House Standing Committee on Finance

I'm going to convene the Committee on Finance for our first agenda. Today is February 24th. We're in Conference Room 308 and first build up is House Bill 433 HD1 relating to public safety. Vice Chair.

First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender in support.

Good morning or good morning, Chair. Vice Chair, Sonny Gandedin, Deputy Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender stands in support of this measure. We see it as a cost saver. There have been historic issues with the Hawaii Paroling Authority issuing individuals classes and individuals not being able to get those classes and being put on wait list.

Those issues are exacerbated at the private prison. As many of you are well aware, these individuals deserve to get their classes and this is a measure towards rehabilitation rather than just punitive measures. We don't have an exact number for you with regards to what it would take to clear the wait list.

We can get that to you by the end of session if you request it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission in support.

Aloha, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Kristen Johnson. I'm the Oversight Coordinator with the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. We stand by our testimony in support of this bill. The transition from incarceration back into society is one of the most difficult transition periods for people in custody.

And so it's really important to have reentry services and make sure there's funding behind that to really support the efforts. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next we have the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We support the intent of this measure, but ask the Legislature and thank them for their.

Thank you for your interest in this matter, but we ask you to defer to the Governor's Budget that has the $4 million in it for the very same purpose. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Community Alliance on Prisons in support.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Kat Brady testifying in strong support of this measure. You know, reentry is part of the. One of the first things that we do when people are at intake services. We really start to look at how we need to program people for success when they come out.

So we're in strong support of this measure, but I will say that we don't really have a reentry system. We have some programs here and there, but we have no system.

And if we really believe in stemming recidivism, we're going to really work on reentry to make sure that people get the services they need that actually led them to incarceration in the first place. Thank you. We hope you support this measure.

Thank you. Also received testimony and support from Hawai'I Substance Abuse Coalition, Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii and the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, as well as three individuals. Individuals all in support. Is there anybody else in the room who wishes to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, questions? Members? Okay, thank you. We'll move on to the next bill. House Bill 1002 HD1 Vice Chair.

First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender in support.

Bringing in Chair Vice Chair Sonny Ganon, Deputy Public Defender as something of a background. The creation of the Oversight Commission took nearly a decade to create. Part of the intention was to depoliticize the oversight of public safety.

Public safety is differentiated from other, I guess, departments in the government because of the human rights issues, other issues with regards to reform that are consistently politicized. We believe that this measure will further depoliticize this conversation in staggering the re appointment of the coordinator. It took a long time to find Ms.

Johnson and we think that we should congratulate her for her service and past her service. We should be continuing to find new coordinators outside of the political system. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission in support.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair. Mark Patterson, current Commissioner and Chair of the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Really want to just stand on the testimony already provided, but we really want to know that this July will make three years of the current Oversight coordinator.

And she has already received two appointments in that three year period, one by Governor Ige and recently one by Governor Green. And you know, we're looking at a higher number of four. Three years is a good time. A four year gives us. We're on a move.

And I think at any given time with the amendments that have been put into this bill, we can always ask the Governor for reappointment now should this pass.

But we also want to have the ability to say in a four year term and strategically plan the path of the Correctional Oversight Commission as we're working so great right now with the DCR in moving toward our mandates wishes. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with comments.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections Rehabilitation. We're just going to provide comments here. We have no concern with changing the appointment period from two years to three years or allowing the coordinator to make inquiries when no investigation exists.

I think by changing the language in 353l7 with respect to allowing a coordinator to ask for information and documents, I think it would demonstrate to everyone that we're working together to solve the long standing problems within the Department of Public Safety. And it lets people know that we're partners and we're not adversaries. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Community Alliance on Prisons in support.

Good morning again, Kat Brady. We're in strong support of this measure and I wanted to alert the Committee that The Senate heard SB 1321, which is companion bill to this and with prior concurrence of the PSM Chair, they changed it to four years. And we support that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Also testimony and support from Office of Hawaiian Affairs and one individual. Is there anybody else in the room who would like to testify? Anybody on Zoom question?

Members, I have a question. Vice Chair.

Sorry. For the oversight Commission, Mr. Patterson. I guess if anyone else is. Just wanted to confirm. Sorry. This position is not term limited at all though, right? It's just the commit the board can continue to appoint whoever.

Every two years we have to go through an entire interview process.

Oh, you have to go through the entire process every single time the position's up for. Yes. Renewal. Okay. But no term limits to the position. Okay, got it. Thank you.

Kind of like running for the House. But anyway, any further questions? Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to the next bill. House Bill 1059 HD1.

Okay. First, we have the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. James Barros, the administrator for Emergency Management Agency. We stand in support of this written testimony. And when we look at our civil service, emergency management being a new classification, we're getting a hard time filling our SR 26 and 24s, and those are the EMS sixes and fives. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Government Employees Association in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nui Sebast here with HGEA. We'll stand in our testimony in opposition to this measure. I do want to emphasize that employees exempt from civil service aren't afforded to grieve a suspension or discharge, and they're effectively at will. I'm happy to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Also, testimony in support from the State Department of Defense. That's all the testimony we received. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay. Questions Members, thank you. Yep.

Vice Chair, quick question for HEMA. How many of these positions are we talking about? Like, how. How many positions currently fall under this classification that you're looking to fill that you're having a hard time filling?

Six out of the 45.

Six of 45.

45. Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you for the questions. Thank you. Move on to the next bill. House Bill 596-HD1.

First up, we have Haima in opposition.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair. James Barrows, we stand on our written testimony in opposition of the bill. What we're afraid of is that when we try to clarify and give a list of events that would constitute an emergency, it leaves out the unknowns for us.

I mean, it's a great list right now, but it doesn't give us the latitude and flexibility during an unknown event.

Thank you. We also received testimony and support from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and one individual. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom questions?

Members? Okay, thank you. We'll move on to the next Bill. House Bill 1296 HD.

First up, we have Department of Budget and Finance with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Members, Louis Silveira, Director of Finance. You have our testimony in front of you providing comments.

I just would like to reiterate, really, you know, in the aftermath of a disaster, you know, Budget and Finance in the state would like nothing more than a high degree of transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to the utilization of both state and federal funds.

But one of the things that we do point out is that, you know, given certain timelines, and we're willing to work with you on what appropriate timeline could be. It does create.

There are chaotic situations in the aftermath of a disaster, so we would not want to hinder, again, the first responders and any of the work that they're doing when we have to ask for them to provide information on a timely basis.

But again, we're willing to work with you in order to provide that level of transparency and accountability that you are looking for. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii Emergency Management Agency in opposition.

Thank you, Chair. We just want to echo what Budget and Finance said. We opposed it because of that short timeline of 21 days, but would look at other avenues, leveraging ESF 16 or other ways to provide transparency with the funding during an emergency.

Thank you. We also received testimony from the Office of the Governor with comments. That's all the written testimony we received. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Anybody on Zoom Take questions, Members. Okay. Either Haim or Budget and Finance. I think. I think in General, I think the Legislature just wants to be kept in the loop. So my assumption is that, you know, whether it be FEMA or whoever that you're working with, you probably got to report to them also.

So what would be reasonable for us to ask that you're reporting anyway?

So the relationship between the state and FEMA, I would have to defer to Colonel Barros on, I think for us, for the state, we. What we do and what Colonel Barros alluded to with ESF 16. ESF 16 was actually was started. It's brand new, and it was started in the aftermath of the Lahaina disaster.

And what we did notice during that time is that you had all of the different emergency support functions related to transportation, related sheltering, but then finance was literally kind of like this in the background of all of it. So the state, in its wisdom, created ESF 16, which was basically just finance.

No, I understand that.

Yeah, yeah.

But you know that some things that are just brought up randomly. Yeah. And I think what we want is timely. Right. So.

I would say in the aftermath of disaster, again, I think if 60 days is a little bit too long and 21 days, according to Haima, might be a little bit. It's somewhere in between. Chair. I mean, for me, it's very easy for me to dictate to Haima. Okay. I need this information. I need this information, like now.

But at the end of the day, they're the ones that have to provide the information to us.

Yeah. At some point maybe we can work on that. But I think we just got to come up with a reasonable timeline. The Legislature, at the end of the day, just wants to be kept informed. Absolutely. Chair, thank you. Any further questions, Members? Okay, thank you. We're moving on to the next bill. House Bill 1064, HD2.

First up, we have the Hawaii State Fire Council on Zoom in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Finance Committee. Gary Lum, testifying on behalf of State Fire Council. We stand on our written testimony submitted, and we just have a few issues of the HD 2 version.

One is that in Section 8 of the HD 2, it specifies the office of the State Fire Marshal shall conduct fire and safety inspections at all state facilities at least once a year. But the next line specifies a written report of each inspection shall be kept on file in the office of the County Fire Chief.

Seems to be a little inconsistent. And we recommend an amendment that the written report be kept at the office of the State Fire Marshal. Of any inspections. Also, section 13216 HRS. Is amended in HD2. It specifies the state Fire Marshal shall be a Member of the State Fire Council.

But later in the amendment, it specifies the State Fire Council shall recommend three candidates for the State Farm Marshal to be appointed by the Governor. This sets up a potential conflict of interest. Perhaps. So we do suggest that be clarified or amended further. Thank you. I'll be available for questions if there are any. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Hawaii State Department of Defense in support on Zoom. Major General Logan or his designee.

Okay. We also have DLNR Michael Walker.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Michael Walker. I serve as the statewide fire protection forester for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, and I also represent the Department on the State Fire Council. The Department has provided testimony with comments on the bill.

In summary, we really believe that no matter what Department that the marshal's office ends up landing in, the Department should have a direct line of reporting to the Governor. And this is not included in my testimony.

However, through conversations with the State Department of Transportation, Aircraft Rescue and Firefighters, they currently perform all of the inspections at the airport facilities and they are more than willing to do so, continue to do so, and so continuing them to have the primary inspectors for airports while the marshal inspects the rest of the state buildings.

And I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you.

We also received comments from the Office of the Governor and the Department of Labor Industrial Relations, as well as testimony, testimony in support from the Hawaii Climate Advisory Team, Attorney General, Hawaii Insurance Council, Kamehameha Schools and AARP Hawaii. Is there anybody else in the room? Machine test.

David Rodriguez, with the Department of Labor Industrial Relations. We stand our written comments with the preference that the State Fire Marshal and council be transferred to the Department of Defense. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Vice Chair, Chair, Members of the Committee, Jeff Michalina, on behalf of the Climate Advisory Team, the CAT strongly supports this measure. This is the second highest recommendation, a fully functional fire marshal by the Fire Safety Research Institute. We note in our testimony that in order to be fully functional, it needs to be fully funded.

And the current appropriation, we feel is a little short. Seeking 2 million annually to make this an effective office so Hawaii can properly respond to wildfires and other fire events. Mahalo.

Thank you. Apologies. And to D. I didn't have you guys checked in, but we do have the testimony. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay. Thank you. Questions, Members? Thank you. We're going to move on to the next Bill. House Bill 862 HD1.

First up, we have the Department of Education with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dean Uchida, Deputy Superintendent with Department of Education. The Department stands on our written testimony providing comments on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have the Hawaii State Teachers Association in support on Zoom. If not present, we have Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, we is this HP796. I'm sorry. 862.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. Chevelle is here also in person.

Oh, sorry.

Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for considering this measure. I'm sorry. I'm Chevelle Davis with Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks. And I'm standing on our written testimony and support and just really wanting to highlight that our Keiki and our working families need to have reliable transportation.

It really disrupts especially access to our communities that live in rural areas and our working families to get to work. So mahalo again for considering this measure.

Thank you.

We have testimony and support from Samaya Goram.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee, my name. I am an intern at the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. We apologize for our late written testimony, but we did have it submitted and we do stand in strong support of this measure. So, again, apologies for late testimony and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

We also received testimony support from one other individual. That's all the written testimony we've received. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify?

Okay, Members. Oh sorry. Sorry.

Aloha, Chair Yashita. Vice Chair Takonui. Tammy Lee from the Department of Transportation. I'll check on the written testimony, but we are supportive of this measure. We're supportive of the exemption to allow CDLP to drive the school, small vans, motor coaches and small buses. And I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom.

Questions Members?

I have a question. Chair, probably for DOE on Kauai. It was brought to my attention that some schools have these small buses, you know, like, I don't know how many passengers, but they're small. But they're locked up and caged and not used. They're brand new. Is there a problem or what is the problem?

I'd have to get back to you on that. I'm not from, you know, where they parked up.

I saw it at my school, at Waimea Middle School. Waimea. Yeah. But the parents have told me that they've seen buses in other schools that just caged up and never used the small buses.

Yeah, I'm wondering if it's 16 passengers. Yeah, yeah, 16 passengers. Yeah. Okay, let me check in it and get back to you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

If you get back to the Committee on that, I will. Thank you. Any further questions, Members? Thank you. Moving on to the next Bill. House Bill 1088 HD1.

First up, we have the Department of Education with Comments.

Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dino Chida, Department of Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony providing comments on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Have the Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support.

Department of Hawaiian Homelands Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Department stands in strong support of this measure, which was approved by the HOM Commission and included in the Governor's administrative package.

As outlined in our testimony, DHHL currently leases to a number of public schools, public charter schools and early learning facilities. To show that we do our part. Also outlined in our testimony are the. Amounts that we expect to save if we were to continue to be ex.

In the past, we were exempt from school impact fees pursuant to Act 197, Session Laws of Hawaii 2021. However, Part 1, Section 1 of that Act, Sunset in 2024. We would like to be reinstated in statute. And currently we benefit from the governor's 11th proclamation, emergency proclamation regarding affordable housing. I'm available for questions. Mahalo. Thank you.

We have the Hawaii School Facilities Authority in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Kenyon Tam with the School Facilities Authority. We stand on our written testimony and support, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. And we have the Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments on zoom.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We'll stand in our written comments and be available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We also received testimony in opposition from the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies. So the written testimony we've received. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Questions Members?

For Department of Education. Thank you. My question is just in relation to this bill and I've heard other bills about the school impact fees. Is there a reservoir of fees that have my understanding, and I don't have any way to verify it, is that those impact fees have gone unused or are sitting in a special Fund.

Can you provide any insight or context to that?

Yeah, I believe there's a balance. I don't know exact amount, but I can get that number for you.

But to your knowledge, are the school impact fees used for the creation of new buildings to expand school facilities or new campuses?

I need to get back to you on that, too.

Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Thank you. No further questions.

Thank you. Any further questions, Members? There's one more Bill that's on this subject, too, so we'll hit. Okay. Next Bill is House Bill 1088 HD1. Oh, sorry, I didn't cross it off. Okay, I'm sorry. The next Bill is House Bill 422, HD1 impact fees.

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

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Dean Uchida, Deputy Superintendent. We stand on our written testimony providing comments on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support. Thank you.

We have the Hawaii School Facilities Authority with comments.

Kenyon Tam with the Hawaii School Facilities Authority. I just- We have our testimony with comments.

Just want to note that while we support the intent to repeal school impact fees, we would note that if that was done, there would also need to be a mechanism in place that would allow the public education system to then get the land that it needs to build new schools and new school facilities if necessary.

Thank you. We have the Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Good morning. Vice- chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We will be for the most part signing our written comments. I did want to point out that in representative-

in response to the representative's prior question, the amount that is unused for school impact fees is about $20 million right now and there's another 9 million for fair share fees which was the predecessor statute. This is detailed with a nice colorful graph in our testimony.

So please take a look at it if you'd like and be available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Also received testimony and support from the County of Honolulu Office of Housing, four other organizations, as well as one organization, opposition and one with comments. Additionally support from one individual and 10 individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, thank you. Question, members? Grandinetti.

I think my question is for the School Facilities Authority. Morning. I'm wondering, do you know if affordable and workforce units are currently exempted from school impact fees at all?

No, they're not. But there is the governor's proclamation which allows if a project is certified as affordable through HHFDC, then that would allow a waiver of the school impact fees.

Okay, thank you. I'm just asking because. And can you tell me, do you have any figure for like the average per unit cost that impact fees end up adding on?

Yeah, so it depends on the district, but it can range anywhere. And it depends on the district, the school impact district, and it also depends on whether it's a single family unit or a multi family unit. So it can range.

Usually the multi family units are a lower fee, but it can range anywhere from 2,400 roughly to $5,700 per unit. But those fees are all original fees for each district when they were original originally established. And according to IMPACT V law, those fees are supposed to be updated every three years, which they just haven't been.

But presumably when they're updated, those- those fees are going to go up.

Okay, and in your testimony, you reference having witnessed instances where the impact fees have impeded new- new production. Can you give some examples?

Yeah. Probably a memorable example would be someone in West Maui. They had wanted to build an ADU for- to house their family that had lost their home. But then at the time, there wasn't an emergency proclamation yet that would have exempted them from the school impact fees.

We were able to work with the county and the governor's office to eventually get that into place. But at the time, they could not afford to pay the fee to then build the housing to then house their family that had lost their home.

So but now that, at least for now, the, that West Maui district is waived under the emergency proclamation for the wildfires. So because of that, they were able to go ahead and move forward with their permit.

Okay, cool. Thank you. Okay, I think that's all the questions I have.

Okay, thank you. Further question, members. Okay. Okay. Representative Hussey, followed by Reyes Oda.

I have a question for this gentleman.

My question is about the distribution of school impact districts across the state. I understand that there's four districts, is that right? There's technically five. Just one has not been administered since its creation. Can you- Can you list out what those five are, please?

Yeah, so they're on Maui, there's two. There's West Maui, which currently is suspended because of the emergency proclamation. There's Central Maui, which is broken up into two cost districts for Wailuku and Makaua'o. Then on Oahu, there's the Kalihi Ala Moana district. And there's also the Leeward Oahu district.

The fifth one is supposed to be West Hawaii on Hawaii island, but that hasn't been administered since it was created. I believe it's just because the county didn't want to.

Isn't the fastest growing district, Puna, on the Big island. In terms of population growth? I'm just surprised at that.

Yeah, I'm not familiar with. We actually inherited the district's, the school, because now the School Facilities Authority administers school impact fees. Previously it was the Department of Education. So we actually inherited the existing school impact districts. We're in the process of trying to straighten things out.

We're going to start with the existing districts before we try and figure out if there needs to be new districts.

Okay, thank you. Yeah.

Okay. Representative Reyes Oda.

Sorry for you again.

Thank you.

Can you remind me again how much is- how much money is in the school impact account?

Yep. As of January 31st, there is over $21 million.

And how much does it cost to build a new school?

Much more than that. At probably at least 80 million for like an elementary school.

Okay, so the money that's in the account right now would not be able to build any school.

No and you have to use the money that's collected. You can only use in the district in which it was collected. And it depends on whether it is. There's two types. There's land contribution type and then there's a construction cost type. And those have different restricted uses.

Okay, so with the money that you have now and all the restrictions, can you build a new school anywhere with- with that money?

No, not even close.

Okay. And in your testimo- in your written testimony, you wrote that this school impact fee program provides an important mechanism, but that you rec- you guys recommend ensuring that some other mechanism is in place to allow the system to obtain the- the lands and the money because most likely would come from general funds.

Do you have any idea or any recommendation what that would be?

I don't, not with any more careful analysis. I mean, I will note that, you know, school impact fees replace the fair share program that was referenced by other testimony previously, presumably because the fair share program wasn't working

well. I'm not intimately familiar with that program, but my understanding is the impact fee mechanism was supposed to be more fair and transparent. So whatever it you would replace it with, you would want to make sure that you don't go and, you know, go back in time and then create new issues that were-

that this program was trying to address.

Okay, thank you. And can I ask something from the DOE?

You have another question?

Thank you. In the DOE's written testimony in the last paragraph, it says that future commitments on the dedication of lands is vital mechanism in the development. And it'll leave large residential developments such as Coral Ridge and Hoopili.

Can you tell us, just for reference is there are schools that were called track schools and that were meant for all the schools to be off track. Can you tell us any school in the state that's still on track?

I'd have to get back to you on that. I'm not aware right now.

It's Holomua Elementary. It would be right down the road for me. So right now I know that we talked about large residential developments that are in the future looking at not being supported with the communities for investing in the area. Would you say that. Do you also know what the largest school in the state is?

The largest enrollment or the--

Enrollment.

I'm not sure. I got to get back to you.

Campbell High School in the same district, on the same side of the street, also in District 40. For those there, I know that there's things about building schools, but are there any other mechanisms with the same question that I had asked the previous testifier that you guys can think of if it wasn't?

Any suggestions if it's not school impact fees on new builds?

Well, when the school impact fee law was passed, it was on two sides. One, to make sure that we had land and money to build a school, but more importantly, it provided some predictability on the developer's part.

So it's usually at the early part of the rezoning, like the land use commission or when you go to zoning, it triggers the impact fee and then the developer comes in and talks about their project and then we come up with a calculation on what that impact fee might be and the land dedication amount.

So they know it up front. It's not something that comes in later on. They can pencil it into their development costs.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Representative Grandinetti.

One more question for school facilities actually. I am wondering if you can kind of walk us through the rationale of abolishing the fee rather than reforming it, because I- I understand there are significant issues with the program. I- I also like, for instance, one of the impact areas encompasses Kakaako and Ala Moana.

We're going to see a ton of luxury development in those areas. And I'm wondering, like, why would we want to give up the opportunity to get our fair share, to use the old language, while also maybe incorporating nuance and exceptions for affordable housing and making sure we're not getting in the way of that.

What's- What's the argument there?

Just to be clear, we, you know, this was the impetus for this bill did not come from us at all. So it wasn't. We were just testifying on something that was coming out.

And we, I think we're supportive of the idea of getting rid of the school impact fee program as it currently stands just because of how complex it is and how- how many barriers it puts up for, you know, your single person developer, not maybe not the large developers like you're talking about, but you know, for just individuals and just the amount of benefit that we're actually getting from it and for how much time and energy it takes to administer the program.

It just, a lot of it doesn't seem to add up to be really worth it the way it's currently structured.

And you know, as to your question specifically for like the Ala Moana Kalihita Ala Moana district, you know, we're still doing our analysis, but we're- we're unsure if that even should be a district just because of such the, you know, under- under enrolled schools that exist already in urban Honolulu in the first place.

Part of the impact fee district analysis is supposed to be, you know, looking at existing capacity within the district.

And if, you know, if we were to redo that analysis, we're not sure if that would even, you know, say that it should be a district to begin with because there might already be enough capacity existing in urban Honolulu to address the new housing that would be developed. I'm not sure.

That's just, you know, it's a possibility because we haven't done the analysis. But maybe, I don't know, I don't know if that answers your question or.

That was very helpful. Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, thank you for the questions, members, you can stay there. Any further questions? Okay. Hello? Hold on. Anybody? No? Okay, can you come up too? I'm going to help- try to help answer some of these questions, but you know, in the format that we kind of ask questions. Okay.

So I think, you know, part of the issue is to your knowledge, right. Have we ever built any schools with cash?

With cash?

In cash, Just outright cash? The answer is no. And the point is that impact fees is basically we're collecting fees to pay for something in cash. Right. So I think because this bill came from the Housing Committee, right.

It's implying that what we're doing is that these impact freeze are a one time tax that is trying to generate revenue to build something. But it's not really the right mechanism because normally we pay for it with bonds.

So the mechanism to pay for new schools should be something a tax that is ongoing versus a one time tax. Right.

I think in General when you put an impact fee on the front end of a home and you know, and the county does this with park impact fees and all kind of other fees, all you're doing is you're making the front end of the home more expensive and in the end that's not our goal. Right.

We're trying to make housing more affordable. So it'd be better to find a funding mechanism that is recurring and that can pay debt service on the bond. Right. So normally in other states this mechanism to pay for schools is property tax.

Correct.

Is that your understanding?

Correct. Right.

Yeah. So.

And then there's a nexus when you pay for schools out of property tax. Right. Then supposedly if you build a good school, then property values go up and. Right. All those kind of things. So there's nexus. You think that's a good idea?

It's one way of financing it.

Yeah. Okay. Because I think that's part of our problem. Right. We're looking for funding mechanisms that not necessarily matches up with how we fund schools.

Right.

So I think that's why the housing chair is kind of looking at this from a. Right. It's just adding to the cost of home.

And I think what the legislature needs to do is we need to match up our- our revenue source with how we pay for schools. Right. So going forward, I think that's the discussion we should have with you guys going forward.

Okay.

Do you agree? Yeah. School facility Authority or--

Yeah, I think that makes sense.

Okay. Okay. Very good. Okay, thank you. Members, any further questions? Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to the next bill. House Bill 650 HD1.

First up, we have DBEDT with comments. Thank you. Next we have the Department of Agriculture in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measurement. Here for any questions, Mahalo.

Thank you. We have George Joseph on ZOOM in support.

Yes, I'm in support. We are very close to this. Solving this problem. We are very close. We did a great job during the last one year and a little more push will make it happen.

Okay, thank you. We also received testimony from the Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. That's all the written testimony we received. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify? Justify anybody on Zoom?

Okay, thank you. Questions, Members? Okay, thank you very much. We're moving on to the next Bill. House Bill 545-HD-1.

Okay, sorry. First up we have Holomua Collaborative in support. Thank you. We have the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, my name is Sandi Kanemori with the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation and we stand in strong support of this Bill. This Bill supports our three core programs that fuel hcc, the map, SBIR and Accelerator program.

And they align perfectly with our mission to promote economic diversification, create a more resilient Hawaii and that supports small businesses Entrepreneurs and startup companies whom, among other things, are helping us to solve local problems in our community using local innovation and technology.

So bottom line is we ask that we of course need to invest in our own local companies and local business assistance programs, especially if we want to stay competitive in this ever changing digital economy, global digital economy. So we ask for your support on this Bill and we're here for any questions. Mahalo for allowing me to testify.

Thank you.

We have the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii in support.

Thank you. We have Nalu Scientific LLC in support.

Good morning everyone. My name is Isar Mostafanezhad. I'm founder and CEO at Nalu Scientific. We've been in business for almost 10 years now. We design and develop microchips, also known as microelectronics, that are exported to US Mainland and Europe, Asia, mainly for helping scientists better understand the energy and matter interaction. So very deep scientific work.

They use our microchips to miniaturize their equipment. We got our start here with help from hddc and without them we wouldn't be here. We have about 18 employees here, consultants, contractors. We work with the University of Hawaii, we work with hpu, we hire locally. Everybody's local here.

And I'm proud to say that our technology is in use at various really high end facilities around the world. And what we're doing is deep tech, hard tech, and we appreciate all the help and support we can get to put the name of what we're doing here on the map globally. So thank you.

Thank you. We have the Hawaii Food Industry Association in support on zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our testimony and support and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Pacific Advisory Group in support on Zoom.

Ted Raulston, if you could unmute and proceed.

Yeah, sorry about that folks. Ted Raulston here. Aloha Chair and team. The Hawaii Pacific Advisory Group is an activity of the Hawaii Pacific Foundation, a non-profit native Hawaiian owned organization whose role is to improve the quality of life in Hawaiian communities.

Basically what we see here is that economic prosperity rests on continuity of operations and minimizing of disruption in the face of new unanticipated threats. As we now know, staying ahead of the threats and powering the mitigation depend heavily on technology.

We need tech leadership that can interpret for local leaders and extract from the local experience or for the global experience to be applied locally in generating solutions for the future. The work that HTDC does is fantastic in establishing a base upon which much more significant leadership technology leadership roles can be defined.

So we totally support what's going on and wish that there could be a substantial expansion of the HTDC role in dealing with the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We also received testimony and support from 13 organ other organizations as well as one organization with comments and two individuals in support. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom? Questions?

Members, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, House Bill 796hd1.

We have the Department of Taxation with comments. Thank you. We have DBED with comments. Thank you. We have Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks in opposition on zoom.

Oh, so sorry. I was having trouble with my camera and sorry for the prior confusion. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Nicole Woo from Hawaii Children's Action Network. We think that tax credits are a really important way to help lower income families afford to live.

Here you'll see on page six of the testimony we have a map that shows that we have one of the highest burdens of taxation on low and middle low working class families in Hawaii. And most of that's due to our get.

So tax credits are a way to get cash back to these families who are paying too much in the get. So they're a really important tool and this bill would automatically sunset or reduce these types of tax credits. So that's the reason that we are opposing this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Sag AFTRA Hawaii Local in opposition on zoom.

Hi, good morning. My name is Marie Chappal De Albor. And I'm the Executive Director of the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. We stand on our written testimony in. Opposition and we're here to offer answer. Any questions you may Have. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We have the International alliance of theatrical stage employees 665 in opposition.

Hello, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tuana Scanlon, President, IATSC Local 665, IATSC International Trustee in DBEDS Creative Industry Division report to the 33rd Legislature in 2025. They show that the state paid out $24.5 million in film tax incentive credits. 11.7 additional $1.0 million were paid that rolled over from 2023, so that's $36.2 million.

But it also generated $20.2 million in state tax revenues. So for around $16 million of state investment, you got $75 million of household income, $324 million of economic impact. In 2023, there were 2,247 jobs generated by this industry. Now my question is, if this goes away, what is the plan to plug that hole?

Where do you get $324 million of economic impact or $75 million of household wages? Where does that come from? Because there is no industry that replaces these jobs that can compete at these jobs at these wages that we have negotiated for.

We have heard, heard about the concern regarding market distortion and the tax incentive distorts the market in our benefit. If this tax incentive goes away, the result is so does the work. Businesses do not operate because they are altruistic. They're operating to make money.

And if this tax incentive goes away, so does the work and it will just go elsewhere. Now it's not just the economic impact of this, it is also the cultural impact of this incentive if it goes away.

When there is a lack of faith on the part of business of the support from this state for the industry, we lose the ability to tell our own stories. 98% of the live action Moana was filmed in Atlanta, 2% was filmed here.

The vast majority of Jason Momoa's chief of war project filmed in New Zealand, whose film industry and infrastructure and culture around it is decades ahead of ours. So what it means is stories that are either based primarily in Hawaii or about Polynesian culture will just film elsewhere.

And all of those people, those thousands of households that rely on this tax incentive go away. They just don't have the ability to support themselves. And I would challenge anyone here to find an industry that also pays these wages for non college graduates. For folks they're just in the trades.

This is just one of the tax incentives or the tax credits that would be affected by this bill. I can't Speak to the other ones. But I do know that it will have a devastating impact on our industry.

Our industry has a ripple effect as well because the tourism industry dbed noted that 4.5 million visitor days were attributed to folks who said they visited Hawaii just because of something they saw on film and TV. That's $1.0 billion in visitor spending. That's 14% of the tourists or visitors from Japan.

We could increase those numbers and be of a great benefit to the state if there was support from the state for our industry and for that income tax credit. But if this tax credit goes away, I don't know where we find that economic impact from any other industry on that level. And it's.

If you remove the 2023 numbers, it is then $4.2 million that the state invested for that $324 million impact. 2023 is rollover numbers. I understand that, you know, in the math game, it was still spent in 2024. So I'll give you that. But I don't know how we plug that hole if that goes away.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Sorry. We have you next up at the Democratic Party of Hawaii Labor Tuana.

Tuana Yazici, Democratic Party Employee Labor Congress Chair, standing our written testimony in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments on zoom.

So good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We have two basic concerns. One is that the bill probably doesn't work.

If a bill is passed by a later Legislature and it has neither a sunset nor a phase out and it's signed into law, then it goes into effect with neither a sunset nor a phase out because later legislation prevails over earlier legislation when the two conflict.

So, I mean, it may be a good statement to put into the law, but it probably won't have the effect that this Committee is hoping for.

We also suggest that we have an existing system whereby the State Auditor is supposed to review credits on a rolling basis every five years as long as you keep adding the new credits to the chart of credits that they're supposed to review. And apparently that hasn't been done for the last few years.

So I think maybe the Committee may get more mileage out of updating that list as opposed to enacting the bill in this current form, which has questionable efficacy. Answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We also received testimony and opposition from the Honolulu Film Office, four other organizations, and 21 individuals, as well as one individual in support is There anyone else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Okay, thank you. Question Members, I guess Tax Department. So the, you know, to Tax Foundation's comments. We just heard a bill recently to go over some of the Auditor's recommendation. It wasn't all of them, but it was just some of them.

But we also have the process of the Tax Review Commission that comes up, which is coming up soon and things like that. When that comes up, do they take up these credits and review them?

It's up to the Tax Review Commission what they want. When was the last time.

Yeah, I understand that part. When was the last time they did.

That, a review of credit? I'm not sure. I would have to go back and check. But what can be done? The Legislature can maybe pass a resolution asking them to look at certain things that might be helpful to guide them for the upcoming Tax Review Commission.

Yeah, I think. Well, for me the intent of the bill was just for the Legislature to have the opportunity to periodically review these to see if they're actually doing what they were intended to do. Tax free Commission recommend. You know, talked about the Auditor. I mean. Yeah. Tax foundation recommended the. Talked about the Auditor.

And then we have the Tax Review Commission and then, you know, we have the legislative process. Do you think it's better for the Tax Review Commission to do it or who are technically more. Right. You guys bring in consultants to look into these things. We give you money to be able to do that.

Is that a better mechanism?

I think that would be a good topic for them to consider because they do take a comprehensive look and as you mentioned, they have some resources and research assistance that they can utilize.

But I do think that when we're looking at tax credits and whether they're efficient, it is good to look at the entire tax code as a whole because there are some credits that overlap in deductions. So I would agree with that that.

It would be appropriate if the Legislature did it. How often should. Would you. Do you think we should review it?

I'm not sure because.

Right. The Tax Review Commission is every five years. I think that might be. And they take up different issues every year.

So they do. Because it's hard to say certain credits. You really need an accumulation of years and data to determine whether it's actually working versus other credits are designed to be for a shorter instance of time. So yeah. I'm not sure if there's a right fit, but it seems like maybe the Tax Review Commission timeline might be.

It might fit what the timeline that it should be reviewed okay.

As this Bill moves forward, I think what I was. I'm looking for is guidance as to how often and you know, just. Or the mechanism to review one is sunset and the other may be to. Some people want certainty.

So the other would be to tear it off the credit so that it's because some credits maybe should not be in perpetuity. Would the Tax Department be able to give recommendations on those things.

Apart from the Tax Review Commission to look at so we can provide, do a research and studies on data. But as far as the efficiency and whether the credit is serving the purpose that's intended, we would need outside help because. Because we don't look at those types of factors.

So we can work in connection with another agency perhaps. But it's really hard for us to tell you whether if, for example, it's meeting the purpose that it was designed to.

Yeah, like I said, at the end of the day that's the goal. And I don't know, like I said, I don't believe this is the mechanism, but I do believe the Legislature needs to.

Do a review and we certainly can suggest to the Tax Review Commission that this is an area of interest when they convene later this year, hopefully.

Thank you. Further questions, Members? Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to the next Bill. House Bill 476 HD1.

First up, Department of Taxation with comments. Thank you. We have the Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We will stand our written comments and be available for questions.

Thank you. Next we have Sike MAU Carrera in opposition on Zoom.

Hello. I was born in Hilo, Hawaii and I have a very hard time finding a job in Hawaii. And I don't think the capital gains tax will create more opportunities for me in places like Big Island. I already see limited economic opportunity.

It hasn't been getting better ever since COVID We already see 53% of Native Hawaiians live in the mainland while 47, while only 47% remain in Hawaii. This reflects a growing trend over the past decade influenced by factors such as the high cost of limiting and limited economic opportunities thanks to high taxes such as the capital gains tax.

Taxing capital gains tax results in a double taxation once when income is earned and again when return on investments are realized. The double taxation bias individuals towards immediate consumption over future investment, hindering the buildup of capital. This depresses economic growth, reducing incentives for people like me who need the jobs the most.

I would like alternatives like taxing consumption more or raising the land taxes more because we have a limited. I don't know why we have such a low land tax. We have very much limited land and we should encourage more economic use of land.

I'm in favor of increasing land taxes instead of this because you can't move land, but you can move capital away from the state. And Hawaii, according to NBC, is ranked at the bottom of being business friendly. So I don't think raising the capital gains tax will help the poor the most and will decrease economic opportunities.

And as you said from, as you can see from a written testimony, you can see places like in Texas where they have seen lots of jobs, lots of businesses and people move from California to Texas because they have lower, more favorable odds at starting up a business. So I don't.

So I am in strong opposition against this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Shelby Pikachu, billionaire, in opposition on zoom. Not present. We have Noella Von Wigant on opposition on zoom. Not present. Okay. We've also received testimony and support from four organizations in opposition from three organizations, as well as opposition from about 30 individuals and two individuals in support. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Anybody on zoom?

Vice Chair, Sorry, this is Nicole Woo from Hawai'I Children's Action Network. Again, I pressed the wrong button. I'm sorry. I'm so disorganized this morning. I wanted to. I submitted written testimony for this capital gains tax Bill. I just wanted to.

In my testimony, it's starting on page three, I quote the Department of Taxation's report on different types of income here in Hawaii. And they state capital gains are heavily concentrated in the high end of income distribution, especially for non residents. The higher the income of taxpayers, the greater the share of capital gains in their taxable income.

In General, their most recent report on income types here in Hawaii is that for those who made more than $400,000 a year and who were non-residents, more than half of their income came from capital gains.

So the capital gains tax is a really great tool to get some revenue that we might need from really rich folks and especially people who don't live here. We are one of only nine states that has a tax loophole for rich people in our capital gains law.

So we really think that this would help fund some needed things in the future. And some of the testimony against, they talk about how this might affect business investment. Warren Buffett has actually said that in 60 years of investing, even when capital gains rates were much higher, he's never seen it affect investment.

So with the help of some experts, we did the chart looking back almost 100 years and you can on page four of the testimony, the orange line shows the top federal capital gains tax rate that has gone up and down like crazy. And then the blue line shows real investment just steadily going up.

So there does not seem to be any effect from the capitalist gains tax on business investment. While at the same time this could really help fund some needed things in the future. And it's taxing the wealthiest, especially non residents. So for that reason we support this bill. Thank you for hearing my testimony.

Thank you. Anybody else on zoom?

Okay, thank you. Questions, Members? Okay, Representative Miyake.

Thank you. Chair, question for Tax Foundation.

Thank you for the question.

Good morning. How many states have capital gains tax total?

You have that? 41.

41?

Yeah. There are a few states that don't tax income at all, but 41 states that tax wage income do tax capital gains.

Okay. And as you heard from the previous. Testifier, is it specific to non-residents?

Well, the tax is imposed on what we call Hawaii source income, which means that if the asset that is being sold is sold here or if it's from Hawaii real estate, for example, that's when we pick it up. It doesn't matter where the owner lives, but if the property is here, we tax it.

Okay, that was my understanding. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you for the questions, Members. Thank you. We're going to move on to the next Bill. House Bill 437 HD1.

First up, we have DBED in support. Thank you. We also received testimony in support from the Oahu Filipino Community Council, Hawaii Friends of Civil Rights and the Filipino Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, as well as two individuals in support and 10 in opposition. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Okay. Questions, Members? Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill. House Bill 1391 HD1.

Do we have DBED with comments? Thank you. We also received testimony in opposition from eight individuals who did not say they would be present. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Questions, Members? Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill. House Bill 1406 HD1.

First up, we have DBEDT in support.

Can you hear me?

I'm online. Yes, go ahead, Deputy Director.

Sorry, I was trying to turn my camera on. Hi. Dane Wicker, Deputy Director from DEBT. We stand on our testimony in support and available for questions.

Thank you. We have the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation in support.

Good Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Dean Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance Development Corporation. We note that for larger projects, it can take more than 10 years to navigate through the regulatory process for land use infrastructure and building permit approvals. So we strongly support this measure to streamline the approval process.

Thank you. We also have the Public Utilities Commission in support.

Hello, Members of the Committee. David Richmond here on behalf of.

Thank you. Also support from the Hawaii Realtors, Hawaiian Telcom and the Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii. That's all the written testimony we've received. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, thank you. Questions? Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to the next Bill. House Bill 1405, HD1.

First up, we have DBEDT in support.

Hi, Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dane Wicker, Deputy Director of DBEDT. And we stand in support with amendments.

Thank you. Also, Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii in support. They're still here. Okay. We also received testimony and support by Hawaii Operating Engineers, Industry Stabilization Fun Pack, Hawaii Realtors, Hawaiian Telcom, and the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii all in support. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay. Questions for Blim Liloi.

Thank you, Chair. This one, yes, Is for DBEDT Just out of pure curiosity. Hi. Thanks for being here. Just out of pure curiosity, how many permits are we looking at touching just across the industry, whether it's housing, land use, construction, utilities, film industry. How many permits are we looking at?

So we don't know what that inventory would look like with this bill. We did look back at potential projects on why this statute may currently exist. It could be projects such as, like broadband, where you cross over multiple state agencies.

And having one agency who can facilitate that through efficiency seems to be the next kind of the nexus to this bill. As far as project specific, we have not had any discussion with what potential projects DBA could be looking at should this bill be passed.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you for the question. Okay, moving on to the next bill. House Bill 455, HD1.

First up, we have DBEDT in support. Thank you. We have the Office of the Attorney General with comments on zoom. Oh, in person.

Sorry, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Elise Amemiya. Testifying on behalf of the Attorney General's Office. Office HRS 37.52.3 establishes criteria in order to set up a Special Fund. While we believe that most of the criteria are met, the bill does not contain an explanation as to why the.

Special Fund could not be successfully implemented. Using the General Fund appropriation process. So we recommend adding this explanation to the purpose section of the bill. I am available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

We have Department of Budget and Finance with comments.

Good morning, Vice Chair, Chair, Members. Luis Salaveria, Director of Finance. You have our written comments in front of you. We will stand on those, on those comments. But just to echo the testimony of the Attorney General, the provisions of HRS 3752.3 are pretty specific when it comes to the creation of a Special Fund.

You know, when we see it, we basically see the self sufficiency and the ability of this fund to basically continue to collect on its intended purpose. And what we do recommend is that the Legislature does take into consideration whether or not this fund will actually make revenue. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. We have Holomua Collaborative in support.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair Joshua with Holomua Collaborative. You've got my written testimony in support. I'll just briefly note that the real purpose behind this is that we do have some great programs through DBEDT to support businesses, small businesses, but primarily existing businesses.

We don't really have any programs that specifically help with businesses who are just trying to start up and in that critical phase who might not otherwise be able to get financing. So this is intended to help fill that gap. Thank you very much for your consideration. I appreciate it.

Thank you. We have the Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments on zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. Our concern is with the Special Fund and we echo the concerns expressed by BNF and the Attorney General as to meeting the criteria in 3752.3.

We note that, I mean DBEDT does have a program called Business Action center or Business Action Network that is supposed to help businesses that start out. Maybe that part can be beefed up a little bit to satisfy the policy objectives of this bill. Thank you for the opportunity. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. Also testimony and support from Member organizations of Holomua Collaborative, the Chamber of Commerce Hawaii and the Maui Chamber of Commerce. Commerce. That's all the written testimony we've received. Anybody in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Okay, question, members? Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next bill. House Bill 934 HD1.

Okay. We have the office of the lieutenant governor in support.

Thank you, chair, vice chair.

Thank you. We have Department of Budget and Finance with comments. Thank you. We have DBEDT with comments. Thank you. We have the University of Hawaii system in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair. We stand on our written comments, happy to answer.

Thank you. We have the State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support. Thank you. We have Sean Taketa Mclaughlin in support.

Aloha. I'm Sean Taketa Mclaughlin. I wasn't going to come but I had to because my former representative is the chair, my current representative is the vice chair. So it's great to see you again and thanks to the members for actually meeting in person and letting people show up.

I have sort of a guarded support for this bill because I think the amendment in the committee was detrimental to what you're trying to accomplish because all that happened in the committee was restricting the state's ability to use the resources that the state has. And by saying that you can't use those funds for retail services.

There's no definition of retail services. Lots of the benefits of the state and getting involved with broadband is to fill gaps that the private sector does not fill.

So supporting community networks like Puahonua Waimanalo has for example, and providing resources to connect people and places that do not have connections really should be part of the mission of this office.

So I- I- I- in my written comments I made a little more elaborate note of the anti competitive aspects of the amendment that was made because it basically prevents any newcomer from coming into the market by saying the state cannot support any building of networks or I mean for retail.

So I guess what I really if to in the interest of time I'd be very happy to chat with anybody who wants more depth in this area. There's lots of complexity to it. I think some really smart work has been done. I think it is very, very important.

But I guess what I really want to do is stand on Dan Smith's testimony because he submitted much clearer and direct written testimony than I did. So thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you. We have Daniel Smith in support.

Good morning chair, vice chair, committee members. My name is Dan Smith. While I'm a member of the Hawaii Brian Van Huey and a faculty Member at UH, I'm here speaking on my- my own behalf. Yes. My testimony is to is basically to recommend that you remove the restriction on page six and go back to the

original language of the bill which saying supporting broadband projects. We had a problem last year with the administration bill that wound up with some language restricting the use of the- use of the funds. Even though it was administration bill. We- We in the kind of broadband community asked that the Governor veto the bill.

And so we- we- I- I respect Sean's testimony also and request that you go back to the original language and then you'll have a good bill, in my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you. We also received testimony with comments from the Hawaii office on Enterprise Technology Services and Hawaiian Telecom. That's all the written testimony we received. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, questions, members? Okay vice chair.

I think for DBEDT.

Quick question about kind of these definitions about broadband infrastructure that again. Yeah. We ran into with the digital equity Bill last year and is kind of coming up again. To your understanding, what is broadband infrastructure that, you know, Charter Communications is concerned about?

Chung Chang with the Broadband Office in DBEDT. Vice Chair, I don't, I don't want to speak on behalf of charter. Broadband Infrastructure is defined in HRS and I know with the last year's grant Bill there were some restrictive- restrictions placed into it. And then again, there's some restrictions with this measure.

Or I guess, what's the definition roughly in statute?

Just basically infrastructure. Right. So broadband capabilities. So whatever you need to access, whether it's the cable line or, you know, it's kind of outdated. But it also includes copper in the definition. But so any infrastructure that you need to access broadband. So it could be wireless, it could be hardwired. Yeah.

I think the concern, if I had to take a guess concern is, you know, providing free WiFi access for public. I think that might be a concern.

My sense is the disconnect, right, is between some of this hardwired stuff that I don't think is the intention of these bills that we're trying to do when we're talking about digital equity in particular.

But for the purposes digital equity, we do need to do certain things like to do infrastructure as far as more of the base networks that we're setting up and not any of this other work right? That the big companies are involved in.

There are a lot of innovative, innovative ways to deploy. So again, like Sean said, there's. It's retail services is not defined and it just could prohibit a lot, prohibit a lot of stuff, you know, so we're just, there's a concern. Obviously from the community.

I guess, do you? Does the office share the same concerns about the restrictive nature of this amendment?

I'm just going to say, personally, yes, it is restrictive. I, we would rather not have any restrictions.

Is there any way, I guess, you and community might be able to, I mean, reach out to Charter, like when this Bill goes over to the Senate and try to come up with a better definition that might allow for some of these projects without kind of stepping on their toes with what their concerns might be used for?

I, I'll reach out to them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Further question, Members? Okay, thank you. Moving on to the final bill, House Bill 1308, HD 2.

First up, we have Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs in opposition.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Nadine Ando, Director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. And we did submit written testimony in opposition to this Bill. But very briefly, I just wanted to summarize. Placement of regulation of sports wagering under the DCCA we believe to be inconsistent with the department's mandate to protect consumers.

And one of the things that I thought was timely was, yesterday's article in the Star Advertiser that talked about sports betting in states that have legalized it. Although, increasing numbers of revenue from the activity also had an alarming rise in sports addiction, sports betting addiction, and how that is also connected to various societal harms. Which include greater chances of bankruptcy, bankruptcy rates, increasing, higher rates of criminal activity, and also domestic violence.

So we feel that placing it under DCCA, which is meant to protect consumer interests, is really an inconsistent place for it to be. But moving past that question is also regulation of what really is only done online. This is sports wagering is an online activity and is very complex.

And it's not something that anything, any division within the Department of DCCA currently regulates. So you're looking at something that's going to be very cost intensive, and the Bill doesn't account for anything for the expense that would be required in order for us to build a regulatory framework and structure to regulate this industry within our Department.

So if you look at other states, there's reference in the testimony supporting the measure that this is legalized in 38 other states.

But if you look at those other states, in most instances, and I don't know if any of them only regulate sports wagering as a gambling, as legalized gambling in their state, it's usually accompanied by a whole host of other gambling activities that are allowed.

And there are gaming commissions and gaming boards in each of these states which employ many, many people in order to regulate the industry. So that's not what we have in Hawaii. And so developing a regulatory framework for something like this is going to cost a lot of money.

And I also want to note that in the Bill, what's provided for as a licensing fee is only $250,000 for five years, and that breaks down to $50,000 a year. In the Bill, it provides for the Department shall license a minimum of four operators.

That comes up to $200,000 a year, and that is certainly not enough to be able to stand up regulation in our Department. So I just wanted to make those points clear. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Department of Budget and Finance with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, you have our comments. We'll stand on our comments. We do note that in there is a provision in the Bill that does create a special fund and the Bill does not make any ceiling appropriation for that special fund that's being established in the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the office of the Attorney General in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is David Williams. I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the Criminal Justice Division.

Our Department opposes the Bill because it is concerned that legalized gambling in the form of sports wagering, fantasy sports conducted by businesses, corporations and other money making enterprises on a large scale in Hawaii will increase the risk of adverse social impacts on Hawaii's citizens.

We've noted in our testimony studies that have shown that legalized gambling has resulted in increased negative economic effects on families, including increased credit card debt, reduced credit, increased bankruptcy, and especially on families from the most vulnerable economic households.

Also noted in our testimony, our studies showing an increase in domestic violence related to legalized gambling as well as negative effects on youth who are exposed to seeing family members gamble or youth who are exposed to online gambling. The Department is also concerned that the Bill appears to legalize fantasy sports contests.

However, the does not include it in the regulatory, licensing, taxation or criminal penalty provisions as it does with sports wagering as further explained in our testimony. So for these reasons, the Department respectfully opposes this Bill and request that it be deferred. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you. We have the Department of Taxation with comments.

Kristen Sakamoto, Deputy Director, excuse me, of Taxation. I just wanted to clarify. We did submit written testimony. The revenue impact in our testimony in our testimony is limited to just the tax revenue impact. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Stop Predatory Gambling in opposition on Zoom Les Bernal.

Hi, can you hear me? Can you see me?

We can hear you. Yes, we can.

There we go. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning to all of you. My, we gave, we provided very detailed testimony.

So I'm not going to go through all of that and encourage all of you when you have a few minutes to read that because you're not only when you're talking about online sports gambling and so called daily fantasy sports gambling, what you're really doing is opening up the door to Hawaii for everything.

Because what these companies really are, DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM and so on, they're sports gambling companies, but what they really are is Internet casino companies and that's where the real money is.

So there's currently seven states that have legalized that product and that's where they're going to come in Right behind this, we're just opening a Las Vegas casino in every smartphone in your state that has an Internet connection.

And so say like Michigan, 90% of online gambling profits is coming from Internet casino profits and 10% is just coming from the sports gambling. They use the sports gambling apps to acquire customers.

But the main thing I want to emphasize today, and I made it clear in my testimony, but I just, I don't think it can be made clearly enough. There is no grassroots movement for this in Hawaii or any other state. This was rolled out across the country not because citizens demanded this.

Citizens could already play sports bets with one another. What was illegal is you couldn't run a sports book. And so when these guys stand up, these lobbyists stand up and they say, hey, we're going to wipe out illegal gambling. There is no evidence from any state that shows that illegal gambling has gone down.

In fact, the opposite is true. And the only thing I want you to do is respectfully challenge when these folks stand up and cite these numbers. They're not citing FBI statistics about illegal gambling rates. They're not citing the Hawaii Department of Law Enforcement statistics.

They're citing studies paid for by the American Gambling Association, which is the national trade lobby for the gambling industry. So this is a phony narrative. And we lay out kind of. The New York Times did a whole expose on this PR narrative. So just, let's just get that off the table, okay?

So don't, please don't allow them to talk about that at all in this debate because it's a, it's a, it's phony and it's dishonest.

And the last thing I would just say is this business model you're going to hear from attorney Matt Litt today from New Jersey is at the front lines and bringing litigation against these predatory gambling operators dealing with hundreds of gambling addicts. This, their business model is based on addiction. Okay?

They don't exist without the out of control gambler. The casual gambler is irrelevant to their business model. And we lay out in our testimony very detailed evidence that shows that. So I appreciate the work you guys do. We have a website, stoppredatorygambling.org happy to entertain any questions you may have either now or offline.

Thank you. Next, we have DraftKings in support on zoom. Rebecca London,

Good morning Chair Yamashita and Members of the Committee on Finance, thank you for your time today. As was noted, I'm Rebecca London, Senior Government Affairs Manager for DraftKings and I'm here today to provide testimony in support of HB 1308, HD 2 and we appreciate the opportunity today to participate.

I've submitted more robust written comments which I stand on and I just want to highlight some of that testimony. There is already sports wagering happening in the state and to create an effective legal market, legal operators must be able to compete with that illegal market.

With multiple operators, it increases the overall economic impact and a competitive mobile market provides steady tax revenue. Estimates based on sizing of the illegal market. The predictions are that the State of Hawaii could see tens of millions of dollars annually and these funds can be used for important prior policy priorities this Legislature is currently looking to fund.

This revenue is in addition to licensing, investigative and administrative fees, the regulatory body has the authority to assess to support licensing and regulatory oversight.

We're currently working with relevant departments to determine the appropriate fee structure for the regulation of this new industry and we welcome the opportunity to what is appropriate for the State of Hawaii with both legislators and regulators. Regulated operators like DraftKings use a number of tools and technology to verify our customers.

Upon account creation, a player immediately has access to safeguards that allow them to set their own deposit and play limits and to self exclude from any participation should they choose. For the majority of players, legal sports wagering is a form of entertainment, spending less than $100 a month on that activity.

DraftKings appreciates the inclusion of problem gaming resources in this Bill, including funding access to resources for those that need it. In testimony provided earlier this month by the National Council on Problem Gaming, they estimate that just over 2% of residents in Hawaii may currently have a gambling problem.

Regulated operators provide additional resources for those who need it, and we found that sports wagering can sometimes be a catalyst in other states across the country for them to revamp their responsible gaming tools and resources. And additionally, some sports wagering operators go above and beyond responsible gaming requirements imposed on them.

For example, at DraftKings we have a partnership with Kindbridge Behavioral Health to provide access to therapy and treatment for problem gaming in every jurisdiction where DraftKings operates in online support Sportsbook Product. Thank you very much for your consideration on this Bill and I'd be more than happy to provide any answers to questions you may have.

Thank you. Next up, we have BetMGM in support on Zoom.

Thank you. Good morning Chair, Vice Chair Members of Committee. My name is Jeremy Limun, Director of Government Affairs for BetMGM. We appreciate the opportunity to stand in strong support of HB 1308. The Bill, if adopted, would create a licensed, controlled and regulated sports betting industry in the State of Hawaii.

Under the Bill, only qualified and suitable operators would be licensed and authorized to conduct sports betting. The operators would be required to undergo background investigation, pay license fees to fund the administration and regulation of Hawaii sports betting, and more importantly, pay gross sports betting tax revenues to the state.

And part of those tax proceeds would be deposited into a problem gambling prevention and treatment Special Fund. And on that topic, just echoing some of the points that my colleague Rebecca mentioned, we would like to highlight that the vast majority of individuals who engage in online sports betting are able to do so in a responsible manner.

The National Council of Problem Gambling and various research studies have estimated that the national problem gambling rate is 2%.

And for this small segment of the population, the regulated industry is focused on investing in resources and treatment programs that MGM also partners with KindBridge to provide individuals who we know are experiencing problems gambling, free telehealth programs to address that situation.

And I think for this small segment of the population, regulations will be important along with funding for support services, especially since those services do not currently exist in the state and we believe HB 1308 would change that.

As you know, sports betting has been legalized in 38 states, plus the District of Columbia, of which 32 have legalized online sports betting. The reality is that sports betting is a highly popular activity. It is already happening in states, even in states that have not legalized it, including in Hawaii.

Only state residents are doing it through unregulated channels where there are no consumer protections and where there are no responsible gambling tools and resources. This illicit market is pervasive and as you can see in my written testimony, these websites do not block wagers coming from Hawaii and in fact they do accept wages from Hawaii.

Again, I'm happy to answer any of your questions and thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next, we have Sports Betting Alliance in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Danny Kupchoy, on behalf of the Sports Betting Alliance. You've heard from two of our Members already, so I'll be brief and try not to repeat some of the points they've already made. We're in support and I just wanted to maybe highlight two or three of their points.

First being I think this whole topic has to start with the baseline understanding that this is happening already in Hawaii at a large scale rate. And so we know this because there's a market for it and it's incredibly easy to do.

You go on any of these illegal websites, click a few buttons, a bet can be placed. So the current situation does not benefit the customer and it doesn't benefit the state.

So what this Bill would do would put some guardrails around that, ID, password protections, bedding limits, things like that, just to put more protections that currently don't exist in the current status that we have. I appreciate DCCA's comments.

You know, we have had conversations with them and understand that there is more discussion that needs to be had about the current licensing fee numbers that are in the Bill as they speak. You know, the goal is for the licensing fees to make this program whole and not to cost the state any money to run.

I'll just close by this. You know, we know that this is happening all across our state. It's easy to do and it's a mainstream form of entertainment. And it's proven by the fact that these companies that make up the online sports betting community are endorsed. They are the official sponsors of sports leagues all across our country.

They are endorsed by dozens of athletes, including LeBron James, Peyton Manning, Shaquille O'Neal, and every major television network devotes time in their broadcast to go over this issue, to go over sports betting, entertainment and things like that. And so we ask that you please move this measure. Keep the conversation going.

And thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next we have Lit Law LLC in opposition on Zoom.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I stand behind my written testimony and I'll do my best to summarize that in just a few minutes here. So I'm testifying as a principal of Lit Law llc.

It's a law firm with a near exclusive focus on the representation of addicted gamblers and their families against the predatory practices of online sports books and casinos.

My cases and my testimony focuses on one particular abuse, which is the VIP programs and VIP hosts used by the casinos. Which have across the United States, been utilized to initiate, to grow, and to exacerbate the gambling addictions of the most vulnerable residents of those states where gambling is legalized.

It leads to catastrophic results, not just for the gamblers. So when we hear a statistic like, well, only 2% of gamblers will be addicted, even if we assume that that statistic is correct. One for every addicted gambler, eight people are affected. Their families are affected. Their spouses, their children, their businesses are affected.

And the effects for those 2% and for the eight for every one of those people is catastrophic. If you drive down the New Jersey Turnpike in my home state or down any road in a state where gambling is legalized, you'll see billboard after billboard advertising legalized sports betting.

The Billboards depict a few guys having fun, presumably by me watching a Yankees or a Mets game with a little extra enthusiasm because they have a financial stake and put a few dollars on the game. That's the promise of sports gambling in the abstract, its harmless entertainment and its free tax revenue.

But this is not how it has worked in practice in any of the 38 states where it's been legalized.

And the greatest culprit of bringing sports betting from harmless entertainment to a public health crisis is the VIP program and the VIP host, used by every online sports book in America to take as much money as possible from vulnerable persons until they hit rock bottom.

My office receives an email or a phone call almost every single day from a problem gambler or a spouse across the country. And almost every one of them was subject to a VIP program scheme and a VIP host.

A player is given a VIP status and assigned a VIP host when their deposits exceed a certain amount of money, and that metric is secret, it changes casino to casino, and it changes over time.

This level of deposit should be assigned a problem gambling, but instead the casinos use that deposit data they collect and monitor to instead of using that to help the gambler, they use it to identify them for this special program. The VIP engagement is most often initiated without any meaningful verification of a gambler's source of funds.

And it's not unusual for a gambler to gamble hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, without the casino ever verifying where that money has come from. The VIP host often becomes a very strange, intimate, one sided, quasi friendship between an addicted gambler and the only person in the world who knows about that addiction.

I spend a substantial part of my days reading through text chains between gamblers and VIP hosts, and it's horrifying. You can see the addiction so clearly in hindsight, as the gambler goes to the VIP host begging for money so that they can keep gambling. And it mirrors, frankly, the relationship between a drug dealer and an addict.

Sports and casino gamblers frequently show the telltale signs of gambling addiction in these communications with their VIP host, often on a daily basis when they're speaking by text message, sometimes dozens of times in a single day. And to be clear, the hosts don't ignore it.

They use it to escalate the incentives to make sure that these people are now gambling more and more money until there's just no more money to spend. Occasionally, the VIP host perversely asks the gambler if they're comfortable with the amounts they're gambling and whether they're gambling within their means, all the gambler has to say is yes.

So to be clear, they're not providing verification of any kind. All they have to say is yes, I'm okay with it or no, I'm not addicted. And they're allowed to not only keep, to not only continue gambling, but to continue receiving incentives often numbering in the tens of thousands of dollars.

And of course an addicted gambler is going to say whatever they have to to continue their addiction, just like anyone addicted to any anything else. These responsible gambling in quotes "checks" are absolutely useless and intentionally so.

Maybe the worst part is that there is no profile of the person who is susceptible to the VIP host and to gambling addiction. My office represents men, women, blue collar workers, doctors, lawyers, business owners, old people, young people, Blacks, Whites, Asians, everyone. We receive a call from every imaginable demographic.

Through the VIP host, the sports poker casino becomes an active participant in the gambler's addiction. So to be clear, what I'm talking about is not even the passive permission to use the platform. I'm not saying that the casinos don't stop an addicted gambler, that they don't save them from themselves.

They actively participate in the diction by incentivizing them often on a daily basis to continue gambling gambling.

And when they have a bad day or a bad weekend, when they lost a lot of money, the casinos give them free money to make sure that they don't have a day to stop and think about what they've done and maybe, maybe withdraw for a little bit.

You know, I'm asked all the time, isn't it the gambler's fault? Aren't they responsible for themselves? And of course they are. But that responsibility is not exclusive. The casinos, through their VIP hosts constantly in every one of these states, turn manageable, reversible mistakes into catastrophes for the gambler and their families and spread that catastrophe throughout the community.

I, I'll stop there. I appreciate the opportunity to speak and of course if there are any questions, I'm happy, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you. Next we have hi good neighbor in opposition on Zoom. Not present. We have testimony from Pu'uhonua "Bumpy" Kanahele in opposition. Please come forward.

Chair, Mr. Chair, this Chair and Members of the Committee. You know you have, I think you have a Concurrent Resolution 70 that basically gathers the information on gaming and everything that is due next year legislative session. I think there's not enough information in our communities.

People like, you know, want to know more about this because everything is coming in so fast and it's to me, 1308. HB 1308 is putting the cart before the horse. If you want to do sports betting, you might as well go all out in gaming. So I just wanted to add that to my.

Thank you. We have Gregory Misaken in opposition on Zoom. Not present. We have Noelle Von Weigen in opposition on Zoom. Not present. We have Brandon Makaʻawaʻawa in opposition. And we have Dwayne Bautista in or Dwayne Bautista signed in.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Dwayne Bautista. I currently work for the Ironworker Stabilization Fund. But today my testimony will be as an individual, as a citizen. I strongly support House Bureau 1308, HD 2. The reason for it, I truly believe that we as Hawaii we need help with new revenue coming in.

Having online sports betting, it's easier than having a casino. Right now, we can just go online. It's already happening. Did some research about all these numbers. The news said roughly there's a total around 200 million illegal monies that coming in that Hawaii does. There's 200 million. Even if we cut that in half, we're being nice about it.

That's 100.0 million in illegal money. Why not make it legal to help out Hawaii? That's new revenue that we can use. Now, listening to everybody's testimony, I wanted to add if a compulsive gambler, if somebody has an issue, the money, the new money that is generated, we could use that for programs to help them.

But most of all I feel that the new money should go to the Department of Education to help us out because of the funding issues that we're going to go through. We can spread this money that the new revenue is going to make to help out the Hawaii residents.

I mean we talk about crime, we talk about violence. I retired last year, 22 years from the Federal Detention Center. Prior to that I worked at Halawa Prison. So I first handedly heard over 25 years of direct testimonies from the people that I work with.

And I cannot give numbers but I can give the live testimony and hearing what's going on at these illegal gaming institutions. And it puts our public in danger, it puts our fellow law enforcement in danger.

But at the end of the day, that 200 something million in illegal contributions from the gaming, illegal gaming goes to the illegal operators. We have a chance, or you have a chance to look more in depth and have that money turn around into legalized gaming that can benefit our state. Aloha. Thank you.

Thank you. We also received testimony and opposition from three other organizations, as well as 23 individuals in opposition and three in support. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Just state your name for the record.

My name is Cody Sula. I'm with the Iron Workers Stabilization Fund. On behalf of the Stabilization Fund, apologize. We did submit written testimony, but I think it went in late.

But we just wanted to stand on our written testimony, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee and kind of give some highlights on our testimony on why we're in support of this.

What we're in support of is, like my colleague mentioned, we're in support of any new money that can help generate some money for our state to help Fund these programs right now. We know with the fiscal crisis going on, with the budget cuts, you know, roughly 20% of our state budget depends on federal funding.

We've got to be proactive and look at ways where we can be a little bit more self sufficient. Because it's uncertain right now where the funding is going to come from. With the latest Alice report that came in in 2024, we have 180,000 residents considering relocation. We had a steady 16% drop in population.

Sorry, we had population drop since 2016.

So the reason why we support this is we have to find ways to diversify our economy to help keep our people home because we keep allowing it, allowing them to leave without any money to help bring down some of the rising, the cost of living, you know, job creation and also other public services such as education, infrastructure.

You know, we're going to lose a lot of our people. So that's why we're in support of this Bill and any other bills that would help generate new income for the people of Hawaii. Thank you.

Thank you. Please.

Good morning. Chair, Vice President, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Cliff Laboy. I'm with the Ironworkers Local 625 Stabilization Fund. You guys heard everything here today. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

But the most important thing that we are trying to get across is looking at new ways to bring in fresh bunnies for a lot of different reasons. School lunches. There's a long list. What I have in front of me today is a list of supporters. The Hawaii Building Construction Trade Council. I'm here to make their report.

We had a meeting last week and the trade council consists of 17 unions. I'm going to list them all to you right now. The electrical union, elevators, plasters, insulators, bricklayers, plumbers, sheet metals, teamsters, IBEW, boilermakers, ironworkers, painters, glazers, floor layers, drywall, tapers, roofers and operators, engineers. We are talking about 35,000 members.

I only wish we could have this meeting on a Saturday because I could bring you 138,000 people that would support this bill. We are highly in support of this bill. If it's done right, we can make a lot of money to solve a lot of problems. We all got issues. We got raises coming.

We got all kinds of stuff going on. So right now we're in total support of this, of this bill. And we ask you guys to, worst scenario, not kill it, but sit down and let's massage it. Let's really have some serious conversations about this. It's a whole lot better than opening up a casino right now.

And if you need support, like I said, I got 138,000 people I can bring here on a Saturday. They're working today to support you guys. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room? Please. Please come and state your name for the.

Brandon Makawa of a nation of Hawaii. I submitted testimony earlier. I'm in a strong opposition to this bill. This bill attempts to introduce gaming too quickly, like taking a car from 0 to 100 in 2 seconds. A decision of this magnitude requires more consideration.