House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, April 2, 2025, 2:00 p.m. here in Conference Room 325, and we're here for the purposes of hearing several measures. Thanks to all of the testifiers for being here, and members, thanks for being here as well.

For those who are testifying, I would request that you keep your testimony to two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point. If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and then turn it off again after your testimony is pau.

If you have technical issues, you can use the Zoom chat function to connect with our technical staff, and they're very good and they will help you out as best they can. If you're disconnected, don't panic. Just rejoin the meeting as soon as you can, and I'll try to fit you in as time permits to provide your testimony.

If the power goes off in the building here and the network goes off, and if we have to reschedule, we'll post appropriate notice so everyone knows what we're doing and when. If you're testifying on Zoom, please do not use any trademarked or copyrighted images.

That kicks us off of YouTube and then the public can't watch us and we would like to have the public able to watch everything we do here. Please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.

We got lots of work to do for the people of the State of Hawaii, and so, thank you for helping us do our job. First up, we have Senate Bill 602, and this Bill is relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority.

The measure includes any parcels owned by the Hawaii Public Housing Authority, as in areas that may be closed to the public, and it specifies the required signage when it is closed to the public. First up, we have Hawaii Public Housing Authority. Welcome, Mr. Wansafi.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee. We stand—Hakeem Wansafi, Executive Director, Hawaii Public Housing Authority—we stand in strong support of this Bill, which basically adds any property that we own, any parking lots, anything else, as part of a closed area for the public.

This will help for the community and not to have a lot of, lot of issues, people gathering, drinking, and things like that. The police officers here, they're not with me, but I'm sure they will appreciate this Bill. Thank you very much.

Okay, thanks very much. Next, we have testimony from Sergio Alcubia, not present, and he testified in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 602. If not, any questions, Members? Seeing none. Thanks very much. We're all set. Okay, let's go on to the next measure.

On the next measure, Senate Bill 822, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to the Landlord-Tenant Code. This measure establishes a three-year residential Landlord-Tenant Code working group within the Department of the Attorney General. It requires an initial report to the Legislature prior to the regular session of 2026 and a final report no later than July 1, 2028. First up, we have the Judiciary. Ms. Acosta.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Michelle Acosta, here on behalf of the Judiciary. Judiciary stands on our written testimony in support. This bill would, again, create the three-year working group to research and improve the residential Tenant-Landlord Code and address any other relevant landlord-tenant issues and provide an opportunity for collaboration amongst key stakeholders. The Judiciary is a key stakeholder, and so we are in support of this measure. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we have the Attorney General via--in person, okay. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Hahn, in opposition to the measure. Given how far along we are into the legislative session, we felt that it was necessary to take a stronger position on this measure than usual. We do have concerns about leading a working group on a subject matter that is outside the area of our expertise.

We generally don't practice in the area of the residential Landlord-Tenant Code, so we ask that the committee either defer the measure or consider amending it to direct a better-suited agency to lead the task force. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony in support from Hawaii County Office of Housing and Community Development. We have testimony from Hawaii Realtors. Ms. Garcia.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members. My name is Lyndsey Garcia from the Hawaii Realtors, so we are in strong support of the measure. We believe it's important to bring stakeholders together to discuss landlord-tenant issues in a working group to meet all year round, not just during session to deal with these very important issues.

We recognize the concerns of the AGs, and with the Judiciary's permission, we humbly suggest amendments to switch out the chairmanship of the committee from the AGs to the Judiciary to lead us all in this important working group. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And next, testimony from Sergio Alcubilla, Hawaii Workers Center.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair. My name is Sergio Alcubilla. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center, and I wanted to offer testimony in support of this measure. I, I support the amendments from the Realtors Association. You know, the, I think the issue is, where do tenants go for enforcement?

If the Attorney General's Office says that they're not in the business of enforcement, I, I think it leaves a lot of people wondering, you know, where, where people should go to enforcement. You know, I worked at the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii for ten years and I heard all the stories from tenants.

I worked at the court self-help centers, you know, providing legal advice to tenants, and you know, it's, it is really in favor of the landlord, unfortunately, and our Landlord-Tenant Code does need updating and I believe this working group is probably the best way to get appropriate stakeholders at the table.

I did want to add an additional comment. I know the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii is barred from coming in on their own and lobbying for specific rule changes, so I do ask that an attorney from the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii be included in the working group specifically. Thank you very much, chair.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 822, House Draft 1? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Question for Judiciary. So it was, I guess, suggested that the chair be transferred from the AG to Judiciary. Is Judiciary okay with that?

Thank you for the question. The Judiciary would be open to that. However, the way that the bill is currently written is that there are sections of it that the scope is beyond what the court's purview is. So specifically in section two and looking at page two, section two, section A2 is specifically within the court's scope.

However, section two, A1 and potentially three may be beyond the scope of the court. So if the committee is willing to amend the scope to be a little bit more tailored within the court's purview, then the court, the Judiciary would be open to chairing the committee or the working group. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Thanks very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thanks to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 38, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to housing.

This measure prohibits the legislative body of a county from making imposing restrictor—from imposing stricter conditions—than the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, stricter area median income requirements, or a reduction in fee waivers to housing development proposals that would increase the cost of the project. First up, we have Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Welcome, Mr. Minakami.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Dean Minakami with the Hawaii Housing Finance Development Corporation. We are in strong support of this measure. The tool in H 38 process is a means by which projects can receive exemptions from certain development standards for if they're providing affordable housing.

And in the past five years, we estimate that about over 20 projects have utilized this process. But only three of those projects were for sale projects. The majority are deeply affordable projects, rental projects utilizing low income housing tax credits.

For sale developers have told us that they're sometimes reluctant to use this process because after they receive approval by HTFC, that's go to the County Council and the Council may then completely change the affordability requirements. So, it leaves a great deal of uncertainty for them.

So, when we review a project, we work with the developer to provide us a broad range of affordability for for-sale projects. We don't approve projects that are only affordable at 140% AMI. They have to provide units at a range of AMR levels.

So, we feel that we do a pretty good job of vetting projects and that what we approve should also be upheld at the County Council level.

Okay, thank you very much. We've received written testimony from the Department of Planning and Permitting and Honolulu City Council Representative, Kia Aina. We also have received testimony from the Hawaii State Association of Counties. Welcome back, Nahi.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Nahilani Parsons. I'm here as the Executive Director for the Hawaii State Association of Counties.

While we strongly support affordable housing, we see this Bill as undermining local authority by restricting the counties from imposing some reasonable conditions that may be necessary to ensure public safety, infrastructure readiness, and genuine community benefit. Each county, as we know, is unique and faces distinct challenges.

What works in urban Honolulu may not always be feasible in rural Hona or on the Big Island by the volcano. For example, on Maui, we know water availability and fire resilience are critical concerns. The County Council needs to have the ability to condition its projects accordingly, where infrastructure capacity and community sensitivity are paramount.

A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work and that's why we have an issue with this Bill. We really need the counties to have the ability to customize their projects to the uniqueness of their communities. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and available if you have questions.

Thanks very much. We have written testimony from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, from Lahaina Strong, from Maui Chamber of Commerce, and from an individual, Seth Kamemoto. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 38? If not, questions, Members? Yes, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last testifier's name. I'm sorry.

Nahilani Parsons.

Thank you. Thank you for testifying. And you were with City Council?

With the Hawaii State Association of Counties. We have, we are—each county has one member that sits on our board.

Okay, I, I understand and respect your perspective. What I was wondering is when I, when I read the Bill, there is provision for the city and county to review the preliminary and final plans and specs up to 45 days to approve or disapprove.

So, that language in there does give city and county, or any county, the ability to have a say in it. So, I'm wondering, is that like not sufficient or different from what you are accustomed to?

Thank you, Representative, for the question. We do appreciate that that's in the Bill that's currently in statute. The language that we're concerned about is page two, line—lines—14 to 16. It's the, where the legislative body shall not make any modifications or opposing the conditions or increase the cost of the project.

That part does in a way restrict the county's authority. If they deem it unsafe for that unique community or some reason, there's usually a justification or a reason why they have to make a decision that unfortunately might increase the cost, but those are safety measures put in place to address the community's concerns.

And so, that's why they're not, you know, that language there takes away their reach on what they can do, basically.

Okay, follow up question, Chair. I can see that part and from what I heard from HHFTC was the, maybe the financial part of the qualifiers that affect the financing for the developers. So, if that language could be maybe adjusted to, to your concerns, I guess, is that okay?

Yep, absolutely. We're happy to work with you on addressing that or to find some accommodation in place.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Other questions, Members, if not. Thanks very much. The testifiers. Let's go on to the next measure. Senate Bill 146. Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 related to condominiums. This measure amends the conditions and procedures of alternative dispute resolutions methods for condominium related disputes, including the use of evaluative mediation or binding arbitration.

First up, we have the Hawaii Real Estate Commission.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair Members, [unintelligible]. Condo specialists. On behalf of the Hawaii Real Estate Commission. We'll send out our written comments and available for any questions. Thank you.

Yeah. If you would be so kind in our Committee, I request that you at least highlight the most important items in your testimony rather than Just standing on your testimony. Just so everyone knows. I do this because the public is watching and they haven't read your testimony.

And there are others in the room that would like the benefit of hearing the highlights from your testimony.

Okay, I apologize. I was just came from the CPC hearing.

Sure. Other committees do it differently.

So in summary, we do focus on the portions of the Bill that specifies the experience requirements for the mediators and the arbitrators Commission takes no position. We just wanted to clarify that we don't particularly contract with the individual mediators.

We do contract with the mediation providers so that the Condominium Education Trust Fund can be used to subsidize disputes should owners need to take the issue or an issue to mediation or arbitration.

We are in support of the initial fee of $150 we paid by each party to initiate mediation, which is lower from the current statute in 375. We do note that there is no initial fee for the arbitration portion, so we also request a similar fee of 150 for arbitration.

And as currently drafted, this bill appears to have removed the option of facilitative mediation, which is currently in statute. So current statute provides for facilitative mediation, evaluated mediation and voluntary binding arbitration. So this bill appears to only allow the CETF to support evaluated mediation and binding arbitration.

Aside from a typo, the Commission believes that the request for fee waivers should the $150 pose economic burden to the requesting individual. That because the Commission meets monthly, it may be more efficient if the mediators were provided this authority to grant those fee waivers again available for any questions. Thank you very much.

Next we have Phil Nurney, Community Associations Institute.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Phil Nurney and I'm testifying as the chair of the Legislative Action Committee for the Community Associations Institute.

I am not testifying as the chair of the Condominium Property Regime Task Force, but I am that and Senate Bill 146 kind of emanates out of the experience of those task force hearings. There was a lot of complaints about accrual of attorneys fees on top of fines that were issued by condominium associations.

And Senate Bill 146 addresses those concerns. There's always been a lot of concern about the dispute resolution processes. And the way I look at it is people want a magic bullet that doesn't exist, but there can be greater efficiency in terms of what the dispute resolution processes are evaluative.

In its initial draft, early neutral evaluation was going to follow an evaluative mediation process. There was some concern that that was redundant. Personally I don't think so. But it's sometimes takes people a while to come to terms with the realities of their circumstances. So anyway 146 provides greater efficiency.

There are some issues in my written testimony I noticed a typo that the previous testifier I think alluded to. One concern that we would request that the Committee take a look at is that the definition provided in the bill currently for evaluative mediation might be better framed in a different way and I've provided suggested an amendment.

The issue there is that mediation is a dynamic process and the mediator may be called upon at any time to provide guidance or thoughts. And the way it's currently structured that wouldn't be allowed. There's opposition from two basic sides. One sign of opposition is this is not the ombudsman. Well the condominium educate.

Excuse me, the Condominium Property Regime Task Force unanimously agreed to have a study. There is a study being done by LRB and there'll be a report. That report, if it's faithful to what's available in the United States will not show that that kind of solution is going to be something that should be adopted.

And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next person that says they wish to testify is Jane Sugimura, Hawaii Council of Community Associations not present. Next person said they wish to testify as Greg Masakian. Go ahead Mr. Masakian on Zoom.

Thank you. Aloha chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, here we are again. Session's almost over and we are facing bills that are being changed substantially to the detriment of condominium owners. So first I do want to give my background. I currently serve as the first Vice President of the Kokua Council.

I serve as a Director on the Hawaii Alliance for Retired Americans, HARA. I serve on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board and I serve again as of Monday on my condominium Association's board with the most votes. Not to throw that in there, but I do say I have support from owners and condominium owners throughout Hawaii.

So I'm an advocate for condominium owners as I think another person who's going to be testifying shortly will also attest well, she is in her written testimony. My concern is this and the last testifier just said it. There's many that oppose this. Everybody except for two people.

I think when I went through the written testimony, the people that normally would support this something good for condominium owners, which would be me and many others are all opposing it because it was changed to the detriment of condominium owners.

And that said, I do appreciate you took out the neutral evaluation, but now it's been modified so much that it's very detrimental. This Bill is not helpful. And the only thing that's going to be helpful is the ombudsman measure. And people that are opposing this aren't opposing it because it's not the Ombudsman's measure.

They're just opposing it because it's not a good measure, it's not a good bill. But the ombudsman measure is the only solution. And I pray, I truly pray to everybody in this room and every Legislator, and we'll be talking more throughout the rest of this year and early next year.

I pray that you listen to the owners, the condominium owners, and please stop listening to two or three people and the attorneys, because they're the ones that are staring us down a path where people will not be able to keep their condominiums due to the adverse actions. I appreciate that opportunity.

I know my time is up, so I'm going to stop there, but sense the impassioned speech. So please listen to the people that are the right people, the condominium owners that are at and the advocates for the condominium owners. Mahalo. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next person that said they wish to testify is Jessica Herzog. Please proceed. Herzog on Zoom.

Hello. Yes, this is Jessica Herzog, working individual, trying my best to attend. So thank you for your patience here. Sure. As a condo owner and a former treasurer of an association that lost over $333,000 to embezzlement, I just wanted to come here again to speak for owners.

We were failed at every level by the people who should have helped us, by people who I consider that should be mandated reporters like our lawyers, our insurance agents, our management company. And I truly feel that no justice has been served yet for us.

Our board, you know, ignored the evidence and strung out the process to where I feel like the criminals got away with murder. Basically, law enforcement wouldn't get involved because they consider these issues civil. So the system is broken. It's broken for board Members that are trying to act in good faith.

It's broken for owners that are trying to do the same thing. And now we're being told that alternative dispute resolution is the answer. And I'm here to tell you it's definitely not.

After seeing all the other evidence and issues that come forward from owners that are being mistreated by, whether it's a management company or a Rove board this is just another layer of confusion and denial.

The way this bill has been changed at the last minute, stripping rice from owners, taking away incentives for us to come forward and to, you know, try to write this system ourselves. You know, bringing in mediators from out of state might be a solution because the conflicts of interest here in Hawaii just run too deep.

I don't feel like we are going to get justice because everybody knows everybody or everybody is invested in the industry somehow. So removes protection that gives owners a fair chance to be heard and it risks financial ruin for us. It strikes our right to, you know, receive explanations for charges. It removes language that protects honest board Members.

And so this is kind of like a pay first and later bill now, which I cannot support in any way. There's no balance here. There is no fairness for all parties under the law. It's definitely blasted towards the industry that it's protecting itself by legislating.

I mean, I can barely keep up with you guys as an individual trying to coordinate, you know 40, 50 some different owners. Now to start place in this, when we get less than, you know, 48 hours of notice of a hearing, then you guys go schedule hearings for condo issues.

Could I ask you to summarize, please, Ms. Herzog. Sorry.

I'm just saying you guys are making this process really hard for the individual that it affects and you are not listening to the individuals as you craft these laws because I don't see any of us sitting on, you know, the task force and the areas that are bringing forth these bills.

So I oppose this and I hope you do too. Thank you very much.

Thanks very much. Next we have Dale Head on Zoom.

Hi there. Chairman, Committee Members, I speak in opposition to this bill. I was looking at the 9.0 Committee report to the House Speaker. Number one, lawyers get paid first on demand, which may be disputed later.

Seriously, you cannot go into a civil court, pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight over like five or 10 grand. It's nonsense. I spent 35 years at the same condo that got swept over the best hurdle. Like I said now.

And presently about 40% of the population is housed in homeowner associations and close to 9,000 HOAs according to DCCA. Total quarter of a million units about if we don't get any representation, Legislature as a group, this is really not fair. The companies, they have tables of lawyers work for them. They call themselves like the Legislative Action Committee.

The action of them is detrimental to us. Seriously, I'm intruders, know what I'm talking about? That's all I got to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next person that said they wish to testify is Evan De Los Santos on Zoom not present. That's we received other testify. We've received a total of 4144 testimonies, 2 in support, 37 in opposition, 2 with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 146? If not questions.

Questions, members? Thank you very much. Thanks to the testifiers, we're going to move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 253 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 relating to condominium reserves. This measure requires a detailed budget summary to contain all required information without referring the reader to other portions of the budget or reserve study.

It excludes the good faith defense for associations whose boards adopt a budget that omits the required detailed budget summary and clarifies a unit owner's standing and the association's burden approving substantial compliance. First up, we have the Honolulu Tower Association of Apartment Owners. Next, we have the Palehua Townhouse Association. Next, we have Hawaii Realtors.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. My name is Lindsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors, and we are in support of this measure. We believe that this measure provides additional clarity to an existing law and that that additional transparency is good for both owners as well as prospective buyers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Phil Nurney.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, my name is Phil Nurney and I'm testifying on behalf of CAI. Senate Bill 253, as the prior testifier just said, allows and enables purchasers, owners, to have an at-a-glance understanding of their association's financial condition. That transparency is important.

The burden of compliance is slight because the items that have to be articulated in this budget summary are largely objective and to the extent that they rely on any kind of estimates, those are estimates that will be provided by professionals. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks very much. Next, we have testimony—the next individual that wish to provide testimony is Greg Misakian on Zoom. Mr. Misakian, please proceed.

Aloha, again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Misakian and again, I'm an advocate for consumer protection bills that are going to help condominium owners, not to harm them. And this one actually would support and help condominium owners.

But unfortunately, the people that know that are the people on the other side and they're opposing it. These are the attorneys and the trade industry.

And I'm very thankful that not the last justifier, the one prior from the real estate side, indicated that they support it because it's a bill that would be helpful and just to emphasize just how bad it is and just trying to even get a budget done.

I was treasurer of my condo association, and I was simply requesting that we start our budget process having a Budget Committee and having meetings. And I would call for a Budget Committee early on in the season and I couldn't get a second. And I was the Treasurer, and I was raising concerns of malfeasance.

I was calling for a forensic audit. I was being ignored and eventually, I was Treasurer, but there was a Budget Committee formed without me because of course, if there's some corruption and malfeasance, why would you want the honest Treasurer there in the meeting? So, I was excluded from the Budget Committee.

The budget was not done in time, and we pushed it. Well, not me, but the Association, the Board Members that were involved, pushed it out. And for two months of the year, the following year, they didn't collect maintenance fees. So, their budget actually wasn't even compliant, and they didn't comply with many things for the budget requirements.

They didn't even budget for certain things that they knew about. This is just an example. This is a supportive bill for consumers and this bill should be moved forward and passed. And I again urge you, please stop listening, please, to the same two people. It's like the same two people that get up every single time.

They literally should be excluded from the table. You need to listen to the condominium owners. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. We received a total of 25 testimonies—8 in support, 17 in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 253? Come on up, sir. Introduce yourself, please. And after you finish testifying, if you could just put your name over on the list over there so we have it for the record. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. My name is Richard Emery. I'm a Reserve Specialist. I've been involved in the condo business for over 30 years.

I have on testifier list, Richard Emery, with Hawaii First Realtors?

Correct.

Is that you?

Okay, we got his name.

That's me.

Okay. Let me take you back to 1991. The Legislature passed a law requiring all condominiums in Hawaii to be 50% funded in reserves by January 1, 2000. The law was amended in 1998 to provide for an alternate method of funding called cash flow funding, which is actually the more prevalent method.

So, here we are, 25 years later, still fighting over reserves and inadequate Reserve funding. I can tell you that the needs to be—this Bill needs to be adopted. It—essentially, last year in 2023, when the Legislature adopted Act 199, which provided for specific disclosures to owners and potential buyers by boards in the Reserve Study, all this law does say is if you don't do what the law says, you lose your good faith protection.

And the only way you're going to change the industry is to put some enforcement in these laws where they have to comply. So, I strongly support this Bill to provide for adequate disclosure to owners and future buyers.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members? None. Thanks. We're going to move on. Ma'am, you've been standing back there. There's a seat over there if you want to sit. Okay. Okay. Just making sure. I want to make sure you're comfortable. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 332. Senate Draft One, House Draft Two. Relating to foreclosures. This measure prohibits sellers of mortgaged properties in a power of sale foreclosure from bundling properties at a public sale and requires each mortgaged property to be bid on separately.

The bill specifies that the sale of a foreclosed property is not final until the earliest of either 15 days after the public sale if an eligible bidder submits a subsequent bid or written notice of intent to submit a subsequent bid, or 45 days after the public sale if an eligible bidder submits a subsequent bid.

First up, we have testimony from Ahahui O Hawaii in support. Next, we have testimony from Lahaina Strong. Katie Austin, by Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, aloha Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Katie Austin, testifying on behalf of Lahaina Strong. I just wanted to testify in support of SB332. After our the wildfires in Lahaina, our community have been seeing just how vulnerable we are to predatory land grabs and outside buyers.

And it is really amping up within the more recent months. And now that the foreclosure moratorium has ended, we are seeing this happen real time on the ground.

I do believe that this bill is one step forward in protecting what matters, which we have been fighting for since day one, and that is keeping Lahaina lands in Lahaina hands.

Giving tenants, nonprofits, and future owner occupants the chance to match investor bids is a fair, reasonable, and necessary step, and it hopefully will help ensure housing stays in the hands who actually live here and our community in Lahaina. So we do urge you to support this measure, and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Sure. Thanks very much for testifying. We have received a total of 12 testimonies, all in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 332? If not questions, members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifier. We're going to move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1343.

Senate Draft One, House Draft ONe relating to the Small Business Regulatory Review Board. This measure amends the quorum requirements to do business and validate acts of the Small Business Regulatory Review Board. First up, we have the Small Business Regulatory Review Board.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. My name is Jonathan Shick. I'm the chairperson of the Small Business Regulatory Review Board. I've served on the board for a little over six years. I've been the chair for just about a year now.

And in the six years I've been there, we've had a lot of wonderful legislation that's been done to help us be able to not only get the word out about what the board is, but also enhance our abilities to be active members in small business legislation.

This bill is another measure that will help us be more effective as a board and be able to serve the community and the small business a lot better. We're in support of the bill, but we do have comments requesting an amendment to some of the language.

And I'm just going to read this so I don't mess it up. The previous SD1 version of SB1343 amends quorum requirements to do business and validate acts of the Small Business Regulatory Review Board to account for vacancies. And it would allow the SBRRB to function without interruption, thereby benefiting small business owners.

Current HD1 version of SB1343 changes quorum from a majority of members currently serving on the board to a majority of the members appointed and confirmed to serve on the board.

We have concerns with the language of appointed and confirmed to serve on the board because it may exclude interim and holdover members, thereby not really allowing us to be able to take advantage of the amended requirement for quorum being the majority of the board members. So this is the.

This is what we respectfully request be deleted is the language and confirmed from this measure. Thank you very much for your time, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. And we have also received written testimony and support from the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Dori Palcovich. I'm the administrator for the Small Business Regulatory Review Board. I work at DBEDT. And we defer. We stand on our testimony, which is deferred to the comments of the chair of the board. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1343? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Question, please. Simple question. How. How many are on your board right now, and what is the quorum requirement?

It was 11. I believe part of this bill is to change the quorum to nine. And right now we currently have, I believe, eight member.

Quorum is 11. We currently have 10. And we're losing a number of board members at the end of June.

So what is the required quorum right now?

The required quorum is 11.

Required quorum is 11.

Sorry, the required quorum would be six. Based on.

Oh, the quorum would be six.

Yeah, that's why you confused me. Okay.

11 and six.

Sorry about that.

I misunderstood you.

Okay, I'm clear now. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any other questions, members? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's go on to the next measure: Senate Bill 1035, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to consumer protection.

This measure makes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for businesses to offer, display, or advertise the price of a live ticket event or short-term lodging without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price.

It also makes it unfair and deceptive act or practice for businesses to misrepresent any fees or charges in any offer, display, or advertisement for the sale of live event tickets or short-term lodging. First up, we have testimony from DCCA, Mana Moriarty.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members. The department supports this bill. We urge the committee to insert a clean, effective date of upon approval and we would like two additional amendments, and I apologize for not having the written amendments before you. I'll briefly go through them so you can understand what we're asking for.

The first of the two amendments is the total price must be displayed more prominently than any pricing information. That language already appears on page two of the bill. On page one of the bill, however, in the bill purpose section, it says it must be displayed more--as prominently or more prominently than any other pricing information.

We urge you to--in our view, page two has the correct language and the wording on page one should be updated to conform to the wording on page two. The second of our two requested amendments has to do with the definition of clearly and conspicuously.

The clearly and conspicuously definition in this bill was extracted from a definitional section and placed in a standalone section. There's both a form aspect of this change and a substance aspect of this change. Subsection D of this bill makes the definition of clearly and conspicuously only applicable to Subsection A disclosures.

I apologize for getting into the weeds on this, but it is important. There are also Subsection C disclosures. The definition of clearly and conspicuously must apply to both. So therefore, we're asking that the clearly and conspicuously requirements go back into the definition section.

This bill is modeled after a federal rule, the Federal Trade Commission's rule on junk fees, and bringing it back in, bringing the definition of clearly and conspicuously back into the definition section will allow it to more clearly align with the rule and ensure greater consumer protections for the people of Hawaii.

Thank you.

I apologize that this was not provided in writing to you earlier. There was a mix up and oversight in my office.

Okay. Thanks. Next we have Marvin Dang, on Zoom.

Hello. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members. Marvin Dang, attorney for the Hawaii Financial Services Association. We offer comments and proposed amendments.

In the testimony, we give a scenario of how financial institutions which issue credit cards to customers might offer credit card rewards programs, and the customer might want to use those reward points to obtain, let's say a--stay at a short-term lodging at a hotel. The financial institution or its affiliate does not set the hotel prices.

The prices are set by the hotel. The hotel would be a third-party supplier. The prices and information that the hotel would give to the financial institution or affiliate is obtained and then the--would be provided to the customer before the customer decides to use the reward. So in a sense, we're talking about a reseller situation.

We've offered three amendments. The first would change Subsection F from that lettering to G. Amendments two and three are the substantive ones. So what amendment two does, it creates a limited exception for this resale situation.

And it's limited because there needs to be a situation where the third-party seller, the hotel, is providing the information, the business, the reseller is relying on that information, and the business has procedures in place to obtain that information before it's displayed or provided to the, to the customer.

The third amendment defines what a third party supplier does, which is, as my example said, you know, the hotel would be the ones setting the fees or charges and they would provide it to the business, the reseller who would rely on it for accuracy and completeness, and so we ask you to consider this limited exception with the language that we've proposed. We'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. We've also received written testimony from the Hawaii Hotel Alliance and American Hotel and Lodging Association. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1035? If not, questions, members? I just have a question for DCCA. You know, we posted notice for this hearing on Friday, five days ago.

We received this at the--while we started the hearing. Because this bill was heard by a previous committee, I can't make changes in here without getting prior concurrence of the earlier committee. Have you spoken with the chair of Consumer Protection and Commerce about your recommended changes?

No, I have not spoken to that chair.

So, and, and he's not on this committee. He's having his hearing next door. So just, I mean we do everything we can to get our hearing notice out in advance and then when we get all the testimony in, we post it. We posted it yesterday so that everyone can read it.

So unfortunately, we're not able to really address your substantive amendments because of that. And so, and also, as you said, you haven't spoken with the CPC chair about this. So while it could--your suggestions could have great merit--because of the tardiness, we're just not able to address it.

I would urge you to follow up with the CPC chair. If this committee decides to move this forward, it will go to Conference Committee and your suggested amendments would have to be dealt with in that forum. Okay?

Thank you, chair.

Okay. Thank you. Look forward to maybe getting it sooner next time, because I--you've got great ideas, but you got to give us more time.

Understood.

Okay. Any other questions, Members? If not, we'll move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 438. Senate Draft 2. House Draft 2. Relating to waste disposal facilities. This measure prohibits landfill units on land in an agricultural district with Class A soils.

It prohibits the construction, modification or expansion of any waste or disposal facility for solid waste or hazardous waste on land that is near or above a significant aquifer.

It also says that starting July 12025 the existing buffer zone between waste or disposal facilities and residential, school and hospital property lines applies to municipal solid waste landfill units or components, construction and demolition landfill units and their components.

It prohibits the construction, modification or expansion of a landfill unit within a no pass zone in a county with a population greater than 500,000 with certain exemptions.

And finally, it prohibits the use of fly ash, bottom ash, or a combination of fly ash and bottom ash from a municipal waste combustor for certain purposes and imposes requirements on the disposal of these materials. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Next, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Welcome, Deputy Director.

Thank you. Aloha and good afternoon.

You'll have to speak up. We have competition. There's somebody out there.

Okay, I can talk loud. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, we submitted comments on this bill. Kira Kahohane, Department of Land and Natural Resources Commission on Water Resource Management. Ooh, it is getting loud. So we submitted testimony on this bill.

Of course, the ultimate decision on what constitutes a significant aquaform under the definition currently provided is for the Department of Health to make. But we provided our testimony in an attempt to show what our comments would be were Department of Health to consult with us within Oahu itself, not even talking about the other islands.

The options are pretty limited in terms of the Commission. How the Commission defines aquifers. Department of Health has a different way that they do it, and I'll let them speak to that. But as far as freshwater aquifers Most of our islands are freshwater aquifers within the island of Oahu itself.

Pretty much your only option is going to be in the Ewa Caprock. We have provided an image that kind of shows where that falls on Oahu. So it is a difficult decision to make. And we certainly sympathize with the Department of Health and the counties in trying to balance the many important interests at play here.

I'm available if you have any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have the Department of Health on zoom in person. Happy day. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Glenn [unintelligible] on behalf of, on behalf of the Department of Health. The Department stands on its written testimony opposing this measure. The Department is supportive of protection of ground, groundwater and drinking water resources.

However, we do oppose this measure for several reasons. First, it increases landfill siting restrictions that will prevent future landfill construction that could lead to. That could lead to a public health threat. It introduces language that as proposed, the Department wouldn't be able to enforce without further clarification from the Legislature.

It prevents the exploration of any ash recycling even for potentially viable options using future technologies.

And finally, it requires incinerator ash disposal in a double lined landfill that if that's made effective immediately or promptly, would put the city and County of Honolulu in immediate violation of for their disposal of H power ash as there are no double line landfills in Hawaii.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify on this measure and I'm available to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next. Honolulu Board of Water Supply. Welcome Mr. Lau.

Hello. And Chair Members. Ernie Lau, manager and chief engineer for the Board of Water Supply. We stand in strong support of this measure. We understand the challenges ENV face, but it is based on my Koulian and my responsibility at the Board of Water Supply.

It's about our freshwater resources and ensuring that our community has those resources not only today, but into the future. And that could be centuries into the future. These landfills where they're constructed contain a lot of contaminants and.

And God forbid if the landfills that are permanent features start to leak and contaminate our freshwater resources and affect our future water supply. So we strongly support this measure. We can work with the Department of Health on the no pass zone designation if necessary. We'd be glad to step up with them. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've received testimony in writing from the Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management. Next, we have testimony from the Kauai County Solid Waste Division.

Aloha Council Members. I'm sorry, Committee Members and chair and Vice Chair. My name is Allison Fraley. I'm with the County of Kauai representing Public Works. We offer comments on this bill relating to waste disposal facilities. We appreciate the Legislature's dedication to protecting Hawaii's water and and agricultural resources, and we respectfully offer points for consideration regarding the definition.

I'm sorry. We support preserving Class B agricultural lands from any blanket prohibition. Kauai's limited land and availability makes omitting Class B land essential for identifying feasible landfill sites. Regarding the definition of a significant aquifer as currently defined, significant aquifer is any freshwater aquifer that has the potential for use as a drinking water source.

Advances in water treatment could render almost any aquifer a potential source of potable water. So we respectfully request that the Committee consider allowing a county specific exemption process overseen by the Department of Health. The process could be considered if counties can demonstrate the following. One, if there are engineering controls in place that meet state and federal standards.

Two, hydrological and geological assessments that are site specific to a potential landfill site. Three, considering emergency or critical needs for waste disposal capacity.

We further recommend that the final version of the legislation include a grandfather clause to allow existing landfills that have demonstrated compliance with environmental regulations to be permitted for expansion provided they undergo the appropriate permitting processes. Kauai County, like other counties in the states, have critical waste management challenges at this time.

So we really thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments on this measure. I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. I apologize that we're having this competition here. With all due respect, this is not what I was planning. Okay. Let's just do our best to move forward. Mayor Kawakami, you want to come up? No disrespect, but we're going to continue.

I feel she should take a break. And stand up because this is our national anthem. We got the American flag right there. And I'd feel disrespectful if I just started speaking over it.

So if you want to wait, you can wait. I do. Anyone else who wants to stand and put their hand on their heart, they're welcome to do it. No, no, it's no laughing matter. If you want want to do it, go for it.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair. I apologize, but from our little town, that's what we were raised to do. And I'm super liberal, so it's not a party politics thing. Anyway, that was our, our solid waste manager, Allison Fraley. She gave wonderful testimony. Obviously she doesn't understand what I mean when I say keep it simple.

But I have to tell you, we stand on our testimony offering comments. The last Committee made some amendments that would be workable for our little island, but we do understand that there are unintended consequences with removing the B classification of ag lands and how that would encroach on our food sustainability and security programs.

I've had great discussion with the Hawaii Farm Bureau. There are many ways to move along with this bill, address our island's needs and the needs of AG and have what you would call strike the right balance.

So with that being said, we stand here in support of this current version, but we do understand that as the bill moves through, it is a work in progress. At the end of the day, if there's a way to carve Kauai County out of this, we would be also supportive of that as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thanks for making the trek over here. Next, we have test. Next person that said they wish to testify is Wayne Tanaka on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Wayne Tanaka with the Sierra Club Hawaii. We are in support of this measure, particularly its provisions to prevent the setting of landfills over our drinking water supply. And really, it's not our water, it's our children's water and our grandchildren's water that we need to be thinking about.

And if you've been paying attention to what's been happening with our planet and our climate, the minimum best case scenario for islands is a 35% reduction in rainfall on the Leeward coast. So our future generations are going to need as much water as we can protect for them.

And if we allow landfills over their water, then when those landfill liners fail, which they will, or when supply chains break down preventing maintenance, or when a disaster like a fire or flood or breaches the landfills containment, then you know, they'll be inheriting another Red Hill situation that they may not be able to recover from.

So, you know, again, just strongly support this measure. I'm happy to answer any questions. And thank you so much for hearing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tanaka. Next, Ted Bolen, not present. Next, Anthony Paris.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Poepoe and Members of the Committee, as Chair of the Maquila Kapolei Honokai Hola Neighborhood board number 34, oppose this bill due to its inclusion of Section E, which prohibits the beneficial use of ash from municipal waste combustors.

Our Neighborhood Board has adopted a resolution supporting efforts to diverse waste from landfills, including recycling to create fuels and construction materials including that of H Power. We host H Power, we have Waimanalo Sanitary Life and Oahu's construction Demolition Waste goes to our immediate neighbors in Nanakuli.

We have the highest concentration of native Hawaiian homesteads in Kapolei and highest concentrations of native wines per capita in West Oahu. Across the state and arguably the world.

We've been in this conversation with Opala for decades, including the grassroots movement for Act 73 establishing the half mile buffer zones to keep Opala out of everyone's backyard for half a mile. We understand that municipal solid waste ash left untreated contains toxic pollutants.

But we also understand European countries and states like Florida and Pennsylvania have demonstrated successful implementation of its beneficial use and each having their own safeguards and regulations in place to protect public health and safety.

We believe that that policy discussion should be there and we should be focusing on the safeguards and regulations to ensure safe use rather than imposing the blanket prohibition.

Now, even if the requirements for the double landfill is removed, which we have now on Oahu, the waste may be shipped off island at a high cost to our neighbors and increasing our cost of living. However, due to that high cost is likely that the ash will end up in landfill in West Oahu untreated.

So please consider removing the blanket prohibition against recycling ash and let's move towards a safe way to reuse it as a resource. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next person who said they wish to testify is Mike Ewall, Energy Justice Network.

Yes, thank you Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, my name is Mike Ewall with Energy Justice Network representing our Member organizations in Hawaii, Kuku and in the Clean Power Task Force. There's a lot of concern about a new landfill on being located in Wahiawa.

And the concern is based on the notion that a double lined landfill full of H Power's toxic incinerator ash can ultimately eventually leak toxic chemicals into the aquifer.

As a concern, I think you would be even more concerned about taking the same material and spreading it all over the island with no liners and then driving all over it. There is no technology that exists to safely use ash or remove toxics from it. And the idea that Florida and Pennsylvania have demonstrated this is false.

I actually just yesterday met with the Commissioner, a county Commissioner in Palm Beach County, Florida, where they've been trying for three years to even get permission from the State Department of Transportation to do the same thing. And they don't have that permission yet in Pennsylvania.

In, in the county where I grew up, in Bucks County, they have a project that the county sitting county points to and says this is our model. Yet that project failed two and a half years ago and stopped putting that ash into roads and has had to landfill it because they don't have anyone to take it.

And that part of the project was supposed to reopen in early 2023 and never did. Similar projects have also failed around the country. So you've had a number of comments from other commenters as well as the Department of Health saying that there's problems.

The ash language, which we agree about that needs to be tweaked so that it doesn't immediately put the city and county in violation because their landfill is not double lined and put in the language that has been suggested to you to exempt the existing landfill cells at Waimanalo Gulch. So there's no immediate problem.

But it does make sure that in the future such protections for the aquifer will be provided in terms of having a double liner.

Thanks very much. Next. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony providing comments. Previously we supported all the versions of the bill. Our comments concerns last Committee's removal of bee lands. The Hawaii Farm Bureau absolutely supports protecting our precious drinking water and irrigation water.

Supports prohibition of landfills near or above significant aquifers. Supports landfill prohibition on a land. Our opposition is the removal of the bee lands. We understand that needs to be a balance, especially with our neighbor islands, specifically Kauai, balancing their need for infrastructure for new landfill with food production.

We humbly request a potential amendment Chair, that would exempt counties of 500,000 population or less. That may help address the uniqueness, the hydrological and geological difference, especially on Kauai, which allow Kauai County to proceed. Our opposition to the the proposed landfill on Oahu is not only over an aquifer, but also on productive active agriculture lands.

Our understanding of the two sites that Kauai is considering is not in active agriculture basically are probably the only two locations that they can select versus on Oahu where we have active farming and active food production over a Significant aquifer. So it is in our testimony.

Chair, we do request consideration to address the neighbor island infrastructure needs, balancing with agriculture, food production. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next we have Joseph Shakat with Reworld.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair, Committee Members. Yeah, My name is Joseph Shakit. I'm a consultant. Today testifying on behalf of Reworld, formerly known as covanta, who operates the H Power waste energy facility. Reworld and the city are working together in partnership on a project to recycle a portion of the bottom ash generated by H Power.

What we're requesting is the. The Committee remove the amendment that would ban the use of combustion ash for road building and construction. This amendment really isn't necessary at this time. Currently, the Hawaii Department of Health is in the process of reviewing reworld's permit application for the bottom ash recycling facility.

This permit review process will address the questions that have been raised regarding potential impacts to human health and the environment. I'd also like to point out that once this facility is constructed, this will benefit the community in a number of ways.

These include reducing the cost of construction materials on Oahu, extending the life of Oahu's quarries, and reducing the volume of waste that's sent from H Power to the Waimanal Gulch landfill by up to 60%. Now, this will reduce truck traffic on Farrington highway in that region between Kaloha Boulevard and the landfill.

Now, I would like to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about potential reachability of contaminants from the construction materials that would be made with these aggregate materials derived from the ash. I think a lot of folks aren't aware that the city actually conducted extensive research on this topic in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

They even constructed a field trial of ash amended asphalt pavement at the H Power facility. They looked at leachability. They looked at runoff from their test strip. That process took, I think, four years of research looking at leaching of contaminants from the asphalt and showed no significant impacts regarding leachability.

And also they looked at worker exposure for people handling this material and found that no, no OSHA concerns for worker exposure. We are planning additional testing. This testing will be conducted and reviewed by. Conducted by reworld, reviewed by Department of Health prior to using these aggregates in real life.

And this testing will include some of the contaminants that have been raised as concerns, like pfas, among other contaminants. Again, this amendment should be removed from the bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. In total, we've received 53 testimonies in support, eight in opposition, seven with comments. Is there anyone else here or on Zoom that wishes to testify in this measure? Please come on up.

If you come on up and testify, give us your name and then afterward if you could go and sign up over there with your name, that would be great. You may have submitted written testimony, but I didn't know you were going to submit oral testimony. So please proceed, sir.

Good evening, Chair and co Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Cliff Leboy. I'm with the Ironworkers 625 Stabilization Fund. I'm here for actually for two groups. Stabilization Fund strongly supports this bill. The other group that I'm with I representing the Hawaiian Building Construction and Trade Council. 17 affiliates, 35,000 Members.

We had a meeting last week regarding this issue. And the reason we're here is that a large number of the 35,000 construction workers in our industry lives down in Nanakuli. We've been fighting PVT. And the landfill there for years.

We have a little statement in this bill talking about the half mile buffer zone that we need to make sure whatever you guys decide to do with this bill, keep that language in the bill. We fought for years to get it in the bill through Act 73.

Just to let you know what I have outside this door, I have all the electrical union, elevator union, plasters, insulators, bricklayers, plumbers, sheet metals, teamsters, IBEW boilermakers, ironworkers, painters. We have drywall, roofers, operating engineer. All of these unions have Members that lives out in Nanakuli. Back in 2020, CDC did a study.

People that live in Nanakuli, next to the Landville, they have a short. Their lives are shortened by 10 years expediency. It's on record with the CDC. You guys can look at it. We've been again fighting to get this out of the Nanakuli. The only thing we can do is keep that buffer zone there.

That's as far as we went to try and protect the residents out in the west side. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. If you would be so kind as just to give your name and organization to our staff over there. Please come on up, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas Committee Members, Roger Babcock, Director of Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu. We did submit testimony. We stand on that. And I just want to point out that obviously the bill and the additional restrictions are problematic for us with siting the next landfill, which we need to do.

However, I did want to point out, as was test in some previous testimony, particular challenges posed by the ash provisions that have been added back into the bill. We, as others have testified, we don't think that's necessary. We're going through a permitting process to determine whether we can do that or not.

It is important that we hopefully can do that to reduce the amount of material going to the landfill, reduce the number of landfills, the size of landfills that we'll need going into the future. So it is potentially a very important long term thing for us.

These language about a double line landfill is also particularly problematic for us because we do not have a double line landfill. We do produce ash every day. We have to have a place to put it. So appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Certainly. Thank you very much. Mr. Babcock. Anyone else wishing to testify?

Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair. Sergio Corbilia, as an individual citizen, just wanted to offer my support for this bill. Just hope we can take a, you know, proactive steps to protect our aquifer. And putting landfills over it is not one of them. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not. Questions? Members represent Shimizu.

Mr. Babcock, sorry for my being uninformed, but currently, where does the ash go?

Yeah, thanks for your question. So all ash currently goes to the Waimanala Gulch Sanitary Landfill. It is a. It's really two landfills. It's a ash monofill and an MSW landfill. Those two things are separated. They do. They do not mix. So that is where all ash currently goes from hpower. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you. Any other questions? Members, thank you very much to the testifiers. And just so you know, even though there may not be questions, we have distributed the testimony to all the Members. So they've had it in advance, so they've had a chance to read it.

In total, we have received 53 testimonies in support, eight in opposition, seven with comments. All right. No one else wishing to testify. And we're piled with questions. We're going to move on to the next measure. Thanks to all of you who are testifying on this. Aloha. Senate Bill 1454. Senate Draft 1.

House Draft 1 relating to the wage and our law. This measure requires the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to issue an order of wage payment violation to employers found to be in violation of the state's wage and our law. It establishes penalties, enforcement, and appeal procedures.

It amends the definition of wage to clarify that it means compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee regardless of how it is calculated. First up, we have the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Welcome, Director.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. I'm Jade Butay, the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations. Thank you for hearing this governance package measure that we strongly supports that standardizes and streamlines the enforcement mechanism of chapter 387. That's the wage and hour law in chapter 388, payment of wages and other compensation.

This measure will allow us to issue civil penalties in chapter 387 that we currently do in chapter 388. That's the order. Wage of payment violation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And next, Sergio Acabila.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair. Sergio Alcubilla, Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center. And we're here in support of this bill. You know, just kind of the real-life implications of what's going on now. You know, we had a worker that came in that filed, that filed a claim for not being paid proper wages.

So he was a restaurant worker, worked in the back of the house in the kitchen. And, you know, the employer owed him about 5,000 dollars every paycheck, you know, he went to go deposit his check, and of course the bank would say, we can't deposit this because there's no funds in here. So that's November 2023, he filed.

It is now 2025, and he still has not been made whole. You know, he, and there's multiple workers in that restaurant, and that restaurant has since closed. But, you know, just speaking with the Department of Labor and just understanding kind of the whole process that they've done an investigation, they've found instances of wage theft.

And, and just for the employer to continue to ignore the request from the Department of Labor, there's gotta be some teeth for the Department of Labor to enforce.

I know it goes to the Attorney General's Office for enforcement, but when we had asked the Attorney General's Office where it currently stands, it was hard to get a clear answer. So basically this Bill would help rectify that.

And just for reference, in 2023, so the Department of Labor and the Attorney General's Office collected about 934,000 dollars in lost wages through wage theft for a workforce of about 638,000. The closest state with a similar workforce of about 650,000 was Maine, and they collected 1.5 million.

So there's a lot more wages that are being lost, especially by community members, because there's really no sense of enforcement or enforcement mechanism that's much needed. Again, for our group, for our base.

We, we mostly organize low-wage workers from immigrant and migrant communities, and for them to be able to stand up against their employer and say that they need the right wages to be paid, you know, it is a challenge for them. Many times, they just walk off and quit, and those wages are just lost forever.

So thank you very much again, Chair and members of this committee.

Thank you very much. Mr. Alcabullia. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1454? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1651, relating to public meetings. This measure requires board packets to be posted 2 full business days before a public meeting.

It requires boards to provide notice to persons requesting notification of meetings at the time the board packet is made available for public inspection. First up, we have the Office of Information Practices.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members. I'm Jennifer Brooks from the Office of Information Practices and we're offering comments on this Bill. So, this came about because the board packet provision of the Sunshine Law and board packets are separate, by the way, from the notice, which has a fixed six day before the meeting filing deadline.

Board packet is if the board wants to distribute materials to its members ahead of the meeting, it's got to share them with the public as well. And in current law, the deadline for making those materials available in the board's office is two business days ahead of the meeting. They're also required to notify people on the mailing list.

OIP came out with an opinion recently that said that the requirement to notify people on the mailing list doesn't actually have a fixed deadline, although if you look at the statutory language, although we said it does at least have to be done in time for people to get it, obtain the board packet, and look at it before the meeting.

But it doesn't have a fixed deadline the way the requirement to make it available in the board's office does, which we at the same time said, you know, they have to at least have it available during business hours to serve the purpose.

So, anyway, that's why this Bill is going through the Legislature this year to do two things, one of which is to tie the timing for giving notice to people to the timing for making it available in the board's office and the other is to create a firmer deadline for when exactly it is during the day that it has to be made available.

So, our comments on this—we were recommending two amendments. One was to restore some language that we think may have been inadvertently deleted where basically the two business days, or two full business days as it would be in this Bill, had been there—had been removed some language that says, I think it's no later then.

And silly as it seems, you open the door to an argument that you're not allowed to file it earlier if the Leg. takes action to remove that kind of language. So, we recommended restoring that.

And then we are also recommending putting something in the Committee Report to give this Committee's understanding of what a full business day is so that we don't end up with further opinions being needed from OIP on that. Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions the Committee has.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Michael Golojuch, Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch Jr., Vice Chair of the LGBTQ Commission. He/him, pronouns. We stand in support in the current version of the Bill.

Other iterations of this Bill would make it nearly impossible for us volunteer groups, because your boards and commissions are all staff of volunteers, to put together the documents that we want to have there available for everybody to see on any agenda items.

There's gonna—yeah, so there's a lot of problems within the statute when it comes to this about implementation of how this actually happens because when you put up the agenda, you can't go back and add the board packet to it later. And I don't think the law needs to be changed to fix that.

That's something that IT can deal with. But to move this forward, we encourage you, if you're going to do something, just move this Bill forward as is. And on a personal note, this Bill is the examples of why common sense is not all that common.

Because we were able to, as somebody who's been a board member or commission member for less than a year, we were able to figure out, hit the ground wanting what two business days meant.

And we've always met those deadlines and we've gone above and beyond with requirements of the statute to ensure the public has access, not just those on our email list, but those that follow us on social medias that have access to our board packets, because transparency for all boards and commissions should be a paramount issue for all of us as we move forward.

So, we encourage you to move the Bill forward and hopefully somebody will be able to fix the problems there are within the statute, because not all boards and commissions are the same and not all of us have all the same resources as each other. So, thank you for your opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Disability and Communication Access Board.

Thank you. Glad they're not doing the national anthem again. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Committee Members. I am Brian Mick, here on behalf of DCAB Executive Director, Kirby Shaw. We support the intent of SB 1651, SD 1, HD 1.

It is important that people have sufficient time to review board packets, draft any written testimony they want to submit, and also, for the board members to hopefully have a chance to review the testimony in advance of their meetings.

People with disabilities may need longer time to review materials or to draft their testimony or if they're on the board, to review the testimony. So, this Bill is especially important to them.

I would just add that in reviewing OIP's testimony that they submitted, I too am wondering if there will be a debate about what constitutes a full business day. While a business day is defined currently in statute as a day other than a Saturday, Sunday, state or federal holiday, it does not define what full means.

So, I'm not sure if that means it starts at 12 AM or at 7:45 AM when the state opens for business.

And looking back at our previous testimony on the SD 1 version, we recommended that the deadline be no later than the third business day, which, in keeping with current interpretations, would mean an agency would have up until 11:59 PM on that third business day, that would still meet the intent of this Bill, which is to give people two full days to review the packet.

So, the Committee may wish to put it in their Committee Report that that needs to be looked at to make sure, or as OIP said, perhaps putting a definition of what a full business day actually is directly into the Bill. Thank you for the chance to testify.

Sure. Thank you very much. Next, Ben Kreps, Public First Law Center, on Zoom.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ben Kreps with the Public First Law Center. So, we've submitted written testimony in support. We strongly support this Bill.

Like Act 11 last year, all it's trying to do is give board members and the public at least two full business days before a meeting to review the meeting materials. So, we explained the history of Act 11 and the need for this Bill a little bit more in our written testimony.

But essentially, as has been noted, this Bill clarifies two deadlines. The first is when a board packet must be made available, and the second is when notice of that availability must be provided. And so, it sets the deadline for both at two full business days before a meeting.

We do agree with OIP's suggestion to add back in that "no later than" language and we also agree with OIP's suggestion to provide some additional clarity, perhaps in the Committee Report. And we've got this in our written testimony.

But we believe it would be reasonable to clarify that two full business days should mean, at the latest, 7:45 on the second business day before a meeting. So, basically, someone opens their computer at 8 AM, if there's a board packet, they're going to have notice of it. And we've got that in our testimony.

I'm happy to answer any questions and thank you for hearing this Bill.

Thank you very much. The final person said they wish to testify is Mr. Fritz on Zoom.

I'm waiting.

Please proceed, Mr. Fritz.

I started my camera. My name is Peter Fritz. I'm the person that drafted this Bill originally because I was receiving the same board notices, the same board packet as board members was at 8 PM or later on a Friday for a Tuesday meeting, which meant there was only one full business day for somebody to look at the packet.

And the issue revolves around what is a business day, a full business day. For purposes of filing a notice for a meeting, there is an opinion from OIP that says the notice can be filed six days before it, but any part of a day is a business day, so you could file a notice five days and one plus one minute into the sixth day and it considered to be timely filed.

So, that became something of a concern with this particular Bill, which is why I proposed saying that the board packet, notice of the board packet, would be available at 7:45 in the morning on the second business day because it addresses the issue and makes it clear what a business day is, rather than having to try and navigate between what's the full business day for filing a notice.

A second issue that I proposed in my testimony for an amendment is that there be a statement as to where the board packet would be available. I've been through notices, and I've received notices of a board packet and the notice for the meeting only list in an auditorium where the meeting's being held.

There's only a post office box. So, if you want to go and find the board notice, you pretty much have to go down to the building to find the packet, knock on doors, until you find the proper location.

So, I'm asking this Committee to consider the proposed amendments that I had to make it 7:45 on the second business day and that the notice includes where you can go to go and look at the packet, and this will address this and the problems that I've encountered with board packet being provided so late.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Oh, and one other thing. OIP is applying that since the statute doesn't require that you know the address of where the board packet is supposed to be available, it doesn't have to be in there. So, their opinion is that it's not necessary because the statute doesn't require it.

So, that's why I'm asking you to require that information be included. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we received on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1651? If not, questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 106 Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to pedestrians. This measure establishes a three year pedestrian safety pilot program in a county with pilot population of 250,000 or less under certain conditions authorizes the Governor to revoke and abolish the pilot program and overturn a county's request to opt out of the pilot program authorizes the county with a population of over 250,000 to participate in the pilot program subject to certain conditions Requires report to the Legislature and requires a driver of a vehicle to yield to a pedestrian when the pedestrian clearly indicates their intention to create cross a roadway within a crosswalk on this measure.

First up, we have the Department of Transportation.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I am Larry Dill, Highways Administrator for the Department of Transportation. Testify in opposition to Senate Bill 106.

This Bill would leave much of the discretion as to when and where a pedestrian can safely cross the road in the hands of the individual pedestrian, possibly contrary to long established rules of the road and possibly contrary to motorist expectations.

As we state in our written testimony, pedestrians crossing the street against nationally established traffic control devices and or contrary to other road user expectations will be challenging, especially for children and elderly persons, our most vulnerable road users.

A pedestrian may mistakenly believe it is safe to cross the roadway, unaware of hidden dangers posed by turning vehicles and the like. Such decisions force drivers into sudden, unanticipated situations that can have devastating consequences. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.

Thank you very much. Next, the Department of Health.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to provide testimony. I'm Lola Ervin with the Department of Health. So the Department of Health provides comments from a public health perspective. So our mission is to provide equal opportunities for all people in Hawaii to live long, quality years of life.

This also requires us to consider our systems, which would be our roadway systems and policies. And over the years, what's happened in Hawaii as well as another places in the United States is that we have actually prioritized vehicular movement over the movement of people.

And so for me, as a pedestrian, I don't have as much rights as when I'm in a car and I'm a driver. And we did provide new data that has come out from California that did remove penalties for pedestrians. And traffic fatalities in California decreased by 13% in 2024 after they changed the policies that actually penalizes pedestrians.

And so we provide these comments because what we would like to see is an environment that provides the default opportunity for people to be physically active, because what we've done is engineered physical activity out of our daily movements.

And so I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony because in terms of policy making, we do value so much your leadership. And as public health, the state level policymakers are incredibly important to us as we face what's happening in public health nationally. So thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next. James Slater, Honolulu Police Department. Next. Not present. Okay, next. John Pelletier, Maui Police Department. Not present. Next. Mayor Kawakami.

Thank you, chair, vice chair. I, here to testify in strong opposition, and the reason why I'm here to speak on this matter is because I did see that there was some testimony in support from a near and dear organization that to me, has really led the way on Kauai for pedestrian safety, and that is Get Fit Kauai.

Now, I'm not saying that our testimony is wrong. All I'm saying is that we feel that the way to really encourage people to be healthy is through our built environment.

We have taken great effort to create walking paths, multi-use paths, creating pedestrian-friendly streets, focusing on how to move people from point A to point B instead of focusing just on vehicles.

We've slapped down roundabouts as much as we possibly can, and for the most part, our community has accepted these type of infrastructure changes, and I will be honest: at the beginning, it faced great resistance because, of course, it represents change. I can tell you this morning, I just participated in Kalaheo Elementary School's walking school bus.

It is a program that we've had on Kauai since my little daughter, who's 21 now, was in elementary school, where a big chunk of our little kids all walk together, one, to let the neighborhood know that kids walk here, that there are schools here, and that they take a priority.

Now, it seems like this bill tries to address a big city issue, but on Kauai, in the big country, this is not really an issue. I cannot find any statistics of people getting citations for jaywalking.

In fact, if you go to Kauai, there's many roads where there's no traffic around and it's really not a crime and you're really not hurting anybody by crossing the street. But I will tell you this: the statistics from Kauai speak for itself. From 2018, we've had 11 pedestrian fatalities.

We've had 15 of them with just serious horrific injuries. A majority of them were pedestrians that were not walking in a marked crosswalk. A majority of them were jaywalking--sorry to say--and of course there were a few where they were in marked crosswalks, but we just oppose being the pilot project on Kauai for what seems to be a bigger city type of issue that we just don't understand. Thank you very much. I'll be here for any questions.

Thank you very much, Mayor Kawakami. Next, Abbey Seitz, Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Aloha chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Abbey Seitz, and I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed, in support of SB 106. We support efforts to reduce jaywalking enforcement as we believe it creates unnecessary fines, debt, and court records.

This is particularly true in Hawaii where, based off data that we collected from the Judiciary from 2018 to 2023, we found on average there were more than 5,000 jaywalking tickets given per year, which is significantly higher than other areas in the U.S. that have also studied this.

It's also important to point out that these tickets range between 130 and $180, which is also higher than many driving-related violations. Ultimately, we believe that, you know, the millions of dollars that are spent on jaywalking enforcement essentially distracts attention and resources from data-driven approaches to improve roadway safety, mainly changes in roadway design and pedestrian infrastructure.

Notably, as was pointed out earlier, this bill is, in its current form, a bit, as we believe, overly complicated, and we also think that it will have fairly little impact as based off the data that we collected. Over 99% of jaywalking tickets are given here on Oahu.

So to address those concerns, we've offered a number of suggested amendments in our written testimony, but we wanted to thank you again for hearing this bill and this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We received a total of 11 testimonies in support, eight in opposition, two with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 106? If not--

Sorry, chair. Sergio Alcubilla with the Hawaii Workers Center. I promise this is my last one. You know, I'm here in support of this bill. I just, you know, on the way over here, as a law-abiding citizen, I'm waiting at the crosswalk, right, trying to cross Punchbowl and Beretania to come over here, and then right when it says go, and then I start going, and then, you know, that car that's making a right turn is looking at me like I'm at fault for crossing the street even though it's a marked crosswalk and it's the little white signal is going, right?

But I mean, that's just--yeah, I mean, I think we all share a common concern of making sure that pedestrian safety is the most important, importance, but, you know, I know there's a lot of police officers here and I have a lot of respect for them and the work that they do in putting their lives on the line every day.

But, you know, when I used to work here, downtown, during the lunch hour, you go on Fort Street, you know, you want to cross the street where Hotel Street is--on Hotel and Fort, right, where there's--it's only buses that are supposed to be there.

But I just remember, you know, there would be a police officer on one side and as soon as the person crossed or was in the crosswalk when he was starting to mark down, they would get a ticket written up. And that ticket is $130 to $180 as they mentioned.

And I know our police officers would be doing, would rather be doing something else besides writing tickets for, you know--yeah, our family members and some of the elderly that we're crossing because those are big fines, you know, and you know, I tried my best to try to warn people don't cross the street because there's a police officer on the other side but sometimes they just go because there's no cars or there's no buses in the place.

So again, I think the enforcement issue and targeting specifically people here, people here where it doesn't make sense, there's no traffic there, but you know, when you go to Waikiki, you have tourists that are crossing the street all the time, even when they're not supposed to be.

And I just feel, I just think it's definitely unfair to be targeting our local population, our local working class communities here when sometimes folks that should be getting those warnings are not getting it. So again, thank you, chair, for this opportunity to testify in support.

Certainly. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not questions, members? Representative Perruso.

Appleseed. First, I have two questions, if that's okay. So my first question is about your data and what it shows about the infractions on Oahu, so I was wondering if you're able to geolocate those, like where are they predominantly being issued?

Sure, thank you for that question, and we can--if this wasn't shared with you earlier, we actually did map out all the citations because we were interested to see kind of where these were located, but as I mentioned, over 99% of the tickets from 2018 to 2023--we collected this data from the Judiciary last year--were located on Oahu. Only a handful were located on the neighbor islands. About three-fourths, roughly three-fourths were located within urban Honolulu itself.

And then, you know, kind of is interesting from 2018--2018 was the year that we found a, of those years that we collected was the most amount of tickets, there was over 8,000 jaywalking tickets given in that year, and as one of the testifiers mentioned heavily in Kalihi Chinatown area, I think on Hotel street, which was just referenced, roughly, I think a little bit over 1,300 tickets given on that street alone.

And then, interesting, kind of over, I guess, more recently from the 2023, it was more heavily concentrated, Kapahulu, kind of outskirts of Waikiki area, I'd have to look back, but I believe the 96815, the Kapahulu zip code, had over $200,000 in jaywalking fines just from that year alone. So, really, we do see, as mentioned in some of the earlier testimony, it is very heavily concentrated in Honolulu, but also kind of throughout Oahu.

And just to clarify, those fines, those monies go to the city and county, is that correct?

My understanding is there is a state fine, and then there's fees on top of it. So the state fine is $100 and then there's additional fees that are levied on by the county.

So those additional fees go to the county?

That's--yeah, that's my understanding.

Thank you. And--yeah, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Chair, just one more question? For HPD. Anybody?

The person who said they would testify is not here.

I have questions. So many representatives. Okay, then I--

Any other questions for--

Defer.

Okay. Any other questions, members? If not--yes. Representative Garcia.

For the Department of Health, please. I'm looking through your, your testimony, and in the second page, line nine, it says that pedestrian access to everyday destinations is also a social justice and health equity issue. Is it your stance? So your testimony, it introduces in this paragraph themes of racial equity, criminal justice, and the history of policing Hawaiians and other Polynesians. Can you explain how these points in your testimony are directly relevant to the Pedestrian Safety Pilot Program proposed in this bill?

Thank you for the question, and actually, we are recommending that we go back to the original format of SB 106, and whether it's the pilot or whether it's the original format of SB 106, if we were to look at the findings from the Prosecutor's Office, in terms of those who are at the higher rate of receiving what we call jaywalking--and jaywalking is a derogatory term, so I don't like to use it because it was invented by the auto industry to get pedestrians off the roadways--but it is predominantly Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders who receive the pedestrian penalties, and so that's where in terms of--

Also, if we look at the way we design our environments--I think there was a conversation by an earlier testifier--if we look at life-expectancy and we put in all of those opportunities to live healthy lives so it's the default opportunity in your neighborhood, we find that, say, someplace like Kailua, and if you go around the bend, right, towards Waimanalo and you look at then--go a little bit further than that to Hawaii Kai, Kahala, there's an eleven-year life-expectancy difference.

Some of that is going to be because of the availability of good food that's affordable, convenient, but also, how supportive is your physical environment for being physically active, right? I grew up in Kaneohe. No sidewalks. We would call it decoboko roads, where it was like this, asphalt pushed up that served as sidewalk, no street lamps, and I had to walk home, and in the dark too, and pass the cemetery.

And so in terms of a supportive environment, that's pretty rough to grow up in compared to living in Kailua now where it has sidewalks and bike lanes. So it does matter. The environment does matter and the resourcing thing we put into it matters.

Thank you. So the Health Department does stand by your testimony that says, 'pedestrian access to everyday destinations is a social justice and health equity issue,' and then also, like you said, the term jaywalking is a derogatory term. Do you folks still stand by the word jaywalking is a derogatory term?

Well, actually, in terms of the history of it and how it was created, yes.

So it is?

I'm looking at it from a historic perspective. It was created so that 'Jay' means somebody who's foolish, and so to put that label on somebody who's walking and to call them a jaywalker was actually like a poster campaign that was created.

Would crossing the street in an unmarked crosswalk not be--be a foolish move?

If there were no cars, right? And a reasonable person can determine that there are no cars and it's safe. It is actually outside of the United States, an acceptable practice. And so in the United States, we've actually created this difference between who has the right to use the roadways and put in an adversarial relationship sometimes, yeah.

Like if--I do walk a lot and so sometimes I do find myself, like, being looked at, like, you gonna cross the street, lady? And I'm like, yeah, I'm at a crosswalk, but a car might inch and I'm gonna lose.

But that's not jaywalking. That's not a crosswalk.

No, but there are times when I have, cuz I used to walk two big dogs, and if I saw two small dogs coming at me, I would cross the street--no cars around, but I would cross the street in deference and respect for the person walking the smaller dogs.

Thank you. Thank you for your answers. I just feel that the section in your testimony is not relevant to the pilot program, but thank you for answering, and thank you, chair.

Thank you so much for the questions.

Just one final question for DOH. Based on data from other cities, are jaywalking laws actually effective in keeping pedestrians safe?

No, they are not. And if we look at, actually, accidents overall in Hawaii, and in terms of the data we have seen, no, it doesn't--whether a person is on a crosswalk or whether a person is crossing where there is no crosswalk, without a culture of safety and a culture of sharing the roadways and being really attentive to each other, the pedestrian will lose. So thank you for that question.

So if--how do jaywalking penalties pose barriers to people walking and other active transportation?

So we see it as another deterrence in terms of people feeling like, well, I can't--I don't have as much right to be here, and if we look at then the penalties as well, it's higher for a pedestrian. If they were to be using the roads and they were to walk across the street where there's no crosswalk versus if a car encroached into my path while I was on a crosswalk, the penalty is lower for the driver.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Other questions?

Yes. So, sorry, but I just realized maybe you can answer my question. So taking into consideration the testimony that Appleseed offered, especially with respect to the data that really highlights the issue on Oahu and the shifting locations over time where we see the preponderance of the citations, I am wondering what your thoughts are about why so many--that's an enormous number of tickets for pedestrian penalties and especially in comparison with other jurisdictions.

So what is your analysis--because we don't have anybody here from HPD who can speak to the issue--but what is your analysis of the situation? Like, why is that happening? And then secondarily, or also, could you talk about whether this kind of enforcement that seems very targeted is leading to improved safety results?

Thank you for that question. I would actually have to go back to some colleagues to look at that data a bit further. In terms of safety from states that have passed and changed the pedestrian penalty laws, it has not increased the injuries for pedestrians and fatality, and in fact, in California, it has reduced it. So we can speak in terms of the experience of other states.

How about the first part of the question? Like why are we seeing so many in those particular, very particular locations, do you think?

I would, I would--thank you for that question, and it's an insightful question and I'm going to have to defer to my colleagues who are here or not present who might be able to give a response to that question.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Thank you. Any other questions? If not. Thanks very much to the testifiers. We're going to move on to the--no, we're not going to move on. We are going to move on?

Can I, can I go? We have so much of Honolulu's finest here, and--

But the person who is testifying is not here.

And can I have anyone that's invited to give testimony in the room that might--

But the person who is to be the spokesperson on behalf of HPD is not here.

Okay. No--

No one else stood up to--

Okay. Understood.

I can speak on behalf of the department.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Andre Peters. I'm the Acting Major for the Criminal Investigation Division. So part of my history is, back in 2017 to 2022, I was in the Traffic Division. I was the traffic enforcement lieutenant and also the solo bike lieutenant there, so I'm not here on this bill itself, so I don't know anything about the specifics about the bill, but I think I'll be able to answer some of the questions that--

Thanks.

As far as pedestrian enforcement.

Okay, thanks. Go ahead and ask your question.

Yeah, I guess, through the testimony, it's been brought up, there's a lot of citations regarding jaywalking. The--I see the importance of the bill allowing pedestrians to jaywalk--excuse the offensive term--if they see that it's safe without incurring a citation, now, how do we balance that with opening up unsafe practice and mindset?

Because obviously, I was taught, the car is going to win, so if it's not safe to cross, you don't cross. You know, it's common sense, yeah? I mean, for me, that's what it is. So can you explain HPD's enforcement of jaywalking? Is it like just crossing in an unmarked crosswalk or is it crossing when the light starts blinking red or--

It's actually both. So I guess to answer Representative Perruso's question, too, so jaywalking would be anything walking outside of the crosswalk or if you walking against the red signage on the walk signal. So those are the two specific reasons why we would cite for pedestrian violations.

So I guess the biggest reason why, why we do citations in certain areas is really about preventative enforcement, and the preventative enforcement is really times between pedestrian collisions, and then when they are pedestrian collisions, we focus more in that particular area to cite for pedestrian violations. And this is really, again, to go back to preventative maintenance.

So it is really hard for officers really, to, as a testifier spoke earlier, about there would have to be an officer at a particular crosswalk in order to enforce that violation because most times, if someone sees an officer at a particular crosswalk, they probably won't cross against the walk signal or outside of the, outside of the crosswalk.

So, again, yeah. It's something that we--is not on the agenda most of the time, but for--when I was in the Traffic Division, we passed it along to the other district patrol officers that it would be in the best practice, and really, it's about educating the public, which is why we give citations and it's not so much about a, a punitive thing or about the fines itself.

It's really to change the mindset or change the behavior of that particular pedestrian, not that particular pedestrian that we cite, but also the other pedestrians or other people that's walking around the area sees that, you know, the Honolulu Police Department is enforcing these pedestrian violations, and, you know, they may change their behavior.

Sorry, chair, I have one more question. Okay. I see the merit of this bill, giving flexibility for pedestrians to cross in a safe manner, but I also want to respect HPD's and Department of Transportation opposition to this bill, and I can understand that we can be opening up a can of worms.

So just off the cuff, HPD's perspective, how could we maybe consider giving pedestrians some leeway on that without penalizing them with a citation? Is there maybe some room for compromise on that?

What we have done in the past is that we've done educational--especially on Fort--I'm sorry--on Bishop Street and King Street, which is a very busy pedestrian intersection during lunch hours--we have conducted educational stops, and basically we would be on each side of that intersection to educate them, educate the pedestrians, passing out flyers to them.

I believe just a couple years ago we did, there was another law that was passed where the pedestrian would have to--the pedestrian could be on the phone while they're crossing in the crosswalk, but they could get cited because, again, it's part of the education process is that if they're walking across the street, that we would want them to be visible with their head on a swivel looking for any hazards that may, you know, that they may encounter, right?

So instead of them looking at their phones, we need them to look up. Representative, I don't know if there's really a good answer that I could give you because I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I would give you any alternatives to--

Yeah, understood. Thank you for the discussion. Thank you for stepping up and testifying. Thank you, chair, for allowing questioning.

Thank you. Okay. There'd be no further questions. Thank you very much to the testifier. Let's go on to Senate Bill 281. Senate Draft One, House Draft One, relating to torture. This measure defines and prohibits the offense of torture and makes torture a class A felony. First up, we have Office of Public Defender. Mr. Bento.

Good afternoon, chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is William Bento, and I'm an attorney with the Office of the Public Defender. We've submitted our written testimony on this bill. I just want to outline a few things, if I could. We do oppose specific measures of the bill.

We don't oppose the intent or the purpose of the bill, but just specific measures. While sitting here today and listening to the testimony on other bills, I had a chance to go over it once again, and something came to me.

So if you'll allow me, this is not in my written testimony, but section one of the bill says any person who knowingly causes serious bodily injury to another person within the actor's custody or physical control would be guilty of torture.

Now, I think in the original bill there was a preamble that talked about situations, if I'm correct, a person kidnaps another person, holds them against their will and then subjects them to harm, or a court order places a child with an individual, or an administrative order places a child with an individual and they're in that person's control, and then they're harmed.

But this language is far broader than targeting those specific types of acts, because any person who is in the custody, be it for legal or illegal reasons, are subject to prosecution. Under this bill, anybody who is in physical control of another person, legal or not, would be subject to prosecution.

So any court order that places somebody in prison, people who are running the prison are now in physical control of that person. The reason why I bring that up is this.

Our opposition to the bill is not that we're, again, for torture or anything of that nature, but the testimony in support of this bill throughout this legislative session has been about specific types of acts by people who have committed acts with evil intent.

And the legislature, it seems to me, has been supportive to give our law enforcement community and the prosecutors the tools that it needs to go after those individuals. All we're saying is, if you're going to do so, be specific in your language so that it's not so broad.

We've submitted amendments to other parts dealing with children and vulnerable people by simply adding words like the person does it for the purpose of harming the child physically or psychologically changes all of that, because now you're not looking at the specific things the person does, but what they do with the intent to cause that harm or psychological damage.

And so what we're saying is if you wish to pass a law with a title like torture, because it's specifically needed by our law enforcement community and by the prosecutor's office, the Attorney General's Office, then we should be very specific in the language that's used because we're going to have to deal with that later on when we have to have trials in regards to this.

Just if I could, one other example, section two, I'm sorry, section B talks about engages in a pattern or practice of physically abusing the other person. There's no definition of what that means. We're not talking, are we talking about convictions, prior convictions? Are we just talking about uncharged, prior allegations?

I just want you folks to know that if we were to have a trial on that statute, the judge now has to be able to instruct the jury on what that specifically means and what the prosecutor would have to exactly prove and what the defense attorney would have to try to defend against.

And so, without clear definitions, it's very difficult for us to be able to have a trial. There's another bill that I'm not sure if it survived, but was winding its way through this session, dealing with the definition of just one term because our supreme court said that it wasn't clearly defined.

That's the kind of thing that we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. And that's why we're asking you to please take a careful look at this bill and be very specific in your language. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Honolulu Police Department. Vince Legaspi.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of this committee, I'm Captain Vince Legaspi of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Honolulu Police Department. We strongly support Senate Bill 281 relating to torture. I've been a detective with the Criminal Investigation Division since 2012, within sex crimes, robbery, domestic violence. Lieutenant for sex crimes, child abuse.

Now I act as Captain as the Violent Crime Section. Child cases have been the most disturbing cases that I've experienced since they generally cannot defend themselves and will be traumatized for their entire life. Typically, the perpetrators are individuals they trust, such as family members. Abuse and assault cases typically happen in the heat of the moment. Uncontrolled anger.

Torture is often planned, carried out over a period of time. Torture is that of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain in kids. It involves the intentional affliction of extreme physical or psychological suffering on a child. This leads to lifelong trauma and suffering like I said. But I believe in protecting children.

I strongly support this bill, and I stand on my written testimony also. I'll be here for any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next. Darnella Villanueva, Hawaii Police Department. Written testimony. Next, Detective Kendall Wong.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Kendall Wong. I'm a detective with the Honolulu Police Department, currently assigned to the Strategic Enforcement Detail Investigative Unit within the Criminal Investigation Division.

Stand before you today in strong support of Senate Bill 281, which is legislation that seeks to address or prevent the heinous crime of child torture. Child torture is not just another form of child abuse.

It is distinct, calculated, and systematic act of cruelty or acts of cruelty that inflicts severe and prolonged sufferin,g which negative effects will span the lifetime of a child.

Unlike cases of child abuse or excessive discipline in child torture is characterized by intentional, prolonged, and statistic infliction of pain and suffering, often involving psychological manipulation and calculated methods of control.

Again, things like these, I can't give you a specific definition or exactly what every method of control is, but based on my experience, I can tell you that I have witnessed it.

As someone who has served as a patrol officer investigator, I've witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of child abuse and torture, as well as the challenges law enforcement faces in holding perpetrators accountable.

In my current role as a digital forensic investigator, I analyze the phone's digital records of perpetrators and hold the responsibility of discovering digital evidence of their crimes. Digital evidence often reveals a methodical approach to child torture, carefully planned and executed over time.

Perpetrators frequently use digital devices to document their abuse as well as communicate with others who take part or assist in their heinous activities. They also use digital tools to groom their victims, exert control, and evade detection.

In the course of the analyses of such devices and tools, I'm able to gain a unique insight into how these perpetrators think and how they operate in their everyday lives. Some of the digital evidence found in these cases is beyond awful, revealing unimaginable acts of cruelty to multiple children, not only the deceased.

In some cases, the deceased is not even the primary target of the torture. Analysis of the digital evidence discovered in these cases paint a clear picture that the intentions and motivations of these perpetrators are much more crueler in comparison to other perpetrators and surpass the severity of simple child abuse.

As such, they should be held responsible and face appropriate consequences that reflect the heightened severity of their crimes. Implementing this bill, coupled with the diligent efforts of law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney's office, will ensure justice for survivors, those who must live with the lifelong impact of these crimes.

It will deter potential future offenders as well as repeat offenders while closing legal loopholes in which these perpetrators are not adequately prosecuted. The passage of this bill sends a clear message that we are committed to protecting our keiki and that we will ensure that those who inflict such unimaginable suffering face the consequences they deserve.

Furthermore, it is critical to ensure that justice is served before perpetrators escalate their crimes to the ultimate act of taking a child's life. By holding them accountable early, we can prevent further harm and ensure that these individuals face consequences before they deprive a child of their future entirely.

I urge all of you to support Senate Bill 281 and take a stand against child torture. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Lieutenant Deena Thoemmes.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here today to testify in strong support of Senate Bill 281. I have served in the Honolulu Police Department for 30 years. 20 of those years have been in the Criminal Investigation Division. 16 of those have been in the Homicide Division.

I'm currently the Lieutenant of the Homicide Detail and also the Strategic Enforcement Detail.

This is my third time testifying in favor of this bill because it is critically important to protecting the most vulnerable persons of our society, as well as my entire team of detectives and officers from both the Homicide and Strategic Enforcement Detail are present to show their support.

Child torture is a distinct and horrific category of abuse that goes far beyond what we typically encounter in child abuse and neglect cases. It is prolonged, calculated, and designed to inflict the maximum amount of suffering. It is not just about physical injury. It is about control, domination and cruelty.

And too often by this time, these cases that come to me in the homicide detail, it's already too late. I want to make it a little bit more personal for you all to understand what myself and all the detectives and officers here have to go through.

I've seen firsthand what child torture looks like, not just in photos, but up close and in person. I have walked into scenes where lifeless bodies of children bear the unmistakable signs of prolonged abuse.

Bones protruding from starvation, bruises in various stages of healings, bed sores, remnants of duct tape on their skin where restraints were hidden under their clothing. I have seen bruises on inside of child's lips, a sign that someone held their mouth shut to silence their cries.

Burns on the soles of their feet, injuries to their wrists and ankles from being bound, hair forcibly removed. Each injury telling a story of suffering that no child should endure. And then there are the children who survive, not because they were spared, but because their sibling died first.

I have looked into their eyes, seen the pain they have endured, and known that the only reason they are alive and is because their suffering did not reach the fatal threshold that took their brother or sister. We carry these images with us every day.

These investigations take time, reviewing medical records, interviewing family Members and neighbors, and, forensically speaking, with surviving siblings. But current laws do not give us the ability to act as swiftly as we need to, and Senate Bill 281 will change that. This legislation provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to intervene before it is too late.

It will allow us to take children into protective custody based on evidence of torture that may not always be immediately visible, giving us time to investigate while ensuring that the child's safety that the child is safe. It will close critical gaps in the law, ensuring that those who commit these heinous crimes are held fully accountable.

This bill is not just about justice. It is about prevention. It is about saving children before their suffering ends in death. It is about giving law enforcement the means to act aggressively and decisively against those who torture children. I urge you to pass Senate Bill 281. We cannot wait for another child to die before we act.

I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you very much. And thank you and your whole team for the work that you do. It's very important. We appreciate it. Next, Tiffany Kaeo, Department of Prosecuting Attorney.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important bill. I'm the Division Chief for the Family Prosecution Division at the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. I prosecute and oversee prosecutors who handle domestic violence and child abuse cases. I'm one of the lead prosecutors on cases involving child abuse and child torture.

And I can say with confidence that there is a need for this statute. When a child dies at the hands of another, we charge murder or manslaughter. But when a child survives the horrific impacts of child torture, there is no comparable statute that accounts for the offender's state of mind and the acts suffered by the child.

Of all the cases that make it to charging or to the attention of the media, there are other cases that never see justice because there isn't a statute that covers the starvation and malnourishment that a child suffers or a statute that covers the times that a child was forced to hold their urine or bowel movement.

SB281 remedies a gap in that statute. Addressing child torture is not a law enforcement centric movement. The investigation of child torture involves the collaborative effort of multiple disciplines working in the best interest of children. It is a coordinated effort of agencies working in the best interest of the child.

We utilize the Honolulu Police Department, Honolulu Emergency Medical Services, the Honolulu Fire Department, Child Welfare Services, Department of Education, medical providers, and the Prosecutor's Office. And we all bring it together to bring a case forward.

There are thousands of hours of investigation which include the review of digital evidence, forensic evidence, witness interviews, police reports, the review of thousands of pages of documents, medical evidence, school records, all of which are critical to a thorough investigation, and all of which are critical to ensuring that when charges are finally brought, there is sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a person's guilt.

As a final thought, we know that victims of child torture will suffer lasting emotional and psychological harm, and it happens to victims of all kinds of crimes. But we know from the research on child torture that victims suffer from ptsd, polyvictimization, anxiety, insomnia and other phobias.

This Legislature is very concerned about how their decisions impact the future generations every day with the decisions you make here, and you're constantly looking at how best to reduce criminal recidivism, how to make positive impacts on our community.

And one of the formal studies that we look at when we're looking at how to make impacts on our community is the ACEs study, right. Adverse Adverse Childhood Experiences, a seminal study done by the CDC and Kaiser Permanente.

And when you look at the ACEs study, they were looking at child maltreatment and its effect on the adult experiences. And child abuse is one of the key experiences that they were concerned about and its effect on poor outcomes that result in our communities.

And it's that child maltreatment that we look at and the creates a risk of exposure to criminogenic behaviors, increased risk of poverty, the increased risk of substance abuse, mental health issues, poor health outcomes, all of which drain our resources as a community and as a state, all issues that you guys work to solve every day as a state Legislator.

And so while this bill isn't going to solve all the problems, it is one step in looking at how we can create a proactive approach to contributing to reduction in all of those systemic issues that our community faces.

And so this bill isn't going to prevent kids from being victims of child torture, but it is going to offer some semblance of resiliency factors for those kids who are experiencing child abuse and child torture.

It's going to go a long way in showing our Keiki that they are valued and that they are protected and that we are going to hold people accountable for their actions. Children who are victims of torture will be involved in many different parts of our medical, social services and court systems.

Working together increases our chances of success in protecting child victims and holding offenders accountable. I think it's safe to say that there's no one here who disagrees with protecting children or holding people accountable for their actions. And that's why SB281 is so important.

And I strongly support this measure and urge this Committee to pass SB 281 in its current written form.

Thank you very much. Next, Erica Candelario, also from the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Erica Candelario and I am a deputy prosecuting attorney and the team captain of the Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Felony Unit at the Prosecutor's Office here in Honolulu. I am in testifying in strong support of SB 281.

I am also, I have the unfortunate distinction to be the lead attorney on some of the more recent child torture cases you have seen in the media. The best way I can explain child torture to you because it is an uncomfortable term. Torture is a term that has so many meanings.

But to me, you have not delved into the true darkness of human nature until you see a child being hurt in ways that you cannot even imagine. The broken bodies of children who could no longer withstand immense suffering that they have endured.

And there are children that survive this suffering, but are so psychologically broken that they cannot tell their own stories. Because torture has many forms. Because those who torture children, for lack of a better word, are creative. They are creative because the research shows that they are sadists. They enjoy finding new ways to create suffering for their victims.

They live in a world where cruelty is king. And they believe that their victims deserve treatment such as these because of the small slights or perceived misdeeds that the children might do in some way. Presently, many of the methods torturers use cannot be prosecuted in meaningful ways by our team because of the current statutory schemes.

Things like forced holds, where children are forced to stand or lie in positions not designed for the human body to be in for hours or days. Being duct taped, blindfolded, forced into buckets, boxes, cages, or being hung and suspended in the air for long periods of time. Prolonged binding, as Lt.

Tamus said, causes pressure ulcers, which are bed sores. And it's from the rubbing of the tape or the binding in certain parts of the body. Withholding bathroom use is another method. Some perpetrators even use military grade torture tactics such as waterboarding, torture music, or sight deprivation to keep child victims sleep deprived or disoriented.

I said this in my testimony, my written testimony, but I want to say it again here today. My job and the jobs of everyone you see here require that we act with fairness and integrity when we serve this community. And that is something that we all take very seriously.

And the law demands that we do so, as it should. But there is a fundamental unfairness in the law if we cannot protect children. And so what we are asking you here today to do is to stand with us, give us the tools to hold these people accountable and prevent more children from dying.

Help us protect our kids. Thank you. And I will be available for questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Candelario Kelden. Walton, Hawaii County Office of Prosecuting Attorney on zoom not present. Daniel Hugo, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. I'm Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, testifying in strong support of SB281.

And let me begin with a truth that should shock the conscience of every person in this room, which is that the laws in Hawaii today do not protect victims of torture. They protect the torturers. They shield the abusers, silence the survivors, and shut the courtroom doors of justice, especially when the victims are children.

And allow me to identify the three most serious weaknesses in the current law. First, Hawaii only treats torture as a sentencing enhancement for homicide. That provision, and even that provision, is toothless because it requires proof that that the victim suffered unnecessary pain. Second, Hawaii does not allow assault to be charged as a continuing offense.

That means torturers who commit multiple assaults can separate the trials for each assault. And that means that juries will never hear about the full scope of their crime. Third, Hawaii requires bodily injury to charge assault, but some forms of cruel and degrading treatment leave no visible bruises. Starvation, electrocution, suspension are just some examples.

And this bill comprehensively tackles each of those problems. Our written testimony address the written concerns by the public defender, and I can address the one that was raised here. If you look to page three, lines 14 through 17, there is a definition of custody and control.

That definition at line 17 specifically excludes cases where that custody or control is exercised with lawful authority. I know this bill cold. I'm prepared to defend it in front of the Hawaii Supreme Court, in front of the United States Supreme Court, if necessary.

But this bill is not a legal puzzle for the police and prosecutors who have joined me today in supporting this bill. We know what evil can do to innocence. It's not something that you soon forget. We are asking for this bill not because these cases are easy, but precisely because they are difficult, necessary.

One of these days, a survivor of torture will ask what we did when the law failed to protect them. Let our answer be we refused complacency. We chose action. We closed the loopholes and named torture for what it is.

We defended those who have been cruelly robbed of their voice, and we made the law an instrument of justice.

Again, thank you very much, Augie Tolba. Next, Brooklyn Freeman, please Proceed.

Aloha, chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Brooklyn Freeman, and I'm a graduate student in social work at UH Manoa. I'm testifying in strong support of Senate Bill 281. Within my field, I've seen how difficult it can be for survivors, especially children and vulnerable individuals, to get justice when they've experienced extreme, prolonged harm.

From the most recent data, over 1800 children in Hawaii were served by advocacy agents in 2023. 333 for physical abuse and 418 for neglect. In the past year alone, heartbreaking cases involving the deaths of young girls in our state have shed light on the gaps in our system.

These tragedies, along with the many cases that never make headlines, show how urgent it is to clearly define and address the most extreme forms of harm reduction, like torture, within our laws. This bill moves us closer to meaningful protection of our children and helps ensure that individuals responsible for this level of cruelty are held fully accountable.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We've received a total of 13 testimonies in support, one in opposition. And and is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 281? If not questions, Members, I have a question for the prosecuting Mr. Hugo, prosecuting attorney. For the definition of pattern or practice, the phrase common "state of mind" is used.

I think that came from your testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm unfamiliar with that phrase being used in the penal code. Could you explain why that phrase is useful? And would there be another way to express the same goal?