Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Aloha and welcome to the Joint Hearing with the Senate Committee Economic Development and Tourism and Senate Committee on Labor and Technology. Today is Thursday, February 6th, 2025, at 1:10 PM and we are in Conference Room 229. This hearing is being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene for any outstanding business, which would occur on Tuesday, February 11th, 2025, at 1:01 PM, in Conference Room 229. This Committee Hearing is a 90-minute time slot, so there will be a one-minute time limit for all testifiers.

First up is—first up is Senate Bill 1536, Daniel Nāhoʻopiʻi. Sorry.

Aloha. Daniel Nāhoʻopiʻi, President and CEO of the Hawaii Tourism Authority. We stand in our written testimony, as submitted. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Committee, any questions? No, 153.

Senator Kim.

So, do we know what the cost might be? Is there a cost factor to this?

So, it's—the position is budgeted in our HTA budget for...25, at 300,000, and since it's General Fund, it would be DNF for any of the additional funding for benefits.

Yeah. What would that be? What's the hit to the budget?

Our usual calculation is 60% of the salary, but the salary hasn't been set yet for this. I think the interpretation is somewhere around $180,000 for—or $190,000—for the position salary, going forward. But it's up to the CO Search Committee and the Board to determine that.

So, is it just you're repealing the exemption only for the President and Chief Executive Officer, or for all the positions?

Currently, all the rest of the positions are allowed—are exempt positions—with full benefit, as a state employee. It's only the CEO that has the exemption from the retirement benefits.

Okay. And do you know why it was done that way?

Excuse me?

Do you know why it was done that way?

So, in—when it was originally created, by some of the Senators that are here now, there was concern that it may be a position that maybe some bureaucrats might want—just want to sit—get their high three and not be as effective, and having it open without the benefits may be—allow a better competitive environment.

However, I think there have been concerns from other legislators that the amount of the salary needed to get a competitive manager of the Tourism Authority would be in excess of what's expected for this position.

Well, I think part of that also is because if you have people who had been in the system and maybe retired, already have a retirement, that they don't need to be in the retirement system and therefore, will, one, save the state money, save HTA money, or also, be able to be more competitive in the salary itself, without that having to be in—exempt—with the benefits included.

So, I think those are all the reasons, and so, is there a reason why—is there a particular reason why that you want to change it?

It's the—there's been discussion amongst Board Members that—when the original proposal was to do the cost analysis of a competitive position, without the benefits, it came up about $300,000, or more.

Other Board Members were not supportive of that amount but were willing to go with a lower amount which included benefits, and they thought that would encourage a qualified candidate to apply for the position.

Okay, so, as long as HTA is not paying for the benefits, then you guys want to do it. If you folks have to, what's the cost of the benefits?

It would still be within that $300,000. They were adding both the—maybe saying around 190, plus the benefits, would still be under $300,000.

Why wouldn't you look at doing like 401k where, where, you know, they come in and they can portable—the retirement would be portable—instead of being tied to the ERS system.

This was one of the proposals. We're not privileged, as staff, to the discussions of the CO Search Committee and their decisions or—and—discussions.

Okay. And the decision was to come in and ask for this?

That was one of the proposals.

What was the other proposals?

I don't know what the other—this is the only one I know that was brought up and discussed amongst Board Members.

So, where's your Chair?

Uh, he said he was not available to come to this meeting at this time.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? I see none. Moving on to Senate Bill 1571—1571 relating to tourism. First up, DBED.

Good afternoon, Chair DeCoite, Chair Aquino, and Members of this Committee. DBED has sent in recent testimony in support of this bill and I know that you folks have it. I'm here to—we are here—to answer any questions that you may have, but we do stand in our testimony in support.

There's different facets on this bill of, you know, there's moving parts. So, if you do have questions, we're here to answer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Daniel Nahoopii, HTA.

Aloha again. The HTA stands on its written testimony with comments, and, in particular, we look forward to a more complete discussion after hearing from some of the other testifiers today, and to working with legislators and interested parties to address the multiple issues that were raised.

Can I ask you a question?

Sure.

I'm sorry, I gotta go back. You said that you're not privy to the discussions by the Board, but is not all the decisions supposed to be in public?

This is a CEO search permitted interaction group. So, it is—the six members are closed meetings and because some of the staff may be potential candidates for the CEO, no staff were allowed to be a part of the meeting.

Yeah, but any decision that comes out at some point has to be public, right?

So, this is one of the discussions from the Board Members themselves.

The final report-.

The Board Members themselves of the—of the search?

Within that, in the search.

This is not a board—a full board recommendation, this bill. And also, it was not discussed at the board meeting.

Okay, but you're representing—your testimony is representing HTA?

Yes.

So, how can you say that this is not from the board? Shouldn't you be only?

Shouldn't you only be testifying on stuff that the board has approved?

So.

This was approved by our legislative pig, which is given the responsibility to craft the legislation and they are made up of board members.

But shouldn't the board—shouldn't the board then acknowledge that, or support that, before you come before us?

Through the legislative pig of the Board.

Okay, so then that's a board issue. So, that shouldn't all that be public then? I'm saying whatever came out of the pig goes—supposed to go to the Board for their approval.

Correct.

So, then that's public. So, that—you should be representing what they say and not necessarily the pig, before us.

So, this discussion comes from our legislative pig, and they are given responsibility.

Yes, but any decision coming out of the pig is supposed to be then adopted by the board, right? Before it's—it's supported by you and the—and employees, or any pig that come out, then you're, you're free to just represent that the HTA is supportive of this or it's your position?

Those have been vetted by the, the legislative pig, which is a different group, and they were given responsibility.

Yes, but any—so who, who established the pig?

The Board.

Okay, so anything that comes out of the pig needs to be adopted or approved by the Board.

For a legislative pig, they have certain—the Board passed a resolution that allows the pig to make certain decisions, based on items or policies that were identified in that resolution.

Yes, but you're coming before us to ask for a, a bill, a law that's going to affect HTA. Not the pig, but HTA. Okay, so was this run by the Board? And are you representing the board in your, in your testimony today?

I have to recall if it was brought up at the last meeting. But there was no vote on this bill at the last board meeting that occurred on the 30th of January.

Okay. I'm going to recommend you defer this measure until we find out from the Board exactly what it was.

Thank you. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to jump over. I just.

Next up, Randy Perreira, in opposition. Michael Older, in opposition. Kehlani Sono Napoleon, in opposition. Linda Camaro, in support. Chad Inherat, in support. Faith Tuipoloto, in support. Rosie F. Davis, in support. Joey Chun, in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on the measure?

Aloha, mai kākou. Esteemed Senators, Chair, Vice Chair. Hinaleimoana Wong-Kalu, in both professional and personal capacity. I am the Ambassador for the Council for Native Wine Advancement. Sentiments regarding this Bill, at current point, I am not able to support the entails of the Bill for two particular points.

Item Number 2, which speaks to changing language that says—that removes Hawaiian sense of place and says Hawaii sense of place. This is a very complex and nuanced onion. In Hawaii 2025, there are far too many instances where the presence of Kanaka in our places and spaces is highly contingent upon language that ensures our place.

So, while it's important that we uphold aloha and we honor this understanding of which our communities have done on the wide—island wide.

If you can wrap them up because the one minute up, please.

We have aloha for everyone. But at the same time, this language stands to impact our rightful place and that which can ensure it. Also, Item Number 3, but I'll let my colleague speak to that. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Thank you.

Aloha, mai kākou. Madelyn McKeague, here on behalf of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. Also speaking in opposition of SB 1571. The second point we want to raise is around the Section 3, which is removing the ban for HBCB Board Members to wait two years to then be on the HTA board.

I think we are largely concerned about conflicts of interest. We don't really understand why this provision is being removed. Two years feels like a correct amount of time to make sure there are no conflicts of interest between HVCB and HTA. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify in the room? I see none. Members, any questions? Senator Fevella.

For just a tourism part, I kind of confuse—do you guys have a provision within DBED to do tourism or that's for HTA?

Both.

Explain what you mean by both.

Well, DBED has, through statute, what we're responsible for, which is tourism too. But HTA specifically.

What is the provision?

I'm sorry, what?

What is the provision? Isn't it just marketing?

It's, well, mainly marketing, but we've gone into destination management and other things like that because this body and local people have had concerns about, you know, their place, their destinations. A good example is Hyena Waianapanapa, you know, places that you folks have funded money to support, and now it's a thriving place and there's a management system included in those destination managers.

The problem was previously, before we had enacted certain provisions. I just wondering, what is the gain for, you know, just trying to almost include, or disclude, the two entities moving forward?

I just thought that in the statute that the DBED should be responsible for the marketing and budgeting needs to be, you know, doing like how you guys doing the Maui Wildfires. I just don't understand the more inclusion into the HTA portfolio.

Okay, Senator, is it something in the Bill that you're referring to or the marketing plan from?

This is just my question.

What's that?

It's my question. So, we only can ask questions that's put in the Bill?

No, but I'm trying to.

I'm just asking a question. If you can't answer, that's okay. You can send them to us later. Okay, Chair, that's it.

Okay, thank you. All right. Any other questions from the Committee? Senator Kim.

So, Jimmy, can you, on Page 13, define what do you, what is, what is the definition or maybe not even definition, but the translation of a "Hawaiian sense of place" versus a "Hawaii sense of place?"

You know, I personally, there's a—the difference is Hawaiian is more specific, in my personal opinion. You know, I think when you look at Ala Moana, it's Hawaii's shopping mall. If it was Hawaiian shopping mall, then people might think it's only for Hawaiians. So, that's how I would interpret that.

But I'm no grammatical English, History major, so that's just my interpretation.

Yes. Mahalo. "Hawaiian sense of place" certainly does not mean that we are exclusionary. Hawaiians are bound. If any Hawaiian understands the word aloha, we know it's got to be inclusive.

However, the history of Hawaii has found that we're multi-ethnic, but there really hasn't been much opportunity for all the other ethnicities to have more of a place in Hawaiian culture, likewise. So again, this is a nuanced and complex situation.

If we went to anywhere else in the Pacific or anywhere else in Asian continent, we would be expected to learn the language of the place and learn the customs and the culture.

But here in Hawaii now, Hawaiians hang on to remnants of what creates this space and ensures that our place is not so marginalized that one day we just disappear. As someone who has worked for both public and private sector, I experienced this too often.

If I didn't have the personal reputation at the—at business tables—t they would have ensured that Hawaiian understanding and Hawaiian things are not present.

I certainly agree. I mean, I think that it bothers me every time when I go to a different country. I'm expected to understand the culture or understand the language, and they're not going to translate for me. But we come to Hawaii and all of a sudden we have to translate in other different languages.

And I'm not trying to be, you know, racist or anything, but if you come here, then you should, you should adapt, right? And, but my concern is not necessarily what you're saying, but the interpretation by others what "Hawaiian sense of place" may mean versus "Hawaii sense of place."

Because, for example, I was told that, because of this language, that all plants or all foliage around the Convention Center should be only Hawaiian plants, Hawaiian native plants. So, is that your interpretation?

It creates opportunity for this. However, as we all know in the room, depending on who is in the office of authority, they're going to hold it to a certain kind of, how do I say, a tenacity that may seem unapproachable.

It's important that we create space and place for things Hawaiian, be it plants, be it language, be it our culture. And it's not to say that we want to exclude other people, but again, this is Hawaii.

Everyone else who came here really have homelands where the presence of who they are and what they represent is still strong. In Hawaii, this is our only home. And without that—I think perhaps what should be explored is, number one, through conversation.

Further down the road, how can we ensure that Hawaiians are not marginalized right out because of language, political language? And what can be done? In the case of the Hawaii Convention center, there's lots of room for us to honor what is an ethnic melting pot.

But at the same time, Hawaii should be celebrated for what we can muster as Hawaiian culture and take pride in this. And also, I dare to challenge my contemporaries in the Hawaiian community, that we have to also be of the resources to teach others and bring others into the fold.

But at the end of the day, some of these things will get adjudicated in the courts if we're not careful. That marginalizes Hawaiians and so forth. Which we don't want the courts to be the ones to make this determination. We should be the ones to make the determination.

In the case of Hawaii native plants, we know that many of our plants came from other countries and has then come to be like they're Hawaiian native plants. But again, who's going to interpret that? Who's going to make that decision?

And if it's going to be such where, you know, I can see if we will then be—as plants die or as we need to do more landscaping, new landscaping, that we try to conclude where we can, other than putting it in so strict that you got to remove all the plans.

We don't care what the cost is. And we want you to put this in. And I'm just saying that it might not be you, but there's others that will interpret it as such and then take us to court to make that determination. So, we have to be careful how we wordsmith, like you said.

You know, how we do these things because there are a lot of legal, legal ramifications down the road, without the intent that we're trying to, you know, marginalize the Hawaiian culture or the Hawaiian community.

I would say, Senator, that I don't know if that was just an example that you were using because that was a real story. It did happen at the Convention Center and then there was an individual from a group that went over there and told the manager they had to change all of the plants. And she said, "What?"

And this was before my time. But somebody did reinterpret HRS—that that is what the convention center should be doing. So, it's not—maybe you heard the story.

I did hear the story.

But it happened.

Which is why I brought it up, because that's just, you know, the tip of the iceberg, at some point in time. And I don't know that that's the intent, but that's what happens when these kinds of languages get put in. We lose control.

If I may, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement is prepared to provide support to this Body to help further this discussion and to ensure that not only that there's balance, equity, fairness for all those who are in Hawaii, but how to ensure, through appropriate language, that does not become exclusionary to Hawaiians because there's nothing to protect us.

And the other thing, and again, you know, I'm sure the Hawaiians will get upset with me by me saying this, but knowing, yeah, I'm going to say it anyway. You know, I'm all for the Hawaiian language and I am a student of anti-mikea youth, from when I was really young. But when, when our laws get to the point where, for example, the agenda at HTA, it's translated into Hawaiian, right?

And I know we have to Hawaii—hire—translators to do that, and then some of them quit and so forth, but I don't even see OHA translate their agenda.

It's not to say, because they don't, that we shouldn't, but who actually is going—is reading it that, you know, requires us to that extent. Because I don't think anybody on the Board except one, maybe two, can read Hawaiian, right? And again, it's like, you know, how are we, how are we determining—what's the word I'm saying—what's practical? What is going to make us more efficient, because everything costs?

Because I'd rather spend that money on Hawaiian programs. I'd rather spend that money on educating our—you know what I'm saying? Spend the time and effort on things that are meaningful—more meaningful than just translating an agenda into Hawaiian language, which I'm not sure who actually benefits by that.

To support—to speak to the point that you're making, there has been significant effort made to enrich and empower—strengthen—Hawaiian language. There has not been comparable progress made to the normalization of Hawaiian language beyond the community of ethnic Hawaiians and those who choose to speak it, in this room alone.

This is not a criticism to this Body, but the ability to speak Hawaiian here in the capital is really, really small. And so, how is it that we can normalize it so that there is greater logic?

Because I would agree with you, if resources are being spent and not everybody can do it, then to somebody who can't speak, it doesn't make too much sense. But again, how do we do this? So, this requires greater conversation.

I agree, resources should be put to support programs, but how do we make these programs meaningful for the larger body of people here in this capital, of people around in our community? At the political and at the economic level, Hawaiian language is still not at a primary forefront, but yet, much has been put into it.

And we have to have some serious discussions about what exactly is the place, politically and economically of Hawaii—Hawaiians, culture, language—to thrive.

And that's one very important aspect. But the other aspect is then, how does one and our children go out into the world armed with this, this language, and armed with the Jitri and not be able to necessarily compete or, or do things on a worldwide basis?

You know, because, hey, when my son was three years old, I tried to get him into Punana Leo and they rejected us. Okay? They rejected us. And they rejected because we didn't speak Hawaiian. I always said I was willing to learn Hawaiian. And they rejected us because he—I said he might go to Kamehameha School.

And they said, well, Kamehameha School doesn't have a Punana Leo course or a program. And so, for all those reasons, you know, so when you say that, you know, we're—we're trying to marginalize Hawaiians—they turn around and marginalize us.

So, I'm just saying that, you know, these are issues that are very concerning, as to the real world and where we're headed in the real world, as to, you know, the Hawaiian culture and language have a place, but at the same time, you know, in the whole scheme of things, you know. Yeah.

With, with all due respect to all the sentiments shared, on behalf of this Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, as the Ambassador, I can commit personal time to help sit at the table and to speak to these, these elements that are in discussion.

Mahalo.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I think that's where we're at, is the discussion, you know, Hawaiian, Hawaii. I can tell you, as a native Hawaiian myself, I believe we've had that sense of purpose to make sure that is addressed, be it Hawaiian, be it part Hawaiian.

So, I guess my question to DBED becomes, even within DBED, and we talk about our agenda because there are things that, at HTA, for example, the agenda. Do I actually have one Hawaiian that is doing the agenda, or am I paying for somebody else to do this agenda?

If we truly want to address that, and if it's not that have, in this case, you guys' meetings, has it also had a diversity of being interpreted into a different language of your agendas, whether you open it up in protocol.

I'll answer the questions to what I know. When I first got there, I asked the question of who interprets the agenda in Hawaiian. And so, it was my understanding that it was contracted up. Today, I—that was over a year and a half ago—so I'm not sure. It's not? Staff doesn't? Right from the beginning, it was always done?

But I understand, the two staff people left. And so, you only have one person left at each day that can do the translation? And then, who determines that he's doing it correctly, that it's interpreted correctly? Because I couldn't hold him accountable at.

The time when we were—at the time when we had multiple.

No, now, now. Not the time. Now.

I will have to work out a protocol for that. We had three. They passed it around.

So, now, it's just one person determines?

So, so, my question is, what were, what was it—what were the taxpayers paying for in the contract? If I had.

The interpreting of the agenda.

How much?

That was before my time, Senator, I'm sorry. I can work with the interim CEO and President and find out what that is.

My understanding was we were forking out 250,000 in a contract.

And that may have been a contract that included other things. I cannot answer that with, you know.

So, going forward, let me just ask this question. Have we been inclusive or have we been exclusive? Because I believe you're also a native Hawaiian and you know, and not trying to be biased or anything, we were raised to, you know, embrace to share and welcome, as well.

I think, for years, Hawaiians have over-embraced and that's why we are where we are today. But I understand and I totally respect Kumohina and her position. But as a Board Member and as the DBED—head of DBED—people ask me that exact question. Are we just doing this for Hawaiians? And absolutely not.

We're doing this for everybody. But the question comes up. So, I think what has happened with the renaissance in the language and the culture and you're a big part of it, Kumu. Kuhio is a big part of it. Oha is a big part of it.

I don't think we can ever go backwards because it has gone so far. Look, my letterhead, the Department name is in Hawaiian. So are your agendas. So, I think we've come a long way, and I understand your point, Senator.

And I'm not saying that we don't incorporate some of them, but to go to the whole detail where every part of the agenda is going to be then interpreted, which you don't—is your whole testimony interpreted?

No.

No? Okay, so that's what I'm saying.

So, if you're going to go to that extreme, then everything and then, I don't know who's going to actually read it. But it has to have also some purpose other than just, you know, to get the language out there because yeah, we have it on ours as well.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have some lines in there, but you know, to interpret every single agenda item and the per—the meaning, not the meaning, but the description of the bills—that takes it a little bit. Unless we only have Hawaiian speaking people, that that's the whole purpose, right?

For a lot of these translations. So that the people present, if they don't speak the language or read the language, that they will understand what is being taking place here in this building. Correct?

Correct. And so, this particular item, and Daniel can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure that it went in front of the whole Board for a vote on the testimony, but I will say that currently, there are six native Hawaiians on the board at HDA. Six.

How many of them read and understand?

Probably only, I don't know, Mahina.

Mahina speaks Hawaiian.

And Mufi.

You also speak English very well and you read very well.

If you include Mufi as Polynesian, then that's seven.

Yeah, but he doesn't read or speak. Probably speak more Hawaiian than he does.

If I may, again, normalization of any language. If I had my way, I would create much greater opportunity on both the Kanaka end as well as every other ethnicity for all of you to know more Hawaiian, to hear it, to actually see it when it's on the news, when it's in businesses, and when, beyond just words, but when people can actually operate with it.

But again, this then starts to peel away at the onion. And the only generations that we can impact are the ones up and coming now, likely. As you said, we can't turn the hands of time back.

What we're speaking to, in this room right now, is the larger sense of, do we, as a people, continue to have a place in Hawaii, based on the established laws, the established climate, that ensures that we don't get left out? And again, I completely hear what you say, but this is—for example, this is Mahino Olelo, Hawaii.

We now have to have a month to celebrate Hawaiian language because why? It's not the main normal language. It's a legal language of our islands, but it's not a main, normal language that's honored every day of the year. You know, imagine going to Japan and saying, we're going to celebrate Japanese language for one month.

It doesn't make sense. You know, here in Hawaii—this is a complex and nuanced discussion. It's not easy to have. We don't have enough time. You have other things to get to, in today, but please, your consideration before any hasty decisions are made.

I look to those Hawaiians on this Body, as well as everyone else who has aloha for what this is representing. I look to you to be able to support and connect with us and support your colleagues who may not have the same space or place yet. Maybe not at this table, but elsewhere in this building.

And I look to all of you to continue to support—that which ensures that we don't disappear.

And I will give the same challenge to all of our advocates and Hawaiian groups, be it OHA, be it Kamehameha schools. I mean, I have tried for years to get a Hawaiian music dance museum established—try to get at the convention. No support. No support for all these entities. I'm not Hawaiian by blood. My son is.

But I grew up with it and I trained under it. And so, you know, whether I'm blood or not, this doesn't matter. That's, that's the Hawaiian. But who's fighting for that? Every, every time we turn, no support. The only way we get support for Hawaiian Culture Center is if we allow 40—40 feet—on the, on the ocean side, and that's the only way OHA is going to do it. You know, and it shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be that way. It's a shame.

And it's not a shame because this government, but the shame that the people, the Hawaiians, and the money that they have and the money that OHA has, that we have not done. It has not been done for the people, and then they come here and then say that we're marginalizing. I'm sorry. You know, for years, I have been—I have been pushing and fighting for that. It's not come about.

Thank you. I am gonna go to decision making. This was—short break? Short break. Decision making.

Mahalo, Senators.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're back on decision making for the agenda of February 6th at 1:10 PM. First up, Senate Bill 1536 relating to Hawaii Tourism Authority amendments passing with an SD1 and defecting the effective date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Seeing none. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Chair your recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

Labor and Technology, same recommendations. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 1536. Recommendations to pass with amendments, noting Senator Ihara excused. Are there any other reservations or no's? If not, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Next up, Senate Bill 1571 relating to tourism. Thank you for the testimony on both sides. I think this warrants the continued discussion in regards to Native Hawaiian and the preference of Native Hawaiian as well. This Bill also has another Committee that it will go to.

I think we've had, like I said, great conversation, inclusiveness and again always remembering our sense of who we are and where we came from.

I'd like to continue to work with the different organizations and groups as we move forward and retaining of course as it will continue to be something we need to work on more not just as the state but also with OHA and all our other partners that we have out there.

So with that being said, send a Bill 1571 relating to tourism. We will be passing with an SD1 and we will make necessary technical corrections and effective date to July 1st, 2050. Any discussion? Senator Awa.

Heard the discussion. Appreciate it. For me, surface level alone seeing Hawaiian crossed out replaced with Hawai'i. There's never a time that I can support that. I'm voting no.

Thank you. Senator Kim.

Yes. Want to ask for the one year to be back to two years as far as the time between serving on HTA and HVCB. There was an issue on this years and years ago and I hate for us to go backwards on this.

Okay, okay. So acknowledged, and I will add that. Senator Fevella.

So I just want everybody to understand when we're going to start really trying to think that we're going to inclusive of Hawaiian and Hawaiian language. I understand. I never get the chance to talk to the DBEDT chair. But you know, we've been worrying about Hawaiian language in the school.

Nobody was worried about getting sued for not having Hawaiian language in a school and saying that because we was going to get sued or something like that. It didn't happen about the plants, but I let know when we going as a square building. We start really standing up for the Hawaiian language. I cannot speak them.

But again we exclude it because we like make changes to include everybody. Hawaii would include, Hawaiians had included everybody. That's the problem we have of the overthrow because we had included everybody with Aloha. Thank you.

Thank you Senator.

And I voting no on this. Thank you.

Thank you. So with that being said, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Chair, your recommendations adopted.

Thank you.

Okay. Labor and Technology, same recommendations, questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 1571. Recommendations to pass with amendments noting Senator Ihara excused. Are there any reservations or no's?

No vote.

No vote for Senator Fevella. Chair your recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Thank you. Aloha and welcome. Welcome to the hearing with the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism. Today is Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 1:15pm and we're in Conference Room 229. This hearing is being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event must abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties...

...we will reconvene as soon as we're able to. New notice will be posted on Hawaii Legislator website. The Committee would reconvene for any outstanding business on February 11 at 1:02pm in Conference Room 229. First up, Senate Bill 986 relating to tourism. Daniel Naho'opi'i with HTA.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Daniel Naho'opi'i, Interim CEO of HTA.

HTA has submitted written comments to this Bill and I want to iterate that HTA has concerns for this Bill because world conflict and other economic crises have the same adverse impact of Hawaii tourism industry as a natural disaster or catastrophic event, particularly when it comes to providing assistance to tourists during emergency.

A good example is back in 2008 with the ATA and Aloha Airlines collapse, there was need for additional support to rebook the visitors, assist them as they were stranded here and many other world conflicts like 9/11. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation on Zoom.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We only have a small comment and that is we suggest that this Emergency Fund be consolidated with the others into the existing Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund.

You know, when we have a real emergency on our hands, it's going to be tough to, you know, figure out how much money we have and where our resources are. If the funds are spread out in too many places, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Next up, Pamela Tumpap testifying on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce with comments. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay.

How many funds do we have? How many different funds for an emergency?

I don't have that on. I'll just put in DBEDT. Okay, I'll get you that.

Okay. Because this one is asking for what, $3 million to reduce it from 5 to 3. So where this Bill is asking that it be reduced from 5 to 3 million.

Yes, that's what's stated here in the Bill.

Is that enough for a disaster?

So depending on the type of disaster and the recovery efforts, we have expanded the 5 million both for relocating visitors, supporting the shelter at the convention center, and then immediate marketing and information about Maui and bringing visitors back.

Have we gone beyond the 5 million then?

The HTA budget also reallocated additional funds for marketing for recovery efforts. And we still see, as the economists have pointed out, that there still needs to be additional infusion of marketing and later long-term infrastructure development in the visitor industry on Maui in order to recover from the disaster.

So where would that money come from? Additional funds.

Right now we are asking in the fiscal year 26 budget for additional funds. However, that means currently in this time period between January and June, we're not allowed. We will not have funds to say, an activation in the spring period as well as any other development for recovery.

So. Tax Foundation. Tom, you still there? So you're saying that we should combine all the emergency funds. So I guess you're saying the statewide. So if there is an emergency that the funds might eventually we have to grab it from other funds. Is that what your testimony was for?

Yeah. No. I mean, we are, we have, I think, emergency funds in several places. I'm not aware of how many there are or where they're at. I know of this one. I know of the 328L-3. I think there are others, but I'm not sure.

But what I'm trying to avoid is having money squirreled around the state in all kinds of places that we don't know about. And then number one, we can't get to them unless there's somebody who knows where the heck they are. Right.

And number two, once we know how much there is, then we can better plan for what to do when the emergency in fact hits.

Right. And like in this case, if we utilize all of it that's in the Tourism Emergency Fund. Then we have to go and maybe get some from the other funds. Right. I mean, to help pay for whatever needs that might arise.

Right. Which. Which wouldn't be necessary if you had all the emergency funds in one place because then you'd know where to go.

Exactly. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to Senate Bill 1641 relating to voice to state Hawaii Film Commission. First up, DBED. Thank you. Next up, Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii.

Thank you. Next up, Tuia'Ana Scanlan for IATSE 665.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tuia'Ana Scanlan, President of IATSE 665 and international trustee. We send in our written testimony. Strong support.

Thank you. Next up, Pam Tumpa support. Chamber of Maui Chamber of Commerce. Shereen Dallas. Yep. Please.

After that last thing, man is too much. And this, this is going to be an even stronger testimony. Aloha. My name is Shereen Dallas. Senator DeCoite, Makto, Kim, Wakai, Fukunaga and Awa. Maholo for hearing me, I was appalled to find out that the film Commission was not established. That just trips me out as a person.

But on behalf of the people that are in this industry, I speak. You have my written testimony, but I speak on behalf of those that have moved away since the productions have left. And having this film Commission is important to all of us because it means what's happening right now.

How come we got to have people that are there that are willing to make this film industry work? So in other words, if we have this film Commission, then all the stuff that's happening in our questions for the film industry, it'll be answered by this Commission. So please establish one for us. Mahalo nui.

Thank you, Mahalo, for your testimony. Next up, we have, you know, we have numerous people in support of just any. Anybody in the room wishing to testify on this matter, seeing. Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, you know, I didn't have your. Okay, please.

It's okay.

Yeah. Hi. Mericia Palma Elmore with SAG-AFTRA. And we are supportive of this. And I'm going to stand on my testimony. Need support, but also available for questions.

Thank you. Thanks. Anybody else? Seeing None. Questions, Members? Senator Kim.

So the film Commission, we envision what that they're going to be in charge of everything long term.

That would be the vision. Correct. So in meeting with the stakeholders and having discussions with the industry, there are three areas that this could start to address. Overall, treating the creative industries or the film sector as a major industry. A Border Commission would help establish that. Right.

Now if we look at some of our other major economic drivers, they have boards and commissions. Hawaii Tourism Authority, Agribusiness Development Corporation. All of our attached agencies have boards and commissions.

Yeah, many of the commissions are mess. So when you say it's going to address everything, you know, not necessarily the panacea. No, and I agree with that.

And we, and we recognize that too. We did, we did recognize that in this discussion too. But also when you look at what productions have to go through right now, it's not an efficient process. So if they shoot on county, they got to go to county office.

If they shoot on state, they got to go in front of Blnr.

Okay, so how does the Commission change that?

So long term, it would be nice to have a structure where the board or Commission is the one stop shop. Long term.

Yeah, but that's not going to happen. I mean, the cities, they're not going to give up their, their.

That's why they're regulatory agencies. That's why they're included. I know, but I'm just bringing them all to the table.

Yeah, because then you become a, then this Commission becomes a regulatory agency. Is that the intent?

They could become an agency that approves the permits, which, which those boards do now. The Borderland Natural Resources, they approve the permits. We approve state permits with our Hawaii Film Office and county approves their permits. Okay. Part of that too is productions get a green light on a short notice.

I guess I'm looking at it like today in Wham, we heard about the film stage out in Kala Loa. Then we have West Oahu, we have this $37 million creative media. Then we hear there might be one.

You know, I'm hoping that the Commission is going to be able to pull all of this stuff in to guide us where we're going and what we're doing and the, and, and the production's coming in.

I guess, you know, the permits is one thing, and I'm not sure as far as that happening immediately, but I'm hoping what's going to happen immediately is, and again, the Commission's only as good as the people that get appointed to it.

And trust me, we have people on boards and commissions that sit there, I don't know what's good on their resume or what, but they don't end up doing the homework. They're not there bird dogging what's going on. They don't know all that exists out there.

You know, we, you know, some of the media people, the film People didn't know about the ACM building in West Ohio. That's. That's not getting the master of it, you know what I'm saying? So I'm hoping that this Commission is going to be doing all that.

Senator, I understand what you're saying there with the silos, the lack of communication. So in the info briefing last week, there was a deck. It was very. In its early emphasis stage that broke out five different areas working backwards from exporting and marketing of a local film production.

And so from going to marketing to export, we needed to get studios. Studios need to be filled by productions. And under the productions, it would break down with a Commission to help manage, coordinate and organize that. And then coordinating prior to that with acm, the training and then the workforce development plugins that.

So we're putting a framework together, speaking with industry, understanding what the factors are. I understand. Yeah. Past practice boards and commissions are not always the panacea, but we have to look at different ways to bring this industry in one in one area, so we can really make the investments. I understand.

I just hope that by just passing a Bill stating that we're gonna have a film Commission, that that's the end of it. No, it's not. Five people or eight people to this Commission and then it's like rudderless for years, you know what I'm saying?

And I'm not gonna guarantee it's gonna. As soon as it's established and in one year it's gonna fix everything. And the discussions and looking at this, we understand it would take two or three years possibly before this becomes a sound. A sound commission is.

We're not asking for any of the other permitting processes to come in under now. It's just. It's a start of a restructure for one of our primary industries that we've identified for the state.

And who's going to structure this?

Director's office is working with CID and the stakeholders.

So is the report.

Okay.

Let me see. In the bill, we can provide you a report on the update. Let me see if it's in the bill.

Requires reports to the Legislature.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to...

Thank you.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1343 relating to small business regulatory review. First up, DBEDT.

DEBDT stands on his testimony in support of the bill....[inaudible].

Thank you. Next up, Jonathan Shick from Business Regulatory Review Board.

[Inaudible]...I'm representing the SBRB in his name.

Name, please.

I'm Jet’aime Ariola, Program Specialist for the SBRB.

DBEDT.

In?

In support? Opposition?

In support.

Okay, thank you. Next up, Mary Albitz for Small Business Regulatory Board in support. Anybody else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Any questions from the Committee?

Yes.

Senator Kim.

So how many Members on the, on this review board?

Currently we have 10. We have 11 available seats but 10 filled right now.

And 10 filled. Just one not filled.

Right now.

Can I get quorum?

We've had technical issues previously where because we have off-island board members chiming in, hybrid or remote. We've had issues with drop offs. Also previous vacancies. Also we've had issues at that point with quorum. Yes.

So what do you. What exactly you're asking?

We're asking to. It's amount of board members in the seats versus seats for the board.

Okay, so you have 10, 10 now. And so if only four Members show up, what's the quorum?

Which it should be three yeah.

So three people gonna make the decision for the whole board.

We're requesting that.

That's crazy. I mean you're going to have a small number of less than even half of the people making the decision. And then if of the three, you have one person going against and two people make the decision. You guys thought about that.

So it would be the seats. Right.

The way it's written is that we actually just recently filled two of the vacancies during the interim. At that point it would be those that are seated in the filled seats. So if you have 10, 7 are vacant, I'm sorry, three are vacant, it would be of the seven.

Not the people that show up at the meeting, but the number of?

Seats filled.

Seats filled.

Seats filled.

Right, Right. So quorum of the seats that are filled, if they're vacant, they wouldn't count towards the total.

What's the incentive to filling the seats?

We do push hard. I can speak for our department. We worked with boards and commissions of office, regularly checking in on statuses, working even with the legislative body. If there was their appointed seat to work with them and get our seats filled.

And what kind of absences do you have?

For, I would have to get, I can get a roll call. But first spur, but.

So do you have a thing if you have three absences, then.

Oh, I'm sorry, in that way. I gotta look if there's a rule. I'm familiar with some boards and commissions.

Our board itself, I know in the past we've had. If there are three absences, the board itself can make that decision amongst each other, have a discussion and vote on having them. No, we haven't had to go to that point.

We've had our board members resign knowing that their seat is important and that they want to fill it with someone who is a little bit more that's going to contribute.

Right. And I think that's the case. And you know, again, we were talking about Film Commission, and if we get people on the Commission, they don't show up or cannot make quorum. You can't make decisions. You got to come in and change it. It's crazy. Right.

I would hope that if they, they say yes to it, that they would put their time.

Right. I mean, how many boards and commissions do we have?

Overall, I only, I can only count for DEBDT. And we have of the seven I think five.

Yeah. But around the state.

I don't know all of the count.

Hundreds. I know in our Senate President, we have to appoint hundreds of boards and commissions, and the Governor's Office couldn't even keep track of who was quitting, who was leaving, who was vacant.

Back then, I mean, we had to put this whole matrix together just to keep track of all these boards and commissions.

We do have a matrix.

Yeah. I mean, some of these boards and commissions really should, should be dissolved because we don't know what they do and we cannot find people to fill them, you know.

So I'm just concerned that we're putting people in that's not taking their, I mean, yeah, they don't get paid, so that's hard. But if they're gonna say they're willing to serve and get confirmed, then we need for them to show up right?

And it's not part of the Bill. But I mean, you're right with the counts, is it a look at reducing the members of the board so we can get quorum or we've even put, as you mentioned, they're volunteers, but yet we've hampered them with disclosures, financial disclosures, asking their spouses to, to give their background.

And we're asking these people to come and serve, but yet we take them through the wringer on all these background checks. And so we're stuck in this.

That's the public that want transparency. They want to know if we have conflicts it's not necessarily caused. We go to the same thing. Right.

If I may, Senator, Our board members are small business owners. So a lot of times it is due to unforeseen work for their businesses or that they're covering or meetings for their businesses. And I, I've seen that happen, too. So they are small business owners as well. So.

Yeah.

Understood.

Good question, Senator. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Too much disclosures...

Okay, next up, Senate Bill 1325 relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. First up, debit stamina testimony. Thank you. Next up, ADC, Wendy G.

Thank you. Next up, Brian Miyamoto, Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau is down on spread the testimony in support.

Thank you. Next up, Pamela Tumpa, Maui Chamber of Commerce in support, Hunter Hevlin in support for Farmers Union and Julian Kiabo in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none. Any questions? Senator Wakai.

I like the idea of getting different revenue streams onto agricultural lands, but part of me wonders, why does EDC want to help farmer put some kind of tourism element onto their property? That to me should be something private sector takes care of, not you.

I mean, ADC should be focused on growing for food or biofuels or stuff out of the land. If there's a tourism element, shouldn't the private sector be the one that takes care of funding that and promoting that element on Farmland or AG land?

Thank you for the question. Vice Chair. Wendy Gady, EDC and the reason that we're bringing it forward is our tenants are asking and our tenants are asking for guidance and support in order to showcase what they're doing.

They also see it as an opportunity to do market research because when people come and visit and you know, they taste a product, they're like, hey, have you ever considered putting DA DA DA DA. And that's wonderful feedback for the farmer to go.

I didn't consider mixing those two things together and maybe that could be a new product. There's also a strong desire for the individuals just to grow their revenue stream and that's really what it's about.

I just don't know if it's ADC that should be doing the market studies and all of that.

If I'm a Cacao farmer and I want to have a tourism element on there, I would go to the private sector and get private funding to go do the market study to see how viable it is and then get the investment from the private sector to do all of those things.

I mean, you have such limited resources, and shouldn't those resources be focused purely on growing stuff out of the ground and have some other entity take care of the tourism elements that would be on the land? Can I not a question. My sentiments. Thank you.

Senator Fukunaga.

You know, in the areas that you're providing farm support, aren't most of your farmers immigrant farmers and small really types of lots we really have.

I'm sorry, Senator, thank you for the question. We really have a bell shaped curve. So we have one of our farmers is the largest banana farmer in the United States. One of our farmers is a significant size and a tomato farmer in this state.

And then we have all the way down to, to your point, a lot of immigrant farmers who are bringing their kids into the operation is one of the most encouraging things that I could showcase is the fact that they're adding their sons and daughters and looking for more land and definitely looking for more opportunity to support their families, which aren't just one, it's like 2 and 3 when the son and daughter join.

Did that answer your question?

I think so. Because, you know, in some of my prior experiences, what we found was for many of the Chinese and South Vietnamese and Catholic Cambodian organizations, it was really becoming family businesses. And they're the ones that are really sort of struggling to get onto the land.

So with ADC helping them get onto the land and you know, assisting them in growing their businesses, I think that's really a bright spot on the horizon, especially in the central Oahu area. Thank you.

Any other questions? I see none. Moving on to Senate Bill 150 relating to Waialhole water system. First up, ADC Wendy Gady. Sorry.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Wendy Gady with the ABC Eastern. Very, very strong support and finance.

Thank you. Next up, Stephanie Whalen from Kunia Village, Head of ODI Corporation.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Stephanie Whalen. I am now managing the Cunia Village which is the ex Del Monte Plantation. And it's essentially a complex of agriculture workers that mainly work for farms in the Waihole area and also for agriculture businesses that can get long term leases.

So several of the farmers, they're not able to be here. And I do have a Testimony here from Mr. Goswara and I'm just going to incorporate a few of his thoughts with my thoughts.

So I think it's really important to understand that in this area, it's probably the only area that you have lands that are designated ial by farmers or on agricultural easements, which keeping that land in agriculture forever rather than the former large landowners who just sit on it. Okay?

So I think that's a very important thing to remember when we're talking about the Waihuli Ditch because that provides the water for these farmers and for people that are dedicated to agriculture, which is hard to find in perpetuity.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Your time is up and we have your testimony. Okay. Okay. Next up, Robbie Melton, Hawaii Ag Research Center.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm Robbie Melton. I'm the new Executive Director of the Hawaii Agricultural Research Center. We are a nonprofit organization dedicated to innovation agricultural research that supports the Hawaiian farmers and producers. We have 108 acres and 44 research projects. We also support 7go farmers on our land.

The Waihole water is the only ag water that we have. We strongly support this measure because right now we pay higher than regular water rates because of the Waihole. So we strongly support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Mariah. Mariah Yoshizu with Ulupon. Thank you. Next up, Ellen Takimoto.

Thank you, chair. Vice Chair.

Thank you. Next up, Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Holy Farm Bureau. Sound. It's breaking.

Thank you. Farmers Union. Hunter Hevlin in support. Larry Jeffs Farms in support. David Arakawa Land Use foundation in support. Hoy Crop Industry. I mean, Improvement Association support. Randy Cabarro and Janet Ashman, all in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure. Thank you. Members, any questions? I just got one question. Adc, please.

So, Wendy, is the Waiahole. Is the Waiahole water system the largest water system that supports farmers?

It's certain. I would say that from. It depends on what you're talking, like in terms of miles, in terms of volume, I would say it's probably in the top three.

What about usage of not just big farmers, but individual small farmers?

There is a certain parcel that we provide water to and that does have 33 small immigrant farmers on that land. And that is the only water source.

You guys have some data on the different ethnic backgrounds that uses that, whether it be native Hawaiian, you know, different, like Cambodian or you. Do you have those numbers as well?

I know the individuals, so I can just tell you that they are Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Lao. We do have Hawaiian, and I think, you know, that kind of runs the gamut. And they're doing some of the most exciting work in ag.

And what other water systems that ADC manages and how many farms are served? zero, my goodness.

All total, we have over 100 farmers that we serve. And we have large water systems in Kauai on western side. And in addition to that, we're in the process of doing an Executive order to acquire the East Kauai irrigation system. And so that will lend itself to a lot more individual farmers.

And on top of that, we're trying to acquire the Wahiawa irrigation system and that provides water to over 17,000 acres of land.

Thank you. Anybody else? Any questions? Okay, thank you. We are going to roll right into decision.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. First measure of Senate Bill 986 relating to tourism. We are going to pass with an SD1 and make any necessary technical amendments and defect the effective date to July 1st, 2050.

And in the Committee report have them incorporate or take a look at the recommendation by the Tax Foundation of Hawaii to consolidate emergency special funds. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

I vote yes. [Roll Call] Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Up next, Senate Bill 1641 relating to the State of Hawaii Film Commission. I am gonna defer the decision making to December, not, to Tuesday. Oh my God. I'm on Christmas already. To Tuesday, 1:05 in room 229. Yeah, I need to gather a little more information on this measure.

Next up, Senate Bill 1343 relating to the Small Business Regulatory Review board passing with SD1 and making any necessary technical amendments and effect the effective date to July 1st, 2050. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

I vote yes. [Roll Call] Chair your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Next up, Senate Bill 1325 relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. We'll pass this with an SD1 and make any necessary technical amendments. Defecting effective date to July 1st, 2050. Any discussion? Seeing none but sure for the vote. Chair goes aye.

I vote yes. [Roll Call] Chair your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Next up, Senate Bill 1541 relaying to the Waihole water system. We also passed this with an SD1 and blanking out appropriations amount to reflect in the Committee report and defecting the effective date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

I vote yes. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. And with that we are adjourned. Thank you.

Okay, Members, we also have a 1:20 agenda. Decision making. The purpose of this decision making is to insert substantive provisions into the following two short form bills. A public hearing will be scheduled at a later date at which public testimony will be accepted. The first Bill is Senate Bill 891 relating to economic development.

Proposed SD1 which establishes a gaming working group within the Department of Business and Economic Development and Tourism and requires a report to the Legislature. The Chair's recommendation should be to pass SB 891 with amendments and recommit it back to Economic Development Tourism. Amendments are to insert the contents of the proposed draft Members, any questions?

Had a gaming working?

No, that was just a sports online, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote Chair goes I.

I vote yes. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Next Bill is Senate Bill 893 relating to economy proposed SD1 which grants a 20-year licenses for casinos in the Nualo Stadium entertainment District and Hawaii Convention Center. Establishes the Hawaii Gaming control Commission imposes 15% wagering tax on grocery seats. Establishes a state gaming fund and compulsive gambler program, appropriates funds. The Chair's recommendation should be to pass Senate Bill 893 with amendments and recommitted back to EDT the amendments are to insert the contents of the proposed draft. Members, any questions?

Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes I.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga. Senator Kim.

I'm gonna vote no.

Senator Awa. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.