on this partly because our company, as you know, one of the major manufacturers of solar thermal has been deeply involved in the solar hot water mandate for many years. Solar thermal is an interesting technology for water heating, but it works very, very well in Hawaii.

And that's part of the reason that the mandate exists, because for most people in Hawaii, your single greatest load is surprisingly, not often HVAC, it's actually water heating, which is usually through electric. So with a solar thermal system, you can save anywhere from 20 to 40% on your electric bill just by saving that water heating.

That energy cost for water heating. And solar thermal in the State of Hawaii is an incredibly effective technology. Our comments were specifically about how heat pumps are a very efficient technology. They are much more efficient than a traditional gas or electric water heater. Our distribution company sells all of those water heating technologies, including solar thermal.

So we're, we're well aware with them. But I think our comments are intended to bring heat pump efficiencies if they're going to be included in a mandate on the same level as a water heater efficiency. A solar water heater efficiency would be.

So a solar water heater typically has to meet a 90% solar fraction to be installed in a new home, which means that 90% of the energy generated to heat water in a year has to come from solar, and the last 10% can come from backup or from solar.

This is very, very, very efficient, much more efficient than a traditional heat pump water heater would be. And so my comment and my suggested amendment, which I also gave in the prior committee for this, was that if these two technologies are going to be mandated equally, the efficiency for those two technologies should also be equal.

And at the end of the day, I think from a cost perspective, it often comes up that, well, there's an expense associated with all of these different things. There is a variance process that is in place and works quite well for systems that don't have good solar access or maybe aren't appropriate for solar thermal.

I think the Hawaii state energy office can tell you all about that. But at the end of the day, the customer is the one or the consumer, the homeowner is the one who bears the cost for energy. And for a solar thermal system, typically, they're not really going to pay for that system, but they will pay for it for a lesser efficient water heater.

So I would ask that, you know, not necessarily eliminate this bill, but just bring any water heating technology that's going to be mandated up to the efficiency of the most efficient water heating technology that's currently installed here in Hawaii, which today is still solar thermal. Thank you. So much.

I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any, but I really appreciate your time and attention to the matter.

Thank you. Hawaii Energy in support .Hawaii Solar Energy Association with Comments Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 350 HD1.

Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 346 HD 1, relating to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Vice Chair for the testimony.

OPSD in support.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee. Danielle Bass, State Sustainability Coordinator with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. In the interest of time, we'll stand our testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii State Energy Office in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Nicole Cernohorsky on behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Committee Commission in support. Thank you. Public Utilities Commission in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. The PUC will stand on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. Disability and Communication Access Board with comments. Not present. County of Kauai in support. City and County of Honolulu, Office of Climate Change Sustainability and Resiliency in support. Ulupono Initiative in support. Hawaiian Electric in support. Thank you. Hawaii Energy in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Caroline Carl, Executive Director of Hawaii Energy. We stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. Kauai Climate Action Coalition in support. Coalition Earth in support. Oahu MPO in support. 350 Hawaii in support. Citizens Climate Lobby in support. Alliance for Automotive Innovation in support. And 14 individuals also in support, Chair. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 346 HD 1? Seeing none, Chair.

None Chair. Members any questions? Seeing none. Last item on our agenda today is HB243, HD1 relating to energy Vice Chair for the testimony.

DCCA Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Providing support Sorry.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission with comments PUC will stand on its return the testimony providing comments thank you. Tesla in support Green Party of Hawaii in support Hawaii Electric Vehicle Association in support Kauai Climate Action Coalition in support Hawaiian Electric in opposition.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee I 'm Kaiulani Shinsato. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric. While we do support the intent of this bill to grow distributed energy resources in Hawaii, we respectfully oppose the bill.

I'd like to expand on just a couple of points that I made in my written testimony and the first is to challenge the narrative in the bill that our interconnection process is As I mentioned in our testimony, we've had an Interconnection Approval Performance Incentive Mechanism or PIM for the past four years and we've achieved targets on that PIM and received monetary rewards.

And that PIM was specifically designed to incentivize us to speed up our interconnection process. So I wanted to offer that to kind of bolster the point that we made in our testimony that we're doing well for interconnections.

The second point is that the bill focuses on our service upgrade process and I wanted to clarify that it seems to apply to a smaller subset of customers. So most customers who want rooftop PV and batteries do not have to go through that process.

It's only when a customer decides to go from 100amps to 200amps where they have to go through our service upgrade process. And as I've been talking more with the solar industry, I've learned more about kind of what the headaches are and hurdles for them.

Our strong recommendation is to just talk with them, continue to talk with them and collaborate and try to find improvements in the process as opposed to legislating improvements via this measure. Thank you. Happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. Sunrun in support. Kauai Island Utility cooperative in opposition. 350 Hawaiian support. Hawaii Solar Energy Association in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Rocky Mold. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. I'll stand on our written comments in support.

But I would like to mention in doing some more research and in conversations with kiuc, they've made a lot of progress on their interconnection process for solar and energy storage combinations over the years in particular. And so I want to sort of mention that.

And you know, they've asked for some amendments to be exempted from this or excluded from this. And we would not oppose that because they have made some significant progress. I also want to say, you know, HECO has made significant progress on their interconnection processes.

But with this new generation of UL 1741 grid interactive equipment, which is going to lower costs for all as we transition to our decarbonized grid, it really, we're starting to get hit some friction along the way. So this really is designed to instill best practices for interconnection going forward for this new grid interactive technology.

I'm here for questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you, Rocky. IBEW Local 1260 in opposition. The Solar Ray Corporation in support.

Oh, I we'll just stand on our written testimony and support. Very supportive of the HSCA director's comments. Great to see it going through the Legislature, and I hope you guys pass it out. Thank you.

Limby Hawaii in support and chair. We got 26 individuals also in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB243HD1?

Seeing none.

Chair Members, any questions? All right. Seeing none. We will recess.

Reconvening the House Committee on Housing. Public hearing for Wednesday, February 12, 9am, sorry, was now 10:30am for decision making. First item on the agenda. First item up for decision making is HB 576. I recommend that we move this out with an HD1 with a defected date. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Next item on the agenda is HB 421 relating to contractors. I just want to clarify a really similar bill last session actually passed and then was vetoed by the governor.

This bill is slightly different in that it requires an affidavit from whoever is going to live in the unit that they are aware that this unit was permitted through an owner builder exemption. It also clarifies in the preamble that we are one of very few states that actually have this type of prohibition.

And in my opinion, this is just a good example of this sort of thicket of regulations that we're putting on housing development that makes it so hard to address our housing crisis in that so often these types of units are going to be very small, you know, additional aduser or small, you know, conversions of an existing bedroom into a dwelling unit.

I mean, these are the types of jobs that licensed contractors are often not willing to take because they're so small. So it can be really hard to find a licensed contractor. And also just want to reiterate that even if you go through this with an owner builder exemption, you still need a licensed electrician and a licensed plumber to sign off on the plans. So all that said, I'm sorry.

And then the concern over flipping the homes I don't think is grounded because the bill clearly does not open the window for that, right? The prohibition on leasing the unit within a year, the prohibition on selling that unit within a year is, still stands untouched.

So my plan is to move this out with an HD1 with a defected date and technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is HB 367 relating to building permits. I propose that we move this out with an HD1 with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style with a defected date and to adopt the test the language and the testimony provided by DLNR to ensure that this does not apply to areas subject to the National Flood Insurance Program.

To broaden the language in the bill to apply to all county permits. So this would include zoning permits, but to clarify that that's only outside of the special management area. So nothing in the bill should be applied within the SMA. And then clarify also that the bill does not exempt someone from complying with the underlying zoning requirements.

There's language in the bill currently saying that you still got to comply with the building code even if you don't need a permit. Same thing for the, for the zoning code. You still got to comply with it even if you don't need a permit. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is HB 826 relating to housing. I just want to note, you know, I understand and hear some of the concerns that were brought up in testimony today, but this, the language currently in the bill puts a whole lot of guardrails on where these special permits can be allowed, right?

It's adjacent to an existing urban state land use district and within a general plan growth area and not, you know, high quality agricultural land. And that has to be 100% long term rental or workforce housing, right? So I think that's enough guardrails to ensure that this process is done properly.

Also the planning commissions have lots of experience in issuing special use permits along these lines. I think they know their communities best. They also have lots of, you know, experience with the contested case hearing process.

So, so that said, I want to move this forward with a defected date to amend subsection 4 to clarify that the general plan must have been adopted no earlier than 2005, right? This is to clarify that you couldn't have a general plan amendment in the future to allow for this, right?

It has to be something that is, it has to already be in the general plan within the last 20 years. Sorry, adopted no earlier than 2005. Clarify that agricultural worker housing would be allowed under this too.

And add in the Committee Report that the intention is for HHFTC to define affordable and long term rental and agricultural worker in their administrative rules. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing None. Vice Chair for the vote

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is HB 525 relating to housing. I recommend that we move this out with a defective date. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thanks, Vice Chair. Next item is HB 252, not to be confused with 525 right before it. And I recommend that we move this out with a defected date. And I just want to note that there was a lot of concerns brought up in the testimony which I think could be valid concerns, right?

Including that there's no definition of what constitutes experience. There is a request in the testimony for the managing agents to be licensed. There was concerns that commercial experience is different than residential requests for some type of educational accreditation program for the building managers. And I think it's important for the next Committee CPC to address these.

These are largely CPC issues. I think for the purposes of the Housing Committee, we can say that this is a good idea and continue moving it forward for further dialogue. So that's that, again, moving forward with an HD1 with just a defected date. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is HB 709 related to trespassing. Noting the concerns brought up by HPD, we will be deferring this bill. Next is HB 431 HD1 related to housing. I recommend that we move this out with an HD2 with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I recommend that. And this is sort of housekeeping.

I think the draft came over maybe with a little bit of accidental additional sections from the last committee. So we'll delete section 7 and 8 entirely and modify the preamble accordingly. There was just some duplication over the allocation of the funding. And then we will adopt both of the amendments provided by Director Mizuno.

The first amendment being to ensure transparency and fairness that there should be at least two bidders for any Kauhale project estimated to be over $1 million.

And then also to reduce confusion between Ohana's own funds and Kauhale funds to include a definition that Kauhale funding shall encompass everything under Ohana's own funding and the two shall, period. And Ohana's own funding and Kauhale funding may cover a program to address basic needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness and will wrap around services.

Social and healthcare services, transportation and other services may be offered with the go of alleviating poverty and transitioning individuals and families experiencing homelessness or housing instability into supportive housing as well as affordable housing. These funds shall also be used to renovate or build Kauhale housing projects for houseless individuals and families and individuals and families facing housing instability.

Members, any questions or concerns?

Comment Chair

Yes.

I just want to let you know that I this is a majority package bill and I did sign on to the measure but in the sake of this committee I do want to cast a vote of reservations. I think my line of questioning will highlight that there really is some clarity that needs to be brought forth under the Office of Statewide Homelessness.

And projecting that in my line of questioning some of the issues will arise within the next couple of years and I think it's great for us to appropriate this money but I think we need to start thinking on the outlook out years of what where we're going to host and where we're going to keep Kauhale if it's not under this department and where we're going, where we're putting it.

So for that just want to vote WR.

Thank you, Representative Kila. Members, Further questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item on the agenda is HB 323 HD1 so we previously moved out HB 89 HD1 out of this committee which is going to be heard by the Education Committee.

The bill is substantially identical to this bill so we'll be deferring this bill in favor of, you know, continued dialogue and movement on the other bill, HB 89. Next item on the agenda is HB 1188 HD1 relating to teacher workforce housing.

I recommend that we move this out with an HD1 with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Members any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Next item is HB 422 relating to school impact fees. So I just want to note for this too, I really appreciate the SFA, School Facilities, Authority, coming out and expressing their support on this. And quote, "Ending 18 years of motion with no action. Let's do something."

I really appreciate that sentiment and I think it is, you know, just sort of like the height of insanity that we are charging in the middle of this incredibly dire housing crisis up to $4,000 per unit to build homes which in the School Facilities Authorities were just like taking almost an entire department to collect these funds.

And then the funds have never gotten used for school construction, right? And I think everybody here who testified, including myself, believes that of course we should all be funding school facilities and new construction when needed.

I just think that that funding should come from the tax base at large and not just from sort of the next generation of home buyers here, home builders. So I recommend that we move this out with a defected date. Members, any questions or concerns? Oh, I'm sorry.

Defected date and then also to add language that we are abolishing the fair share. Sorry, let me, this was hastily added by me, so let me just make sure I get the language right.

Fair share?

Yeah. The fair share account within the school facility special fund and to abolish that and then any income or balance remaining shall lapse the school facility special fund. Exactly the same as we were doing with the school impact fee subaccount. This is to ensure that, that both funds are abolished and that the SFA would have use of both funds going forward. Members, any questions or concerns? All right. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. Next item is HB 330 HD1. I want to express appreciation for the introducer of this measure. I think putting forward something with honestly maybe like more politically viable to pass than the previous bill. And I certainly appreciate that.

But I don't think we can move both bills forward in that if we abolish the fund, that we don't need this bill. And I think I want to make it clear that it's at least the Housing Committee's priority that we are abolishing the fund rather than setting up this second mechanism to, to collapse the districts.

So I will be deferring HB 330, HD1. Next item is HB 350 HD1 and I recommend that we move this forward unamended as an HD1. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is HB 346 HD1. I recommend that we move this forward unamended as well. And I also just want to clarify. We got some testimony regarding ensuring that, that we are not taking away, I think, you know, accessible stalls or handicap stalls through this.

And I just want to clarify that this is just essentially a rebate program, right? It's not requiring that a certain number of stalls have electric vehicle chargers and it's just a rebate program for EV Ready, which is the conduit and receptacle in the ground.

So I don't think it impacts, you know, the needs to ensure that accessibility in these stalls. Members, any. So we'll just be moving forward unamended. Members, Any questions or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Last item on the agenda is HB 243 HD1 relating to energy. So I see this as a, as a savings measure, right? The intention of, my intention with this committee is to reduce cost of housing. Part of the cost of housing is energy costs and this is intended to do exactly that.

Reduce energy costs, hopefully increase the speed of conversions and then also, you know, decrease the cost to converge, convert to these types of systems. So I will be recommending that we move this out with an HD2 where we will add language to section 3, subsection D that expands the scope of grid interconnection to include electric vehicle charging.

Add language that clarifies that the bill only applies to investor owned utilities. Adopt language from DCCA saying that service upgrades where necessary will be paid by the distributed energy resources asset owner.

Add language to section 4, subsection C that clarifies that the utility establish a process to approve or certify licensed electricians to perform meter panel replacements, meter socket adapter insulation and main panel upgrades covered under the bill. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote

[ROLL CALL]

All right, thank you everybody for your time. Thank you all for hanging out with us all morning. Seeing no further businesses this hearing is now adjourned.