House Standing Committee on Tourism

Convening this morning's Joint Hearing for the Committee of Tourism and the Committee of Water and Land, for the Committee of Tourism, I have myself and Vice Chair Templo and for the Committee of Water and Land we have Chair Hashem, and his Members and our Members. Today is March 20, 2025.

Time is 9:00am here in Conference Room 423 at the Hawaii State Capitol. For the purposes of hearing bills, I'm going to read today's rules. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a 2 minute time limit per testifier. At the end of 2 minutes, I'll ask you to please summarize your testimony.

Please note that we do have your written testimony. Because this morning's hearings must adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. In that event. Please note that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee.

For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will only allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues.

If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting if the disconnected if disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or to schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademark or copyright images. Please refrain from using any profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. First up, we have Senate Bill 1396 SD3 HD1 relating to economic development. It amends the Transient Accommodation tax rates on January 21, 2027.

Beginning on January 21, 2027 requires a $20 transient accommodation tax to be levied per night on each furnishing of transient accommodations in the exchange of points, miles or other amounts provided through a membership loyalty program and appropriates funds to the DLNR for protection, management, restoration of the State's natural resources. Effective July 12, 3000.

First up to testify we have the Office of the Governor.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Will Kane, Office of the Governor, we stand in our written testimony in support and I will be here to answer any questions or address any concerns. I would note also that Attorney General Lopez is here and she'll be available to answer any questions as well.

Thank you. Next up, we have DLNR.

Good morning, Chair, vice chairs and Members of the Committee. Dawn Chang. On behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, we stand in strong support of this Bill. We concur and appreciate the legislative findings of SB 1397, recognizing the connection between economic development, especially by visitors, and environmental stewardship.

We are proposing to utilize these funds to support numerous DLNR projects, as well as collaborate with other government entities like OPSD and DBID to support sustainable tourism. Thank you very much. And we are available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Next up, we have Hawaii State Energy Office.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chair, Representatives Cameron Black. On behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office, we stand on our testimony in support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Department of Taxation.

Good morning. Kristin Sakamoto, Deputy Director of Taxation. We stand on our written comments and I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. On Zoom, we have the Hawaii Office of the Governor Recovery and Resiliency Unit with comments.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Luke Myers, Branch Chief Recovery Resiliency Unit. We stand on a written testimony offering comments available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in support.

Aloha. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Oriana Leao DHHL. The Department stands on its written testimony in support with the noted amendment. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency on Zoom, in support.

Yes. Good morning, Chair. This is Don Aweau, Executive Officer. We stand on a testimony available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Climate Advisory Team. Jeff Mikulina in support.

Good morning. Gwen Yamamoto Lau, representing the CAT. We sign in on a written testimony in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Next up, we have Antoinette Davis with Activities and Attractions Association Hawaii in opposition.

Aloha. I've never done this before. Chair, Vice Chair, Vice Chairs and Vice Chairs. I didn't realize that this Bill got modified to be more of a companion to House Bill 504. And that Bill we are not, we don't oppose or support. So please rescind my testimony in opposition, if that's possible.

That's what I've never done before, so my apologies.

We'll see if we can do that. Sorry, I missed DBEDT in support.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. Jimmy Tokioka for DBEDT. In our written testimony, I just wanted to point out two things. In Section three, we request the multiple expanding agencies because when projects go in, there's going to be different entities that are going to be overseeing the projects.

And then we request that the TAT revenues go into the special fund for these measures for the projects that and for some of the marketing of the state and destination management with HTA. Thank you very much. And I'll be around for questions if you have any.

Thank you. Next up we have.

Sorry, hold on.

The Nature Conservancy.

Hello. Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Dr. Elizabeth Benyshek, Representing the Nature Conservancy, Hawaii. You have our written testimony, but I will just highlight the recent polling data of a diverse group of visitors that found that 76% were willing to pay an annual visitor fee to protect our land, water, wildlife and cultural resources.

This number increases to about 85% when you look at visitors who have been here more than one time or come back regularly. And actually 25% of them said they'd be more likely to visit if such structures were in place. In 2024 and 2023 we also polled voters and found about 63% acceptance among them. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, Climate Protectors of Hawai'i, Ted Bohlen in support.

Thank you. Chairs, vice chairs, Members of the committees, Ted Bohlen on behalf of Hawai'i Reef and Ocean Coalition and Climate Protectors Hawaii. In strong support of this Bill. We have an underfunding of our natural resource protection. We need to take care of that $20 may discourage some customers from coming to Hawaii, some visitors.

But what will really deter people from coming is the continued underfunding of our natural resources because the natural resources are really what people come here for. Sunshine is great, but it's also all the other things. So we need to fund this.

I urge the committees to adopt a Bill that has a dedicated fund so that the monies are used for natural resource protection only and that there are grants for community driven projects because it's important to bring in the community to make this work on a local level. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

I'm available for questions if there are any.

Thank you. Next up we have Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority.

Good morning. Gwen Yamamoto Lau standing on our testimony in support with comments echoing Director Tokiokas. Thanks.

Next up we have Hoy Appleseed Center for Law and Economic justice in support. Not here. Okay.

Next up we have HCDA

Morning chairs, Vice chairs, Member of the Committee, Craig Nakamoto, Executive Director of Hawaii Community Development Authority. We stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force in support.

Aloha chairs, Vice Chair and Members of the committees. My name is Hannah Leziak and I'm here on behalf of the Ocean Legislative Task Force in strong support of SB 1396. You have our written testimony.

But just briefly, I wanted to highlight that our task force is comprised of over 120 individuals from numerous organizations, all of which who care deeply about the protection of our Aina. And we believe that this measure would provide a crucial safety net for our environment and the climate impacts to come.

And I want to be clear that these climate impacts are not a question of if, they are a question of when. And that is what makes this Bill so vital. I want to thank you for hearing this measure and I urge you to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Maka Gibson, Care for Aia Now Coalition Leadership Committee.

Aloha chairs, Vice Chair and Members of the committees. My name is Maka Gibson. I grew up in Ewa Beach, but I now call Kaneohe Home. I'm a program officer at Resources Legacy Fund, a nonprofit where I lead our environmental, equity and justice programs here in Hawaii.

We are one of more than 75 organizations that make up the Care for Aina Now Coalition. Mahalo for hearing SB 1396. We stand in strong support of this Bill and we know that what is most important is that it creates dedicated funding for Ina's stewardship and restoration.

Next week I'm going to visit Kaupulehu on Moku o Keawe for the first time and I was reflecting on how the tri-weight model is a perfect example of community reciprocity that our state needs to adopt. When we visit our Ohana or friends, we always bring a ho'okupu or a gift. We never show up empty handed.

For tourists, we need to apply the same concept when they come to Hawaii. How can they malama and aloha our aina and give back to our communities? I have an 18 month old and I'm pregnant with our second baby. And I want our keiki and our mopuna to thrive with our aina and its beautiful and abundant resources.

Mahalo for your time.

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

Aloha chairs, vice chairs and Committee Members. My name is Lea Hong. I am the Hawaii State Director of the Trust for Public Land and a Member of the Care for Aina Now or CAN Leadership Committee. We support SB 1396 with comments and suggestions for amendment noted in our written testimony.

I wanted to echo the Nature Conservancy's testimony regarding polling data. We have several years of polling data from visitors and residents that show broad support for additional fees. In one of the polls, a visitor was interviewed and stated, and I quote, people who travel anywhere leave environmental impacts on the land.

If giving a little bit of money can help mitigate the damage they cause, it seems like a small price to pay. Another visitor stated, quote, nothing is free. I'd like to think everyone appreciated the natural beauty of Hawaii. Care for Aina now appreciates the contributions of the visitor industry to Hawaii's economy.

The visitors themselves, like residents, have consistently pulled positively on the additional impact fees that go towards sustaining and managing the resources visitors enjoy. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next up we have the American Hotel Lodging Association and the Hawaii Hotel Alliance with comments. Not present. Okay, we'll go back and see if they want. They're going to log in later. Next up we have Tax Foundation of Hawaii.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, Members of the committees, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. It seems to us that the Bill is really merging two unrelated concepts. One is protecting our environment, the second is a transient accommodations tax.

We think that protecting the environment is everybody's responsibility and there really is no need to single out tourists as the means for funding it. So we question whether a hike to the- to the transient accommodations taxes warranted or needed at this time. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you. Next up, we have Maui Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you so much for the opportunity. We absolutely, deeply care about the environment and we agree that it is everybody's responsibility and, and therefore we have to oppose this Bill to raise the TAT. Hawaii already has a reputation for having the highest visitor taxes of any destination in the world.

In addition to taxes on visitor accommodations, visitors are also subject to the General Excise tax, which is a progressive tax. Rental car fees and taxes on roads, parking fees at state parks and other taxes and fees assessed on activity based businesses, all of which are passed down to the consumer.

We have also seen accommodation rates increase which is impacting visitor spending, spending in other areas impacting retail, restaurants, activity companies and more. We are hearing from them that they are struggling to survive and a higher TAT would further burden these businesses, leading to reduced spending in industries that are very reliant on the visitor industry market.

We are also deeply concerned that the impact of this measure can be even greater, particularly with a placeholder for future TAT increases and that will harm our visitor industry. At a time when we are struggling to survive. Maui visitor counts and spending remain low and businesses are struggling.

The proposed increase could further hinder our economic recovery, which is still below pre pandemic levels and was severely impacted by the August 2003 wildfires. And lastly, we feel the Bill is a bit misleading because it does not promote economic development. In fact, it's the opposite.

It's placing additional financial strain on visitors, local businesses and those that depend on these industries for jobs. So we ask that we look at a different way. It's not that we don't want to see more funding go to environmental measures to protect our environment. We know that our environment is part of our economy.

But we also are fighting to save jobs at this time and we feel this is going to put another nail in the coffin. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Next up, we have Expedia Group with comments on Zoom.

Aloha. Good morning. My name is Mackenzie Chase. I'm here on behalf of Expedia, a family of brands that includes Expedia, Hotels.com and short term rental leader Vrbo. Thank you very much for the opportunity to share comments this morning.

Very briefly, we are supportive of the proposed investments in natural resources and we do not object to the proposed percentage increase to the transient accommodation tax. However, we have significant operational concerns about Section 2, subsection F of the Bill.

A tax that is based on the form of payment is totally novel and would be very challenging to implement. We hope that that portion of the Bill can be taken out and we stand on our written testimony and I am available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have Keoni Dudley, Dr. Keoni Dudley in support.

Okay. Chairman and vice chairs and the members of the committee, I am Dr. Kioni Dudley. I created a one-hour video titled, 'The New Hurricane Threat for Hawaii.' Was shown on local TV stations ten times in September. I'm very interested in hurricanes.

This bill originally started off as a bill that was going to support resiliency, which would include hurricane preparation, and somehow it got shifted and shifted and wound up trying to protect the environment. I strongly support the protection of the environment, but we need to also have protection for people--people first.

We don't have a single hurricane shelter that can withstand a category two, three, four, or five hurricane. The sole reason we don't have any hurricane shelters is because there have never been funds for them or funds for an office to administer them. Section Three of this would allow for that kind of thing.

It could have hurricane shelters that--it could fund the fortifying of hurricane shelters and building of new hurricane shelters that could withstand category five hurricanes with winds of 200 miles per hour. They're coming. To get started, we need $100 million for the first year of the same--and the same for the second year.

We also need in this bill to have something that says, beginning in 2026, all new buildings and all new new public buildings and school buildings that can reasonably be used for hurricane shelters shall be designed to withstand category five hurricanes with winds of 200 miles per hour and shall have interior passages to bathrooms.

Winds get stronger and stronger as you go up the hill, and so we need another paragraph that talks about homes. Homes in the 130-mile-an-hour wind zone and below need to be built to withstand category three hurricanes.

Dr. Dudley, please summarize your testimony.

Okay. And just to wrap up, we need to get--to start supporting people things, saving people, and this bill is the last chance, the only bill that's still alive. These things need to be put inside of it. I thank you very much.

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

Hi. Thank you. I stand on my testimony. It echoes a lot of what has already been said; in strong support of this bill. I will say it's everyone's responsibility to protect the environment and that's why no one's going to do it. It's called tragedy of the commons. If it's everyone's kuleana, no one's going to pick it up.

We need a kind of concerted, delegated effort to do that. Regarding the funding of--like, it's a small risk to add a $20 fee for tourists. They're still going to come. We've polled the visitors. They said they still are going to come, even though the $20 is a little bit more. They're still going to come.

It's a huge risk not to do anything. Look at what happened with Maui. I can't remember who it was when someone said, 'oh, we're struggling right now.' Yeah, because of the Maui Fire. Why? Because we're not funding efforts like this, and this is going to keep happening, and it's going to get worse and worse and worse.

I can't believe we're going to ignore the huge elephant in the room, the huge risk we're taking year after year after year not funding this stuff because we're worried about a $20 fee that's really not going to do anything. It's not going to prevent any tourists from coming. And even if it does, it's such a small amount.

Yeah. This is just such a no-brainer, and I'm just, I'm just aghast that anyone would be opposed to this very common sense, no-brainer. Thank you for letting me testify. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Next up, we have Resource Legacy Fund, Jocelyn Herbert.

Aloha. Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. My name is Jocelyn Herbert, testifying from Hawaii Island today, on behalf of Resources Legacy Fund. Thank you for hearing this bill and taking the time.

We are in strong support of this measure because it provides a durable and dedicated funding source that Hawaii agencies and community groups need to do the work, including growing Hawaii's workforce to reduce the impacts of increasing wildfires, floods, and coastal storms on our communities, and it offers visitors an opportunity to contribute to this natural resource stewardship and restoration work.

As you've heard, Hawaii is facing an urgent $560 million annual shortfall to fund the needed natural resource stewardship work to safeguard our communities. You've heard about the polling that has been conducted and the visitors' willingness to pay, 85% of the repeat visitors who are some of the visitor industry's most important customers are willing to pay for this.

One in four visitors polled expressly said that they would be more likely to visit if they could pay to protect and restore land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources. Hawaii really cannot afford to wait any longer to create new funding like this to address these needs. We urge you to pass this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have KUA, Kevin Chang, on Zoom.

Yeah. Aloha. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say 'aghast' as part of testimony. It was pretty cool. My name is Kevin Chang, Executive Director of Kua'aina Ulu 'Auamo. I just want to bring your attention to our suggested amendment.

To assure that communities receive a share of these funds in caring for our environment, KUA facilitates statewide networks of community-based natural resource management, helping to empower them and get them the partnerships and the resources they need to do to work, and that really is all about creating a collaborative citizenship around our environment, which I think everyone has talked about. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's all that we have signed up to testify in person or on Zoom. Is there anyone--we'll start with in-person first. Is there anyone else in person wishing to testify on the measure before us? Yes. Please, Madam Attorney General.

Good morning, chairs and committees. We did not submit testimony on this version of the bill because there are no legal problems with it, and that's usually what prompts us actually submitting testimony. The reason I'm here today is because I wanted to just use as a reminder the work that the Fire Safety Research Institute did following the Lahaina Fire.

After 18 months of objective, evidence-based research, they provided the state with priority recommendations. Land management is within those ten priorities. In addition, they recommended that we have a--we--I'm sorry--we revise our fire marshal bill and enter into a contract with Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization. We have done both. The bill is running through the Legislature.

We have entered into a contract with HWMO. The important part about that is a key part of their responsibility is working, being a leader and working with all the state organizations that already have responsibilities with respect to land management and fire protection. So I think this bill is very important.

It won't just be visitors paying for this. The state has already put in significant investments. The counties are putting in investment, and we support this bill for those reasons. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Attorney General. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Yes. Please come up and state your name and your position.

Aloha. My name is Caroline Anderson, Interim Chief Administrative Officer for the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and we stand with comments in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in person? Okay, we're going to move on to Zoom now. Is there anyone on Zoom wishing to testify? Oh, wow. None. Okay. Got a really good robust session. I'm going to start with--should we just take questions all together as like two committees or--I feel like a lot of questions are going to overlap.

So we're going to take questions from anyone. So is anyone--does anyone have--any members have any questions right now that they would like to pose? Yes, Rep. Iwamoto.

Thank you, chair. This is for DOTAX. So the collection of fees, the way these, I guess, mileage points or frequent loyalty points are used, it's usually all digital. Therefore couldn't--why is the the start date in January 2027? Couldn't we--given the digital nature of it--couldn't we implement it and start collecting as of January 2026?

Yes. I'm not sure how the start date came about. Our testimony just reflected the fact that we would be able to put that part of the tax collection on the forms as of January 1, 2027.

As far as whether we would be able to do that January 1, 2026, we could put it on the form in that timeframe. Enforcement is really kind of the tricky issue for us, which is a backend compliance issue, but yes, I do believe that we could work with a January 1st effective date, 26.

Thank you. Then I have a question for--is there anyone representing the hotels in opposition to this bill? Maybe it's the Priceline or Hotels.com? It's Expedia. Sorry.

Was it--just submitted comments, but you might want--you can ask a question to them.

Okay. Are they still there?

Yeah, they're on Zoom.

Yeah, I'm here. I represent Expedia, which I don't represent the hotels themselves. I represent the online travel agency.

Okay. You may be able to answer this question. When somebody does redeem these loyalty points for free nights hotel stay at the resort, would they be charged a resort fee like any other guests? Usually?

So, I believe, I believe so. So I can only speak to Expedia's rewards, which is called OneKeyCash, and in that model, it wouldn't impact a resort fee collected at a hotel, and OneKeyCash also does not reduce the collection of transient accommodation tax either because transient accommodation tax is calculated before OneKeyCash is applied.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Want to know any other question? Yes, Rep. Shimizu first and then Rep. Ichiyama.

Thank you, chair. I didn't catch the testifier in the blue dress over there. Yeah. Can I ask you a question? Were you the one who shared the polling information that was very favorable?

Yes.

Could the committee and myself get information on that? That was very helpful.

Yes, we have a memo that we can share that has all the information.

And what was the basis of that polling information? Could you give me some reference on the specifics of that polling?

Like the results or--?

Not the results, but how was it conducted, what was the sample size, who was the demographics, so on and so forth, just to get a better context of those numbers?

Absolutely. I'm happy to share all of that information we do have. This was a survey that was conducted by an outside group, FM3, and I don't have the information in front of me. I might have it in my bag but I am happy to share it.

Okay, thank you. I would be happy to receive that too. Thank you.

Yeah, if you could send that to me too. I just kind of want to see what the, what the question, word by word, says when you were polling. I think that's important for us to know.

Absolutely. There's several questions that were asked and we have--the visitor one was the one that was done this year. Happy to share that information.

Thank you.

Wait, I have another question. Or I can go after Rep. Ichiyama. Okay. I have a question. I'm not sure who to ask this to, maybe DLNR. This is regarding trying to get a better understanding of the current TAT taxes and trying to identify what percentage of that money does go currently to the mission of protecting, managing, and restoring our, our natural resources.

I'm gonna let DOTAX answer that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry, I asked the wrong person. Thank you, DOTAX.

Hi. Yeah, I'm trying to pull that information up; currently trying to think of the section. There is an allocation of TAT revenues in Chapter 237D, so I do know that there is funding that goes to the Mass Transit Fund and then there's a bunch of other special funds. If you just bear with me for a moment, I'll try and pull up that statute for you.

Not at all. I'll bear with you and I appreciate that. Thank you.

Sorry. Convention Center, I think there's some to the--do you have it?

The Tourism Emergency Fund is one of them.

Sorry, I know that's a hard question, but I appreciate your accuracy.

Okay, so the remittances are in 237D-6.5, and I mentioned the Mass Transit Fund and we also have the Turtle Bay Conservation Easement Special Fund, the Convention Center Enterprise Special Fund, Tourism Emergency Special Fund, and Special Land and Development Fund.

So 1.5 million to the Turtle Bay Conservation Easement Fund, 11 million to the Convention Center Enterprise Special Fund, there's an allocation to the Tourism Emergency Special Fund that needs to maintain a balance of five million, and three million to the Special Land and Development Fund.

Is that information that's available to the committee also?

Yes, I can provide this after the hearing, but it's also in statute. I can provide it to the committee.

Thank you. I yield. Thank, you chair.

Rep. Ichiyama.

Thanks so much for being here this morning. I wanted to get a--I have a couple questions. One is about your testimony, and I think you highlighted the difficulty in being able to understand how many rooms are currently being booked with points or miles, because that's not information that you currently collect.

That's correct.

So in order to--I guess what I'm trying to understand is, in order to enforce this tax, what would you need to do?

So we're still trying to figure that out if this bill is passed, but our understanding is that points can be used in various ways. The hotels themselves offer points as well as third parties that you can book through.

So it would require an audit and assessment of the hotel's records, as well as figuring out which companies deal with the hotels to provide points for bookings and probably working with those third companies as well, looking at how these--I think part of the issue is we don't fully understand all of the ways that these transactions take place, so it would require us to look at all of the records from all of the players and figure out how money is being transferred, how points are valued, things of that sort of. So yeah, we're still trying to figure it out, but it would require some record review.

And I guess I'm also curious, right, so hotels charge different rates for different rooms. There's a government rate, you know, there's a rack rate, there's--right? If you're, if you're this kind of member, you get this rate, right? You're a gold member. So when you're trying to calculate the TAT on rooms that are booked with points, which rate should you use?

So I think if there is a monetary transfer for points, that would be an easy case, but as you mentioned, there are different valuations and if points are being exchanged and no money is being exchanged in that transaction, we would have to figure out and possibly may need administrative rules to determine the value of the points and at which point of time that they will be looked at. So yeah, these are things that we would need to figure out.

Okay, got it. And then I'm not sure if you had a chance to review the testimony from the hotel industry, and they're supporting a amendment to this bill to do a tax on cruise ships.

I haven't seen the testimony, but I have heard that idea being floated around.

And has DOTAX looked at how they would be able to administer that kind of a tax?

So it depends exactly on the--how the tax is going to be imposed. So we can ask almost--I guess, yeah. If it depends--it depends on whether it's going to be per room or on another type of fee. We can certainly ask the cruise ships to report those amounts on the form, but similar to the points, there's going to be a little bit of backend work for us to figure out how to enforce compliance depending on how the tax is imposed.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Rep. Holt.

Thank you. For the Governor's Office. Thanks for your testimony, and, you know, I do agree that, you know, maybe the increase in the TAT might be easier. As just noted, it's, you know, different hotel rates and such.

But being with the current version of the bill and noting the maybe problems with collecting on just the points and with, you know, protecting the environment being such a great challenge in front of us, would you guys be supportive if we just applied this fee to everybody, you know, whether they're using points or not points, and just, you know, a blanket fee across the board to--?

Like the $20 fee proposed in the bill or the--?

Yeah, the $20 fee.

I mean, I think we are absolutely, the governor's absolutely supportive of applying the fees to our visitors and this industry and all these areas across the board, right? We all feel the effects of all these things that we're trying to accomplish in our state. So, you know, as a person mentioned earlier, GET and all these things on tourists, we all pay those things, and so I think to apply that, you know, holistically would be a good idea.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Members, any other questions? Oh. Rep Belatti.

Either for Attorney General or if someone from Department of Transportation is here. I don't know if they submitted any testimony.

The Attorney General's here.

Attorney General. Good morning. And I apologize for stepping in right as you're wrapping up your testimony. Can you speak to the Navahine settlement and how that's structured and how maybe the funds generated from this measure will go and support those, the obligation that the state has incurred now that we've settled in the Navahine suit?

I don't know those details and I would let Director Sniffen provide them. Having said that, I believe that the way it's structured at this point, Director Sniffen was able to incorporate many of the settled facts within his current operating process. So, for instance, there'll be a new Climate Advisory Committee. That's not going to cost any money. So we didn't, we didn't settle--there are no specific monies and everything is going in, I think, into the DOT operations.

And then if we're seeing federal cuts at the Department of--at the federal level, what are the plans, because I view this as important measure, a difficult but important measure to be able to raise revenues at a time when--the Navahine settlement is far looking into the future and is going to require huge investments and investments that we all need to share in the community to address climate change.

So what is the--from what you can share with us--and maybe again, it's something for Director Sniffen--but what are the plans? Because this to me seems like a critical measure to do that.

Okay. So I will say that it's--Navahine alone is not what is going to be costing money. I mean, the state has had a zero-emissions goal for a long time, and so what the Navahine plaintiffs were requesting was pretty much within what the plan has been for this state. So--but you're right. There's going to be a lot of investments.

I don't know how Director Sniffen is working on it, but I will say--and I think this is public--that the governor has directed all of his cabinet to go through our department's budgets, identify what federal funds we get, which employees are paid through federal funds, and to prioritize those programs and employees so that in the event that federal funds are reduced or completely withdrawn, that we will be prepared to start making decisions about how we need to proceed.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Any other questions from members? Rep. Hussey.

Could I please have the Department of Taxation? Thanks very much. I wanted to get some, kind of rough numbers, if I could, from you, on how much are we currently collecting from TAT and what is our estimate on what additional funds we would be collecting through this fee as currently constructed in this bill?

Let's see here. So for fiscal year 24, TAT collections totaled 828.3 million. The bill has the TAT increase currently blanked out. However, I believe the Governor's Office is proposing a 1% increase that would increase revenues by 43.5 million, which is the half year for fiscal year 26, and 90 million for fiscal year 27.

The $20 per night room on tax, we estimate 80.8 million, but again, that's based on assumptions. We lack reliable data, so that is our estimate, but we're not certain that that would actually result in that amount of income.

Right. And if we were to spread that $20, if we were to apply the $20 fee to everyone, let's say we have a ten million people coming in, am I correct in assuming that's like $200 million in additional revenue?

I don't have that figure available. The $20 is just based on transactions booked with points. For every visitor booking a transient accommodation, I would have to check with my team for that revenue impact.

Okay, thank you.

Members, any other questions? And then, chair does have some questions. Can I have the DLNR come up, please? Okay, so, you know, some of the testimony is asking for that this money be deposited into, like, a special fund for these projects. Does DLNR have a list of climate mitigation projects or--that is already in the pipeline and a rough estimate behind that? How much money is needed to fund them?

Thank you. Thank you for the question, Representative, Chair. We actually have provided a list of about totaling close to $400 million in projects, maybe a total of about--at least close to 100 projects that we're ready to move with. We do have them separated in what's climate mitigation, what's environmental stewardship, as well as sustainable tourism, but we have projects that are ready to move forward in this as soon as--if you are able to pass this bill.

As the bill is written, if we raise it by 1%, will that raise--will that generate the 400 million you need or--?

Not at this time, but it will provide us the opportunity to get started on many of these projects. I mean, we've got a priority list. We know that we may not be able to do everything at the same time, but we do have a priority list of projects that need to be done, especially whether it's fire mitigation, fire suppression, or whether it's beach nourishment, for example, Waikiki, Kaanapali. Those are some critical areas that need to be taken care of, so those are some of our priority projects as well.

So at the end of the 400 million, when we get to that point where we fund all the 400 million, all these projects, what should we--what can we do with this addition? Because I'm assuming that this increase would stay.

Yeah, no, so we appreciate it. It'd be a dedicated source of funding. This is just a list we put together for the year FY 26-27. We have got deferred maintenance, we've got other, other projects. I don't believe we would be lacking in any fund, in any projects to utilize all of the funds that we receive.

We've got 1.3 million acres of forest lands that we maintain, three miles of ocean waters, and everything in between. I am confident that every year we could spend in excess of whatever's generated in this fund. Was that convincing?

Yeah.

We will. We will. Don't worry about this bet. But I'm extremely confident and I've got Will here. He's going to put a rain on me, but no, we have had, you know, DLNR--I greatly appreciate everybody that's here who has supported this and recognized that DLNR has been--we lack the capacity and been underfunded.

So there's an enormous amount of work that we could do, including opening up more trails, including making more state parks available. So there's a lot of opportunities for us not only to maintain and operate what we have, but also to increase opportunities for visitors to enjoy and visit our different natural resources, but we just don't have the capacity to open all of those at this time, so this fund would really help us do that.

Thank you. Can I have the Governor's Office representative, Will? According to the Hotel Alliance's testimony, they mentioned about tax equity and that they mentioned that the, that the cruise line industry is not paying into this. Would you be--is the governor supportive of us implementing a TAT onto that industry?

Yes, I think the governor is supportive of raising revenue for these projects, and if areas that previously were not assessed these taxes then--or these--then they should be, yes. And that should apply across the board--cruise lines, short-term rentals, anyone that's providing these accommodations in our state from visitors or, you know, some kamana, like, they should be assessed.

Unrelated question now. As you know, homeowners' insurance is skyrocketing and part of that is climate mitigation and disasters. If this were to pass and we dedicate this fund towards these projects, is there a potential that it minimizes risk for the insurance companies to lower rates for regular average people in Hawaii?

Oh, absolutely. So thank you for bringing that up. So it's a good point that really hasn't been discussed to this point. All of us are facing these escalating insurance costs, and you know, one of the things that came out--and the Attorney General references is--you know, our underfunding of our, you know, physical and programmatic support for these projects. The Insurance Council has weighed in previously on other bills. We have looked at this.

If we are able to demonstrate to the insurance companies that the state is making that investment across multiple areas, it's going to, well, hopefully lower, but at the very least stabilize our market. So our, you know, our homeowners and our residents can, you know, catch their breath on these escalating increases. So this is another key component of showing the state's dedication to these funding mechanisms.

Thank you. I do have a question for Tax Department. Thank you. So I want to go back to this cruise ship, cruise industry topic. Does the cruise industry--what--can you kind of just briefly go over what the cruise industry currently pays in terms of fees going to our general funds or Department of Transportation that we collect as from the--as a state?

I'm not certain about all of the fees that they pay over. I do know that there are docking fees that are handled by the Department of Transportation that are paid over. Aside from that, I do know that TAT is not imposed on the cruise ships, so we do not collect TAT for from them.

Thank you. Let's do that. Attorney General, please. I'm sorry, I have a lot of questions.

That's okay. I was just very excited. The Ninth Circuit issued Opinion Today on a California case upholding their ban on large capacity magazines for their firearms, which is very exciting for Hawaii because our bill has been held in abeyance while that was done.

As to why could you even find happy about that?

Anyways, I was happy.

Do you see any legal issues if we were to impose a tax on the cruise line industry if they were to dock on our piers?

That is absolutely not a question I can answer right here now. I need to--I'll need to research that and get back to you, but I'm happy to do that.

Not a problem. Thank you so much for your time. Members, any other questions? We're going to move on to our next bill. I do want to note that I forgot to read the summary of the testimony. We do have 40 individuals and organizations in support and about like 174 in opposition and nine with comments.

So we are going to move on to our next bill. Completely forgot that we even had a next bill. Senate Bill 439 SD1 relating to fees. It requires the Board of Land and Natural Resources to adopt rules to impose user fees that apply solely to non resident visiting state parks and trails as selected by the board.

First up we have DLNR with comments.

Thank you very much. Chairs and Co-Chairs and Members of the Committee. Dawn Chang, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We do support the intent of this bill and we've provided comments. Actually we greatly appreciate the legislative support for state parks. It's one of the few divisions that can generate revenue.

But we are currently doing most of the, actually almost everything that's on this bill except that we are not doing annual or are not doing increases on this pursuant to the CPI.

And we are currently looking at right now to implement going to our land board to implement a seasonal surge pricing comparable to what airline and hotel industries do. As well as, we are considering implementing a dynamic pricing model. So we are taking into consideration the comments that we've received from the Legislature regarding increasing our park fees.

We currently charge $5. We are doing an assessment of all state parks. So we are, you know, we are actually doing everything that you have in this Bill and we are addressing the one item that we are currently not doing. And I'm available to answer any questions you may have. Okay, thank you.

Next up we have Kevin Chang for KUA.

It's okay. Kevin Chang for Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAuamo. We just stand on our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii.

Aloha. Antoinette Davis, Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii. Chairs, Vice Chairs. We oppose this bill. The DLNR parks are underfunded in all their divisions. We support getting them money provided that there are fiduciary accountabilities attached to them. Currently, parks have done a very successful job at paid parking in several of our facilities.

And I would suggest instead of having an entrance fee for visitors only, to actually have something where you increase parking fees, which I think is what Chair had suggested as well. I have emailed chairs and vice chairs. We supported like the stewardship with DAR, the dollar per passenger on the charter boats.

We have a history of always supporting these kinds of things. We have fought for a long time to get financial information regarding our small boat harbors. Finally, that as of fiscal year 2025 that is now on their website and I would really like you to look at that. There are problems in the finances with, with Dobor specifically.

So that's it. Thank you so much. We are opposed to this bill. Aloha.

Thank you. Next up we have Tax foundation of Hawaii.

Thank you. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the committees. Tom Yamachika for Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We've identified a constitutional problem and we've, you know, mentioned this in testimony before.

There currently is case law made by courts saying that you can charge a fee to people entering a park if that fee and make the fee for non residents only. If you make that fee available for that park, that park's upkeep. So we do that at Hanawa Bay, that's fine. We do that.

A few other parks, that's fine. But once you start mixing and matching the entry fees and use them on other parks and other places, it looks like a differential tax. And if it's a differential tax, we have a privileges and immunities clause problem. Because the U.S.

constitution says that, you know, we as residents of the United States of America are allowed to travel freely among the United States of America. And a differential tax on park access would seem to violate that. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. That is all that we have signed up to testify on the measure before us. Is there anyone, starting in person, wishing to testify on Senate Bill 439? Please state your name and your position on the bill.

Thank you. Ted Bolan for the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. I have comments on the bill, and that is that while it certainly is meritorious to have funding for the parks, I want to emphasize that it's not just the parks need help here on the environment.

And so this bill is no substitute for 1396 or House Bill 504. We need something broad as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Anyone on Zoom? Okay, I guess that is all. Chair does want to note that we have six testifiers in support, one in opposition and three with comments. Members, any questions? Rep. Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, I have a question for DOTAX, please. Thank you for being here. Appreciate your testimony and your availability. Question is the 10 state parks that currently charge, do you know how much income that we generate from that?

Sorry, we actually didn't submit testimony on this bill. I'm not sure about the fees that are collected.

Okay, can. Can. I'm sorry, can I ask DLNR then? Don Chang, please. So the question would be the 10 parks that we currently charge, how much are we generating? And then for the additional five that we are targeting, how much additional would we be generating?

Representative, I apologize in advance. I should have anticipated that question. I do not have the specific amount. I have a. We can get that information for you on the amount of fees that we do generate. So I'm sorry, I don't have that information.

Okay, thank you. I apologize. Okay, thank you. Chair.

Members, any other questions?

zero, so I've got here who's with our state parks? And she's indicated that what we did try to anticipate is what would we generate for the five parks? And I think we've estimated it $10 million. So sort of in General, we're looking at maybe.

Yeah, why don't I just have her come up here and I don't have to fumble my.

I should have anticipated that you would have asked that question. Rep. State parks. What I did anticipate and we worked on was what the additional would be.

And so in the quick time that we had in the turnaround, as we were discussing it, I asked our property management section what their current fee Schedule is choose the most conservative, which would be the lowest one. Calculate what your total was for that Times that by five parks.

And the number they gave me was around 10 million. Would be the additional increase. Increase.

And that's for one year?

That's for one year, yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Remember, any other questions? Questions? I have a question for dlnr. We heard the Tax foundation say that this is probably unconstitutional due to how to distinguish. Do you have any thoughts on that? Whether it is constitutional or not.

So I'm, I'm not going to render a lease legal opinion, but we believe that it is constitutional. We have, we have tailored our rules around the Haunama Bay case. And so we believe that this is. We've been doing this for five years. It hasn't been challenged. And we believe that it is constitutional.

Like for non residents. For non residents. Okay. Yes. How can you. Like, how do you, how do you do that?

Like they do a parking reservation. So they go online and they book a ticket online and then they also pay for parking. So residents do not pay for an entrance nor do they pay for parking. We Reserve stalls for residents. And I do want to comment.

There was a comment about, you know, where that fee should go directly to that park fees do. But it also supports all of our. We have 55 parks. Many of our state parks will not generate fees. It's primarily where local people go and it's very small rural areas.

So the fees that we collect go into our special Fund which helps us maintain and operate all of our state parks.

You don't see that being challenged if like it hasn't been.

And we, we don't. No, it hasn't been.

So you mentioned that this is something that you can already implement. What was the, what was this part that you said isn't.

It's something under the bill? It is section. Is it E. No, section A. Excuse me. It is A. A3. Any user fee established pursuant to this section shall be adjusted over time for inflation based upon the Consumer Price Index in Honolulu. And that is similar language to what we have in our.

We have an ocean stewardship fee embedded in that statute is a relate. It is referenced to the cpi. So we don't have that in this Bill. I mean in. Currently. And that's what you're proposing in this legislation. Okay, but we are also trying other methods. Price indexing. Yeah.

So we are trying other, other forms of increasing surge pricing, seasonal increases. And I think. What was the other one? Okay, so. Okay, so we are trying other methods to to increase fees. Thank you.

Thank you. Any question? Any. Any other question? If not, we're gonna go into a brief recess.

Thank you. Members, we're gonna. We're trying to get quorum right now. So we will reconvene at 11:30 a.m. here in conference room. Oh, I don't even remember What. Conference room 423 at 11:30. Thank you. Recess.

Aloha everyone. And good morning. Thank you for convening for the hearing on the House Committee on tourism. Today's Thursday, March 20, 2025. Time is 10:20 and we're here at Hawaii State Capitol, Conference Room 423. For the purposes of hearing three resolutions, I am Vice Chair Templo. I will be convening today's meeting.

I'd like to acknowledge Chair Tam and the presence of Representative Todd and Representative Holt. Thank you for being here. Be patient with me as I announce our House rules to allow as many people to testify as possible. There will be 2 minute time limit per testifier.

Because morning hearings must adjourn prior to the noon floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify in that event. Please note that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee. Please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And after your testimony is complete.

The zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while participating presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

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

Please please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. Thank you.

First off, we have on agenda HCR 102 and HR 98 strongly urging the Real Estate Commission to allow for the Administration of the Real Estate Salesperson Examination in the Japanese language for purposes of issuing a full real estate salesperson license limited to the sale of timeshare products in Hawaii.

To promote the sale of these products to Japanese speaking visitors and enhance Japan's involvement in and support of Hawaii's tourism industry. Right now, we'll be taking testimony. First registered testimony- testifier, we have Real Estate Commission in person. Thank you. Next we have the American Resort Development and support.

Good morning, vice chair, chair. My name is Linda Rodrigues and I'm testifying on behalf of the American Resort Development Association. We are the trade Association supporting the timeshare industry. I am strongly supporting HCR 102, urging the Real Estate Commission to be able to administer the real estate exam in Japanese.

We believe that this would have a very positive impact on tourism from Japan to Hawaii, a big opportunity for us in the years to come, as well as empowering our residents here to be able to flourish in the real estate industry and be able to be successful as they assimilate into our community.

First, I'd like to point out that the timeshare industry has over 98 resorts and 15,000 units in the State of Hawaii. One of the things that we are asking is that the exam be translated into Japanese so that we can increase the passage rate for those that are taking the examination.

I want to be very clear that we are not asking that the educational programs and the continuing educational programs be translated into Japanese or administered into Japanese.

We simply want to create an accommodation for those that are native speaking Japanese residents here in Hawaii so that they have an option to take the exam in either English or Japanese so that they don't have to take the exam four or five times, which is what's happening today.

Now, the timeshare industry has been very resilient coming out of COVID and as well as the Maui wildfires, we are now experiencing about 90% occupancy rates throughout the state. One of the things that I can say is that the Japanese travelers love their timeshares here. They're very committed to using them.

And despite the fact that we're seeing softer occupancy and arrivals from Japan to Hawaii, that that is not the case with timeshare. Actually, we are about 90% to our 2019 numbers. In addition to this, I just wanted to share that the industry is a strong supporter of this.

We have considered this carefully and are willing to invest in the cost that it's going to take to translate the exam. We understand that the opposition is concerned about consumer complaints. I can share with you that consumer complaints are. And consumer rights in Japan are- are taken very seriously.

And there is an agency there that can support any of the complaints and work with the major developers the way we do today. I'll stop there. Any questions?

Thank you for your testimony. We'll take questions after. Okay, thank you all the testifiers. Thank you. And on Zoom, we have registered testifier in support from Hilton Grand Vacation.

Yes, good morning, Chair Tam, Vice Chair Templo. Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to speak in regards to this very important bill. This is for HCR 102. My name is David Watanabe. I was the former senior director of sales for the Japanese and Korean teams prior to Covid.

Right now I took a different as an operations manager slash broker in charge for Hilton Grand Vacations here in Hawaii. I also do support this initiative. The reason why I say this is pre Covid.

We had many, many Japanese speaking employees in Hawaii during COVID due to not having jobs, especially for the Japanese market, many of them moved back to Japan. And I'm thinking it's not only in our industry but other industries as well.

Having this bill passed, I believe it would entice more people, more professional, top talented people in Japan to actually get their real estate license and return to Hawaii while also enticing people that already live here to test and be more confident in passing the exam.

Japanese people, just like Linda said, when they come to Hawaii, they're very respectful about the Hawaii culture. They want to learn more. I believe if you go to like the farm farmers market, you're going to see them supporting local businesses. Timeshare rooms range from studios to one bedroom to two bedroom to even three bedroom units.

And they tend to bring a lot of their friends and families to Hawaii along with their ownership, which will then also increase the amount of visitors that we have coming back to the states in the future. So I am 100% in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. That is all that we have. As for registered testifiers, is there anyone in the audience who's wishing to testify? Anyone on Zoom? Seeing none. We're going to move on to our next item on the agenda. We're going to be hearing HCR 142 and oh, sorry, sorry. Members, any questions? Seeing none.

Moving on to the next item on the agenda. Next we have HCR142 and HR136. This is urging the Hawaii Tourism Authority and the Department of Transportation to expand the Kahia Airport greeting program to display Keiki Art in all neighbor island airports. We have one testifier in support. Hawaii Tourism Authority.

Hi. Aloha. Sorry.

Offering comments. Offering comments.

Yes. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Caroline Anderson, Interim Chief Administrative Officer and we offer comments and stand on a written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. We have no further registered testifiers. Do we have anyone in the audience wanting to testify? Anyone on zoom? Seeing none. Let's move on to oh members, any questions? Seeing none. Moving on to our last measure on the agenda.

HCR 143 and HR 137 strongly urging the Hawaii Tourism Authority to require all transient accommodation to incorporate the PONO pledge and as a requirement for guest check in we have one registered testifier with comments Hawaii Tourism Authority.

Thank you. There are no further registered testifiers. Anyone in person wanting to testify? Anyone on zoom? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none we are going to go into a short recession into decision making recession. Thank you Members and audience.

We are reconvening our hearing on the House Committee on Tourism Today's Thursday March 20th, 2025 here at Room 423. First we have HCR 102 and HR 98. Vice Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Members any questions or comments. Seeing none Chair for the vote.

Thank you members we'll be voting on HCR 102 and HR 98 together. Vice Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Rep. Holt: aye. Rep. Hussey is excused. Rep. Ilagon: aye. Rep. Todd: aye. Rep. Matsumoto: Excuse. Vice Chair your your recommendations to opted thank you.

Moving on voting on HCR 142 and HR136 chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Members any comments or question. Seeing none Chair for the vote HCR.

Voting on HCR 142 and HR 136. We'll be voting on these together. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. And noting the presence of Rep. Hussey. Is there anyone voting with reservations. Anyone voting no. Chair your recommendation is adopted and the excused absence of Rep. Matsumoto who will be excused for the rest of the agenda.

Thank you Chair. Last we are voting on HCR 143 and HR 137. Vice Chair's recommendation is to pass this with a HD 1. In this reso we are going to change the language from having require to encourage. Members Any comments or questions. Seeing none. Chair for the vote voting.

On HCR 143 and HR 137 together. Chair's recommendation is passed as an HD 1. Any Members voting with reservations. Any Members voting no. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Great. Thank you Chair and thank you Members. Appreciate y' all. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

All right, Reconvening this morning's here Joint Hearing for the Committee on Tourism and Committee on Water and Land. For the purposes of this decision making for a few bills. Today is March 20, 2025. Time is 10:00am here in Conference Room 423.

First up, we have Senate Bill 1396 relating to economic development and amends the transient accommodations tax rates between beginning on January 1, 2027, beginning January 1, 2025. Requires $20 transient accommodation tax being levied per night for each furnishing of transient accommodations in exchange of points, miles and other amounts provided through a membership, loyalty or rewards program.

Appropriate funds to deal on our protection, management and restoration of state's natural resources effective January 1, 3000. Thank you for your indulgence this morning for this Bill. Chair's recommendation is that we pass this out as an HD 2. We're going to amend the preamble to include cruise ships and passengers.

Then we're going to amend the definition of transient accommodations to include cruise ships and cruise ship cabins. We're going to delete line 7 to 17 on page 8, dealing with the points and the miles. And we're going to add a new section to the Bill that includes cruise ships.

So they are now going to be subjected to the TAT and the TAT will be off of their docking fees. In Section three, we're going for the. We're going to add in environmental stewardship, climate and hazard mitigation and sustainable tourism to what is already existing language in the current, in HD 1. Members, any discussion, questions, comments? Rep. Iwamoto.

Thank you. Can you tell me, will this. Did you increase the tax revenue with your changes or decrease it from the previous HD 1? Your estimation.

DOTAs has given some numbers off of it. They don't have the numbers off of how much it would cost if we do it for points. But I am. I'm going to assume that since we're putting the TAT on docking fees, we will generate revenue off of that.

But, I guess less than what we would have under the HD 1?

Again, that's a DOTAs question. I didn't. I don't know if they have that. That estimate. So it's one number that we have and the other number we don't know.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, more money.

I'm sorry, Chair.

Yes. Rep. Shimizu.

You're taking off the. The $20 off the points and miles and then you're applying that to the cruise ships and the passengers or is the $20 just out?

$20 out.

Okay. Okay.

And the new section is the Cruise ships.

Okay, got it.

So maybe just for the edification of the Committee. You know one of the conversations the industry or the evolution of the Bill is that they believe that they are already assessing TAT on those rewards points. So the $20 fee would not necessarily accomplish what we were trying to accomplish.

In theory, by applying this other tax, we would collect revenue that we're not currently collecting, whereas the $20 may not have actually collected very much at all. That's the assessment.

Yeah. And it's an in there. The American Lodging Hotel Alliance's testimony that they mentioned that.

I mean, but it wasn't accurate. I'm just saying that. That what they stated. I mean, just because somebody purchased a room before and that's why they have bonus points or these reward loyalty points, that wasn't. I mean, it's not like the. It is the value they're. They're getting. So I don't.

I read their testimony and I didn't find it convincing, but whatever. Okay. Okay. Well, your comments. Okay. Yeah, I'm so. Okay.

Members, any other comments, questions? Discussion? See None. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB139 SD3 HD1 shares. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your measure is adopted.

Thank you.

Oh, wait. Oh, yeah, that's right. Okay. Water and Land. Same Recommendation.

Voting on SB 1396 SD 3 HD 1. Recommendation is do pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill. Our last, last item. Senate Bill 439, SD1 relating to fees requires the Board of Land and Natural Resources to adopt rules to impose user fees and apply solely to non residents visiting state parks and trails as selected by the Board.

Chair's recommendation is that we pass this out as an HD 1. What we're going to do is to add in language to the Bill that allows DLNR to consider seasonal pricing for their trails and parks. I know that they're trying to do that right now, but hopefully this language will provide them cover.

And we're going to defect the date to 3,000 Members. Any discussion or comments or questions? Oh, do we have tech amendments and tech amendments just in case. Any questions? Comments? Seeing None. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 439, SD1. Chair's recommendation is do pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of the previously mentioned representatives. [Roll Call] Chair, your measure is adopted.

Committee on Water and Land, same Recommendation.

Voting on SB439, SD1. Recommendation is do pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Representative Morikawa and Woodson. Anyone voting with reservations or noes. All Members present. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. This hearing is adjourned.