House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon everyone. We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 2:00pm in Conference Room 329. Number of items on the agenda. First up, we've got HB9. Oh, I'm sorry, I have to read this first.

In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two minute time limit per testifier. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only.

Please use the chat only for technical issues, although if you are disconnected, you can use that chat and they'll let me know. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to join and continue if time permits.

Please note the House is not responsible for any bad internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images.

Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. That being said, first time on the agenda, we have HB 918 relating to labeling. First up, we have Department of Health with comments.

Hi. Thank you. Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, this is Jonathan Nagato. On behalf of the Department of Health, the Department stands on written testimony providing comments available for any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Department of Agriculture with comments. It says in person. Is there anyone online for DOA? Okay. Not present. Next up, Retail Merchants of Hawaii with comments. Not present. Okay. All right. Next up, INDA, Association of Non Woven Fabrics Industry. Of the Non Woven Fabrics Industry in support.

Hi. Thank you, Chair. My name is Wes Fisher. I'm the Director of Government affairs at INDA, the Association of the Non Woven Fabrics Industry. We're the National Trade Association representing among many other products, manufacturers of wipes fabric and many brand owners of of wipes throughout North America.

We'll stand in our written testimony other than just to quickly say we're supportive of this measure. It aligns closely with the other seven states that have adopted the same do not flush labeling scheme. We do have one piece in our written comments about the six month deadline following FIFA approval and we will stand on those.

And I'm happy to answer any other questions that you might have about the history of this process and our collaboration with the wastewater industry on this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I think we will have a couple questions later on, so stick around. Next up, Lindy Garcia, Hawaii Realtors in support. Okay. Oh, sorry. If you guys could all come to the mic when. Even when you're standing on your testimony. Otherwise, no one won't be recorded on YouTube and the people on Zoom can't hear you.

Hello, Chair.

Also, you get free exercise, so, you know, win, win.

Extra steps. Thank you. My name is Lindsay Garcia from Hawaii Realtors, and we stand on our testimony and support.

Thank you. All right, anyone? That's all the testifiers. We have signed up. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Okay, Hearing none. Members, any questions? Okay, I've got one for Wes.

Yes, sir.

So in your testimony, you said that six months weren't. I guess you said six months was.

Could be insufficient, but that other states, like Oregon had implemented similar provisions or similar laws wherein the trigger for compliance was more of like all the states and EPA agreeing on what verbiage needs to be on the packaging or other things. Can you kind of expand on that? I wasn't really clear.

We did look up the Oregon statute, and we tried to kind of poke around California and some others, but it wasn't really clear to me what kind of language should be in this to kind of go along with the other states.

Sure. So I think the easiest thing to do would be to look at the Oregon metric, and instead of that sentence that has the six, it shall take effect in six months.

The Oregon sentence, the end of that paragraph in the Oregon legislation basically says if the State Department of Agriculture and the EPA have not approved all of the components, manufacturer must, you know, use all of the components that are approved or make, you know, a reasonable effort to comply with the legislation.

Is that, is that effective? I mean, I'm struggling a little bit to put all these pieces together.

So the FIFA piece of this is definitely the most challenging. It is a small subset of the wipes covered by this. When you think about baby wipes or things like that, those aren't covered under FIFA. So it's really mostly just those disinfecting wipes. Fortunately, because other states have. Have passed this in previous years, most.

Most of those brands have already are already well along in the process. They would just have to work with, with the Hawaii State Department of Agriculture to ensure that everything is approved after hopefully already having an approval from the EPA.

And frankly, the products on the shelves in your store should probably already have this do not flush label on them because our manufacturers mostly produce a label for the whole United States and in many cases, the US And Canada.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on. Next up, we have HB 1482 related to controlled substances. First up, we have HPD in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ernest Robello. I'm an acting captain with the Narcotics Vice Division of the Hon Police Department, City and County of Honolulu. The Honolulu Police Department supports House Bill number 1482 related to controlled substances. And we stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. Next up, we have Aloha Green Holdings Incorporated in support.

Yep, we can hear you.

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

Hi, my name is Ty Cheng. I'm coming to you live from the pantry here in Honolulu. We're volunteering today as a company to help feed those who can't afford. I'm President, founder of Aloha Green Holdings, and we stand in support of this bill.

Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. It's an important bill, but we'd like to. We had some comments about how we all need to remember that Delta 8 THC is not in itself dangerous nor is it harmful. Delta 8 THC is naturally found in cannabis as well as hemp plants.

The issue, of course, with Delta 8 is that it is being synthesized currently from CBD, which is derived from mostly hemp plants. Delta 8 THC has some euphoric effect. It's about 70 to 80% as euphoric as Delta 9 THC. And as a licensed dispensary, we do feel that any euphoric THC derivative or analog should be regulated.

Aloha Green does have some Delta 8 THC products that it sells that is from naturally forming amounts found in the Cannas plant, as well as created from decarboxylation of thca. And so we just wanted to make sure. And those exemptions are actually listed in the current bill.

And so we just wanted to make sure that those remain and that Delta 8 THC is something that we can provide to our medical patients, but of course should be regulated so that it's not sold at gas stations and stores. I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Kir Oahu in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Mihoko Ito, on behalf of Kira Oahu, just wanted to stand on our testimony and support and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members. Andrew Goff, Deputy Attorney General. I think we did submit written testimony. If not, I can get you guys a copy of it. But just to briefly summarize, we did offer technical comments and amendments. So completely agree with the intent.

The purpose is to ensure that Delta 8 is covered under the Controlled Substances act and that synthesized delta 8 is prohibited from hemp products. The issue that we spotted is in the current hemp law, artificial cannabinoids and synthesized cannabinoids have separate meanings.

And so an artificial cannabinoid would be a cannabinoid that's created from an existing natural cannabinoid, which is converting a CBD cannabinoid that's extracted from hemp into Delta 8 THC. That can have all kinds of public health issues like residual solvents, and it can create isomers that we just don't know how they work. And then synthetic cannabinoids is.

Is defined as something created from something not pulled from cannabis, so yeast or algae. And so the way that the bill is written is a synthetic version of a controlled substance. And we just offered amendments to clarify that it is not synthetic, it's artificial. I'm available for any questions.

Got you. Thank you. And I also see Department of Health here. Is the Department of Health here, please.

Hi. Thank you. I was just sending texts to my colleagues asking where. Where the testimony.

We did have you here. It wasn't actually highlighted, though, but I see that you did.

Glad you got it. My name is Greg Edwards with Office of Medical Cannabis Control Regulation, Department of Health. Good afternoon, Chairs. Vice Chair. Department offers comments largely echoing Deputy AG Is there where current hemp law prohibits the use of synthetic and artificially derived cannabinoids in manufactured hemp products.

Already we appreciate the intent of the bill and we offer technical amendments that we think will still achieve the same effect without causing any potential confusion.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Yeah, I've got one for. Ah, I guess it could be for anyone. Maybe HPD. Does Delta 8 show up in a drug test for Marijuana?

That I would have to check on, sir.

Okay, let me. Let me see. Aloha Green Holdings, Are you there still? Yes, I'm here. You guys happen to know, does Delta 8 show up?

It does. Delta 8 THC will show up in a urine drug test.

Does it distinguish you. Does the test distinguish between. No, it doesn't.

It won't because it metabolizes It'll only be checking. Yeah, it won't. It'll still show up as a positive for THC.

So would it be fair to say that if, and maybe to HPD too, would it be fair to say that because Delta 8 is, quote, unquote, legally out there and people are taking it, they could show a positive on a drug test even though they're not taking Delta 9? That is correct. That's correct. That is correct.

That sounds bad. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Members. Any other questions? Okay, let's move on to HB981 relating to attorneys fees. First up, we have Kasdan Turner Thomson Booth LLP in opposition.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Chris Akita. I'm a partner at Kasdan Turner Thomson Booth. Our practice consists entirely of representing homeowners and associations to recover funds against developers and contractors in repair and construction defect actions. I'm here to provide testimony in opposition of 981.

The goal of this Committee, as noted in the preamble in hearing this bill, is to provide homeowners with more funds to that is necessary for cost of repair. And as you can see from the testimony, the main proponents of this bill are developers and contractors, not homeowners or homeowner associations.

And the reason is it doesn't actually create more funds for homeowners, but instead it prevents homeowners from gaining access to legal services. And it also gives contractors and developers an unfair advantage in the dispute resolution process. It's detailed more in my written testimony.

But this bill will prevent many homeowners from actually being able to seek recovery, especially where there's little chance of recovering more than 90% of the cost of repair due to various issues such as, you know, weaknesses in their claims or, you know, availability of insurance.

It also creates an unfair advantage by constricting only the homeowners and associations and not the developers and contractors ability to pursue their claims. And finally, it makes settlement impossible, since no plaintiff would be able to settle for anything less than 90% of their cost of repair.

The result is that many homeowners will not have the ability to actually seek recovery. And for those that can, recovery will be nowhere near what is necessary to repair the defects. But there is a better way.

If you look at Hawaii's consumer protection statute, Section 480, it actually provides a provision to allow consumers or entitled consumers with reasonable attorney fees and costs when they are prevailing on consumer consumer protection claims. This is not a novel idea. This is a statute that exists in most of the states. In the United States.

And it's something that we would propose that this, this Committee consider. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one more person signed up to testify. Dallas Walker in opposition.

Hi, good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I stand on my written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, Any questions? Okay, I've got one, if you don't mind. So in your testimony you proposed reasonable attorney's fees. So I'm assuming you're talking about like 25% similar to a sum sits.

Generally, I mean, generally what? In a lot of these attorneys fees type cases where, you know, there's a fee shifting provision, what they do is the judge will assess. When there's a judgment, the judge will assess what the attorney's fees are and assess whether they're reasonable. So different factors that they'll look at.

Well, in non class action claims, what they'll typically look at is how much time was actually spent in pursuing those claims itself. In class action claims, they'll look at various factors, including the time spent, the results achieved.

They'll look at the risks that were taken and that sort of thing to determine what, you know, what the appropriate attorney's fees are.

So you're saying that under current law, if a homeowner wanted to sue for construction defect, they could already be entitled to attorney's fees and costs upon winning.

There are provisions in certain circumstances that allow for attorney's fees and costs. So Hawaii does have two attorney's fees provisions. The assumption statute, which when you bring assumption claims, contract claims, breach of contract claims, you are entitled to attorney's fees. And there is the consumer protection statute, which is section 480. And in that case it allows.

That's a very specific case because it allows treble damages in certain cases where there's, you know, consumer unfair, deceptive trade practice, unfair practices. But it also allows for attorneys fees as well.

Okay, when you guys are on contingency, do you track your hours? Yes, we do. And do you apply an hourly rate to that?

We typically, it depends on. So the thing with, you know, contracting with associations and homeowners is oftentimes each individual homeowner or Association, they have various different situations. There's various risks involved. You know, as noted in my testimony, sometimes there's no ability to collect the full amount, you know, or sometimes the claims are small.

So it's a different situation for. So we try. What we do is we work with the associations or homeowners to try and come up with a solution that's best for them. Sometimes it is a contingency fee based on a percentage, and sometimes it's an hourly rate.

But, you know, as law is now, and you know, it allows us to work with the associations and the homeowners to determine a proper attorney's fees schedule or way of going about it.

The other thing too, is oftentimes, especially when we work with associations, they, we, you know, they have General counsel as well, so the General counsel will review those, those contracts to make sure that those are fair for, for the associations.

Okay, so in your testimony, you seem to. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to say that a fairer solution would be to apply a reasonable attorney's fees and costs to these types of situations instead. Is that, is that fair? Is that, was that kind of your counter proposal?

Well, yes, there's an entitlement. If you look at other consumer protection statutes, it allows for consumers to get attorneys fees and costs upon winning. Upon winning, of course. Yes.

Okay. Is that not the status quo? I guess. You said under certain circumstances for construction defect?

Correct, Yes.

Okay. So if we were to make this universal for construction defect, for attorneys fees and costs, maybe even. I'm not even sure why we'd need contingency fee.

But if you guys wanted to do contingency, but we capped it at 25% of the recovery for fees and costs, not the repair value, but the recovery for fees and costs, would that be fair?

Well, I would say it's not. So there's an issue with capping attorney's fees, but separate from that, generally what's awarded. So I think it'd be fair to. Sorry.

We cap them all the time though, right? For a subset?

So, yes. So for an award of attorney's fees and costs, I think that's fair.

But once you start getting into affecting the contract between the client and the attorneys, that becomes an issue. But if you're capping an award of attorney's fees and costs, I think that that's fair.

Oh, I see. Okay. So your award of attorney's fees and costs would be different than. So you might be awarded 25%, let's say, reward at the back. Our clients. Yes, but then the clients would be responsible for the remaining attorney's fees and costs. Yeah.

And it's not always more than 25%, I would say. But, you know, depending on the situation depend, you know.

Okay, anyone else have questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Gosh, I saw Howard Luke come in. I thought he was going to be on this one. I guess not.

All right, let's move on. HB807 relating to condominiums. First up, we have Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority in support.

Good afternoon. Gwen Yamamoto Lau, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority. I'm sorry, my camera is broken. I stand on my written testimony in support. Just also wanted to just make clear. That there seems to be confusion between. Residential pays and commercial pays and this is not a residential program. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have Hawaii Bankers Association in support.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Mihoko Ito. On behalf of the Hawaii Bankers Association, we support the intent of this bill. We do think there's some issues. Basically, the bill establishes a state backed loan program as well as a credit enhancement program that involves a public private partnership with the banks.

We just have some concerns about the eligibility criteria and other parts of this bill. So we have engaged in discussions with the Green Infrastructure Authority. We met today, we're meeting again tomorrow to further the discussions on what we can come up with here.

So we just ask for some time to allow those discussions to occur and see if we can come up with a solution. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have Greg Misakian with comments. Thank you. Chair.

Excuse me just for a moment. Document. So again, I'm Greg Misakian. I've met with you in a previous testimony short time ago, but this morning I was at the CPN Committee hearings. At one of those hearings CPACE came up.

So I do have concerns that there are a lot of open questions that are unanswered and I want to make a few comments.

In California, CPACE loans are regulated by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which licenses and oversees PACE program administrators, requiring them to verify a property owner's ability to repay the loan and ensure the loan amount is reasonable relative to the property value before approving financing.

DFPI website states homeowners pay for a PACE contract and this would be for cpace also because it was stated for both through increased assessments in their annual property tax bills. There is also a priority lien that goes along with CPACE loans.

In between the CPN hearing and this hearing, I spoke with a loan originator for CPACE loans who indicated that there are unanswered questions regarding how the loans will be billed in Hawaii. The intent is to build the Association.

She indicated this may still show on an individual owner's property tax bills and administered by a third party to make payments. I'm very concerned that HCIA and others are not being completely forthcoming regarding CPACE loans, their risks and the potential issues that could arise.

Those include selling your condo, obtaining financing, and a higher risk of foreclosure, which has actually already been proven by a federal agency. I ask that you defer this bill until all the important questions are answered. And I would be happy to participate in any of that discussion because I do have a background and understanding on these rules.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. That's all the testifiers we have signed up. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? I've got one for Hgia. Gwen, I wouldn't mind you responding to the previous testifier, but also there was testimony brought up questioning whether HCIA is the right place for a program like this.

Would you mind commenting on that?

Yeah, sorry, I didn't have a chance to look at the other testimonies. But for Mr. Misikian, you know he's referring to residential Pace. And again, this is a commercial PACE financing program. Greg, if you want more information, Please review Act 41 Session Laws of 2024 for more information.

And I'd be curious to find out who you are speaking to so I can also speak to her and clarify some of her misunderstandings. Chair, the comment on the maybe not the right place. Is there any more color that I can address?

I think they were just wondering. I think you did already. I think the point was that this is commercial, not residential, and that's why it belongs at hca. Okay, thank you for hpa. She's still here? Nope, she's gone. Wait, Yoko, I've got a question for you. You came back just at the right time. I'm so sorry.

No, no, no problem at all.

No problem.

So you guys asked for more time to work with hcia. How much more time are you talking about here?

Well, actually, the Senate measure that's similar. The decision making is on Friday morning. So we're trying to get something. We're meeting tomorrow afternoon to try to finalize something for that. So if it gives you scheduled around that time or after, I think that would be sufficient.

Okay, so you'd like us defer. If we defer decision making to next week, that'll give you sufficient time to talk?

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's move on HB 336 relating to condominiums. First up, we've got Hawaii Realtors with comments.

Thank you, Chair. Lindsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors. And we stand on our comments.

Thank you. Next up, we have community associations Institute in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Dallas Walker for the Community Associations Institute. As we've said in our written testimony, this bill would remove the information gathering and checks and balances from the decision making process. And I think that's really dangerous on a personal level. You know, I can kind of sympathize.

Because I want things in my own building repaired faster. And someone seems to have worked very hard on this bill. But still, we'd have to oppose it. It's a dangerous thing to remove those checks and balances and information gathering. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Workers Center in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Sergio Alcubilla. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center. Now, we support this bill really for the primary reason because of the issue of enforcement, enforcing issues where there's health and safety issues, whether it's for condo owners or for, you know, tenants.

I think as it currently stands, people, whether you're a condo owner, you're a tenant, you really don't know where to go in terms of if there's a health and safety issue with your unit or with your dwelling.

Do you go to the city, do you go to the state, or where would you actually file a complaint to enforce the landlord tenant code and to make sure that those repairs happen? You know, I believe this bill can open up the conversation around that and it's a step in the right direction. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Greg Mosakian in support.

Thank you again for an opportunity to speak on this bill. I do want to make a comment that the previous bill, just very quickly, it was CPACE that I was discussing. I have no misconceptions about the difference between PACE Home and CPACE. And my discussion was about CPACE.

So I just want to clarify that and I'm open to discussion further. But for this bill, very quickly, I do support this. It's imperative that the Legislature understands and your committee understands that every day there are deferred maintenance issues that are health and safety related. In my building, we have a roof situation that's been ongoing for years.

Years. We have elevators that were redone that don't have operating permits. I think believe they still don't from 2019 and 2020 and never got the annual operating permit. So there's numerous things. But I do agree that just to throw it in the hands of the owner is problematic.

So what needs to happen is simply this bill should be amended so that the agencies that are already there to help, like DPP, which can actually do some level of enforcement for, you know, going into a commercial building, identifying issues where there's, you know, we've got lights out everywhere in my building.

Everywhere you go, there's lights out, emergency stairwell. They can address that, and they should give fines, and they should. And those fines should go to the board members that actually aren't complying with getting things fixed, and there should be a vehicle to fix that. This bill needs to be amended. I'd be happy to help you with that.

I know it's going to take a little bit, but if we could get through the session, there's a lot that needs to be done to amend this bill at that side. But I do support the bill for the intent of the bill, and it's very important to all homeowners.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure, please?

Thank you. As I said earlier, I'm a construction defect attorney, so we don't deal with this specifically, but we do see this.

Just take your name for the.

Oh, sorry, excuse me. Chris Akita, on behalf of Kasdan Turner Thomson Booth. We do see this issue come up on various occasions in our construction defect practice. You know, a lot of times the construction defects that we do see in the building do affect issues that might of the common areas that need to be repaired.

And, you know, our job as construction defect attorneys is to help the associations get the funds to make the proper repairs. And sometimes these repairs are complicated and require, you know, various consultants to, you know, come up with a good plan for the entire repair. And it's difficult when you allow individual.

So the issue that we have with this legislation is that it would allow individual homeowners to do repairs on common areas when they might not know all the facts and all the things that go into an actual repair.

So I have an example, as we represent a high rise here in town where there's an issue based on a construction because of a construction defect, where there's significant corrosion and occlusion within the plumbing, place pipes in the system. So as a result, many of the homeowners are getting backups.

Unfortunately, one of the homeowners had hired a plumber to go into the common area of the plumbing and try and snake that area out.

But what happens when there's so much corrosion and there's a lot of buildup in the sewer system is if you break up that that, that, that corrosion at the bottom, it can cause what they call crapalanche. So basically everything from above will come down and it'll shoot out of all the other units.

So in this case, that actually happened. The homeowner went in, snaked the system, and as a result, many of the units in the lower floors all got flooded. And that's why, you know, we oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for that new term of art. Anyone else here to justify this measure? Okay, Members, any questions? All right, let's move on. HB 638 relating to the residential landlord tenant code. First up, we have Hawaii Realtors with comments.

Hello again, Chair. My name is Lindsey Garcia with Hawaii Realtors. We will stand mostly in our comments, but I do want to highlight one aspect of my testimony and it's the line that says it's important to highlight that screening reports are typically designated confidential.

And that's because of the need to adhere to the FTC's rules relating to the Fair Credit Reporting act, which strictly governs how credit information and reports are provided, stored, used, and to whom it is shared and how it is retained. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Hawaii Workers Center in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of this Committee, Sergio Alcabilia, Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center and support just, we offer support again for this Bill because it's, you know, just the other day I was driving with one of the Members of our COFA Workers Association and she pointed out a house that she had applied for an application for and never heard back from.

You know, there were about 44 adults in her household. At about $50 a piece, it's almost $200 she's out for and she never heard back from them. That's common practice. You know, we have limited supply of housing. You know, landlords can be choosy with who, who they decide to rent out to.

But these application fees, it just puts people, I mean, it's coming out of your pocket, right? And you know, you don't know if you're ever going to hear back from that landlord once you put that fee in. And I do appreciate the comments from the Realtors Association.

I just believe, I think when, if you spend $100 for an application, you should be able to ask for at least a copy of that application. I mean, I know there's confidentiality issues, but, you know, as the person that's paying for those fee, for those fees, you should at least be able to get a copy of that.

Our other concern of course is there's some fair housing issues that could crop up. You know, landlords don't have to say why they're not going to rent to some person. Right. They can use all different aspects of why. But again for our COFA Workers Association it's a big issue.

They don't have the rental history that they can go back to, you know, especially coming if they're new here to the Islands to say that, you know, you can talk to my previous landlord but it's really an issue for them.

It's, it's hard enough finding a place here, you know, if you're well to do, but you know, even more so for a lot of our lower wage workers.

And that's why we're asking just, you know, for us to take a deeper look in this Bill, you know, there's got to be a better way to do, to deal with these application fees. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Rep. Iwamoto thank you.

I think this is for the Real Estate Realtors Association, so not so.

I used to, well I used to be a landlord for like 20 years and I never ever a residential landlord and I never ever took an application fee because when I was looking at the credit report, consumers are allowed to download their own credit report for free.

Whereas you know, if we as the landlord, if we were to try to get it, there would be a fee. Isn't there a way to ask them to print out their own credit report and show you an ID or isn't there a way to verify that that's their credit report which they can get for free?

In other words.

Thank you Rep. Iwamoto, that's a very good question. And I mean there could be definitely landlords out there that operate in that way.

The thing is that it's not so much verifying that it is their credit report so much as not being sure exactly that the report wasn't altered somehow and there really isn't any way for the landlord to know for sure.

And so that's, that's just kind of the concern we're highlighting you kind of, it's a risk, you know, and so we're just kind of pointing out that if, you know, you have a landlord who doesn't want to take that risk, then they're going to want to do the credit report themselves.

Thank you. And if I can ask a follow up question. So regarding Section 8 applicants, given the fact that the government is securing their rent, so to speak, that they're backing up with the portions they can't afford does and that they're Low income, so their credit history is probably going to not be great anyway.

Would it make sense to just say you can't rely on a credit report? You shouldn't. I mean, to charge a fee to get a credit report on somebody, you know, who's going to have bad credit when their rent is backed by government subsidies.

At the very minimum, do you think it would be okay to say Section 8 applicants should not. A fee should not be collected from Section 8 applicants?

Well, that's actually a very good question. And that's something that I think maybe we should discuss with the Hawai'I Public Housing Authority, which runs Section 8, or with the. I think also the counties also run Section 8 programs.

So that would be an interesting question to explore, but we'd probably want to discuss it with the entities that run those programs first.

Yeah. And that question isn't exactly topical to this bill either, so let's try to keep the questions on point. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions? Okay. I have one for Hawaii Realtors actually, too. So the issue was about. It's kind of like a chain of custody issue, really.

It's whether you can rely on what you're being given by the tenant. Would you have any objection to transition by another landlord?

So if we had a structure where one landlord does charge for the fee to order the credit report directly to themselves, criminal background check, but that landlord could then be directed to share it with other landlords at the request of the tenant, would that be a more maybe trustworthy system?

It could be. I can take that back to my members and see if they're. That's possible. It may still be impractical. One of the concerns we do have also is we don't want to hold the process. Right. Just because it is a lengthy process and it can be difficult.

And at the end of the day, if it's easier for the landlord just to run the report themselves, they might just decide to go through that process instead of trying to find credit reports from other landlords. The other issue may be, for instance, if the credit report was not.

If you're talking about someone who has already rented for a long period of time somewhere else, that credit report could be out of date. Or if you're talking about people who are applying to multiple places at once. I mean, it's an interesting question that we could explore, but there could be some practicality issues.

That makes sense and I wouldn't want it to be dated or I understand criminal background checks and credit reports need to be somewhat timely. I think it would probably be restricted to 30 days. I mean, it is the situation where they're applying to multiple people. If you wouldn't mind taking it back to your members.

About how long does the application process typically take?

That I'd have to ask because I think it might depend upon the property. And.

I do understand that this would be placing an additional burden on landlords who would have to keep on file for maybe 30 days or so to be able to send it to their landlords. Are most of these reports electronic that they're getting back or are they physical?

I believe they're electronic, but I would probably want to double check just to make sure.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, let's move on. HB699. Last on the agenda relating to pet animals. First up, we have the Hawaiian Humane Society in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. We're in strong support of this measure. And you have our written testimony. I wanted to address some of the concerns raised by the written opposition testimony. There is no evidence that particular breeds are more dangerous or more likely to cause harm.

They assert that without citing evidence because there isn't any. There's also no evidence that small dogs are better apartment dwellers than large dogs are. Most of the habits in pet restrictions in housing are born of misinformation and urban legends, not of actual evidence.

The evidence is actually fully supports the idea that pet owners are excellent tenants, that animals do very little damage to units if they're allowed to live in them. I think the national average is like. $210 upon move out that you might. See in damage attributable to a pet animal. And mostly pet owners pay those out of cost.

So there's really very little risk associated with this bill. There's nothing in the bill that prohibits landlords or anyone else insurers from taking into account the behavior of an animal that is a dog. If a dog has been deemed dangerous, then of course you could make adjustments based on that.

It simply prohibits arbitrary beads, breed restrictions and breed discrimination. So we would ask the Committee to lend this your full support and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Realtors with comments.

Thank you. Lindsay Garcia with Hawaii Realtors. And we stand on our comments.

Oh, sorry. We're going to take in person first. Well, he is Academy of Science. Let's go with him first.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Chair, if I could.

Go ahead, Greg. All right, thank you. Sorry about that. I just wanted to say I support this. I didn't submit any comments or testimony, but Keanu supports and his sister Kalei, who's in the other room, support. So I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.

Thank you. We will accept the non human testimony in this case. Make an exception. You have something?

Good afternoon, Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Jane Arnold, testifying as an individual citizen. Basically, I'll stand by my written testimony.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else here to testify?

Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of ROAR Cares. So just a comment. So this is to, I think, unrestrict the excessive charges upon pets and housing accommodations. So sometimes you have to ask what came first, the chicken or the egg? In policymaking, were the landlords the rationale for excessive fees charged for pets?

Or was it by policy making that set the standard for landlords to follow that it is okay to charge excessive fees for pets? Right. When we look at marketplace Trends, people have ESAs or comfort animals or assistance animals, emotional support animals for special needs persons at workplaces and to accommodate in housing.

So we wouldn't want to diminish opportunities for owners and assistance animals. Our proposed amendment for consideration is to add Section H. Assistance animals, as per the FAIR Housing act, are exempt from excessive charges and fees.

And so this justification is if you were to Refer to Chapter 5153 discriminatory practices for real estate for those who discriminate, against those who have special needs for comfort animals.

It is actually something mandated by the federal FAIR Housing Act to provide a reasonable accommodation, to kind of provide an adjustment for the housing rules, to have permission to provide the provisions for an assistance animal. And so per the Federal Housing act, it allows both assistance animals and service animals to be accommodated.

And I think this should kind of set an example as a justification to be exempt from excessive charges and fees. Yeah. For pet owners.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah. And my mom is a real estate agent with Century 21 properties, so very I'm invested in this topic. I did my.

It's been two minutes.

Okay. All right. I'm gonna be licensed soon too.

Okay. Thank you.

I passed my class test.

Thank you. That's all the testifiers. We have anyone else here to testify on this measure? All right. If not, we will be taking a brief recess. Recess.

Reconvening. Number of items on the agenda for decision making. First up, we have 918, relating to labeling. Chair's recommendation is to move this to Chapter 321 under DOH's jurisdiction. I do want to note in the committee report that to change the effective date to July 1, 2026 to comply with labeling requirements and to defect the date though, in the bill itself, to July 1, 3000.

I will also be noting in the committee report that the next committee should look to Oregon as to the timing of implementation and perhaps adjust the implementation date accordingly. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

All right, Members. Voting on House Bill 918. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair will vote aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Just mark Representative Tam as present. Oh, man. All right. HB 1482, relating to controlled substances. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the amendments from DOH and AG's, but also to add including but not limited language where applicable there. I want to delete Delta-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol from the bill title, as the bill is broader than just Delta-8. Technical amendments and to defect the date to July 1, 3000. Members, any comments? Please.

I'm just, I'm gonna vote with reservations.

Any other comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 1482. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of all Members and the reservations vote with Representative Iwamoto. Are there any others who wish, who wish to vote with reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Moving on to HB 981, relating to attorneys fees. Chair's recommendation is to amend this bill such that for the recovery by the plaintiffs, the attorneys are entitled to their accrued attorneys fees and costs if they are victorious or if the matter is settled, for up to 25% of the recovery amount, to defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Yeah. Members, any comments on this? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 981. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of all Members. Are there any Members who wish to vote no? Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 807, relating to condominiums. I do have a number of amendments I'd like to make, but we will be deferring diem to a later date to allow HBA to work with Gwen Yamamoto Lau and the HGIA. So we'll be deferring diem to a later date for this one. Moving on to HB 336, relating to condominiums. We will be deferring this matter.

HB... Moving on. HB 638, we'll also be deferring this matter. This is... Sorry. HB 336 was relating to condominiums. HB 638 relating to the landlord, Residential Landlord Tenant Code. Both matters will be deferred at this time due to the testimony. Last one, HB 699, relating to pet animals. Chair's recommendation is to strike the language relating to prohibition based on breeding and to defect the date to July 1, 3000. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 699. Chair's recommendation to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of all Members. Are there any Members who wish to vote no? Okay. No vote for Representative Pierick. Are there any other noes? Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. We are adjourned.