House Standing Committee on Finance

I want to convene the Committee on finance for our 1050 agenda for how. First Bill is House Bill 381.

First up, we have the State Procurement Office in opposition.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Bonnie Kahakui, Administrator, State Procurement Office. We will stand on our written up written comments in opposition to this Bill. Just keeping in mind that raising this threshold will reduce accountability and transparency. Excuse me. For all, all purchases under $100,000. Thank you. Available for questions.

Thank you. We have the Department of Transportation in support.

Aloha Chair Yamashita, Vice Chair Takenouchi, Members of the Committee. Tammy Lee, Deputy Director for the Department of Transportation. We stand on our written testimony in support. Because of rising costs from construction costs, especially from about 40 to 60% over the last four to five years, we support this measure in increasing the small purchase limits. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Honolulu Police Department in support.

Good morning Chair Yamashita and Members of the Committee. My name is Ryan Hironaka. I'm major of the Honolulu Police Department's Finance Division. Honolulu Police Department supports House Bill 381. And we stand by our submitted written testimony. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also received testimony and support from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the city and County of Honolulu. That's all the written testimony we've received. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Okay, questions, Members? Okay, thank you. We're going to move into the next bill. House Bill 988.

We have the State Procurement Office in support. Thank you. We have the Department of Accounting and General Services in support of the Committee.

My name is Joseph Earing on behalf of Comptroller Keith Regan. The Department stands on our written testimony and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Department of Transportation in support. Thank you. We have General Contractors Association, Hawaii with comments. Oh, never mind. Okay. And that's all the written testimony we've received on this measure. 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 1155.

We have the State Procurement Office in support. Thank you. We have the Department of Transportation in support.

The DOT stands on its written testimony in support. And I just wanted to highlight a few. So the federal government allows for this type method of procurement called general contractor construction manager procurement, and that's an innovative way of source selecting.

We found that we were able to use it in an emergency when the Pali Tunnels was being, you know, because of the rock fall. We used that method of procurement and we found that, you know, having the general contractor and the designer right there on site to kind of work together through all the constructability issues was really beneficial. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Subcontractors Association of Hawaii in opposition.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I'm Tim Lyons with the Subcontractors Association. We are opposed to the bill. Procurement code was established in order to make sure there was a level playing field as we spend taxpayers' money.

We are aware that there may be certain circumstances that are difficult to fit into the code, but they have to be clearly defined. And the terms of this bill of making it clearly just not advantageous to the state, we don't feel is sufficient, even if you leave it up to the rules of the Procurement Policy Board. So based on that, it would appear to us that could be just about anything. It's an ambiguous bill, and we are not in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We also received testimony and opposition from IBEW Local 1260. That's all the written testimony we've received. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Questions, Members? Okay. Representative Lee Loy.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. For Department of Transportation. Thank you so much. I absolutely understand the innovative. You mentioned that example. Would that have been kind of shielded by like an emergency situation though?

Correct. And that's why we're able to use that method of procurement with our federal partners because it's allowable on the federal side and we got emergency relief funding and emergency proclamation. That's why we're able to use it. And because it was so successful in our view and our belief, we would like to just be able to use it in the future and other projects.

Yeah. And you know, speaking to some of the testimony in opposition, I think those guardrails are there. We define that as an emergency. You have crews on site, they can mobilize quickly. Is there a preferred list? Like so many other departments when emergencies come up, I'm trusting the Department of Transportation has a similar list.

For us, I think we do, depending on the scope of the work. It's contractors that we've worked with in the past. Maybe there's a project that is a terminus down or further down that are able, like you said, to just in an emergency situation. So those are the factors that we kind of determine which contractor to put on projects when there's an emergency.

And so you guys internally set kind of a priority as far as order of magnitude, what the needs are, who's nearby, who has the equipment.

Correct.

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any further questions, Members? Okay, thank you. We'll move on to the next bill, House Bill 1297.

We have the State Procurement Office in support. Thank you. Department of Accounting and General Services in support. Department of Transportation in support.

Aloha. I just wanted to highlight a couple of things. So for the 75 days to apply to all projects, we're in, you know, strong support. Just internally, we've been implementing that 75 day on all protests, and we aspire to respond within 45 days.

Our project managers, if they feel that it's going to go over those 45 days, the head of the purchasing agency must sign off that it will.

For the 24 hours, if you're going to protest on the content of the solicitation, we're in support because that gives us time to kind of correct the solicitation if needed, and then to issue an addendum and maybe even postpone the bid if the bidders need more time to submit a good bid. Also, the protest bond is blank, the cap.

So we would recommend or propose a $1.5 million cap. And that's because we have a couple of really big upcoming projects, maybe from like 170 million to 250 million. And the cost of constructions have really rose, as I mentioned before, about 40 to 60% from 2021 to 2024. The national average is about 56%.

And so we think that that would be an equitable cap. Thank you.

Thank you. General Contractors Association of Hawaii in opposition.

Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ryan Sakuda, on behalf of the GCA, to be clear, we're opposed to Section 2 of the Bill only. So Section 2, as currently stands, allows the procurement code to be healthy.

Procurement code needs to have checks and balances to be able to operate to its purpose, which is to basically allow for ethical procurement while maximizing taxpayer dollars. Here by removing that provision and inserting a blank cap and a hearing after the Department saying they recommend 1.5 million. The previous cap was at $10,000.

So to get from $10,000 to 1.5 million, you're basically telling every General contractor that it's so far financially out of their reach to file an appeal, that they're just not going to be able to afford to do that. They will lose 1.5 million in that instance. It'll put basically agency decisions outside of the public purview scope.

The reason why we passed this law last year to allow the bond forfeiture to come back unless it's found frivolous is because this is what all the other states do. Hawaii is now in line with all the other states.

By removing this, we now fall out of line, which then creates more of an issue where we could potentially be doing unethical procurement here. So we see this as an ethical measure to ensure that we stay in line with all the other states.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we've received on this measure. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members, questions? Mistake procurement. In your testimony, it gives a $1 million cap. How was that number determined?

So what I did was had my staff just do the average of all construction jobs. But considering that there are some really big construction jobs that wasn't taken actually into factor. We just took the average and came up with that amount and that the 1% came out to about $1 million.

Okay, thank you. Any further questions, Members? Thank you very much. We're going to move on to the next Bill for House Bill 1414.

First up, we have the State Procurement Office in opposition.

Good morning again, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Bonnie Kahakui, administrator, State Procurement Office. We are opposing to this. We are opposed to this bill. There already are methods that will take into best value. IFB is not the only method. I think introducing a hybrid or another method into this process will be confusing to not only to the vendors, but to the agencies themselves who have to make this determination. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Department of Accounting and General Services in opposition. Thank you. We have the City and County of Honolulu. Oh, sorry. We also have testimony in opposition from the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Budget and Fiscal Services, and GCA, as well as testimony in support from three individuals. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Questions, Members? Representative Reyes Oda.

I guess to the Procurement Office. Thank you. Good morning. In your testimony, you state that fair and open competition inspires public confidence that contracts are awarded equitably and economically. Do you believe the public is confident that our public works contracts are awarded equitably and economically under the current process?

Yes, I do. Based on the criteria that the the agency will put out, they lay out exactly what is required, and then it's basically as long as the vendor is responsive, responsible, technically acceptable, then the lowest bid. So to introduce this bill that this best value, that is somewhat subjective. So how is the vendor to know what are they looking for as best value? It may differ from agency to agency, and again, that may cause confusion.

In your testimony, you said this bill is not necessary as the procurement officer has the authority to select the best method of procurement for the given situation? Do you believe procurement officers have exercised this authority properly in regards to the projects like the Hawaii State Hospital?

I don't... I'm not familiar with the Hawaii State Hospital. I know that there were issues on that, and I don't think that it was necessarily a procurement issue as a contract management issue. Did they provide enough oversight to the contractor? I don't think it was the procurement method that was in question.

It was the contract management that could have been, may have been the issue. Who was there watching to make sure that the contractors did what they were supposed to do? Were the project managers on top of any issues that resulted from as a result of some of these issues? So again, procurement is a very small piece of the project. They have to do the planning, they have to do the procurement. And just as important as the procurement is the contract manager, who's managing it, and how are they managing it.

Okay, so I guess if you're not familiar with that, you don't know if they were the, if they were the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

I'm not sure. Sorry.

So, and something like that. Who would be the entity that's directly responsible for making that designation?

The head of the purchasing agency would, I would think would be the most likely person that would be on top of that. So for the Hawaii State Hospital, I not sure if Public Works assisted in that project. But again, normally we look to the head of the purchasing agency, who's the director for that procurement.

Okay, so once procurement makes the, I guess accepts the bid, then you guys don't have anything to do with the project moving forward. Okay, so who would have the, who would have the project after you guys approve it?

We don't approve... The State Procurement doesn't do projects for other entities. We provide guidance, we provide the rules, the statutes, but each agency is delegated the authority to do their own procurements.

Okay. So each agency makes a decision? Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Further questions, Members? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on to the next bill.

We'll move on to the next House Bill, 620 HD1.

We have the Department of the Attorney General with comments.

Morning Chair Yamashita, Vice Chair Takenouchi, and Members. Anne Horiuchi Department of the Attorney General. As we noted in our testimony, eligible student assessments are determined by an IEP team. Mandating the yearly assessments in those areas is contrary to federal law, which leaves that determination to the IEP team themselves.

So in our testimony, what We've done is we've recommended the removal of new section 302A, C, subsection B, on page 5, lines 1 through 6. Thank you, and I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. We have testimony from the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. James Gashel here, representing National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii. Just want to say there was a Bill like this last year. This Bill has had a lot of work between last year's session and now.

And there's broad support for this Bill, including from the Department of Education, from National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, from the Civil Rights Commission, from the Advisory Committee on Special Education. It's never a wrong thing to do, to stand up in favor of literacy. And that means Braille literacy when the child is blind or low vision.

We appreciate your support for this Bill. Hope you pass this as is so we can continue to work on it in the Senate. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from Marie Kauthoft.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Marie Kauthoft, and I stand on my written testimony in support of HB620. I just wanted to add real quick. I was diagnosed early on with an eye disease, retinitis pigmentosa, which the prognosis was blindness.

And because of a decision that was made, or lack thereof, earlier on in my life, that haunted me the rest of my life. I'm approaching 60 now, I will never have the proficient Braille that I would need or I wanted to be able to do the things that I wanted to do. So I would just ask-

I'm not in support of this Bill for me because the system already failed me. I didn't get the assessment I needed or the braille instruction or the resources in my hand. But what it will do is it will help our blind children today so they don't have to face a similar future. Thank you.

Thank you. We also received testimony with comments from the Department of Education and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and Special Education Advisory Council in support, as well as two other individuals in support. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, Members, questions? Thank you. We'll move on to the final Bill on the- Oh, sorry. Please proceed.

Thank you. For the doe.

Oh, they're not here. They just provided comments.

Okay. Sorry. The first testifier was from where?

Attorney General's.

Attorneys. Sure. Can I ask Attorney General then? Thank you. Are you aware. Oh, hi. Good morning. Are you aware of the DOE setting benchmarks for the amount of kids in inclusion versus resource classrooms.

That is something I'm not aware of.

Okay, so would predetermining placement for IEPs be against IDEA?

Predetermination is contrary to the IDEA, the determination of where a child should be and what assessments are needed. Those are IEP team decisions.

Okay, so it would be against IDEA then if the DOE set percentage benchmarks of students with their least restrictive environment to be in inclusive settings versus resource or fully self contained or fully self contained classes, would that be contrary?

I'm not sure if I have the complete scenario, so I don't want to say whether something is or is not complete.

So I guess their placement of where the body would be on campus. Whether they'd be with general ed, which is inclusion; resource, which is a pullout for a certain class period; or fully self contained, meaning they're separated from general ed students for the entire day.

Again, those are IEP team decisions. So the-

So it shouldn't be set by the department on the percentage of students that are in each category.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I'm quite understanding the question because I'm not sure if we're. If this is a- looking at a particular school or?

No just in general. Yeah, because if the. Yeah, the. So for the availability of having Braille, it wouldn't just be okay to have it available for the student? It had to be only determined by the IEP? For the IEP team to determine for the student?

The IEP team determines would be looking at the particular needs of each individual student to determine what is appropriate for each individual student.

Okay. And would it be against the law if Braille was available to all students who are visually impaired?

I think there's a concern with mandating that it be made available because it may not be appropriate for certain students who are visually impaired. There may be other-

Okay, but available. If it was available, then it would be okay?

Yes, I believe so.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Further questions Members? Thank you very much. Moving on to the final Bill, House Bill 504HD1.

First, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources in support.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee. My name is Dawn Chang. I am with Department of Land and Natural Resources. We stand in strong support of this bill. We greatly appreciate the House recognizing the role of DLNR in managing the resources. For us, this appropriation will specifically assist DLNR in protecting, managing, and restoring valuable resources.

Unless we have the sufficient capacity to manage these resources and protect them to what makes Hawaii special. Hawaii is a top global destination, and unless we have the resources to protect these very valuable resources, perhaps no one will come. So due to accelerated impact of severe weather events, climate change, droughts, fires that have disproportionately impacted DLNR, we need the resources to protect and preserve these most valuable assets that include land and water.

And we greatly appreciate the support of the Committee in recognizing DLNR's role in that critical, playing a critical role in protection of these resources, not only for residents, but also for visitors. So with that, I'm also available to answer any questions. I also have a member of my staff that's also available to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have the Department of Taxation with comments. Thank you. We have the Nature Conservancy in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Elizabeth Benyshek and I am representing the Nature Conservancy Hawaii and Palmyra. You have our written testimony in strong support. And I want to highlight that the Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Lands did do a poll of visitors this year and found that 76% of visitors are willing to pay an annual visitor fee.

That includes 85% of visitors who have been to the island more than two or three times and 25% that said that they would actually be more likely to visit if such structures were in place. I also want to highlight that, in 2024 and in 2023, we did polling for voters and what we found was 3 out of 5 support a similar fee structure. Thank you.

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

Aloha and good morning. This is Jade McMillen on behalf of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We've submitted some comments on the measure. We've noted that rates included in the bill are unspecified and cannot be scored for possible gain or loss because of those lengths. And we also assume that there will be an increase in taxes which we know will be borne by the visitors, which will definitely have an economic impact in the long run. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAuamo, KUA, on Zoom in support?

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Kevin Chang. I'm the Executive Director of Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAuamo. We stand on our testimony except for we want to do kind of focus on the comment we make in the testimony that we believe it's important that these kind of funds not just go to our government but go to our community so they can equally share responsibility and caring for our resources.

Without doing that, I feel that we are still just upholding the status quo in the way we manage. I believe DLNR knows and has been working to change the way they manage in partnership with our citizens, and I think that this is an important aspect of this program that is not yet placed in any of these bills. Mahalo.

Thank you. We have Climate Protectors Hawaii and the Ocean Reef and Ocean Coalition in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ted Bohlen for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and Climate Protectors Hawaii in strong support of this bill. I think there's general agreement that we have not been financing or funding enough our natural resources.

People come here because we are pristine, and we have to stay that way or they will stop coming. I think it's appropriate when we have so many visitors that put such a burden on our resources that they pay some of the costs, and therefore this bill is appropriate for that.

One comment I would have specifically is that the funds should go to a dedicated source to be used for the purposes of this bill and not just a general taxation measure. And that they should work with the communities to make sure that the money that is collected go out to the community groups as well as to the agencies that are doing work so that they can work together and bring us a better environment for Hawaii. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. We have Care for ‘Āina Now Coalition in support.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Carissa Cabrera. I get to represent 65 organizations and small businesses as part of the Care for 'Āina Now Coalition. You have our written testimony, but I just want to underscore the urgency of passing legislation like this this year and furthering conversation about this in the Senate because we've been at this for many years.

But our 'āina continues to be deprioritized. And this year we're facing federal funding divestment and many of the nonprofits within our coalition are extremely vulnerable to not being able to do the good work that they do that benefit communities. This is not just an investment in green jobs and economic livelihoods sustained by our 'āina, but also in the resources that underpin our culture, way of life, and clean air and water and our backyards. So thank you for hearing this and for considering this measure for another year. We hope that we can continue discussion.

And I also want to underscore what KUA mentioned and Ted with that many of these groups work in partnership with DLNR, but community coalitions and organizations also do so much of the work when it comes to stewardship across the state. And a community grant program could help share the resources equitably and also foster collaboration with agencies. So thank you.

Thank you. We have Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii in support.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, mahalo for listening to what we have to say on this Bill. You have my written testimony, but I just wanted to add a couple of things. When I read the preamble to this Bill, I said, damn, the state gets it. This is like a really important issue for this state.

We're understanding we need to do that, do do all these things, and yet each year we come, and I feel like this topic is neglected in the grand scheme of things of like, are we actually giving funding to protect the things that we need to survive, the things that bring people here in the first place, that give people jobs?

And no, I don't think we are. And I think that this Bill actually has the opportunity to do that. I think it needs some work. I think there's some things in the amendments that-

That a lot of my colleagues have spoken to about a community grants program, about making sure that the funds that are in this are enough to do it. I've seen places like Turtle Bay increase their cost per room by 200, 300, 400% in a small amount of years. They're still getting people to come to Hawaii.

This is not going to stop people from coming to Hawaii. I think that's pretty obvious in how much the cost of coming to Hawaii and being a visitor has gone up over the years, and yet we still are exceeding 10 million visitors, even after Covid now.

So I think that there's a priority that needs to be placed on this from somebody who works in a nonprofit and that we've grown over the years. I've seen the value of giving our young generation the opportunity to work in this field and not be stuck in service jobs.

I know that they are helping pay bills, too, but to see the value, the light in people's eyes when they get to work in protecting the place that they grew up and the places that they love, it's transformational. And we need to understand that that is the future of jobs.

That is the future that is actually going to protect this place. And I hope you all understand that and continue to work on this Bill. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you. That's everybody I have checked. And we also received testimony in support from the Hawaii Tourism, or comments from the Hawaii Tourism Authority. Testimony in opposition from three organizations. Ten organizations in support, as well as one individual providing comments, and 27 individuals in support. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Please just state your name and position for the record.

Aloha. My name is Melissa Pavlicek. I'm here today on behalf of the Care for Aina Now Coalition Leadership Committee. I know that you heard from our coalition Members. Our leadership Committee has been working very hard leading up to this session and with legislators. We really want to thank and appreciate you for hearing this Bill.

As you may have read in our testimony, we completed a study which acknowledges the wonderful work that the Legislature has done in funding natural resource protection and restoration. We wouldn't be where we are without that, and yet there is still a gap and this Bill addresses that.

Thank you very much for hearing it today and please support this measure. Thank you.

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

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Hanna Lesiak and I'm here on behalf of the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force in strong support of HB504HD1. Our task force is comprised of over 120 individuals and numerous organizations, all of which who care deeply about the protection of our Aina and our oceans.

Now more than ever is the time to support our environment and build that safety net. Thank you for hearing this Bill and please support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room? Thanks. Please just state your name and position for the record.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Finance Committee. My name is Maka Gibson and I live in Kaneohe and I'm in strong support of this Bill. I'm a program officer at Resources Legacy Fund where I develop and implement strategies and projects for our whole Hawaii environmental equity and justice programs.

Resources Legacy Fund is a nonprofit and philanthropic organization and locally we partner with community based organizations to promote natural and cultural resource protection and restoration. My organization is in strong support of this Bill and we know what's Most important about HP504 is that it increases funding for natural resource protection.

HP504 is missing a key component that we believe is a community grant program to support organizations working at the front lines of Malama Aina work. In one of my roles, I administer a federal grant program through the EPA called Thriving Communities, which works to advance environmental justice programs and projects, and it's currently on pause.

Which underlines the importance of this Bill. This grant program through the EPA could provide upwards of $10 million to communities across the state, really highlighting the need of inclusion for a community grant program. Thank you so much for hearing this Bill and we hope you support it.

Thank you. State your name and position for the record.

Hi, Aloha mai kakou. Madelyn McKeague, on behalf of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. We stand on our written testimony and in strong support.

I think I want to kakoo everyone that came before me and particularly wanted to emphasize; A, the visitor numbers that show people are not only incredibly in favor of it, but want to pay this because they understand the impact that they are having, but they also understand that they are not here for a long time.

And so if they can transfer resources to us to make sure the people who are here permanently can steward the land, everyone is in favor of that. I also really want to emphasize the federal funding situation and the impact of building state resiliency and state resources for CNHA personally.

We have also had an EPA grant that was terminated. We also saw on Monday 130 workers in Maui who were permanent who were let go because of federal grants that were terminated. That means we had to close our close our warehouse.

That allowed us to give resources to displaced workers and all of those workers who themselves were displaced are out of work. It's more important than now that we are building up our state resiliency and this measure is critically important to that. Mahalo.

Thank you. I don't have a note of your testimony. Maybe you want to resend to the Committee so it can be part of the record?

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks. Anybody else in the room? Please come forward and state your name and position for the record.

Aloha Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Josh Stanbro. As an individual citizen testifying, although I did spend the last two years in Washington D.C. working on securing federal fund for a Hawaii based nonprofit in the climate resilience space. Those funds are now being contested and frozen.

And so I just wanted to reaffirm Maddie's comments from CNHA about, you know, Lahaina was a climate disaster.

We've had rain bombs, we've had all of these different climate problems that if we don't turn to ourselves and to our visitors to help reinforce and build that second line of funding around state and local resources, the federal funds are not going to be there over the next few years.

And so it's really incumbent on us to step up in the resilience space. Thank you. Strong support.

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

Aloha. My name is Aaron Magee and I'm speaking in support of HB504 HD1. Born and raised on Oahu. In my short lifetime, I've seen my beaches, my favorite beaches and hikes rapidly increase in popularity with little to no visible increase in the support to preserve these areas.

Relying on Hawaii's steadily declining environment to continue attracting tourists is an unsustainable model. Right now, we have the opportunity to follow other already successful models of visitor fee programs and be an example of what is possible when the community comes together to care for the ecosystems that keep us alive.

Every other breath of air we take is made in our oceans. We cannot afford to rely on nature to continue taking on more responsibility to provide for us without appropriately investing back into it.

As someone who has complained about the lack of action from representatives to do the sensible thing, I chose to share my testimony for the first time today as this Bill feels like an opportunity with minimal downside and geometric upside. My experience seeing the decline in Oahu's ecosystem health is why I work in environmental conservation.

And in addition to state agencies such as the DLNR, nonprofit organizations must be recognized for the role on the front lines of stewardship, restoration and education. Without additional funding, the nonprofit sector will continue to force workers to choose between doing well financially and doing good for the world.

An unfortunate choice considering these causes are what's referred to as what really matters in life. To ensure this Bill is truly effective, I recommend there be a plan to increase the fee over time. There'd be a dedicated NGO grant program to ensure funds support community initiatives.

There'd be a public system for transparently reporting the use of these funds and an educational component showing visitors how the fee works to keep Hawaii beautiful. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room? Anybody on Zoom wishing to testify?

Okay, questions, Members? Representative Lamosao.

Thank you. Chair. I have a question for Melissa first. Then is it okay if I ask another person a question Chair? How much could this program potentially or how much revenue could we potentially potentially collect for this program for all this land surge?

Our study indicated that there's a $560 million gap. The TAT generates money that goes into the General Fund. How much it's increased, I've heard at prior testimonies somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to $175 million could potentially be generated depending on how much is assessed on the increase. How much of that goes to natural resource protection and restoration et cetera.

But for the this $20, you don't have an amount.

Yeah, so I'm sorry, I thought you were pointing to the increase amount. The $20 on the rewards would be significantly less than that.

Okay. Chair I have a question for DLNR. Chair Dawn or Emma.

So have you guys thought about, I know you mentioned in your testimony about the cost of all of these service projects have you folks been in talk with UH, and other departments have gone that have gone in this direction of changing some of the scope or the language that it describes the scope of your project.

So that way it's not seen as a climate change initiative to draw down some of these funds? Because I realize maybe some of these projects are already undergoing. And so have you guys thought about doing that?

Specifically the federal funded programs? Emma?

Yeah, I'm Emma Yuen with DLNR and we do have existing programs that some have already been named, but we in the future are looking at renaming and rebranding to be less targeted by the federal agencies. But we're also dealing with existing ones that we can't change the name now.

So they're already on that target list, unfortunately.

And then those are the ones that are kind of being shut down or.

Well, we don't know the future, but they're currently, a lot of them are currently frozen and we don't know- we have a lot of uncertainty about whether they're going to be restored.

If I can add, there's a specific program with our Climate Commission, they were applying for a federal grant. So we are realigning that grant that's been in consultation with EPA as well. So words matter with this new Administration, so things like climate change matter.

So we have pulled that proposal application back and we're revolution submitting it to be more in alignment with the new administration's values.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Hussey, followed by Lee Loy.

Thank you. Please, just for a moment, Chair.

Please.

And thank you, Chair Yamashita. I'm concerned with the idea of pulling back and, and somehow mollifying the incoming Administration by deleting language which they might find objectionable. But I promise you, we need that language in there and we need to fight for our values. We value, you know, fighting for a sustainable and dependable climate.

So if there's anything that we can do on our side, you know, as legislators, to embolden you, Chair Chang, to be strong and fight for our Aina, let us know how we can help.

And I appreciate that very much. I think for us it is our ability to do the good work. I recognize words matter. I recognize that. I guess I want to convey to you at no time are we compromising the integrity of what we're applying for. Those values continue to remain.

I think we're just trying to be recognizing that perhaps it's severe weather events versus climate action. So we're making adjustments to be in alignment so we can do the good work that needs to be done. But I want to assure you we are not in any way compromising the quality or the manner in which we conduct ourselves.

But we do need the resources to do the good work.

Representative Lee Loy.

Thank you, Chair Chang, Emma, thanks for being here. I was more curious around some of the testimony that we had from our nonprofits and our nonprofit partners. And if the Department has looked at kind of a stewardship model grant program, we've seen incredible success on Hawaii island with our Open Space Fund.

And oftentimes finding stewards with a matching mission has been a challenge. But it seems like in this situation you have many nonprofits that already have a mission. What would that take for the department to kind of create that?

If I may, and then Emma can add on to this. We strongly support that. I mean, we at DLNR recognize we cannot steward all these resources. So the original environmental stewardship Bill did include a grant program. 50% would go to DLNR, 50% would go to many of our community partners. We welcome the opportunity to create a program like that.

Who best to steward these resources but our communities? And then we can provide maybe technical assistance. But we welcome the opportunity to formalize that in the Bill to create a grant program where we can work with our community partners because we actually believe it is an investment.

They will be the ones who will long term commitment to those resources much more than government. But if we can. So we are supportive of many of the recommendations that you've heard today. We are in alignment with that. We have tried that.

So for example, Haena, you know, our parking reservation that's been in collaboration with community partners and very successful. We're trying to emulate that in many of our other state park systems as well.

Great, and follow up question to that. During our info briefing we heard a lot of the need for managing our resources, and my question was the partnership with our DOD REPI Program.

And I'm just curious how this fund, along with the Department and its partnership with the REPI Program, we can kind of collateralize funds which then can be dispersed to our nonprofit stewards?

I'll let Emma's done a lot of work with REPI. I'll let Emma respond and then I can provide some final comments.

Yeah, we definitely pool all sorts of federal funding for joining, you know, our state projects. And so the REPI is a huge infusion in funding. Again, we don't know the future of that and whether it might also be on the chopping block. So we're very interested in finding other sources to. To pool and potentially offset any losses that we might be experiencing in the future as well. But that's a great point.

If I can just add to that, Rep. Lee Loy, is that I think REPI, they are a great partner. I mean, statewide, and we've just been Hawaii is now sentinel landscape. So it provides us the opportunity. I'm a little bit more confident than perhaps Emma is. I believe that DOD is not gonna cut the REPI program.

I mean, that's been a very successful program for all of their installations. But REPI provides us the opportunity to also utilize community partners to expand our ability to steward these resources. So I think we're going to need everybody's input into this and participation. No way that any one of us can do it.

But REPI has been a great partner. They bring to the table a tremendous amount of resources that we could not otherwise do. But it also is their responsibility. They have installations all over the state, and they should be providing us support to manage those. Thank you.

Yeah. And to your comment earlier, you know, words matter, right. And so when you look at the goals and missions of the REPI program, maybe even tailoring some of these grant applications to dovetail nicely into those goals and objectives and of the REPI program, kind of help springboard some of these asks. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Chang.Thank you, Emma, for being here. Chair I yield.

Thank you for other questions, Members. Okay, you guys can stay right there. So I have a couple questions. So in light of the current situation. Right. And the uncertainty that we face going forward, this measure, I believe, needs some flexibility for the Legislature to move the money as the situation is before us, whatever.

Because I think what is before us today is not necessarily what's going to be before us two years, three years, four years from now. But at the same time, I want to take this opportunity with this Bill to be able to maximize what we're doing with you.

Two years ago, when we thought we had a lot of money, we actually. DLNR was one that we actually wanted to put into state parks. All these different things we want to put money into, but the intent was to do large projects and things like that. Are there large projects that you can kind of just rattle off for me right now that may be important to you?

I have got coastal land acquisition, $12 million, beach maintenance, restoration, $50 million. I've got higher positions to conduct risk from aquatic vessels, pathways and organisms, $260,000. I have projects involving increased base funding for watershed partnerships to $8 million. Coordinate statewide comprehensive uniform surveillance monitoring programs for high risk, $250,000. $30,000 a year for aquatic invasive species related issues.

NOFA 5 specialist programs on each island that focus on monitoring, detection and control of high risk. Division of Aquatic Resources. Looking also at an outreach coordinator. Visitor Impact Outreach will focus on educating visitors about safe interactions with Hawaii, Hawaiian wildlife, including monk seals, turtles, dolphins, ecosystem, that's $2 million. Ecosystem fisheries monitoring $1 million.

Community led NIRSA management planning, we have about $100,000. And then I have enforcement from DOCARE to help manage those resources. Chair, I do have a list.

No, no, that's good. That's very good. Okay. Because I think what I'd like to do. Is I'd like to put into this Bill a mechanism to be able to dump the money into somewhere that we can pull. Similar to-

Remember when yesterday when we did the Bill to try and look at small boat harbors and then use the fee increases for the boat harbors to be able to do larger projects and then actually do geo reimbursable projects. But I need to identify a revenue source to be able to float the geo reimbursable to do bigger projects.

So what I'm thinking about doing on this Bill is we're going to stick in a mechanism to identify a revenue source so that we can do large geo reimbursable projects with this money that actually will have a bigger impact on your Department. Like I said, similar to what I was thinking about with small boat harbors. Right.

Because if we just use cash then. Right. There's only so much we can do. Right. But if I can bond fund it and I can do something big. But I'd like to put that amendment into the Bill. Are you in support of something like that?

We'd explore all options that would increase funding for us to do a series of different projects. So are you looking for an existing Fund within TAT?

Well, I'm looking at this TAT Fund and all these different funds. But to actually put it into somewhere where I can. Right. Because when you float bonds you need certainty. You need to know that the money is going to be there to pay that service. Right. And then with that you can do big things.

So that's the thought. Right. Because I know, right, Emma we, Watershed projects, all these different things that you're constantly competing for general obligation bonds for. But you're competing against 250 schools throughout the whole state. You're competing against the jails that we need to build healthcare facilities.

All these different things, but if we can identify a debt service revenue source that we can actually fund, like bigger things, I think that might be.

I think we're open to that. I also think that would probably address some of the visitor industry's concern to ensure that this dedicated source of funding is going specifically to address some of the visitor impact.

Yep. Okay, thank you very much. Further questions, Members? Okay, thank you. Okay, we're going to recess and we're going to return at about sorry for the long recess, but we're going to return at 2:15. There are some Members that had previous meetings and they're not going to be back till later this afternoon.

So I'm going to allow them to come back so they can all vote on all the bills and we're going to vote on them all at one time. So we're going to be we're going to come back at about 2:15. So we're in recess.

Okay, we're going to convene the Committee on Finance on our, first of all, our 11 o' clock agenda. That was a decision only agenda. First up is House Bill... House Bill 29. Sorry. House Bill 29, HD 2. Okay, this is something that we heard on February 24th, Monday at 2:00pm. Recommendation is that we defer. Okay, moving on to the second part, which is what we heard yesterday at our third agenda. First up is House Bill 1187, HD 1. Recommendation is to pass as is. Any discussion? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1187, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Recommendation's adopted.

Thank you very much, Members. We're moving on to the next bill, House Bill 1337, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

Voting on HB 1337, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Noting the excused absence of Representative Ward, who will be noted as excused for the remaining of this agenda unless otherwise announced. Are there any reservations? Are there any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 4450, HD 2. Recommendation is we pass it out with amendments, blanking out the FDE, defecting the effective date to 7-1-3000, and some tech. Any discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 450, HD 2. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 925, HD 2. We're going to be blanking out the percentage and tech. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 925, HD 2. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 1378, HD 1. We're going to be moving out the proposed proposed draft, blanking out the dollar amount, and some tech. Any discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 1378, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, moving on to the next bill, House Bill 628, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 628, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 751, HD 1. We're going to be removing the county reimbursement and some tech. Any discussion? Okay. Vice Chair.

HB 751, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 549, HD 2. Okay, we're going to be making a simple amendment. We're going to be just... We're going to be tightening up the language by removing on page five but not limited to so that there is more certain, so that there's more certainty with the money that they can use on the five items identified. So we're just removing but not limited to on page five and some tech. Any discussion? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

HB 549, House Draft 2. Recommendation's passed with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 563, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 563, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 1168, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 1168, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 214, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 214, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 792, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 792, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving to House Bill 97, HD 2 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 97, HD 2. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to House Bill 348, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 348, HD 1. Recommendation to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? No vote for Rep. Alcos. Any other no votes? Seeing none. Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to next bill, House Bill 448, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 448, HD 1. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to House Bill 449, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 449, House Draft 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. House Bill 960, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 960, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you, Members. We're going to move into our previous agenda that we just finished a little while ago. First up is House Bill 381. Recommendation is that we pass it out as an HD 1, blanking out the increments, and putting a deffective date of July 1st, 3000, and tech. Discussion? Vice Chair.

Voting on HB 381. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on. House Bill 988. Recommendation is to pass out with defective date is July 1st, 3000 and tech. Any discussion? Vice Chair.

Voting on HB 988. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Representative Ward, who will be noted as excused for the remaining of the measures on this agenda unless otherwise announced. Are there any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to House Bill 1155. Recommendation is to pass with amendments defecting the effective date 7-1-3000 and tech. Vice Chair. Oh, sorry. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 1155. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Reservations for Rep. Alcos. Any other reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none. Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving to the next bill, House Bill 1297. Recommendation is to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000 and tech. Any discussion? Oh, hold on. We're also going to be putting in the Committee report that the SPO recommended 1 million and Department of Transportation recommended 1.5 cap. Yeah, 1.5 was from Department of Transportation and 1 million was from the SPO. Yeah. In their... We're going to put that in the Committee report. Okay. Any discussion? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

HB 1297. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, moving on to House Bill 1414. We're going to be defecting the effective date and tech. Discussion? Okay. Vice Chair.

HB 1414. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to the next bill, House Bill 620, HD 1 as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

HB 620, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to the next bill, House Bill 504, HD 1. Members, we're going to be making some amendments to this bill. We'll be revising the appropriations section to include language from House Bill 1077 and House Bill 752 to appropriate funds for for the project that address climate change impacts.

Promote sustainable tourism models, incorporate destination management to reduce visitor impacts on the natural environment, and for protection that both enhances the state's natural resources and promotes economic development related to the tourism industry.

We'll also be allowing DNR to use the fund for consistent personnel contracts, administrative costs required to develop and implement these projects. Provide further that DLNR shall consult with the Hawaii Tourism Authority and the respective counties of tourism related projects.

We'll also be adding a new Section 4 requiring the DLNR submit detailed reports to the Legislature on the expenditures of this fund. And also, as I mentioned in questions, we'll be adding a section to create a fund for your debt service in under in B&F and some technical amendments. Any discussion? Okay. Representative Reyes Oda.

Thank you. Every year we hear proposals to increase transient accommodation tax. Hawaii already has the highest TAT in the country and tourism, our tourism industry is still trying to recover from the pre-pandemic level. While I agree with the intent to dedicate funding towards environmental stewardship, this is not the time to impose more taxes and hinder rebuilding of our visitor industry. I would like to see more discussion on other ways to raise revenue to support our 'āina. I'll be voting with reservations.

Thank you. Any further discussions? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

HB 504, HD 1. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Noting the reservations of Representative Reyes Oda. Any other reservations? Any no votes? No vote for Rep. Alcos. Any other noes? Okay. Recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the final bill, House Bill 1194, HD 1. This bill was heard on Friday, February 21st at 3pm, relating to midwives. Okay, we're going to be making several amendments to this bill. We'll add an amendment from the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation's testimony to clarify that the Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practice to protect under the state constitution are exempt from this chapter. Also delete any reference to Kupuna Council convened by Papa Ola Lokahi.

And then number two, we'll be adding an amendment from the American Society of Radiologic Technologists to clarify that midwives cannot perform, supervise, or interpret procedures using ionized radiation. For example, x-rays, CT scans, and mammograms. And three, clarify global signature authority for midwives by deleting workers comp forms, Department of Education forms, physical exam forms to be consistent with midwives scope of practice.

And four, clarify peer review requirements by deleting the word committee and that the requirements for peer review does not apply to midwives working in hospitals and and an accredited birth facility. And five, clarify that the DCCA may require data submission as a condition of license renewal, but this requirement shall not apply to midwives working in hospitals or accredited birth facilities.

And six, clarify that the definition of certified midwife and certified professional midwives to be consistent with the requirements of licensure. And seven, revise the definition of practicing midwifery by deleting the... Okay. Revise the definition of the practicing of midwifery by deleting primary care individuals from adolescent through adulthood. And eight, update the definition of telehealth to match the definition under Practice of Medicine Statute under HRS 453-1.5.

And nine, clarify that the exemption from this chapter for individuals practicing under other license does not allow the person to use the title midwife or licensed midwife. And ten, amend from DCCA's testimony to clarify that the requirements for CPR and NRP certifications shall be valid at the time of licensure and the licensee shall be responsible for maintaining current certificates throughout the license period. Okay.

And 11, adopt the amendments from DCCA's testimony to add to HRS 557J-12 that the failure to maintain CPR and NRP certifications is ground for refusal to grant or renew license and or revocation of license. And 12, add language on section HRS 557J-12 to make clear that the midwife may... That a midwife may delegate administrative and technical clinical tasks to an unlicensed person. And 13, making the effective date June 29, 2025. Any discussion? Representative Hussey.

That's quite a list of amendments. Thank you, Chair. And also, you know, thank you to Chair and Vice Chair for keeping the testimony going until 9pm on Friday. That was we heard a lot. I was curious, Chair, in the list of amendments, did you also include an amendment that specifically exempts family members and other birth professionals from, essentially from criminalization under under the statute that we're considering?

That was not part of the... Yeah, but it does add that one section where they can assign it to a non-licensed person.

Okay. And also from the ACLU testimony, they also requested a birth attendant exemption with consumer protection disclosure requirements recommended by the DCCA. Was that covered in the, in the amendments that... A birth attendant exemption with consumer protection disclosure requirements recommended by the DCCA in its testimony. So I heard you mention in the long list there was an item from the DCCA. Is that that item?

Let's see. Clarifying that the DCCA may require data submission as a condition of licensure renewal. Is that the part you're talking about or you're talking about...

I don't know if it's the same thing. Yeah, you know, we can work on it. Keep working on it. There's a lot of changes. Okay. So I'm going to request... I think I have to vote no on the measure as it is, but, you know, I look forward to seeing the final language as it moves out of our Committee.

So just to be clear. Right. These amendments were made in consultation with the subject matter Chairs and with leadership and many others. DCCA and others. And so. But this bill is, to be very clear, June 29, 2025. So it is a clean bill. So if it goes to the Senate and the Senate agrees, it becomes law. Any further discussion? Yes.

Can you repeat the second to the last amendment on the list that you.

The second to the last amendment. Okay. Okay. Add language in section HRS 557J-12 to make clear that a midwife may delegate administrative and technical clinical tasks to an unlicensed person.

Okay.

Yes, Representative Reyes Oda.

So I had a whole bunch of things written up, but now it's shorter. But I want to thank anybody who was in here who came on Friday to testify. If you guys are still here, thank you for allowing us to have a better understanding of this, of this topic. And as we heard from our community last week, the PEP, the PEP Apprenticeship Pathway offers a more accessible way for local midwifery students.

I'm not sure if that was included. That wasn't changed. Right? Okay, perfect. Thank you. And it has helped many midwives learn and train in the state. I fear that this bill would create barriers to midwifery care that's critically important for our community. And with that, I'm going to be voting no too.

Okay. Thank you very much. Any further discussion? Yes, Representative Grandinetti.

I'm really struggling with this one. I think I am going to vote with reservations. I appreciate the amendments that were made, particularly around the exemption for Native Hawaiian practitioners. My concerns are mostly with the PEP exemption and some of the ACLU amendments that seem to have been left unaddressed.

But, yeah, I really appreciate the time that everyone took to educate Members. This is a really complicated issue for me. I'm still not sure if I'm making the right choice, given that it's a clean bill. But I learned a lot. And thank you to Chair and Vice Chair for giving us that space to do that work. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, Members, you know, as the bill comes out, you know, we are, we will take it up on the floor and then everybody will have the opportunity to look at the complete bill. But those are the amendments as best I can explain at this point in time. Like I said, this was amendments that were made by subject matter, and again, like leadership and an agreement with DCCA and others, so. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

HB 1194, HD1. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Noting reservations from Representative Grandinetti. Any other reservations? Noting no votes from Reps. Hussey and Reyes Oda. Any other noes? No vote for Rep. Alcos. Any other noes? Okay. Recommendation's adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much, Members. We are adjourned.