Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts

Good afternoon. We're convening the Committee on Transportation and Culture and the arts on our 3pm agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 224. It's Thursday, February 6th. We have a number of bills on the agenda as well as we have deferred agenda to vote on as well at the end. So if you haven't submitted written testimony, please do so.

And when you do testify, we'll be asking you to limit your testimony to two minutes to make sure that we have time to get through everybody and make sure everyone has a chance to weigh in. That set up, first is Senate Bill 21 relating to water carriers, which establishes a water carrier inflationary index cost index mechanism.

Testifying first on SB21 is the Department of Transportation. On Zoom. IT, are they with us?

Hello, Chair. There are a number of Department of Transportation people online.

Okay, well, for the moment we have dot's testimony and support. zero, there's Tammy. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Aloha Chair, Members of the Committee. Tammy Lee, Deputy Director for the Department of Transportation. We stand on our written testimony in support and I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Up next is the Department of Agriculture.

Good afternoon, Chair. The Department of Agriculture stands on its written testimony offering comments.

Okay, thank you. DCCA.

Afternoon, Chair. [Inaudible]...Consumer Advocacy stands on its written testimony...[inaudible].

Thank you.

And Public Utilities Commissioner

Chair we'll stand on our testimony providing comments.

Thank you. We also have testimony support from the County of Kauai, Young brothers on zoom. Oh, sorry, Chris. Thank you. We also have testimony from Matson Navigation Company in support, White Harbor's Users Group in support, DSR Logistics in support and Pacific Transfer in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure?

If not, are there any questions? Okay, thank you. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1478 relating to commercial harbors, which requires masters or persons in charge of vessels to follow an order by a harbor master to evacuate a commercial harbor during an emergency. And testifying first is the Department of Transportation on Zoom.

Aloha Chair. This is the Deputy Director Dre Kalili. Thank you for hearing this measure. This is one of our admin bills and I think just to clarify, this requirement would only apply to our commercial ports, not the small boat harbors, which I think has been a misunderstanding among some vessel owners, but available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Hayima in support. Comments from Hawaii Harbor's Users Group and opposition from the Hawaii Long Line Association. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB 1478? If not, are there any questions? Just one for the Deputy Director, if you're still on.

Yes, still here.

Yeah. Hi. Thanks. One of the concerns raised in the testimony was in the event of an emergency, whatever that might be, let's say a hurricane that's barreling down in the state and everyone's ordered out of the harbors, if there's a likelihood that it could be more dangerous once a boat exits the harbor and is out there getting battered, what is the, 2hat is the recourse there?

So I think there are a couple of ways to respond to that. One is that we are looking for a reasonable mooring from vessels that are requesting to stay in port. The other is we're also asking that vessel owners consider maybe a berthing arrangement in a small boat harbor at the same time.

So we are really just trying to address the vessels that just are completely unresponsive during an emergency situation where they just remain in port. They don't communicate with us. They don't communicate with the U.S. Coast Guard.

And as we noted in our written testimony, in 2020, when Hurricane Douglas was heading directly for Oahu, there were 11 vessels that just completely had no communication with either us or U.S. Coast Guard.

So we're just trying to incentivize and encourage those vessel owners, agents, and crew to come up with a planning plan ahead in these types of emergency situations.

All right, thank you. Any further questions? All right, if not, thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure of Senate Bill 108 relating to vessels, which authorizes the Director of Transportation to adopt rules that regulate and limit noise from vessels and near commercial harbors, ports, etc.

And testifying first is the Hawaii Harbors Users Group in opposition. And that's all the testimony we have in this measure is there, unless I'm missing something late. But is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB108?

Aloha, Charlie. Sorry, this is Dre, Deputy Director for DOT. Again, I apologize if our late testimony was not transmitted, but we support the intent, and this is our testimony that was similar to last year. We support the intent. I think regulation of noise at our ports is important, but we are preempted by federal law. So I just wanted to make sure the Committee was aware of that.

Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB108? If not, are there questions? If not, let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 14. I apologize. Do we miss someone on Zoom for SB108 wishing to testify? All right, unless Dre wants to go again. Thanks, everyone.

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1475, relating to special facility revenue bonds, which increases the total principal amount of bonds that may be issued by DOT for harbor improvements. And testifying first is the Department of Transportation.

Thank you, Chair Lee. This again is another one of our admin package bills. This. Through this Bill, we're asking to increase the ceiling. The current ceiling that was set in the 90s is $100 million.

Just the nature of the projects and inflation and cost of labor and cost of materials, projects that would be covered by this section of law are just a lot more expensive than they have been. So we're just seeking an increasing the ceiling to $600 million. Again, available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, are there any questions? If not. Okay, thank you.

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1473 relating to central services assessments, which amends the transfer of central service expenses from DOT funds and limits those to $5 million and ties it to the consumer price index. And testifying first is the Department of Transportation.

Thank you Chair, Members of the Committee, Tammy Lee, Department of Transportation. The DLT stands on a certain testimony and support. I'm here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have testimony from the Department of Budget and Finance.

Sabrina Nasir, Deputy Director, Department of Budget and Finance. We stand on our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. With comments. All right, that's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there questions? And just one for Sabrina for Budget and Finance. Not to get into the weeds on the nature of state financing, but just in general for Central Services.

Is there a distinction here given for a lot of the funding through DOT it's special funded and so forth, or is this just sort of a blanket situation?

So the Central Services Fee is a 5% that gets deducted from all special funds. And so that's the calculation that gets applied to the DOT Special Funds here. But it is, it does occur for all of the departments with special funds.

And ultimately, assuming it applies to everybody, is there another situation where there's a limitation on the 10% that's different than just the 10%?

So. Yeah. So with the, with the 5% amount, there can be some exceptions. And so I would have to go back to the statute to see which special funds were exempted.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, are there any further questions? Okay, if not, let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1402, relating to vessels in state commercial harbors, which clarifies the requirements for securing mooring lines in state commercial harbors and that they shall not apply to certain vessels.

And testifying first is the General Contractors Association of Hawaii in support, and then Hawaii Long Line Association in support. That's all the testimony we have on 1402. Is there anyone else wishing to testify this afternoon? If not, are there any questions? I guess there's no one to ask questions of.

All right, let's move on then to Senate Bill 1522, relating to vehicle title transfers, which clarifies that a transfer shall not be liable for any violation resulting from the operation of a transfer vehicle if the transfer complies with the portions of the statute requiring action on the transfer's part.

In other words, make it easier for people to transfer cars without getting dinged for it. Testifying first on 1522 is the Department of Customer Services at the City and County of Honolulu in support. And that's all the testimony we have on 1522. Is there anyone else wishing to testify this afternoon? And if not. Okay.

Again, there's no one to ask questions of. So let's move on to SB599 relating to transportation, which requires DOT or the appropriate county department when disposing of a deceased cat or dog to scan it for a microchip. And testifying first is in the Department of Transportation. Thank you. Hawaiian Humane Society. Good afternoon.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair, Committee Member. Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. We're grateful to the Committee for hearing this measure. You know, there's really no worse nightmare for a pet owner than having your dog or cat get out and be hit by a car on one of our roadways.

The only thing that can make that worse is not knowing whether it's happened. So we really appreciate DOT's support for this measure, and we're hoping that the County Environmental Services folks will also be supportive, particularly since the DOT secured funding for the microchips. But this really is important to provide closure for our pet owners.

It's a humane measure to support the human-animal bond, and we urge the Committee to pass it. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, is the Pacific Pet Alliance in support? We have support from a number of individuals, probably about, I don't know, 10, or actually about maybe 12 or 15. And we have one person signed up to testify in person, Brittany Adder. I'm sorry, I might be botching your name here.

Good afternoon.

How are you guys? Aloha Chair Chris Lee, and Committee Members. My name is Brittany and I am a resident of Ewa Beach.

I am here to express my support for SB599, which requires the appropriate department to purchase and provide microchip scanning equipment enforced to scan any deceased cats and dogs that is collected on public roadways for microchips, record relevant information and report it to the appropriate animal service and contractors.

I support this Bill because I have three dogs of my own and an unknown disappearance would make me feel uneasy. Pets hold a disguise superpower. A superpower that supports an individual mentally and physically through interactions. It has been shown that pet benefits our health by decreasing levels of cortisol, which is a stress hormone.

Decreases the feeling of loneliness, boosts our moods, gives us a feeling of social support, and more. Through these interactions and their unconditional love, pets become a part of our families. And like a loss of a loved human, the cycle or feeling of grace, of grief, is similar when losing a pet.

When providing microchip scanning equipment and enforcing the department's employees to report microchip deceased cats and dogs that are found on public roads, it will allow pet owners a peace of mind or comfort to know what had happened to their pet and allow them to bring their beloved cat or dog home.

The State of Hawaii required owners to have their pet microchip and have it registered to the owner's information with the microchip company since January 1, 2022. One of the many reasons is to be able to identify ownership.

I have worked at a veterinary clinic for about two years, and there has been many occasions where civilians would bring a lost cat or dog to be scanned for a microchip. And that microchip allowed a lost cat or dog to be reunited with their family.

The simple gesture of just scanning for a microchip on a deceased cat or dog will allow them to reunite with their family as well. Thank you, Chair Chris Lee and Committee Members for your time and allowing me to share my testimony today. I respectfully ask for your support of SB599.

Thank you. Thank you. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify this afternoon? All right. If not, are there any questions?

Humane Society. Hawaii Humane Society. Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. You had said in your testimony that DOT secured funding for microchips.

That was my understanding. I don't want to speak for the department and they're here, but, but that was my understanding from their testimony.

Okay, I'll go back and ask them, but sit right there. Yeah. Any idea of how many pets are microchipped. Do you have any kind of numbers or data on that?

We know it's increasing. So right now on Oahu, which is the only island I have data for, we're at about 80% for dogs and about 70% for cats. So it's pretty good. It's much better than the old licensing system used to be.

Nice. That's great. Thank you so much.

Absolutely.

Do you mind if I bring up DOT, please? Thank you. If you wouldn't mind responding to the question that I asked Hawaii Humane Society. And then I have one more comment before you.

Sure. We are not budgeting for the microchips because those are installed by the Humane Society. What we're getting is the scanner. So we'll take care of the scanners.

Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying. I'm really quick. I just want to make sure that when we do microchip them and we have the scanners and then we find out that it does belong to an owner, that that cost of cleaning it up and giving it to them doesn't get passed on to that owner, which will then therefore trigger probably maybe the vehicle who might have hit the animal or just. I just don't want this to be a domino effect, if that makes any sense.

Understood. My understanding of the way that the legislation is written is that our duty is to use our scanners to collect the information before disposing of the animals. So that's the scope of work that we're planning to do.

Okay, great. And to no cost of the pet owner.

Correct.

Thank you very much. Thank you Chair.

Chair, any further discussion questions? If not. Thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the next Measure, which is SB 1025, link to transportation, which allows service and non service animals, pet animals on mass transit vehicles under certain conditions. And testifying first on 1025. Is the Department of Human Services, online.

Not available on zoom. Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Gavin Ape testifying on behalf of Director Ryan Yamane. Appreciate the intent of the measure, offer our comments and defer to mass transit authorities. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is the testimony from County of Maui, in opposition. City County of Honolulu, in opposition. Hawaii State Committee of Blind Vendors, in support. Hawaiian Humane Society.

Thank you. Chair and Senators, Stephanie Kendrick, with the Hawaiian Humane Society. We're in strong support of this measure. Transportation barriers are a real factor for particularly our moderate and low income pet owners. We recently did a lot of research out on the Waianae coast, speaking to people in person and doing in person surveys.

And about 23% of the pet owners out there reported that their main means of transportation is public transit and that not being able to take their pets on public transit presented a real barrier to getting them the care that they need, seeing a veterinarian, etc. So we're grateful for this measure.

We know it's been rolled out in other places. We think the Bill includes some important protections so that bus owners have the discretion if any kind of conflict is arising to ask people to leave the bus. We are a big supporter of responsible pet ownership.

We think people should know their pets and only take them on public transit if they know they're going to be comfortable and behaved in that environment. And I think this Bill has protections to make sure that happens. So we're in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Testimony and support from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. Testimony in opposition from Haifido service dogs. And we have testimony from about a dozen individuals in support, and then one in opposition and one person signed up. Mr. Fritz, good afternoon.

Members of the Committee. I'm testifying in opposition because I work with a lot of people that have service dogs. Service dogs are unique. On one hand, they're trained to be obedient, and on the other hand, they're trained to be disobedient to prevent somebody from stepping into a car or being startled or not seeing a step.

This Bill would allow any pet of any size to, to come onto the bus. If you look at the end of my testimony, you'll find I did check certain transit systems and the only thing that they allow are small pets. Except for Boston, which allows large pets.

Many of us may have friends that have dogs with wagging big tails and have been slapped by them. Can you imagine what would happen to a blind person or a service dog?

The reason for the size recommendation is because I've seen pictures of someone who got a big Ikea bag, shoulder strap, and put their dog in it after cutting holes in the bottom of it for the legs to stand out.

So clothed containers that are sealed are going to be much easier to manage the animal versus having a large dog that might have an accident, who's going to clean it up?

I read a story that said if you ever want to wake up early in the morning, make the alarm clock sound, the sound of a dog about to throw up, because that seemed to get people up very in a hurry. So I am very concerned about the large dogs. I'm concerned about small dog distracting a service dog.

And I stand in opposition on that basis. So if the Committee is going to move it forward, then remove the provisions as I specified in my testimony regarding large dogs and move it forward in that particular basis, and specify the size of a pet carrier, and restrict travel to off peak hours.

Because traveling during peak hours could be very distracting to a service animal. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, that's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? 3:27 Got a ways to go, so why don't we move on to the next measure? Thank you, everyone. Up first, or sorry.

Up next is Senate Bill 1096 relating to license plates, which prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle with a license plate flipping device. And Testifying first on 1096 is the Department of Transportation. Thank you. Honolulu Police Department on zoom. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon Chair D. Major Ceasen Tenasko of District 7, East Honolulu. I stand on my written testimony in support of Senate Bill number 1096 related to license plates. And I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? All right, thank you, everyone.

Let's move on to Senate Bill 384 relating to victim restitution, which requires when a defendant is convicted of negligent homicide in the first degree for causing the death of another while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that victim restitution shall include financial support to raise the decedent surviving minor children until each child reaches the age of 18 or 23, depending on the situation.

Testifying first on 384 is the Department of Transportation. Thank you. Office of the Public Defender. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Haley Chang. I'm the First Deputy at the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted Breton testimony in opposition, and I think our arguments are laid out. But I did just want to highlight a couple of things.

The proposed measure is in direct contradiction to subsection 2 of HRS. 706646, which does require that in criminal proceedings, the court can only order restitution for reasonable and verified losses under the proposed measure. There is absolutely no way to verify the amount of losses that is being suggested under this Bill.

There are way too many unforeseen and unexpected and unpredictable expenses that a criminal court would have to account for in order to be in compliance with this measure. We by no means believe that restitution is not appropriate or important, and in fact, we're also oftentimes able to reach resolutions related to restitution.

But as we've indicated in our testimony, not being able to advise a client about the vast amount of restitution is going to be prohibitive in the criminal system. Also, just anecdotally, I'm not sure if the Committee is aware how criminal court restitution is figured out.

It falls on the shoulders of the probation Department, and they are not equipped to make findings to this degree. The probation Department basically gathers information, submits it to the court, and does the best that they can to verify the extent of the incurred loss as a result of the incident.

Again, our main issue is not the order of restitution, but it's the fact that it is unpredictable and cannot be verified. And it is in direct contradiction with the other subsection of the statute. There is civil remedies, and that is the appropriate place for these complicated matters to be resolved. And I will make myself available for questions.

Thank you.

Testifying next is Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Thank you. And the Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition in support. That's all the testimony we have on SB384. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? All right. If not, thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 597.

This is relating to administrative driver's license revocation, which extends the time restriction on which the Hawaii Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office is required to issue a decision, and testifying first is the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, Members of the Committee, Elise Amemiya, Deputy Attorney General from the Department of the Attorney General. So, as indicated in our testimony, we do support this measure in terms of how it works with drug testing for DUI cases.

It's especially felt in terms of a timeline on our other islands where they have to send it to Oahu to then be sent to the mainland. So, giving more time for this process to take place will be beneficial for all the islands. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hawaii Police Department in support, Department of Law Enforcement in support, and Maui County Prosecutor's Office in support. That's all the testimony we have in this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? All right. If not, thank you.

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1285, relating to highway safety, which establishes an offense of operating a vehicle while impaired with penalties and authorizes DOT to take administrative action, among other things. Testifying first is the Department of Transportation on Zoom.

Not available on Zoom Chair.

Okay. In support, Department of the Attorney General. Good afternoon again.

Good afternoon again. Elise Amemiya, Deputy Attorney General for the Department of the Attorney General's Office. As indicated, we support the goal of this Bill, which is to hold offenders accountable for DUI offenses.

We just would note that one of the ways that we are able to charge a DUI is based upon the driving or if there's a motor vehicle collision involved. So there is already a way for us to utilize a lower blood alcohol concentration amount.

And our concern is that if we have a lower offense, that, that could affect our ability to charge the petty misdemeanor for this. We also note that in terms of plea negotiations, it's often the prosecutor who's handling that case which would know how best to handle the case going forward.

So we do want to still give them that discretion to be able to make those calls. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon again. We have submitted fairly comprehensive written testimony in opposition. And I did just want to highlight a few things. As the Deputy Attorney General already mentioned, there is a mechanism in the law under an existing subsection to charge people with the criminal offense of DUI.

Even if we do not get a BAC, that is to address individuals who refuse to blow or for even if they fall within or below the threshold of .08, they can still be criminally charged with DUI. So that is addressed.

We've also included in our written testimony how other states have not adopted provisions such as these because of the reasons that we've stated. I also did want to highlight that the diversion of resources away for police officers to have to stop everybody who may be under the suspicion of operating a vehicle below the threshold is a concern.

I would imagine that would be a concern for law enforcement. I have personally handled thousands of DUI cases in my career. There are anywhere from at a minimum two to three officers, up to sometimes five or six officers for any given stop. It is not a traditional traffic stop.

It is because people are required to exit their vehicle, submit to testing, field sobriety tests, things of that nature. So it is going to be a weight on resources. And then finally, I cannot state enough how critical it is that the attorneys, especially the prosecuting attorneys, remain able to negotiate cases.

I would say that over 90%, probably closer to 95%, of cases in the criminal system are resolved short of trial, and that helps with the orderly functioning of the court. And in large part, that is because the parties have the authority and the discretion without the government or the court's involvement to negotiate agreements.

There are countless factors that go into the consideration of whether somebody should be offered an agreement, whether a client will accept an agreement, and is not just limited to lack of probable cause or the inability to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. And in fact, if the prosecuting attorney.

Just ask you to summarize.

Sorry, our last point is if the prosecuting attorney could not prove a case because of lack of PC or beyond a reasonable doubt, the case should be dismissed automatically. It would not be right for prosecution. So, thank you and I'll remain available for questions. Thank you.

Up next is the oh Council Member Jen Kagiwata from Hawaii County Council District 2 in support. Hawaii County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney in support. Hawaii Alcohol Policy alliance on zoom.

IT.

Hello? She's available on zoom. Chair. Oh, okay. Sorry.

Oh. Good afternoon.

Hi. This, I'm Cynthia Okazaki, a Member of the Hawaii Alcohol Policy Alliance. I stand on my written testimony in strong support of Senate Bill 1285. This legislation will save lives, so I urge you to pass the this Bill out of your Committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Public Health Institute on zoom.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Rick Collins with the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Just a couple of notes.

We really appreciate this opportunity, Senator Lee, and for you working on this Bill and the other piece I just want to kind of note is that, there is a reason why the majorities of countries around the world, the number of the multitude of state, national, and international organizations support 05 is because, simply stated, it works and it is the strongest legislative tool we know of to reduce and prevent alcohol impaired driving on our roadways.

So, thank you and we ask you to pass this out of the Committee. And I'm here for any questions.

Thank you. East Hawaii Drug Free Coalition on zoom.

Hi, I'm here.

Hi. Please proceed.

My name is Camlyn Hola and I'm a survivor. I'm testifying in strong support of the SB 1285. It's disheartening to me to once again revisit my trauma and share my story because our legislatures killed our Bill in the house. In 1996, three of my friends lost their lives due to the reckless actions of an impaired driver.

The two young adults responsible were sentenced to only three years in prison. Where's the justice in that? I continue to live with this trauma of that night, both emotionally and physically. I suffer from bursitis in my left hip. It's a daily reminder of the tragedy that forever changed my life.

To cope, I do my best to block it out, but I'm constantly reminded of it whenever I hear about another preventable accident and it's usually a fatality in the news. I do not receive any compensation for my advocacy. I volunteer for the East Hawaii Drug Free Coalition because I believe in the power of prevention and education.

Lowering the legal blood alcohol concentration limit to 0.05 will save lives. Impaired driving debts are 100% preventable, yet they continue to devastate our families and our communities. How many more lives must be lost before meaningful action is taken? I urge you to support SB 1285.

This legislation is necessary to move forward in preventing tragedies and ensuring that no more families have to endure the pain that many of us already live with. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Malahanai Pua LLC in support. Covena Bogano on Zoom.

They are not available on Zoom Chair.

Thank you. In support and we have an additional Looks like, well, maybe 25 individuals in support on this measure. Is there anyone else here with us wishing to testify in this measure? Oh, I'm sorry.

I would.

Online, go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon Senator Lee and Committee Members. I want you to imagine just for a moment, that you're driving home after a long day. When you drive, you're talking to the most important person in your life. And then in an instant, without warning, a car enters the highway going the wrong way and hits you head on.

And the most important person in your life just heard you let out an unforgettable scream and then hears the shattering of glass and crunching of metal. That most important person in your world is still on the phone desperately trying to get a response from you and all they hear is your breathing getting fainter and fainter.

My name is Brittany Cass and I am here to tell you that that was my reality. As I became a victim of a drunk driving crash, my husband had the misfortune of listening to me almost die on the phone. Paramedics and EMTs rushed to my aid and it was only then that severity of my injuries was inventoried.

My body was now engulfed in the entire front end of my car. As they pulled me from the car, both of my femurs were visibly sticking out of my body. My seatbelt had locked across my abdomen and my chest abdomen was filling up with blood because of someone else's choice to get behind the wheel of a car.

I shattered my right knee, broke both my femurs, my left hip, my tailbone, parts of my back, my abdomen was cut open vertically and a part of my small intestines was removed. I had a TBI and experienced multiple strokes.

I was then left in a coma for six days while my husband had to go home and tell our three young children what drinking and driving even was and why someone would choose to destroy our lives. It has been three years since my crash and I've had 10 grueling surgeries.

I've spent thousands of hours in occupational therapy and physical therapy relearning how to sit up, how to put weight through my legs, and how to walk again.

I am humbled for this opportunity to share a sliver of my story as a survivor and I take it very I cherish this title as a survivor, and I'm sorry I lost my place. And Baldai Brit is proud to support this Bill.

We know the numbers, we hear about this happening in the news, but we don't feel it until it happens to one of us and one of someone we love. So I ask you to think of the most important person in your life. Would you want them to go through this? Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else online wishing to testify? All right, if not anyone else in the room? Yes.

Chair Hillary. I thought part of our team on Zoom was going to testify, but DOT does stand on this written testimony in support of his comments.

Thank you. Anyone else on this measure. All right, if not other questions, just for the AG. Thank you.

The public defender had raised an interesting point, which is that if you create a penalty for people who are between 0.05 and 0.08 blood alcohol content, that I guess, presumably there'd be more people driving around within that range than just 0.08 and over. So there'd be a lot more officers needed.

Generally, is it right that in order to pull someone over for DUI, you need probable cause in the first place?

So to pull someone over, you would need reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard. So they would need a reason to pull someone over and initiate a traffic.

So if you're swerving or have your lights off or those kinds of things. Yes. In that case, if you're already swerving and clearly feeling some effects, you'd be pulled over.

But if you blew at that point, like a 0.7 or 0.07, you'd be allowed to continue or sorry, you're not charged automatically, you have to take a field sobriety test and demonstrate that you're actually okay or not in that event.

So, there is the field sobriety test. There's also what's known as a PAs. It's preliminary alcohol screening tests that can be performed in the field that I know law enforcement utilizes, but based upon the officer's overall observations, they can make that determination to then arrest the individual.

But it would be unrealistic to assume that you're going to need more officers just to randomly pull people over unless there's a reasonable suspicion. In other words, if someone's out there already swerving, they're going to get pulled over if there's an officer behind them, generally as it is, whether they're over 0.08 or under it.

Yes, because the officer wouldn't necessarily be able to tell in that scenario what the blood alcohol concentration would be.

Thank you very much. Okay, any further questions? All right, thank you everyone for your patience. Let's move on to Senate Bill 1219 relating to transportation, which transfers the jurisdiction of the motor carrier law from the PUC to the Department of Transportation and the Water Carrier act from the PUC to DOT.

And on 1219, up first is the Public Utilities Commission. Thank you. Up next is DCCA Chair.

We'll stand on our written comments.

Thank you, Young brothers. Thank you. Pacific Transfer LLC in support and Hawaii Transportation Association, online.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Lee and Committee Senators. I'm Calvin Kohatsu, managing Director of the Hawaii Transportation Association, and we stand on our written testimony in opposition. I'll be available for questioning. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we have on 1219. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions?

Questions for the PUC? Thank you, Chair Sunchin. So I know this issue has come up in previous sessions before. So, given your testimony, PUC is okay with transferring it over?

Yeah, we're okay. We've been talking with DOT and we think there's a path forward on this, just kind of ironing out some of the things we're grateful for. The two year transition period, I think in past times it was like, here's the cutoff, right.

And to do that and to move, you know, pretty much major programs right, in the things. But there are some other items that you need to take a look at between, like how we do it versus how right, an administrative agency like DOT, right. Where we're quasi judicial. And that's by purpose, you know, historically for the commission.

But then DOT doesn't have that same structure. But there's nothing in law that prohibits them or prohibits, you know, the treatment of motor carriers or water carriers to be more administrative versus quadra judicial, right. It's just where you put the, put the program in.

So, I think there's a path forward and then with all the provisions in the law in the Bill, but then I think there's still going to be some clarifications like in the transition period to make sure all the laws match up.

And as a follow up to that, will there be personnel from PUC transfer to H DOT?

Well, our position now is as we transfer the amount of fees that we collect from both motor carriers and water carriers, that should be enough for staff, you know, for DOT to hire staff. But I think the way the Bill works, right, there's a General Fund appropriation that would go into effect on July 1, 2025.

I read that to mean, right, funds going to help them start up the program as we transition into two years. At the end of the two year transition in July 1, 2027 is when they start to collect the fees, right. So, up until then we collect the fees, right.

There's a provision in the law where will collect a certain period. Then July 1, 2027, whatever we collect goes over and then they start collecting from that fiscal year going forward.

Thank you Chair. Thank you Chair.

Thank you. Any further questions if not just for DCCA? Thanks. I just following up on that same point. I mean you raised in your testimony the question of really, I guess quasi judicial ability to evaluate and then decide is this something that seems appropriate and viable? I think pursuant to just the last conversation.

Oh well, you know, we defer to the PUC and their discussions with the DOT, and if this has a sufficient Runway for DOT to especially due the rates regulated rates to reflect the actual cost of service are very complicated. There's no reason that DOT couldn't staff up and be able to do that with time.

The other thing that we raised is just a little bit of ambiguity about what our role would be. We are not mentioned in 271G for water carriers in particular, but we noticed that in the very thorough changes, this did not take water carriers out of the definition of a public utility under 2691.

It struck some cross references at the bottom of that definition, but it did not take water carriers out of the top of the definition. So by some interpretations, even after this change, water carriers would still be public utilities under that 269-1 definition. And then that kind of ties back to us with low ambiguity.

We've got scope under 269-54B7 to represent the customers of a public utility in front of any state or federal agency. So we're trying to figure out should we be still representing these public utility customers in front of dot?

If so, would we need to get the portion of the fees that are currently charged from for instance, Young Brothers to the PUC and then transferred into our budget to cover that part of our work? Would we need to try to get that from in order to do that work?

And one last thing, we did specifically call out 271G3 in Section 17 of the Bill in that long list of statutory sections where it would change Public Utilities Commission or Commission to Department of Transportation or Department, it mentions 271-3. So, it would say that Jurisdiction for water carriers would be the Department of Transportation.

But there's a second sentence, 269-3. It says that wherever 271G and 269 conflict, 271G governs. But 269 is still applicable. So that seems to be inconsistent with fully pulling 271G away from 269 and the PUC.

Thank you very much. And there's one follow up for the PUC. Just on timing, not withstanding some of the other utility stuff and things that are just probably going to be eating up a lot of the docket.

Just on the water carrier and transportation side of things, if we move things over, is there any sort of extended runway for you guys on your end that's necessary as sort of the giving agency, so to speak, rather than considerations on the receiving side?

Yes. So on our side, what we are planning, if this Bill moves forward and if it's enacted, there is a commitment to DOT basically to give them a clean program.

So if there's anything pending like a docket application or even motor carrier fees being collected up until the time of transfer, we're going to make sure we do that right. So then we turn it all over and they have a clean slate. They start from that gun.

We wouldn't want them like even we were even talking like any violations that we're trying to process that we get it done more than likely for any type of applications, especially like from Young Brothers or the water carriers, we would probably have a cutoff date maybe like say 9 to 12 months prior because we want to make sure we have enough time to process that application, make a final decision, right.

Give that issue that decision out and really close out the program on our side and then turn it over.

Thank you. Okay. Any further questions? If not, I'll just note for everyone that was the last measure on our 3pm agenda. We do have another agenda just to vote on.

And then there's going to be a short form Bill that we'll take a vote on as well, which is its own process that I'll get to in a minute. But for the moment. Oh, thank you.

We're going to go into decision making on our 3pm agenda which we just heard, beginning with Senate Bill 21, which establishes a water carrier inflationary cost index mechanism and authorizes the PUC to grant exemptions. I'd like to move this forward to the Consumer Protection Committee.

They'll take a look at, I think some of the consumer protection angles on this. But did want to give them that opportunity to have that conversation. So for the moment we'll just make technical amendments and add a defective date and recommend that it just pass with amendments. So any discussion if not, Acting Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB21 with amendments. Chair Lee, aye. Vice Chair is excused, aye. Vote aye, Senator Kanuha. Senator DeCorte. aye. Mr. Chair, recommendations adopted. Thank you. Quick Recess.

All right, apologies. Back on our 3pm agenda Thursday, February 6th in conference room 224 voting on a number of measures from our 3pm agenda.

Up next we have SB 1478 relating to commercial harbors, which specifically requires masters or persons in charge of vessels to follow an order by a harbor master to evacuate a commercial harbor in emergencies.

I recommend moving this forward with amendments, making technical amendments, adding in a defective date and just noting in the Committee report that question over safety of vessels. It goes on to the Judiciary Ways and Means Committee so they can take a look at the rest of that. But for the moment, just keep the discussion going.

Any discussion if not Acting Vice Chair.

Recommendations to pass SB 1478 with amendments, of the four Members present, any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none, Mr. Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 108 relating to vessels which authorizes DOT to adopt rules that regulate and limit noise from vessels using commercial harbor ports, etc. Understand I think the rule situation with DOT and appreciate the comments.

For the moment we'd like to recommend moving this forward with amendments though, just to have DOT and other stakeholders do a noise study looking at regulations and best practices as they apply in other ports in similar locations.

Maybe there's something that can come out of this that might make sense, I think for the folks in the area, the residents in the area. So we just like to add in a defective date on that and then goes on to again consumer protection, Ways and Means. Any discussion? If not, the vote.

Recommendations to pass SB108 with amendments noting the excusal of Vice Chair Inouye of the four Members present any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none, Mr. Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thanks. Moved on to Senate Bill 1475 relating to special facility revenue bonds which increases the total amount that DOT harbors can use. I'd like to move this forward, just defecting the effective date to the Ways and Means Committee.

Any discussion if not Vice Chair recommendations to pass SB 1475 with amendments. Of the four Members present any no votes. Any votes or reservations hearing? None. Mr. Chair, your recommendations adopted. Thank you.

SB 1473 relating to Central Services assessments which allows change in the central services annual charge or regular charge. Like to move this on to the Ways and Means Committee for their further consideration with amendments making technical amendments and just adding in its effective date. There's no discussion Vice Chair.

Recommendations to pass SB 1473 with amendments of the four Members present any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair recommendations adopted.

Thanks. Moving on to Senate Bill 1402 relating to vessels in state commercial harbors which clarifies the requirements for securing of mooring lines. Similarly like to move this forward recommending pass with amendments adding in a defective date and sending this on to the Judiciary and Ways and Means Committee for further consideration. There's no discussion, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB 1402 with amendments of the four Members present any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair recommendations adopted.

Thanks moving on to SB 1522 relating to vehicle title transfers which clarifies the whole process for transferring a car and not getting hit with a ticket for the next guy who owns it who didn't file their paperwork. I'd like to recommend moving this on to Judiciary as is, there's no discussion, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 1522 unamended of the four Members present any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair recommendations adopted.

Thanks moving on to, Senate Bill 599 relates to transportation which requires DOT to scan the animal for a microchip when they find unfortunate case of roadkill. Recommendation is to move this on to Ways and Means as is, the discussion, not, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation is to pass SB599 unamended of the four Members present any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair recommendations adopted.

Thanks SB 1025 are linked to transportation which allows service and non service animals on mass transit vehicles. Appreciate the discussion here and the concerns have been raised this one might be ripe for an actual working group. So just want to recommend deferring the Bill.

See if we can get stakeholders together and come up with language maybe for Arezzo to actually get everybody aligned and figure out what the right path is. Up next is Senate Bill 1096 relating to license plates which prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle with a flipping license plate.

Recommend moving aside to consumer protection Judiciary as is any discussion if not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB 1096 on amended of the four Members present any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair recommendations adopted.

Thanks SB 384 relating to victim restitution, which requires defendants convicted in negligent homicide causing the death of another while under the influence for helping to provide child support and raise that person's kids until they reach 18 or 23, depending on the circumstances. I'd like to move this forward to JDC for additional consideration,

passing with amendments, adding in a defective date, and simply asking JDC to take a look at the public defender's recommendation. That's the Committee that's better equipped to deal with the and has the responsibility for dealing with the legal side of this. So we'll leave it to them. Any discussion on this if not Acting Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB384 with amendments, of the four Members present any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair Recommendations adopted thank you.

Moving on to SB 597 relating to administrative driver's license revocation which extends the time for ADLRO to do their thing. I want to recommend passing as is any discussion if not Acting Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB597 unamended, of the four Members present any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair recommendations adopted thank you.

Let me come back to SB 1285 for a minute. Just need to double check my notes. Moving on to Senate Bill 1219 relating to transportation, which transfers jurisdiction of the motor carrier law from PUC and Water carry act to DOT.

I would like to defer this until Tuesday 211 at 3:01pm here in Conference Room 224, 3:02pm my mistake, on Tuesday the 11th. And let me just go back to SB 1285. Okay. I want to recommend and appreciate everybody's manao on this and especially those who've been affected who are sharing their stories.

We'd like to move this forward with amendments. This goes to the Judiciary Committee and we'd like to try and address some of the concerns that were raised by the Attorney General and other law enforcement related agencies.

So we'd like to first address DOT's issues they had brought up by removing 291 ED the admin license revocation as addressed in the Bill. Secondly, address the Maui prosecutor's comments by removing the prohibition on pleading down, which is page 18 line 18 to page 19 line 2.

Replace that with a report to the Legislature annually on the number of OVUII related cases that are received, charged, and pled down to a lesser offense or dismissed so we can get a good handle on what's happening, but without impacting the actual process itself or limiting the tools that prosecutors and others have to be able to address the various cases out there.

On page three, line 23, we'd like to clarify the language and add pursuant to proceedings under Chapter 291D. And on page four, line two, add in "in addition to any other civil or administrative penalty". I believe most of the concerns that were raised were regarding the prohibition on pleading down.

So, this will go on to the Judiciary Committee where with that new language and those fixes, hopefully we can get some further discussion on the underlying issue. So that said, any discussion on this measure, if not Acting Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB 1285 with amendments. Of the four Members present any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. So that's the end of our 3pm agenda. We do have our deferred agenda from which is our 3:01pm agenda on measures we heard the other day. Let me take a actually, let's take a quick recess before we go in just so I can organize all the paperwork here and get everything in order. Recess.

All right, thank you. Reconvening the Transportation Culture and Arts Committee for decision making on our 3:01pm agenda. This was a deferred agenda on measures previously heard in this Committee. Up first is Senate Bill 1095 relating to license plates.

We'd like to because this is a single we don't want to burden our drafting agencies at the moment with this. So we'll defer this to February Tuesday, February 18th at 3:01pm in Conference Room 224. Next is SB 215 relating to towing companies, which changes some of the towing fees and things like that.

We'd like to recommend moving this forward but blanking out all the fees. Secondly, prohibiting immobilization devices as they relate to the towing chapter and adding in a defective date.

I know this goes to consumer I'll note this goes to consumer protection next, so we can leave it to them to try and see what the appropriate amounts might be for that. Any discussion on this if not, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB215 with amendments. Chair Lee Aye. Vice Chair Inouye is excused. I vote aye. Senator Kanuha. Aye. Senator DeCorte. Aye. Mr. Chair. Recommendations adopted. Thank you.

Moving on to Senate Bill 367 relating to transportation regarding the issuance of certificates of inspections for a moped or motor vehicle. I'd like to def-, there's a similar Bill on the agenda further on, so we're going to defer this measure.

Next to Senate Bill 50 relating to consumer protection, which addresses deceptive practices for advertising, displaying, or offering a price for goods or services, that does not include all the mandatory fees or charges up front. And then second part repeals the definition of vehicle license recovery fees.

I'd like to recommend moving this forward, removing part two, which seemed to draw some scrutiny, and then adding in a defective date. Any discussion on this, if not for the vote, please.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB50 with amendments of the four Members present. Any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none, Mr. Chair. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 1194, length of transportation, which prohibits a person from engaging in activity that has the intent and effect of distracting drivers along streets or roadways. Appreciate the folks who weighed in on this. Probably requires a little bit more work. So we're going to defer this measure.

Senate Bill 97 relating to motor vehicles, which increases the penalty for a third or subsequent offense of excessive speeding to class C felony and does a few other things. I'd like to recommend moving this on to the Judiciary Committee.

1124.

Sorry, 1194.

1124 was next, or where are you? Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. We're on SB 97 now. Did I. The last measure, which we just deferred was SB 1194.

Right. And then 1124 was after that.

Hold on just a Sec. Quick recess.

Okay. We're reconvening the Committee on Transportation, Culture and Arts and International affairs. We're on our 3:01pm agenda on measures previously heard in Committee. I apologize, I just took something out of order just due to a little bit of a paper snafu. So we're on Senate Bill 1124 relating to transportation, which we previously heard.

This is a measure that addresses safety in our neighborhoods due to the kind of exploding number of delivery vehicles and big trucks and things like that barreling through neighborhoods. The intent with this measure was to establish a Delivery fee of $0.50 for certain kinds of deliveries.

The idea being that if you're the cause of all this stuff happening in neighborhoods, then you ought to pay a little bit to contribute to make sure that the streets are safe in that area. So, like to recommend moving as far, but with amendments addressing some of the concerns that were raised.

So first of all, clarifying that medical devices, drugs, medications, all that sort of thing are exempted. The actual definition is in the Bill. But for whatever reason in drafting, we left one line out. So we're going to fix that so that that is also exempted. That's in line with a number of other states.

Secondly, address Hawaii Food Industry Association's recommendation, which was to exempt grocery stores so that if you're ordering food and you happen to also order a non food item that is sold in a grocery store, then you're not going to be charged the delivery fee. So we'll include that within the definition of exempted food service retailers.

And then finally add in a defective date. This goes on to Consumer Protection and Ways and Means. So we'll let them take a look at that there. So any discussion on this one?

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your recommendations. I'll be voting with reservations more specifically to the fee. I would like to have the fee structured a little different and possibly lesser. So those are my reservations.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we're supposed to be blanking out the fee as well.

Okay.

Apologies.

Okay. Awesome.

And if we blank out the fee, then I will remove my reservations.

Thank you for the reminder.

I'll remove my note.

Okay. If nothing else, then Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB 1124 with amendments. Chair Lee. Aye. Vice Chair Inouye is excused. I vote aye. Senator Kanuha, Senator DeCorte. Aye. Mr. Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you very much. Senate Bill 97 relating to motor vehicles. This increases the penalty for a third or subsequent offense, excessive speeding, to a class C felony, and does some other things. This goes on to the Judiciary Committee.

So we'd like to recommend moving this on with amendments adopting the prosecutor's recommendation to require fingerprinting upon conviction and just adding in a defective date. There's no discussion on that.

Then discussion for me. Oh, please, go ahead. Sorry, Chair, if you don't mind, I think I brought this up at our original hearing, but just with regards to the court may order forfeiture of the vehicle used in the offense. Respectfully, I'll just have to vote this one no, but I appreciate the intent and would love to have further discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion if not Acting Vice Chair.

Okay. Noting the objection from Senator De Court as a no vote, of the other Members present, any other no votes or votes or reservations? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Chair. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 596 relating to taxation, which establishes an income tax credit for the purchase of electric garbage trucks. I'd like to recommend moving us on to Ways and Means as is. If there's no discussion, Acting Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Chair's recommendation is to pass SB596 unamended of the four Members present any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Mr. Chair, your recommendations adopted. Thanks.

And then for SB 118 and SB 1094, I'd like to recommend deferring these and SB 1216 will defer till Tuesday, February 11th at 3:02pm in room 224. This is this was one of the measures that we previously deferred that had some similar content and we still have some stuff yet to work out.

So that ends our 3:01pm agenda. And the very last thing.

Sorry, did we do SB 1094?

Yeah. Oh, that was deferred to.

And then 1118, 1094, and 1216.

1216 is we're deferring till Tuesday.

Okay, thank you.

The 10th.

That is the 11th. So the last thing just ask the Committee's indulgence on. We have a short form measure that we're going to insert some language into. There was a number of issues related to airports and air travel that have come up. So we're on SB 927 relating to transportation.

We have a proposed Senate draft, so we're going to insert language here. So the purpose of this decision making meeting is to insert substantive provisions into a short form Bill. SB copies of the proposed Senate Draft 1 are available on the capital website.

The proposed SD1 requires the air Carrier Commission to enter into a contract with a qualified charter air service provider to secure emergency air transportation services in cases of an emergency when no other air service is available, establishes the Air Noise and Safety Task Force, establishes the airport's Advisory Council, authorizes the Department of Transportation to adopt administrative rules to designate an airport security security area within an airport property, establishes positions and requires a report to the Legislature, as well as appropriates funds.

A public hearing will be scheduled at a later date at which point testimony will be accepted. So the Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments inserting the contents of the proposed Senate Draft 1 and recommitting the Bill to this Committee. No discussion on that? Acting Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments and recommit SB927. Chair Lee, aye. Vice Chair Inouye is excused. I vote aye. Senator Kanuha. Senator De Court. Aye. Mr. Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you very much. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.