House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon everyone. We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Thursday, January 30, 2025 at 2:04pm in Conference Room 329. We have a number of items on the agenda today. First, I'm going to read a couple of rules.

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

If you are disconnected, you can contact the technical staff and they will let me know that you're back online and I'll try my best to get you back on the testifying schedule. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you can attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to 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 to schedule a meeting for decision-making. Where was I? In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images, including in your background. Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. In person testifiers, please come up to the mic so that people on Zoom can hear you and that people on YouTube can hear you as well. All right. With that, let's get started.

The first item on the agenda is HB 70 relating to condominiums. We have a couple testifiers here today. First up, Community Associations Institute in support.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Phil Nerney. I am the Chair of the Legislative Action Committee for CAI. As it happens, although I am not testifying on behalf of the Condominium Property Regime Task Force created by the Legislature in 2023, I am its Chair.

The reason that CAI supports this bill is that issues relating to compliance with the reserve requirements are very important. This is a simple change, but it's a powerful one in that by requiring a summary of what the budget entails, there should be a user friendly, readily understandable snapshot of the financial health of an association.

CAI promotes and believes in self-governance and believes in consumer protection as part of that.

What we think is appropriate is for people to understand how their association works and to make their choices in relationship to it. Our testimony suggests making one change, and I've become aware of some stated objections in the testimony of others, which I have provided staff proposals for.

In terms of one suggestion to say that it has to be a complete omission of the budget summary, we don't support that. And what the bill provides is that substantial compliance is all that's required. So we think that issue is addressed. The burden of proof issue is also raised in some testimony.

The burden of proof is already on the association in existing law. So this is not a fundamental reworking of that. And again, the association merely needs to prove substantial compliance. This is a binary thing. You either did it or didn't. So there's not a lot of shade of gray.

And so we don't think that there will be a lot of concerns in that regard. We hope that the Committee will pass the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Hawaii First Realty, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi and Members of the Committee. My name is Richard Emery and I'm a broker, but I'm also a longtime advocate in the reserve study matter. I was one of the first people to get a reserve specialist designation in the United States. That was number eight in the United States. This came about in 1995.

Since that time, I've seen hundreds of reserve studies, assisted as a consultant on hundreds of reserve studies, work with lots of realtors on disclosures of reserve studies.

And what I find is that the industry needs to step up and take responsibility for the information that is provided to the members, the owners, and and to potential buyers by having an accurate disclosure.

And what happens is realtors give them a big stack of papers and the reserve study might be 100 pages long, and no one knows where to go looking to really understand what's going on.

So in 2024, the Legislature passed Act 199, mandating a budget summary disclosure that put on about one sheet of paper the mandatory important points that would tell a novice the status of that Association, whether it's in good shape, bad shape, what kind of problems they're going to have.

And that was adopted and signed by the Governor as Act 199. In actual experience, I'm seeing, and I must say this at the beginning, there's a lot of associations that do a really good job of reserves.

Please cease operations and leave the building utilizing the nearest exit or fire exit stairway.

For those of you online, this is the third false alarm we've had in the last 10 minutes. So we're gonna hang around. If anyone on fire screaming comes running through here, we'll leave. You can carry on. It might be a little while. Oh great.

I hope I'm not the emergency. Anyway, my point is that realtors don't know what to do because these people get these documents. They can't understand what potential risks they have because we have this safe harbor in the current law.

Remember, not all associations have management companies or some are self-managed. I see very poor effort on making this budget summary in simple terms that clearly disclose what owners and or buyers have a right to know. And so I'm in strong support of this measure. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's disclosure, disclosure, disclosure is the key to all real estate and condominiums.

And I support the fact that boards are going to have to step up and complete the form correctly and fully and not refer it to some other document so these lay people can't figure out what's going on. So I support HB 70.

Thank you. We have a number of individuals as well, some in support, one in opposition and many with comments. Gregory Misakian is the only one scheduled to testify in support over Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to to testify today. The first thing I would like to say is I hope for all of Hawaii that this is the year that there'll be better consumer protection measures for condominium association owners.

Condominium owners throughout Hawaii have been subjected to a lot of adverse impacts to their finances, to their property ownership and a lot of other things. So I really hope that this year is going to be a year that there's going to be change.

With that said, I do support HB 70 and its intent and I would like to say though that without the proper enforcement behind it, where owners still have to go to court to try to get any kind of civil remedy, you know, if you have to go to litigate, that's the problem. So there's a number of bills--

I won't mention them now. I'll mention them maybe in my next testimony. But there are a number of bills that are mentioned in my testimony that are very, very important to the community at large that are condominium owners.

And I hope that you will schedule those bills to be heard as soon as possible so that we can get them started. One of them actually has a triple referral. So it's very important to get that one scheduled as soon as possible.

So thank you for the opportunity again to testify and I'm sure I'll see you in a moment at the next one. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Okay. Any questions? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to HB106 relating to condominiums. First up, we have Community Associations Institute in support.

Good afternoon. Excuse me. Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Phil Nerney. I'm here testifying as the Chair of the Legislative Action Committee for CAI. Again, I'm not here on behalf of the Condominium Property Regime Task Force, which I also Chair, but I am informed in my testimony by the experiences.

I came to believe, personally, that there was a potential issue where owners could receive a fine. And I'll leave aside why they got the fine. And I'll leave aside that the prudent thing to do would be to pay it or institute dispute resolution mechanisms under existing law. But some people don't.

And so they get sent to a lawyer and then their $100 fine fine becomes a $400 fine. And the process goes further. The more they resist. Well, leaving aside that they shouldn't resist and all those things, it's still appropriate to have a Bill that provides increased due process protections, a greater, more linear process.

And what this Bill provides is that after due notice requirements are satisfied, an owner can appeal, internally within its own board. If the owner is dissatisfied by the outcome of that appeal, it can then seek adjudication. The adjudication would be through the small claims court. There would be no attorney's fees associated with that.

And if, and only if, the fine is upheld through a due process procedure, then it could be collectible. But this Bill addresses the problem of attorney's fees being compounded on top of fines. And I hope the Committee will pass it. I'm sorry, one more thing. Some suggestions have been made for some possible amendments.

I have provided some to staff. One is to add a sentence at the end of Section 2's first paragraph to say the requirements of this section shall control over fine related provisions and in an Association's declaration, bylaws or rules so that there's no ambiguity about which applies.

The point has been made that some governing documents already have finding procedures the statute should control. In terms of another objection, adding the words 'to collect' rather than 'related to' can be provided in subsection F.

And rephrasing in terms of a unit owner shall be entitled to a refund of any amount paid by the unit owner that is found by a court or an arbitrator to be unsubstantiated. I'll be happy to answer any questions? If there are any. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have Hawaii First Realty in support.

Again. Good afternoon Committee. I already introduced myself as far as my Reserve background, but I should also tell you that I'm a Member of the National Association of Parliamentarians and most of my practice today, [Announcement over intercom].

I swear it's just you.

It doesn't like me. [Announcement over intercom concludes]

Until the next time you call.

We'll see what happens again. Anyway, most of my current practice is I serve as an expert on when matters become litigious between owners and associations. And believe it or not, more than half my work is for owners.

People relate me to the condo industry and certainly I have experience, but I'm a very practical person on what's fair. What you need to remember is we hear bad boards, but there's bad owners as well. This isn't a perfect world that we live in.

And when you look at disputes, we want to find an economical way to carve out the legal fees and carve out the unnecessary expenses so that an owner can have a fair adjudication of the dispute when it comes to something like fines.

There are cases of situations where, let me give you an example where an owner decided to take a single family home, which is part of a condominium, CPR condominium, and decided to put in a second kitchen, a separate entrance way, rent it out to another party and then use all the guest parking for their, for their tenant.

Well, that's not going to be resolved in a simple matter. It's a simple violation of the governing documents. They didn't get a building permit, they didn't tell the board they were going to do it and so they had to stop this work because it was causing harm to the other owners.

I had another situation where a project at a high rise, the owner wanted to have a more open floor pan and decided to remove without telling anybody, a load bearing wall, which creates a safety problem. So you're not going to be able to solve through one Bill, one program all the different kind of disputes that come about.

I have one that's a murder right now and the allegations against the security. But this particular Bill simplifies the fines and gives the owners a simple way without legal fees to take it to the board and hopefully they can resolve it and, and if not, take it to a small claims court for final adjudication.

And again, there's no legal fees that can be charged to that owner unless in the end of the day the owner, I guess, loses the suit with the small claims court.

I strongly support this as a good faith effort to help minimize the number of problems we have in the condominium, recognizing there's other types of disputes that will need other types of effort in the future. So thank you.

Thank you. Members, we have a number of testimonies, individuals testimonies for this measure, both in support and opposition. I'd say about 50/50. We've got Jeff Sadino in support who wants to testify in person.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jeff Sadino and I support this Bill. I'm also a Member of the Condominium Task Force on Education. First off, thank you for holding a hearing on these important condo measures so early in this session.

I'm grateful to see that they are getting the attention that they deserve. So thank you. I have survived three lawsuits with my association even though I have received zero violation notices for anything. So I think this Bill is probably the most exciting Bill I have seen for a very long time.

Sue Savio says that Hawaii condo owners have more successful lawsuits against officers and directors policies or boards behaving badly than any other state in the entire country, not even adjusted for population. So clearly, dispute resolution is a significant problem. Anything we can do to improve it will help.

But it does take both sides engaging in good faith to solve disputes. And unfortunately, in my experience, the trade industry approaches dispute resolution in bad faith. Just as one example, I have a college degree in mathematics and 13 years experience as a financial advisor.

I can tell you as an objective mathematical and financial fact, that I was charged an effective interest rate of 435% on erroneous charges posted to my account. That is exactly what it sounds like. No qualifications. Mike Miske should have gone into condominium management instead.

This was done by Hawaiiana, the largest managing agent in the state and what I assume to be the largest condo law firm in the state. So I fully support any Bill that you pass that improves dispute resolution and encourages and requires the trade industry to engage with owners in good faith.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Next up, Greg Misakian in support.

Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it. Again, I'm Gregory Misakian. I go by Greg or Gregory. And one thing I didn't do earlier is just give you my background here. Some of you, many of you actually know me. Maybe some in this room don't, but many in the Legislature know me.

So I formerly served last year as President of the Kokua Council, which is an elder advocacy organization and I have also served on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board. Well, I currently serve on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board where we also have passed a resolution that I submitted for better consumer protections for condominium owners.

Currently I'm first Vice President of the Kokua Council and I'm also the program program's chair. So we do monthly programs for our membership and the community at large. I would like to say, regarding comment that was made by a previous testifier, I'm going to go right to the small claims court portion here, which is very important.

The limit in small claims court is $5,000 that you can bring a case against to try to recover. And there's very set limitations on that. So that would be something that would have to be addressed within this act. In addition, the opposing party, which would be in most cases the Association, can come back with a $40,000 countersuit.

So that's a very large concern that you don't want to miss. That's very important. In addition, and bear with me because I'm pulling things up on my computer. There are two amendments that I've requested and those are self explanatory.

I've actually written what the actual amendment could be for one of them and the other in the other case I didn't. One would be to charge back to the Association or the individual board Members any charges that were blatantly trying to be assessed. And that's clear in that section that I've written. Within the mediation portion.

The 60 day requirement should go to 180 days because it takes as many as six days to actually just schedule mediation. And with that I would like to ask again, and I'll do this quickly because I know I'm running out of time. If you could please schedule for the numerous bills that are on there.

One is an ombudsman measure. Actually it's on my previous testimony, HB70. The list is there. There's an ombudsman measure, managing agent measure, parliamentarian measure, all related to condominium associations. And there's a couple more. One is attorney's fees. Those are very, very important for the community at large in Condo World.

And I think that if those don't get heard in this session, that's going to be unfortunately very detrimental to condominium owners throughout Hawaii. So thanks again for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. That's all the testifiers we have signed up today. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions?

I have a question for either Mr. Nerney or Emory, thank you for your testimony. So if the condo Association goes to small claims court to justify why there's a fine, who do you imagine would be representing that entity?

Would it be a volunteer, board of Director, board board Member, or would it be a paid staff person of the community Association?

What I want to be clear about is that that would never occur because it would be the owner who would be aggrieved by the outcome of an appeal. So process wise. But let me just answer the question about who shows up. Whoever the Association wants.

But if an attorney is allowed, the attorney's fees are not going to be allowed. Small claims court is one that has informal processes and it is more or less what's your story. People are just going to tell their story.

So one of the incentives to not unduly fine owners is that if an owner appeals and doesn't like the outcome of that appeal and the owner initiates a small claims process, the board has to decide how badly it really wants it. And I'm sorry, but I just want to add one more thing.

We heard a lot about this fining issue and that has gotten conflated with attorney's fees generally. Richard made the point that people who live in condominium are a representative sample of the community. And within the community, there are people who are not rule followers.

And so there are legitimate reasons why an Association has to conduct enforcement at times that is separate from, from this. But where we heard a lot of the complaints about attorney's fees was in relationship to fines. Like, again, if somebody gets a fine, they should either pay it or do something. But a lot of people don't.

And that's how they find themselves in this escalating situation.

So under this Bill, if I may follow, under this Bill, again, it's the, the resident who's fined and then they take it to small claims court.

They go to their board.

Right.

The, the process is, I get, first of all, this Bill improves the due process notice requirements so people will know why they're being fined with greater particularity, including the authority. Right. Then they can decide, I, I don't want to pay it. They therefore get a internal process, an appeal to the board.

It's if they don't like what happened at that level, they have the right to go to small claims court.

So let me understand you, you mentioned an attorney could go to small claims court and represent the Association if small.

Claims court allows it. I think there's a Bill in this session somewhere.

They're not allowed to charge.

Charge. There'd be no charge.

Those attorneys fees will not find its way upon the person who was fined, the resident.

Correct? Okay, absolutely. And again, that's another disincentive fining. I'm sorry, just really quickly. Fining is more for rule followers than rule breakers. Because, you know, if you get a fine, it's like, oh, okay, maybe I shouldn't have done that. And that'll work for most people.

Other remedies are really what get deployed for people who are adamant, to heck with you, I'm not going to do it kind of thing. And those are different processes. What we want to address is just someone gets zealous, you didn't mow your lawn soon enough, and here's $50. So we just want to create a simple process.

But there's a lot of disincentive built into this Bill for boards to carry forward a fine. Got it. Thank you. Thanks.

Any other questions, Members? I have a question for Phil, actually. Sorry. Phil, giving you a workout? Some of the written testimony. There was one piece of written testimony I wanted to consider. It was not charging a unit order for the written statement pursuant to 514B 146D. I don't know if I know that.

I'm just kind of giving a subsection out of a random statute out of the middle of nowhere. But it seems like-

It's a memory test.

Yeah. For a statement that Association is required to give upon request. I mean, would it be reasonable?

Some people in the testimony were complaining that they were being charged hundreds of dollars in attorney's fees for the AOAO to create this kind of what seemed like more of an accounting statement. I just wanted your thoughts on whether we could make it so that they just couldn't charge for something like that.

Off the top of my head, Chair, what I would say is this. This Bill deals with fines. If testimony is coming in about what I would think of as other issues, then I would say I wouldn't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. This is good.

It will address a lot of what shows up in civil beat, a lot of what showed up at the task force, and a lot of by volume, what the kinds of ordinary complaints are. There may be other bills and other things that we can work on, but I hope this doesn't get sidetracked for those.

That's fair. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. No further questions. We'll move on. HB 224 relating to property rights. First up, we've got Michael Minkin, AG's office, in opposition.

Good afternoon Chair Matayoshi, Members of the Committee. Michael Minkin from the Department of the Attorney General. The Department opposes this bill as set forth in our written testimony.

The department believes that this bill would call on law enforcement officers to step outside of their traditional responsibilities and instead take on a judicial aspect and in doing so would short circuit the procedures in place which guarantee due process to occupants' residences.

There are some other comments the department has with the bill that goes towards making certain aspects of the bill work should the Committee move forward. But in sum, the department again opposes. And I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have HPD in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Major Randall Platt with the Honolulu Police Department. The department stands on its written testimony in opposition to House Bill 224. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Realtors in support.

Thank you. We stand on our testimony.

She's standing on her testimony. I have you on this twice. I'm assuming you don't need to speak twice.

Nope. No, I don't have you twice the page got switched around. Greg Misakian in support. Are you still there, Greg?

Yes. Actually, I may have missed something on this bill. So I am going to actually change my support to not support. I follow what HPD suggests, and from listening to what I just heard, I think I did miss something.

So I'm going to follow along with HPD and say that I actually do not support the bill as written. Thank you.

Okay. We won't lock you into your support there. Anyone else here to testify on this measure, please state your name for the record, too. Oh, no problem. You can pull the mic down, too.

A little short, too. My name is Noreen Fernandez and I am in support of this bill due to my personal experiences. I am a resident of Kaimuki and lived in the same house for many years.

In 2020, when Covid came in, they gave the right for renters not to have to pay their rent, but that the landlord would have to pay for water and electricity. The landlord next to me did that until he ran out of money in 2022.

In 2022, they couldn't pay the water anymore, but a water supply came and turned off the water. The squatters are very smart. They know how to turn on the water. So they kept turning on the water. Finally, water supply came and they came with the police.

They took out the meter and they cemented the cover. Then Hawaiian Electric came and they turned off the electricity. So now they have no electricity. They started putting their cords over the fence to take our electricity. When we weren't home, they were using my washing machine. I find tide pods. I don't use tide pods.

They're using my washing machine, using my dryer. Pretty soon when I come home, I see hoses, water hoses going over the fence there, filling five gallon bottles with water from me that I'm paying for. So we don't know what to do. We have called the police many times in six months.

We called them 150 times to help us because we didn't know what to do from six people living in that house. There was up to 20 people living in that house. 10 dogs in that house there all the time. There were stolen cars on our neighborhood. There was a chop shop.

We even told the police, that's a chop shop. It runs from 10 at night to 5 in the morning. Do something. Oh, I can't. It's private. Nobody would help us. No one. I went to Kelvin Zay. He said that wasn't his area. He said I needed to come here. So I did. My neighbors will not talk.

Everybody was afraid. We don't know what I can. We've seen police go there and handcuff people that were wanted for whatever. We didn't know what to do. We were all afraid to. Nobody would talk, nobody would do anything. I'm the only one that came here and asked Sayama for help.

What happened is, in the end, it took us two and a half, almost three years to get these people evicted. The landlord went continuously, continuously to the courts. And the courts sided with the squatters. And they were going to put him in jail if he wouldn't pay the water bill. Why?

You know, it was just too many people there. But nobody would talk. The neighborhood's frightened. We don't know what kind of people are coming. They came and go as they wanted. Wasn't necessarily the same people living there all the time.

But, you know, some guy would leave and the guy would come with a kiddie wagon with his clothes up there, you know, we had no rights. We had nothing. We had nobody to turn to. We finally got the courts to move.

He finally got the courts to move on it in December of 23 and get the main person out of there. He had to pay him $6,000 to remove him. That man moved on December 31 and moved back in on January 2. What could he do? He couldn't do anything. He had to go back to the courts.

When they went to courts, they found out the paper was filed wrong and they had dismissed his case because the. The way the judge did it was wrong. So they had to reinstate it. So now we're in June, okay, of 2024. Now we're in June of 2024. He finally gets the courts to agree with him.

They finally agree he has the right to his property. But then there's a problem in the sheriff's office. Some kind of problem happened. So now he has to wait. We did not get peace until November of 2024. We had to live like this until 2024 November. You know, why was I right?

That was my house with those squatters living there. I had a. We used to have a patio. The door would open and close. Now we have a lock on. We had a gate to our yard that anybody could come. My neighbors came.

Now we have to put a chain and a lock on a gate to make sure these people couldn't get in. I thought it was good then I decided I had to go put switches on and off for my washer and dryer in my house so they couldn't use my washer and dryer when I wasn't home.

I had to put covers on my spigots so they couldn't steal water from me when I wasn't home. But I pay my property tax. I don't cause any trouble. And then we thought we were really great. Well, we weren't because our tenant had a door that only faced that house.

And when he came home, he was robbed, so we weren't safe. So now we finally had to buy cameras. We had no choice. We just from a nice neighborhood where I grew up as a little girl. To live under siege is not right.

I hope that you will take this into consideration as you look at this law and find out how you can help people, just regular people, be able to live their lives in their neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions?

Any questions on this measure? Yeah, I do have one for the AG. Minkin, are you there? So your testimony, you said that criminal trespassing in the first degree, second degree, would already take care of this issue. Am I? Did I read that right?

So essentially, the department's concerns are in asking a law enforcement officer to substitute their judgment for a judge or hearings officer in cases of dispute. In cases where the matter is clear cut, law enforcement officers already make these determinations on a daily basis.

If it's clear that an individual has no right to be present on a property, they're already subject to criminal trespass in the first degree in the instance of a dwelling or unauthorized entry into dwelling in the case that there's someone else already on that property. And law enforcement officers make those determinations and arrests daily.

Right. So for criminal trespassing, they do need to make a determination on whether the person has the right to be there. Isn't that the same determination that they're making in this bill? I'm not sure I see a substantive difference.

So, as set forth in the department's testimony as well as in the written testimony from the Honolulu Police Department, the issue is where there's additional determinations that have to be made or that the bill calls for to be made by the law enforcement officer regarding pending litigation and the status of that litigation.

So if we got rid of the pending litigation language, you'd be okay with it?

So if you dropped out the pending litigation language. I think the majority of the things which are required to be determined are just pulled from the criminal trespass statute, which are determinations which are already made by the law enforcement officers. Okay, but if, if that's the case, then we have those bills on the book.

I mean, we, we do, but you've just heard testimony that clearly it's not working. So status quo. We have things on the book that aren't working that we need to try something else I think so. HPD, are you there, Platt? Yes, sir, still here.

So if we get rid of the pending litigation language, are you guys okay with this?

That's just a part of it. I mean, basically you're looking at eviction versus trespass, which is from a home or a building. So we can do that. And as was addressed by the by Michael, we already enforced those laws. Basically, we're looking at eviction, which is something a little different that typically the sheriff's enforce.

So we would defer to the sheriffs to continue running and enforcing that type of law.

Okay, thank you, Members. Any other questions?

This is either for the Attorney General or I think it's for the Attorney General. Is there. You heard Ms. Noreen's testimony for long term squatters that may or may not have started with legitimate leases.

But even if they didn't start with a legitimate, legitimate lease, is there a default tenancy that occurs if someone is there and they're receiving mail at that address, do they. Is there a default tenant status? And then are they. Then is the owner of the property then required to comply with the landlord tenant code?

I think it might be. This question might be for the Attorney General.

Sure. So I don't have an answer for you at this time. Just my background is part of the Criminal Justice Division, which deals with prosecution. That's more of a Chapter 521 question, essentially. Going into the details on the civil side, I'd be more than happy to follow up and get you an answer on that.

But just as a general point, I would note that if the Chapter 521 procedures are not working as intended, then perhaps the solution would be to address that on the judicial side rather than bringing in law enforcement to essentially act as judges.

But you, you just heard the testimony. I mean, it's clearly not working. I, I don't. What I think the community needs is some real relief here. Some immediate real relief. Not. And you know, I'm a lawyer too. Judicial system takes a long time and it can be very slow.

And if mistakes are made, it can it can go around in circles. I think that all of our communities, and I think I can speak for pretty much every representative here, has problem houses, problem tenants. I dealt with at least one where the person was in state hospital and we had to go get permission.

I mean, it's a long story. But in any case, these houses turn into centers for criminal activity and really jeopardize the neighborhoods and disrupt the neighborhoods for long periods of time. I don't think that we can rely on the judicial system instead of police or sheriffs to just get the people out of there.

I mean, I'm assuming that's not what AGs is advocating for, right?

No. The AGs is simply concerned with calling upon law enforcement to step outside of their own boundaries. And that's set forth in the written testimony.

Okay.

And again, there. There are criminal laws on the books which are investigated and prosecuted. And if there is an issue with Chapter 521, then perhaps the issues with Chapter 520.

Yeah. And honestly, I mean, in good faith, if you see issues in 521 that you think we can address as a legislature to fix this problem, I do welcome any ideas. Any Members, any other questions? Okay, let's move on. HB 253 relating to insurance. Wow, this thing is really out of order. Okay, we've got one testifier today.

DCCA Insurance Division with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I'm Jerry Bump, Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner with the State of Hawaii Insurance Division. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments. I'll just highlight the one fact since this is trying to.

We understand the intent of this, that trying to assist condo owners already available to our admitted market. In the statutes is this concept called, "consent to rate," so they can already take advantage of charging a rate that's above what they've already filed and approved with us.

There is a procedure for doing that, but that's already available. So just wanted to provide those comments, and I'm available for any questions. And since I'm the only testifier.

I do want to ask, is there anyone else here to testify in this measure? Okay, Members, any questions? You have a question?

Thank you. I know the DCCA and RICO like, if Matson wants to increase its shipping rates because they're regulated, they have to open up their books and justify the increase. Same with HECO and maybe other utilities. So are you saying that there's no threshold of justification on, they must show in order to increase the rates, no one has to open up their books to show that it's truly justified?

So all of our admitted carriers, which, and I know that this is really in the condo space right now. So all of our admitted carriers, all of them, have to file their rates with us. They go through an extensive review process. And just like you alluded to, Rep. Iwamoto, is that they have to justify that those rates are adequate, not discriminatory, and various other things that they have to comply with.

What I'm just sort of saying is that in addition to that, there also is this other ability to go out to the public and they would have to get consent from that building and say we view your risk outside our normal rate plan. If you consent, we will rate you higher than we normally would charge.

A lot of companies just don't do that. Now what is the real crisis in the condo space right now is most of the buildings are getting their coverage from multiple carriers. Only a small layer of that is in the admitted market. The companies we regulate and we regulate their rates.

The rest is in what's called the surplus lines market. And those surplus lines carriers, they can charge whatever they want to charge and we have no regulatory authority to go after them. And there's reasons for that. There's reasons why surplus lines markets exist. And I can go into depth with you on that if you have questions, but I don't want to take up all your time.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? I've got one for you. I guess I do know that the consent method is available, but that, that really is a kind of a case by case, building by building method. About how long does it take to do and process a consent for a higher rate?

I did bring somebody here. I don't know if we've even ever processed one because they have to file it with us. We have. Okay, I'm gonna bring up Kathleen Nakasone. She's our Rate and Policy manager.

Hi, Kathleen Nakasone. I'm the Rate and Policy Analysis Branch Manager under Chief Deputy Bump. I just want to clarify, though, that the consent to rate process is, is when the property cannot be written in the filed program, and it's typically for reasons of the risk criteria.

So it could be the condition of the property, it could be the limits are too high, it could be geographical location. So the filed program is what it is.

And then the consent to rate mechanism can be used if the, you know, if the agent and the property or the board can agree to a rate. Did that answer? Oh, sorry, I got distracted. It's not long, maybe a week if that.

And that's generally because in the application, the agent is required to show the filed rate, you know, the filed rate, and the consent to rate. And the conditions why the consent rate is being charged and then the property owner does need to sign off on it.

So that is what this Bill is trying to avoid. Actually, by setting a broader exception, I'm hoping to attract in more admitted carriers, which we have more control over.

I don't think admitted carriers, especially those outside of our market right now, are looking to enter the market if they have to do this kind of case by case basis consent. But I'd like your thoughts on whether you think that admitted carriers might be enticed into this market through a Bill like this.

Okay, right. So, in my opinion, the consent to write processes is not the problem, is not the problem. Because it's a very quick process. The problem with ensuring condo buildings is really the risk. It's often the limit, the high limits. It's the condition.

If it's a townhome community, it's the concentration of risk. It's a number of reasons. So it's not for the condo master program. I don't believe it's the time that it takes because these filings are turned over very quickly.

And it's, I think there would be if it was, if the properties I think were probably in, you know, fitting their risk, pro appetite or profile, they wouldn't have to use consent to rate. And so it's a bigger problem, I would say.

I'm not trying to say that the division, that the division couldn't improve on some areas of that, but I don't think the consent to rate condo is one of them. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right, let's move on. HB 426 relating to the stabilization of property insurance. First up, we have Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority in support.

Good afternoon. Gwen Yamamoto Lau, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority. I stand on my written testimony support. Thanks.

Thank you. Next up we have the Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Andrew Kim, Deputy Attorney General. We've provided our written comments regarding an inapplicable cross-reference in the Bill. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Next up, DCCA Insurance Division in support.

So this Bill is very similar to our admin Bill that we introduced. So we are in support of this measure and I just want to highlight a couple key areas that it's trying to do so currently under the Governor's emergency proclamation, both HPIA and HHRF can sort of take the actions that are under this Bill.

Ideally, we would want to pass this Bill so that we don't have to rely upon that Governor's proclamation. All it's essentially doing, now I'm the one that. All it's essentially doing is expanding the authority of both these mechanisms that are state mechanisms, HPIA and HHRF, to be able to provide condo insurance master policies. And there's. Yeah, I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Insurers Counsel in support.

Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Mike Onofriietti. I'm the current chair of Hawaii Insurers Council. HIC strongly supports this Bill. It was developed by a joint executive legislative task force. Some of those members are testifying or are in the room. And we really appreciate the leadership.

We all know what's happening in the insurance market. We all know what's happening in the insurance market for property insurance worldwide. This is not a Hawaii issue. Passage of this Bill will help Hawaii consumers have some choices when the situation calls for it. And again, we're in a difficult situation now with climate change.

We're not sure if things are going to get worse. And that certainly is a concern, especially for a market like ours. And I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, State Farm with comments. Standing on written testimony, offering comments. Next up, we have Hawaii Bankers Association in support.

Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Bakers Association stands on its testimony in support.

Standing on its testimony and support. Talk into the mic as the people can't hear you unless you do. Yeah. Try to, try to go to the mic if you guys can. Thanks. Next up, Hawaii Credit Union League in support.

Stephanie Sakamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Credit Union League will stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Realtors in support.

Aloha again Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Lindsay Garcia with the Hawaii Realtors. And we stand on our testimony and support.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? All right, let's move on. HP 453 relating to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. We have one testifier today. DCCA with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Nadine Ando, Director of the DCCA. We stand on our testimony offering comments with regard to this measure. But if there are any questions, I think the specifics could be more properly addressed by Ty Nohara, who is here.

She's the Securities Commissioner, the Division Chief for the Business Registration Division.

Sounds good, thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? I have one for a DCCA. It's funny, every time I go on the B reg website, your picture is right there. I've never seen you in person though. The business search portion. So the forms are available online right now, according to your testimony.

Are they available for free too, or is there a charge?.

Specifically for business registration, the actual forms that you would need to file, anything. Majority are currently online.

With no charge to download them, or?

Right, and so. But that's on the website.

And then I guess with our testimony, the clarification I think would be needed is to the forms itself are online, except for about five. So you're talking about maybe 95 are online. Five barely-used forms are not online.

Separately, you might not be able to submit all forms through the portal, meaning they can't be processed through the portal, but the forms available are online if that makes sense.

Okay, why, why aren't the other five online? Is it confusing? Are they, kind of,

No, it's kind of a work in progress and we are currently in a modernization project right now. So the goal is to have everything to be available online and to be able to be processed online.

When is that by?

When will it end?

Or I'll tell you what, if I defer this Bill, can you promise to have the extra five online?

We would definitely have the forms online. I think separate from all of that is the processing. That is another issue. But the Bill is actually also requiring certain information to be required in those forms.

And if that's what the intent truly is, then Chapter 26:9 is not necessarily the place to put this because every entity has a separate chapter.

So now you're talking about 15 different HRS chapters that refer to, for example, what are the requirements to register a corporation that's under one chapter, a trade name that's under another chapter, an LLC that's under another chapter. So all those requirements would need to then be amended in those particular statutes and those chapters.

So there's 15 of those and then the corresponding rules.

Okay. Can you put the other five forms online soon, though?

But yes, we could make the forms itself available on our website. Yes.

What day would you like to. How long is it going to take you?

Hopefully not too long, but I will definitely. I can follow up with the Committee so that you know an estimated date to at least be able to have the forms online. And when I say not too long, I would have to discuss with our IT Department.

Anyone else know how. Can you give me an approximate? You want a week?

I don't know if.

Okay. Touch base with my office. I'm gonna. My inclination is to defer this for now to possibly to a later date. But if you guys can get that done, then maybe at a later date,

To at least put the forms on our website, yes.

To just complete the forms.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions, Members?

Chair, actually, I just want to get clarification. When you mentioned forms. Are these blank forms or are these. Okay, thank you.

Okay. All right, let's move on. HB 475 relating to common interest ownership communities. First up, DCCA with comments. Attention.

Okay. I just got up here just in time. Nadine Ando here. Chair. Vice Chair, members of the committee, Director of DCCA. So comments that we're offering on this.

This is, as we understand it, the purpose of the bill is to create a new regulatory category for, I guess, Association Managers, managers of homeowners associations, planned community associations, cooperative housing corporations and condominium unit owners associations.

So we want to point out that when there's a request that we regulate another category of professionals, then that the committee should refer this matter to the State Auditor for a sunrise analysis pursuant to HRS 26H-6 that will analyze the probable effects of the regulation, assess whether its enactment is consistent with legislative policies.

And asses alternative forms of regulation. And so we also want to raise the concern that anytime you're putting in regulating in another chapter, another profession, that the licensees will incur significant administrative rule costs, fees for the licensure, continuing education mandates, establishment of regulatory boards.

These costs are likely to get passed on to homeowners associations and their members through higher management fees or increased association dues. So those things and factors should be considered when looking at this and whether or not. And again, whether or not a sunrise analysis would determine that it would be appropriate to add this as another regulatory category.

I'm available for questioning if you have. Furthermore.

Thank you, Hawaii First Realty in opposition.

Again, good afternoon, chair and committee. I am a broker and also a conductor of continuing education for real estate agents. I've been involved in the condo industry and the homeowner association industry, which includes co ops and plan unit committees for, for over 35 years. I find this bill is way too broadly written.

When you look at condos, you know, half the condos alone in Hawaii are less than 50 units. They don't always have a managing agent like you're all thinking. They all have a management company. A lot of them are self managed or they just employ a person who is a housekeeper, for example.

Then you go to the very largest condominiums, including like Mililani Town Association. They don't employ a professional managing agent because they're so large, they hire it all internally. So I find this bill way too broad to try to address the potential of licensing. It has too many pukas that would cause problems and harm.

I'm concerned about the cost it would create to these smaller associations because of having to hire someone who's licensed. And it may not even be a scope of work that's appropriate. The most common complaint I always have about managing agents is everybody thinks all managing agents are the same.

Some have fiscal only contracts, they just do the books, the financial statement. Some have full management requirements and there's a broad range of other scopes of work between managing agents and I don't think this bill is crafted well. I'm not that opposed to regulation, but I'm not sure this is the best way to approach it.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thanking himself. That's a new one. All right, Hawaii Realtors in support.

Aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Lyndsey Garcia from the Hawaii Realtors. So we are in support of this bill. But to echo the concerns from the DCCA, we, we are supportive of a sunrise analysis if that's the, the proper method for determining a new licensing area. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Phil Nerney in opposition.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair and committee members. My name is Phil Nerney. I'm testifying as an individual because the individual who is supposed to testify on behalf of CAI neglected to submit testimony. So I apologize that we're missing in action on that.

My two points are this, the condominium property regime task force discussed this specific issue among many others. And the one thing that that task force was able to do was to unanimously recommend to the legislature that LRB conduct a study on a variety of things, including this specific subject.

The legislature passed that law last year it was Act 43 and I concur that a sunrise analysis would be appropriate in all events. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone? I'm sorry, Greg Misakian in support I didn't see you at the bottom there. Are you there, Greg?

No worries. Thank you. Chair again, I'm Greg Misakian. I'm testifying as an individual but I've given my background previously. So what I do in my other life here is advocate for many, many people throughout Hawaii.

So one thing I'll say is I do support this bill, but there's another bill that actually and I'm going to read a portion of it if I could. It's HB number 1312 and I'm going to ask that it be scheduled as soon as possible.

So it's relating to association managers and I'm going to read just the very beginning of it. The legislature finds that condominium associations often hire resident managers, site managers and general managers to act as property managers to oversee a condominium project. Its common elements in the individual units within the condominium project.

I'm going to stop there because I'm not going to have enough time to read through. That's the beginning of it. The intent is to have licensure for all community managers that work under the broker. There's only one person or two people, maybe if there's two co brokers for a management company. Real estate agents are all licensed.

So if you're overseeing a condominium project and I disagree with the previous testifier that many of these projects are very large, the condominium association that I live in right now is 183 units and the total value of our property is in excess of a couple $100.0 million. I'm going to guess for land value and property values.

I don't have the number in my head right now, but I do have it somewhere. So with that said, many of these buildings, especially the newer ones that are being built, are sometimes managed by people that have no background whatsoever.

And I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the background of the person managing my building as a site manager, as a massage therapist, and very little background whatsoever of understanding complex issues within condominium associations or building maintenance.

The community managers are not licensed and not being licensed and having any kind of enforcement oversight for them particularly I know they're under the broker. It's more so that there needs to be proper training, proof that they've gone through the training and then an enforcement vehicle.

But ultimately, if the real estate agent has to be licensed, why doesn't the person that's overseeing property? These are on site inspections of condominium units, individual ones for high risk assessments. And you know, it goes on and on. So it's common area elements and individual condos.

Greg, it's been two minutes. Can you summarize and conclude, please?

Yeah. So again, I urge you if you could look at the list that I provided, but HB 1312, and I do support this bill, maybe there could be a marriage of the two bills to address the issues. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? DCCA. So I know you're saying you needed a sunrise analysis for this. Would that have been. Is that going to be done in the efforts that Phil mentioned earlier, the kind of. The more comprehensive. Do you know what I'm talking about?

The sunrise analysis would have to be performed by the State Auditor. I think, you know, as part of. I know there was a reference to many years ago, 20 years ago, I guess 2005, there was a sunrise analysis and an auditor's report on it was not quite the same. It was a condominium association manager.

This is back in. And this was, I think, the result of some legislation that was passed. A resolution that was passed. And as a result of that, the auditor was charged with conducting a sunrise analysis for condominium association managers. Sort of as in a sort of similar vein, although it was 20 years ago.

But you know, that's, I think, the process that has to take shape. If this is going to be passed along to the auditor to do a sunrise analysis. I think there has to be a resolution to do that.

Okay, can we just put it in this bill instead of.

I don't, you know, I don't know, I guess you could do something to add that in. I guess to say that this is something that you'd like to have a sunrise analysis done. I suppose it could be the vehicle, but I'm just pointing out that that's how it was done.

When I look back at what was done 20 years ago on a similar titled function. And the result of that, although this was 20 years ago, was that it was unnecessary to regulate this.

Oh, that's fair. 20 years ago things might have changed. Phil, do you mind? You mentioned that there were a number of things already being looked into and this was one of them. Is there an analysis currently being done that includes this?

Well, the legislature passed a law telling LRB to conduct that study. I haven't had any interaction with LRB, so I can't report the status. But if I may, in relationship to that, the notion was that once LRB reported, then the task force would reengage and make recommendations to the legislature on matters within that scope.

Okay. Marten, did you have a question?

Sorry, I may have missed it. When was that study requested? Was that last session?

Yes, and I'm sorry, I put my phone away. I think it's Act 43. It was last year. It was the bill that followed the unanimous recommendation of the Condominium Property Regime Task Force. That's the one thing we could agree on to recommend a study.

Okay, we'll follow up with LRB. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, if not, let's head on to our last Bill of the day, HB 490 relating to insurance. First up, we have DCCA's insurance division with comments.

Again. Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Jerry Bump, Hawaii Insurance Division. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments and available for any questions.

Thank you. Next up, we have Sam Darios in support. Now President, last up. Greg, you're up again in support, Greg Misakian.

Thank you, Chair. I do appreciate one more chance to make a comment. And I do want to say, if I could, that the study, previous study is not going to be out until, I believe, 2027. There's no time to wait. Insurance rates are actually, it's relevant to this Bill, too.

Insurance rates are going up and I apologize for the darkness. I'll put my light on. Insurance rates are going up in Hawaii substantially because of deferred maintenance and a lot of issues relating to mismanagement of condominium associations. That has to do with the fact that we don't have qualified site managers, qualified resident managers, qualified community managers.

It goes on and on and on. The brokers don't seem to be very qualified. In the case of my condo association, we had associate of Hawaii that was unlicensed or four months. And you know, there's a big issue there. I won't get into here another day for another testifying.

But the insurance issues right now that we're facing in Hawaii are directly related to that. And when the Legislature finally realizes that other people are trying to say it, and I'm saying it today, you'll understand that until you actually address some of the root cause issues, you're never going to get to addressing substantial reductions if we ever have reductions in condo insurance. And these things are going to fester for more and more years.

And again, because I do advocate for Kupuna, I'm speaking as an individual, but for Kukua Council, who I serve on, we have people that are going to be foreclosed on or have to sell their properties because they can't afford them.

So I do support the intent of what's being done, but I don't support some of the aspects of how it's being done and I don't support ignoring the other issues. So I hope that you're looking at all of these and again you schedule the other bills so we can address these issues and have a further discussion.

Thank you. I appreciate the time again.

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

I have a question for the insurance division. So in your testimony you referenced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding if there isn't full coverage for 100%, that option of financing for individual buyers can stop. What happens if somebody use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase a condo that then shifts from 100% to less than 100%?

Does Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, do they, what do they do? Do they change the terms of their mortgages, or?

I can't really speak on behalf of the mortgage lenders or whoever. You know, usually like the mortgage will be initiated here and they'll sell it to Fannie and Freddie. And I'm not sure what Fannie and Freddie's procedures are for receiving updates on whether or not the building is 100% insured or not. Got it.

Obviously where we've been seeing the issue is when, you know, at loan origination, you know, if you're trying to sell your unit and someone's trying to get a loan, the institution doesn't want to lend to them if the building's underinsured or not insured at all.

Thank you. Your testimony, if I may Chair. Your testimony also references the fact that you guys don't have the expertise to do this kind of exploration of creating standards for these three models. Does your Department or any Department within DCCA ever contract with experts to kind of flesh something out or to understand something deeper?

Sure we can. If you know, appropriated funds. I mean, I just think this sort of, it's obviously related to our core mission of trying to provide insurance. And we've recommended a study in just the previous Bill that you heard, 426, to really look at the entire overall long term stability issue in the condo master policy.

And in that particular Bill, we've asked for a study and asked for appropriation of 100,000 and that we would go out to outside consultants. Again, that type of work is generally outside of our normal core of making sure that Insurers are financially regulated and.

Got it. So could you imagine that previous Bill which was, I think, 426. Could it actually encompass some of the, the inquiry that's made in the current Bill? So, Chair, if I, if, if.

I mean, as the introducer of the current Bill that we're discussing, I would be open to moving some of the elements into 426 so that they.

Let's, let's discuss that during decision making.

Thank you.

Jerry, hold on one second. If you needed to develop the standards and you needed to hire someone, how much do you think it would cost?

Again, I'm not really familiar with like developing maintenance standards or. I don't know at this time. I mean. It's again, outside of the normal insurance division's, you know, expertise.

I'll probably put in a blank appropriations into this Bill if we do pass it. Maybe if it's heard again, just comment on how much, give us a ballpark.

Okay, we'll look into it and see if we can come up with a number.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, let's recess for decision making. Recess.

Reconvening. We've got reconvening for decision making. First up, we have HB 70 relating to condominiums. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the proposed amendment from CAI's testimony and to defect the date to July 1, 3000. Members, any. Excuse me one second. Make sure that's everything. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

All right, members voting on House Bill 70. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair will vote I.

[roll call]

Chair recommendation is adopted.

All right. You took the vote already? Yeah. Yep. Okay, thank you members. Next up, we have HB 106 relating to condominiums. Chair's recommendation is to do tech amendments affect the dates of July 1st, 3000. I do want to add language, if it's not already in there, that the statute will control over condominium documents.

We also are going to add language so that the small claims court will have jurisdiction regardless of the amount in controversy and to move the mediation time to 120 days from 60. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

All right, Members voting on House Bill 106. Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments knowing the presence of all members. Is there anyone wishing to vote no? Anyone wish to vote with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to HB 224 relating to property rights. Chair's recommendation is on on page five to change the. Change it, remove perjury and just make this a misdemeanor. To address the concerns of the HG's office, defect the date to July 1st, 3000 and to remove pending litigation or ongoing litigation from page two.

Members, any comments? See none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 224. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments knowing the presence of all members. Are there any members who wish to vote no? With reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you members. Moving on to HB 253 relating to insurance. I'd like to keep this moving. I am in contact with some of the larger insurance companies to try to draw them in to our admitted carrier market. I'd like to defect the date to July 1st, 3000 and move this for now. Members, any comments? See none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 253, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments knowing the presence of all members. Are there any members who wish to vote no? With reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 426 relating to the stabilization of property insurance. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the proposed amendments from HGIA to include mixed use buildings. Adopt the AG's proposed amendments. Insert the word May on page 42, line 9 where the word shall was struck. I believe that was just a typo.

And to defect the date to July 1st, 3000 with technical amendments. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

All right. Voting on House Bill 426, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the presence of all members. Are there any members who wish to vote no? With reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 453. We'll be deferring this to a later date. I do want to hear back from DCCA on whether all of the forms are going to be put online and on what date. Hopefully we can get that before we need to hear this again and it'll kind of obviate the need for it.

Moving on to HB 475 relating to common interest ownership communities. We are going to defer this measure. I do want a sunrise analysis, but it needs to be done by concurrent reservoir by statute, so it can't be done by bill. So we're going to defer HB 490 relating to insurance.

Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure to a later date per the bill introducers requests to allow her to look into further amendments to this measure. So we're going to be deferring this one to a later date. Last bill HB 108 relating to intoxicating liquor.

Now we're going to include reciprocity language in here that Hawaii will only issue licenses to out of state sellers that come from a state that allows Hawaii seller reciprocity. We're going to delete the first paragraph of Section 1 and conform the other subsequent paragraphs and defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Members. Any questions? Sorry. Any comments?

Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 108. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of all members, are there any Members who wish to vote no? With reservations seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you members. We are adjourned.