House Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the public hearing for the Housing Committee. It is Wednesday, March 12, and it's 9:04 and we are in room 4:30. We have a decent sized agenda here, so we're going to try and go as quickly as we can.

For those who are testifying on Zoom, please keep your testimony as best you can. Actually, for those testifying, everybody, please keep your testimony as best you can within two minutes. Those of you on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until your name is called to testify.

And please refrain from profanity, otherwise you could be removed from the Zoom room. But I know everybody's always nice and respectful in this Committee, so I think we'll be good. That said, first item on the agenda is SB 26 SD2 relating to affordable housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

We got. Hawaii Pacific Hawaii Public Housing Authority in person. Thank you, HHFDC and support in person, thank you, State of Hawaii Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and comments in person.

Sorry, if you want to actually come up to the microphone if you have more to add. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you.

State of Hawaii Land Use Commission with comments in person.

Thank you, County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development and Support and hcda Craig Nakamoto with comments in person, thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB26SD2 seeing none.

Chair Members, any questions? Actually, do have a question for OPSD. Hi, sorry, I know you were kind of alluding to some of this back there, but if you could just elaborate a little bit on the prior study that had been done and how this would differ.

You mean the study that we prepared for the. In response to the SCR 160?

The resolution, Yeah.

Or the Affordable Rental Housing Task Force completed in 2018?

No, the study that was done in response to the resolution. With it.

Okay. So in that study, we were tasked with preparing, identifying lands, public lands, primarily within Tod. Well, actually public lands that would be capable of producing, I think, 10,000 units a year for 50 years or something like that. I'm sorry, I don't have the number in front of me.

So in response to that, what we did was we scraped all the information we had compiled with housing information from HHF that they had compiled from various state agencies and private developers.

We looked at the housing, the Tod projects that had been identified in the Hawaii State Strategic Plan for Transit Oriented Development and determine which of those had potential for housing or had planned for housing.

And so we prepared this we did maps of what would be Tod areas that encompassed housing potential within those Tod areas and we found that for and the only numbers I can remember right now is that for Oahu, with just the known projects identified, projects not including public lands that we did not survey within the Tod planned areas that there were like something like total of 59,000 units that could possibly be developed and 23 or 25,000 affordable units that were planned or of potential that had been identified by the agencies for those parcels.

So what we had in that study, we said we recognize these are only units that are currently planned, but that there's potential for other sites within these areas.

And so that gap was what we had proposed to undertake was looking at the gap between the public lands that we had not identified and had not already been come forward with planned projects to assess whether or not they would. Be. Suitable for housing, whether housing could be co located with existing facilities.

And also understanding that in the process of developing the project list for the Hawaii Strategic Plan for Tod many agencies held certain parcels close to their chest and said this is off limits.

So in order to open up that conversation, you really would have to go one on one with the agencies and say what are you trying to accomplish? Could we possibly be considering housing as a CO location, as a CO use on your property? Can we make it a win win?

Those conversations are not being do not happen typically. And so we usually preempt by taking land away from certain agencies and giving it to another for development.

So what we were hoping to do was create a win win by actually doing that ground truthing what parcels really could yield more housing that we had not been able to identify.

Okay, and if this was given the study was given to you guys instead of hcda would you guys have the capacity to then have some of those discussions too?

That is why the insertion of the new insertion of that section that refers to the suitability that was in our original Bill that we offered for the Executive package.

Okay.

But we would need the resources and you know, understand, you know it takes can take up to three to four months to stand up a con to get a consultant on board hiring in this current environment, unless we get some we it's very challenging.

We have we're still trying to hire to positions are so we, we would love to be able to do it. We would still need the time to be able to bring the resources on board to undertake the project.

Okay, thank you so much. Ruby Members, any further questions? All right, seeing none. Next item agenda is SB66SD2 relating to housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Ship d Jessica Puff with comments in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Jessica Puff. I'm the administrator of shpd. We stand on our testimony in the comments that we provided and are here for any questions if you have them.

Thank you. Office of Hawaiian Affair with comments.

Aloha Chair Evslin Vice Chair Miyake Members of the Committee, the lead compliance specialist with the Office of Foreign Affairs. We stand on our written testimony providing comments, but we'll highlight proposed amendments.

To have OHA included as a consulting party is the county's good faith effort when determining if there would be effects to historic properties within a project area.

And then second to have a clause in there to make it explicitly clear what happens if the county does determined that there would be an adverse effect in that it would go then go to Shipy for review. We'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Planning and Permitting in opposition. County of Hawaii Department of Public Works in support. Hawaii Realtors in support. Thank you. Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in support. NIOP Hawaii in support. Thank you. Lahaina Strong in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha Chair. Aloha Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Katie Austin, testifying on behalf of Lahaina Strong in opposition to SB66. While we really do appreciate the intent to expedite permitting specifically for Maui County, however, they are working tirelessly to get our rebuild underway and our permitting streamlined.

But they are also severely understaffed and we're worried that rushing approvals without proper oversight for the different departments that need to review these permits increases the risk of of certain projects slipping through the cracks.

Projects that don't serve our local families and could further strain our fragile infrastructure as we see on West Maui, specifically with our water resources. We've seen it multiple times before. And Lahaina Strong just really values giving individual counties control on their specific needs in regards to housing. And please ask you to oppose SB66. Mahalo.

Thank you. Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support. The American Institute of Architects with comments. Hawaii's thousand friends in opposition. Hawaii YIMBY in support. BIA Hawaii in support. Pele Farms in opposition. And two individuals in support and one in opposition, Chair. zero, and a late Hawaii Food Industry Association in support on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair. We'll stand on our testimony and strong support of this measure. Permitting delays drive up the cost of food, make housing unaffordable, and at this time, we really can't afford to do that.

We also believe that passing this measure and implementing it effectively would result in billions of dollars of tax revenue for the state that could be used to offset removing taxes on grocery. Something that is a big contributing factor in 1 in 3 residents in Hawaii being food insecure. So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 66 SD2 seeing none.

Chair Members, Any questions? I have a question for Jessica. Good morning. So the testimony from Shipti, my read of it was saying that the language that was added in a previous Committee to kind of give extra clarification and protection for historic property. My read of your testimony was saying that that seems largely sufficient.

And then OHA submitted testimony asking for additional clarification and protections. I guess I just want to get your read on like the current language in the Bill and I guess for starters, say there's an inadvertent discovery of a burial during the development process. Like this Bill wouldn't preempt 6e in any capacity. No. Okay.

No, 6e 43 would still apply if there's an inadvertent discovery. So our staff would still have to go verify it's human remains, it's historic. And then the burial sites program would make assessments about in consultation with the appropriate island burial Council Member and descendants about treatment of that burial.

So it wouldn't hold up that process or circumvent or shorten that process.

Okay, that's different. And then they also propose some language that says has consulted with OHA if a Native Hawaiian historic site is located on the subject property prior to making a determination?

Process.

Like is there a listing of or some type of is there a way that a planning Department or qualified professionals can know if there's a Native Hawaiian historic site and would know if they have to go to OHA or not in this case.

Like the language of the Bill does indicate that the persons making these decisions at the county need to be a qualified professional. They should have the subject matter expertise to be able to identify not only that there's a historic property there, but it's significant and apply the state's criteria of significance A through E.

And if they determine that a historic property is significant under criterion E, that's when they need to consult with oha. Okay. So I think the counties should have the ability, if they have an SO or not SOI qualified, but a qualified professional that meets the state roles, they should be able to know that and.

Then consult with OHA and that's.

That's already implied with the existing language.

Or I think it is in other places of 6e in the rules. I think that since this is 6e, this is amending 6e, it would probably be a good idea to clarify that here.

Just so that there's no question that they, if the county determines that there's a historic property like significant under Criterion E, that they should consult with OHA before moving forward.

I think that's reasonable, but we're, we're not actually amending anything in 6e here. So. So my understanding of this read was that the 6e process would sort of remain untouched and it would have to be followed.

I guess I worry about calling out different parts of 6e in that it looks like we're preempting it when we want to preserve it entirely.

Yeah, that's true.

I think that there's another Bill between this one and the next one.

And I can talk to Ohar really.

Quick and let you know after that. Yeah, we can continue the dialogue. Okay. I guess the other question, OHA said, you know that the language in the proposed new subsection is unclear on what happens if the qualified professional determines there is an adverse effect to historic properties.

So in my read of this, it says the application is not complete until you fulfill A or B. So I. From your read, do we need more there or is it like, you know.

Well, I think that if the assumption is that the qualified professional at the count is making these determinations is following 60, that perhaps it just says that like A could be amended like subsection A could be amended to just clarify that qualified county professionals who meet Steve strip preservation rules, rules governing professional qualifications for architecture, et cetera, have made a good, a reasonable, good faith determination that the project does not have potential, potential to affect historic properties, etc, in accordance with like 6042.

That and, and any rules pertaining to 6042 that maybe that would add the clarity there that they are to follow the existing 6042 process.

And then that would then I think, tie in all the questions about 6E or the, the criterion E considerations, consulting with OHA and then what to do in terms of if there's an ad, an effect determination and the applicable mitigations that the county can apply.

Yeah, I don't know that we need to require that the county send effect determinations to ship D to consult. If they have qualified professionals, they could take on that role internally and keep it local. I think that that's reasonable, but I'm Open either way, I guess.

Okay, I thank you. I appreciate it. Yes, Representative. Jessica.

Sorry, Jessica, one more question.

So as, as I read your testimony, I get the feeling that this whole Bill is being trying to stop because the counties don't have proper individuals in place. Is that, did I summarize that pretty accurately?

I think that it's my understand. Yes. I think that there's some counties that don't have qualified professionals on staff. However, I think this, the way that this Bill is written, it suggests that the county would only be able to review the project if they had that staff.

Okay, so like Maui County has an archaeologist and architectural historian and they have now the OEV division that can consult on cultural matters. I know city and County of Honolulu have talked about wanting to bring on board more qualified professionals and I'm not sure the capacity of Kauai County or Hawaii County. So. Yeah.

So is it a fair statement for me to say that the consumer should suffer because the county and the states cannot fill the proper positions?

I guess I need a little bit of clarity in that. In terms of suffer, are you talking about.

When I say suffer, I mean that we're going to hold up their whole permitting process because the county cannot fulfill that position, which is what's going on now. People are waiting in excess. And when I say people, I use myself as an example. It's going on 13 months. I live in Makaha on Lahaina Street.

It's clearly a no historic value, but we're still waiting. So are we going to try and kill you the whole Bill because we cannot get staffing correct?

I. I think that this Bill provides an either or situation where it's like if the county can has the staff and they can review the person project to expedite it, they can. But if they don't, then they can still rely on Shipy.

So I think it creates another avenue that might help to expedite things and keep it local, the decisions local in accordance with local zoning and historic preservation rules and things like that that the community decides. So I would hope that this Bill could potentially help expedite things by keeping it local and giving them that option.

Thank you. And just like triple clarify this so that if the county does not have the qualified staff, then it gets routed to ship D. Right.

So that's my understanding of this Bill.

Okay, thank you so much. Sorry. Was anybody from AIA representing AIA here to testify? Okay, Members, any further questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda will be SB332SD1 related to foreclosures. Vice Chair for the testimony.

First up, we got Lahaina Strong in support on Zoom.

Aloha again, Katie Austin with Lahaina Strong. We stand on our written testimony and support. I just wanted to elaborate a bit on what we are seeing currently on the ground in Lahaina. With the foreclosure moratorium ending this past January, the threat of more of our community Members losing their properties is extremely real.

Our Lahaina Community Land Trust is working tirelessly to even shift a lot of their efforts into helping dig some of these families out of foreclosure.

And we just really need any sort of protections that we can get locally to prevent the issue of speculative real estate and give our community a fighting chance to keep as much of Lahaina lands in Lahaina hands in for generations to come. So mahalo.

Thank you. We got Lahaina Community Land Trust and Northwest Community Land Trust Coalition in support and three individuals in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB332SD1? Seeing none.

Chair, Members, any questions? Right. Seeing none. Next item is SB 414 SD2 relating to restoring access to disaster affected areas. Vice Chair for the testimony.

First up we got HHFDC in support.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair Members, we stand on our testimony and support but also want to let the Committee know that DOT is intending to build a temporary paved access road from Kiawe street to the Klaiola temporary housing site. So we're having discussions with them as to whether we or DOT would be acquiring the parcels in question.

Thank you. We got Department of Human Services in support and Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 414 SD2. Seeing none, Chair. Members, any questions?

Okay, seeing None. Next item, SB 1002 SD2 relating to affordable housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

First up we got HHFDC in support. Thank you. Shipti, Jessica Puff with comments. Thank you. Office of Hawaiian Affair with comments.

Hello again, Chair Evelyn. Vice Chair Miyake Members of the Committee, Kamakana Ferreira, Lead Compliance Specialist with the Office of Foreign Affairs.

We stand on our written testimony providing comments on this bill, not necessarily sure that it would produce the desired effect being that third party consultants would still need to be SHPD would still need staff to monitor those contracts and there's also usually a small pool of applicants and it could be a problem with conflicts of interest.

And then we also stated that in terms of like timelines and guard rails, SB 1263 arguably has some better timelines that that we believe this measure should probably conform to that instead. But also available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in support. Thank you. NA Hawaii in support.

Thank you. Maui Chamber of Commerce with comments. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support on Zoom not present. Not present. HGA with comments.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair Members. Nui Sebast here with HGA. I will stand on written comments. I just, I just want to request a sunset on this bill and also emphasize that the Department really worked to fill these positions so that they can meet the review demand. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB1002 SD2? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, are there any questions? Did you want to ask?

Oh, Rep. Muraoka.

Just a real quick question. How long in the process would Shipti take to determine that they cannot do the review before they would send it out to the third party?

We would likely have to alter the way that we do things and have staff do sort of a preliminary review of affordable housing projects in particular to make an assessment about whether or not with workload and what has come in if they can complete the review when the within the allotted amount of time.

So typically that assessment is made like in flux depending upon what's going on with the project and how responsive the project proponent is in terms of inquiries for additional information and that kind of thing.

So we'd have to do more work up front to figure out which projects are affordable, pull those to the side, and then make an assessment about are they complete? Do we have all the facts straight, all that stuff, and can this be completed within 60 days?

But that would be if Shipti does it right.

Yeah.

Okay. I think, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm reading this that it says if Shifty cannot do it, they can use a third party.

Yeah.

How long would it take Shipti to identify that they cannot do it before we assign it to a third party? Because we don't want Shipti taking 45 days to then realize they cannot do it and then send it out because that prolongs again.

I think that to be honest, there likely will be projects where when we receive it initially and do an initial assessment, we assume that we can get it done and then something happens where the project isn't like it's complete, but there's still questions about moving the building around or moving the development around.

And then ultimately the total review time will take more than 60 days. And then we have to determine with the project proponent do you want to go to a third party administrator at this point or not? I don't know that if they're that far into the process though, that they'll want to get a third party administrator.

I think it's hard to say. Like I can speculate, but I don't think I can give a guarantee.

I think that it's more realistic that our staff would look at any of the affordable housing projects in advance, see what the workload is for that month and then or the next two months and see reasonably will we be able to get this done due to the nature of the project, and then have to make an immediate decision about engaging with a third party or review or not.

That might take a week or two for it to be assessed and then a final determination to be made.

Okay, and let, let, let's, let's say Shipti did decide that they're going to use a third party. Would the third party still be held to that, that same time frame that 60 days?

I'm not sure. I can't recall what the Bill says about how long the third party reviewer has to review.

I just use 60 days because it says that if Shipti cannot do the review within 60 days, I'm guessing we're gonna hire a third party to assist. And I'm just guessing that maybe Shipti cannot do it due to staffing, workloads and others.

So that's the normal reason we bring in outside vendors is when we cannot handle our own workload due to whether, whatever reasons. But within that 60 days, would the third party be required to still meet that same 60 day time frame?

Yeah, I, I don't know that. I, I don't think that I saw language in there that's. That stated that the third party reviewer had 30 days to, or 30 days, 60 days to review the project. But I, I would expect that that would be something that probably should be in the language.

Just to clarify. I'm sorry to interrupt, but there is language right now. It says 60 days for you guys to make the determination of whether you can do within 60 days. And then once it gets contracted to the third party reviewer, they have 30 days to conduct the review and comment.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jessica.

So sorry, Jessica. So given that this language is in there, is that sufficient?

Yeah, I think that it's. As long as there's a deadline that is, that's very, that, yeah, that's important. Sorry that I did not remember that.

No, no, it's okay. And then what happens if you guys can't find a willing third party reviewer.

Right now, I think the language of the bill says that we are required to contract a third party reviewer. I think that's been part of our concern in the past that what if we can't find a third party reviewer to take this contract?

And, and that was part of our request to change the shell to May or perhaps add language of some kind to the bill that would reflect that situation. That if we can't find a third party reviewer, that SHIPT will. Will be required to expedite the review. I, I don't know. Whatever that language may be.

Yeah, I, I don't know what would happen. And.

Yeah, thank you. And sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Reverend, did you have further questions?

No, but I just do want to follow up on your question and please chair. Correct me if I'm out of line, Jessica.

So based on what you said, if, let's say workload is overwhelming, staff is understaffed, and we cannot find a third party, would you still be against SB66 allowing the project to go through in the 60 days?

Like if I wouldn't. Like if Shipti were then required to get it done within 60 days? Is that the framework that we're working on?

I think that it's reasonable to require that these affordable housing projects be prioritized and that SHIPT has a timetable in which to get them decided before the project proponent can assume concurrence and to move on, provided that their project is submitted completely with truthful information in it.

And so to put a timestamp on project reviews I think is reasonable. It's consistent with the federal historic preservation review process.

And I apologize, Jessica. I'm not, you know, I'm just asking this line of question because I'm currently going through something in my community where an understaffing situation from the DLNR is currently holding up a pretty sizable project that's pretty important to the community.

And I just want to make sure that moving forward we cannot have understaffing and overworkloads be the problem holding up these people who are trying to do what's right.

Yes, and I think that's fair. And I think OHA also made the point that I think it's.

Is it SB 1263 also has language in it that targets what you're talking about, and that when a project is submitted, if SHIPT doesn't review it within the allotted amount of time, that the project proponent can assume concurrence that doesn't foreclose on the potential that If Evie is found, or if a historic property is found, that under 68 in particular, that the project proponent wouldn't notify Shipti, would notify oha, would notify the burial council of descendants and go through that process of dealing with an inadvertent discovery that would still be applicable.

It would just shorten the review period where we could try to modify the project to avoid those impacts, which would incentivize SHIPT to speed up our review time, at least for these types of projects. All right. Knowing that the shot clock was so quick.

Okay, thank you. And yes, I agree, once the project starts, if we do run into inadvertent discoveries. Absolutely, we. But I'm just trying to not have the start date continually, continuously pushed back because of.

Yeah, that's reasonable.

Thank you.

Question.

Vice Chair Miyake.

Perfect. Hi, Jessica. You knew it was for you. Popular gal today. Yeah. You should just stay there. Yeah, yeah. So, as you know, we have a lot of SHIPT bills like, this session. Right. And these bills are aimed to help keep our projects moving. So do you.

And I know, like, with the challenges, staffing challenges, et cetera, do you have data on, like, the backlog of projects?

Yes, I don't have up to date information on the backlog right now because. Because there's different categories of backlog. There are projects that were submitted incompletely that were having to work with a project proponent to submit the project completely.

There are projects that are beyond the review period allotted because they're complicated and they're affecting historic resources, and so it's taking a while to resolve. And then there's the easy permits that are. That are easier to get through. And so our staff is pretty up to date on some of the. On the easy permits. So we could.

We could try to, you know, calculate all that and give it to you.

Or do you have it, like, breaking. Broken down by counties?

We could try to do that. I think that the way that we pull reports out of our system, it adds everything together through. Hi, Chris. It's not hy. Chris isn't sophisticated enough to initially draw that report individually. We have to kind of, like, divide it up after the fact.

Okay. If. If you do have data, would you be able to share it with the Committee? Okay, thank you. I mean, I'm not trying to give you more work, but that would help us get a better understanding and, like, what kind of projects it is, et cetera.

Yeah. And I can make a note, too, because I know that we have to report on our program every year to you all and I can make a note to try to put that information information so you have the most recent data in the annual report every year.

We'd appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you for all your work too, Jessica.

We're trying.

Representative Gandaneti thank you, Jessica.

I was just wondering if you could share your position on HDEA's suggestion to include a sunset for the bill.

I think I definitely support that request because I a couple reasons. One, I think it would allow us the opportunity to, after the sunset date or when we were closing in on it, to have the Legislature extend the sunset date if we found this to be effective.

But it also gives us an out if we find it to be ineffective. Like if we can't find a third party reviewer. I don't want to promise something that can't be executable and give agencies the idea that maybe this is something that they can do when it just hasn't been feasible.

And then also if we can't hold the third party reviewers to like, if it's difficult to hold the third party reviewers to account where they're completing these reviews not only efficiently but accurately and it's across the board, then it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be workable, I think in the long run.

So I think that that would, that's a reasonable.

I also think, I mean HGA's concerns were about like giving you folks time to address the underlying issue of staffing. Can you tell us a little bit about how that might.

Yeah.

Their point to we would have to assign a staff person or reallocate work loads a little bit differently so that we had a staff person going through to see what projects were eligible under this and to make an assessment with the different branches about, okay, what's on your, what's on your plate this month or the next two months?

Is it feasible to get this done within 60 days? This is what they've submitted. What additional information do you need? Like all that kind of stuff. And then to follow through with the contract of the third party reviewer getting the information to them and making sure that they submit it to us within 30 days.

And then how do we hold them accountable? Like if they're a consultant and they don't produce within 30 days and they ask for an extension, we cancel the contract and then we do it in house. So I would assume. So that would take staff hours for somebody to manage that and sort of babysit the third party reviewer.

Can I ask one question for HGA?

Thank you, Jessica. Thank you, Jessica. HGA.

Just wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more about the importance of that sunset in protecting like civil service.

Thank you for your question. I think kind of our intent behind this sunset is that deal and ARC really look to fill the positions that they can look to. If pay is not comparable to market rate to the private sector, the Federal Government, they can look to increase pay.

We would also urge deeper to reduce hiring times, but effectively just really just holistically looking at it so that they could have enough staff to meet the review today and then also in the future.

Thank you. Grassroots Institute also had in their testimony a report where they talk about like other kind of maybe protections that could be incorporated, like triggering it around the, like when the backlog is reduced or incorporating like in third party contracts on an interview, intermittent basis.

So anytime the backlog grows to a certain point, would those kind of achieve a similar goal or.

I'm not too sure. I don't have an answer for you right now. Sure.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Members, any further questions? All right, thank you all for your answers. Next item is I lost track. SB 1263 SD2 relating to historic preservation. Vice Chair for the testimony.

HHFDC with comments. Thank you. SHIPTE in support. Thank you. Office of Hawaiian affairs with comments.

Vice Chair. Again, Members of the Committee, Kamakana Ferreira, Elite Compliance Specialist with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We stand on a written testimony providing comments. Would like to highlight the proposed changes. The risk assessment corridor's process is not a bad idea, but six months may be unrealistic.

So we're suggesting to change that to a year and then also add Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Island Burial Council is consulting parties throughout that process. Available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in support. Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Holomua Collaborative in support. Thank you. HCDA with comments.

Chair Evslin, Vice Chair Miyake, Members of the Committee, Greg Nakamoto, Executive Director for HCDA. We have our, we've submitted written testimony with comments. But first of all, I just wanted to acknowledge Ms. Puff and SHIPTI for being so willing to consider these kind of, you know, changes that hopefully streamline, you know, the process.

So again, I want to acknowledge them. Our comments really focus around, you know, flexibility, consistency and workability of some of these provisions, especially for HCDA projects and also for TLD infrastructure projects.

So for example, our comment 1 with respect to programmatic agreements, you know, if the scope has to be so prescriptive, you know, for those programmatic agreements to work, it might not work for our design build kind of contracts where we don't have like a design build, you know, design build process.

We have a kind of a, you know, design build. So maybe if we can give the agencies some flexibility in defining that scope of work in consideration of those design build contracts that we have. The second is for consistency.

There's places within the bill right now that have different time frames and just want to make sure it's consistent. That's our comment too. For comment 3.

Just wanted to again provide some clarity on overall time limit for review, especially when there's, you know, other comments that are provided by Shifty for again, comment 4 for programmatic agreements maybe we suggest that rights of way be included as in scope for those programmatic agreements.

Because for HCDA and our TLD infrastructure depends on development program, we may have to do work in rights of way.

Comment 5 With respect to those sections, we suggest that in addition to being applicable to our traditional community development district like Kalailoa, Kakako and so forth, that make it applicable to our TLD infrastructure districts and program because we do have that respect responsibility.

And then comment 6, maybe residential should also include, you know, expediting off site infrastructure because that's often an integral part of developing residential. And that's a summary of our important comments and I'm available for comments questions. Also, my Planning and Development Director Ryan Tam is here or specific questions. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support on Zoom not Present Hawaii YIMBY in support Naya Hawaii in support. Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 1263 SD2.

Chair Members, any questions? Sorry. Jessica.

Somebody get her a chair.

Hello again.

Thank you for being here and I echo Craig's compliments for your willingness to work through a lot of this. Really appreciate it.

Yeah. One thing that I did want to emphasize because I promised Ohio, I do support their comments about being consultants on some of these things.

I think that is in accordance with certain aspects of 60 and with the if we're going to be proactively or programmatically determining some of the stuff to pre consult with IBC reps and that stuff for the geographical area. So anyway, sorry I interrupted your question.

Actually that wasn't my I'll come back to that in A second. Regarding HCDA's first proposed amendment. Sorry, I lost my page. They're recommending deleting the language which requires agencies to provide the entirety of the project scope, project area, construction phases and timelines for programmatic agreements.

I know we've had some dialogue on this already, but I if we do delete that language, is that workable for you guys?

Yes. And I think it's consistent too with the way that the federal review processes work where we could do programmatic agreements for a project where the scope of work isn't 100% defined.

And I think in my comments back to you, it also allows those types of programmatic agreements also typically have language for what to do if the project scope of work changes mid stride. So instead of having to start all over from the beginning, then you just talk about the change and then move on from there.

So is deleting the language okay, or do we need additional language to clarify?

I think deleting the language is okay.

Okay, thank you. And then regarding OHA's comments, you know, if we add the burial councils as necessary consulting parties for the risk assessment process as follows, just on the surface, my concern on reading that was, you know, if the councils don't have quorum, if etc. How do we ensure that this mandate can be met?

And so I guess are there ways that we could integrate some consultation without mandating it as a step in the process that could hold it up if they're not able to meet?

Yes. So when it comes to like the federal review process on agreement documents like this, it is pretty typical for us to float the draft document to other interested parties like ibc, the regional Member of the IBC for which the project is occurring, and OHA to read over it and provide comments on like the agreement document.

I would imagine that we could make it work that way where it isn't something that necessarily requires full quorum because the IVC isn't necessarily signing the agreement, they're just consulting on the language of it to make sure that it's consistent.

And if identification processes are correct or identifying sensitivity areas using their knowledge of like yes, we, we know of EV here, even though it hasn't been documented and we don't want it documented. This is a high sensitive area, that kind of stuff.

Okay. And then for that they're recommending adding both zero and island burial councils. You then mirror that recommendation as, as to be integrated into the. To be consulted with.

Yes, I think that that's reasonable. And again, it would just be floating around whether it's the sensitivity maps or the programmatic agreements for comments. And we usually restrict the comment period to a certain number of days so that we can keep the process going. So everybody works off that okay. That timeline.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Members, further question.

Okay, thank you. Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is SB 576, SD 1, relating to financial administration. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support. Thank you. Department of Budget and Finance with comments. The Attorney General with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General, Clement Irbank. The Bill's exemption of the HPHA's Special Fund on section one on page one of the Bill conflicts with article seven, section five of the Hawaii State Constitution. And for that reason, we recommend amending the Bill to remove section one on page one.

And I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 576, SD 1? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? All right, seeing none. Next item is SB 942, SD 1, relating to rental applications. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Hawaii Realtors with comments. Thank you. AARP Hawaii in support. James Nelson in support. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committe. Thank you for hearing this measure. James Nelson, in support, in my individual capacity. I'll stand on my testimony in support, but I'll just point out that the section one on this Bill I think really adequately describes the situation that exists for many people who don't have traditional kind of paycheck lives.

And it doesn't affect just retired people. It can affect independent contractors. All sorts of people get income in different ways. I'm glad to see that the AARP decided to chime in and I think that's appropriate for them. As for the SD 1 amendments that were made in the Senate, I would just note, I'm not entirely sure that they're necessary.

I think they're a little bit confusing. I'm not sure that the mom and pop landlords out there or the small individual people who lease units would really understand the language that easily. There's a 30-day window in there to provide financial statements if you're not giving paycheck evidence. And for people that receive dividends, dividends come quarterly usually.

So, I get a lot of dividend income in some months and not so much in another month. So, you know, maybe 90 days might be more acceptable. That's—and I'm not sure what the definition of a financial institution is, as far as the realtor is concerned, because brokerage firms provide some reason checking.

A lot of people live with these kind of large bank kind of equivalent brokerage firm accounts that they pay their cash out of. So, you know, those might be better questions for the next Committee for Consumer Protection about how that works. But I understand the realtor's position.

But the idea is to allow prospective tenants to submit as much evidence as possible and then allow landlords to consider as much evidence as possible. So, that's just my view on that. So, thank you for hearing the Bill and I'm available for any questions you have.

Thank you. One other individual in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Sorry, did you have a question? Lyndsey, I have a question for you and I don't have it in front of me. So, I don't know if the 30 day period was added in the SD 1 or in the original Bill.

Yes, I believe it was added. So, really, our perspective has to do with the fact that representing licensees, we have a fiduciary duty to our client, which is the property owner. And so, we, we're not opposed to this Bill.

We think it's a good idea but just want to ensure that the information that is received is recent and not older. But when it comes to looking at something quarterly, I can take that back and talk to my members and ask if that's also acceptable or if we want to stick with the 30 days.

It really has kind of, kind of just has to do with the fiduciary duty concerns.

Okay, so is it fair to say then you don't necessarily have a—you want an insurance recent, but you don't have a strong position right now whether we possibly extend that date or it's at least open for further consideration?

I'd be happy to take that back to discuss other, other options or if there needs to be further clarification. I don't want to make it—but to his point, I don't want to make this too complicated either because it needs to be easily able for people to follow.

So, that's also, I guess, kind of the concern there.

Okay. And I—just to like talk it out a little bit and this first I put any thought into it.

But if somebody were to come in with a 90 day old statement of, you know, liquidity, a landlord still has the ability to like, and somebody else came in showing, you know, more recent, they have the ability to choose the more recent person based on confidence that they can pay this rent, right? They would.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, further questions. All right, seeing none. Next item on the agenda is SB 1413 SD1 relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority Vice Chair for the testimony.

Hawaii Public Housing Authority and support. Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us. Seeing none.

Chair Members. Any questions? Okay. All right. Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is SP 25 SD1 relating to housing Vice Chair for the.

Testimony Department of Planning and Permitting in opposition Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 25 SD1 seeing none chair, Members.

Any questions? Right. Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is SB 31 SD2 relating to property Vice Chair for the.

Testimony Hawaii Civil Rights Commission in support Uniform Law Commission with comments and one individual in support anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us.

Seeing none Chair Members Any questions? All right. Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is SB801SD1 relating to managing agents Vice Chair for.

The testimony Hawaii realtors in support.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of Committee. My name is Lindsay Garcia from Hawaii Realtors. I just want to say we do support the intent of the Bill. We appreciate the amendments that were made to focus on residential condos.

We defer to CAI and the Real Estate Commission on any additional amendments that may need to be made in order for the Bill to move forward.

But we just wanted to note that in the future, should the Bill move, we would want to find a way to eventually make this apply statewide in the future to not make requirements inconsistent or confusing between counties. Thank you.

Thank you. Community Associations Institute with comments on Zoom.

Hi, good morning. Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members, Dallas Walker with the Community Associations Institute. I apologize for not turning on my camera. I have the flu and it's, I'm really going through it. Anyway, the we submitted comments. It takes a couple of years to get the credentialing through.

CAI is requires two years of experience, so the enactment date would need to accommodate that. And then the, the there's a practical matter here where could get harder to hire people, right? Because like, like there's a catch 22.

Say I wanted to apply to be a community manager at one of these condo management companies and they'll ask, well, do you have this certification? And I'll say no. And they'll say, and I'll say but how am I supposed to get this credential which requires two years of experience if you don't hire me?

I mean, I hope I'm coming across that there's a catch 22 there. So we, we added some suggested wording in our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Hope you feel better. Real Estate Commission in opposition. Thank you, Hawaii First Realty and support.

Good morning, Chair, co chairs and Committee. I've been in an Association industry for over 30 years. The problem we have today is that we support more education and more credentialing for managers who handle the larger scale condominiums. You know, more than half the condominiums in Hawaii are less than 50 units.

So they don't have the same issues that the larger associations have.

The problem with this Bill is unintended consequences that in fact that if a person gets a certification and goes in the hospital, gets sick, quits or whatever, there's not an abundance of people out there wanting this job and it takes time to get them certified with experience.

So we propose adding some language because all managing agents by law today have to have a principal broker in charge of the company.

So we add parentheses 7 or under the direct supervision of a principal broker, which would cover the events that someone gets sick, quit, die, whatever it may be and allow companies to adjust without affecting their clients and portfolio. So thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. We have Greg Misikian, individual in opposition on zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Masakian and today I'm testifying as an individual.

I currently serve as the first Vice President of the Kukua Council, an elder advocacy organization in Hawaii since 1972 and as a Member of the Waikiki Neighborhood Board where we adopted a resolution in 2023 to support better consumer protection laws for condominium boners. An almost identical resolution was also adopted by a number of other neighborhood boards.

It's been very clear to me since I started coming to the Legislature that the deck is really stacked against condominium owners and that many legislators are simply following the direction of a few lobbyists who are working for the condominium trade industry in addition to those that also contribute to campaigns.

This year I've seen even more disrespect and disregard for condominium owners. Many, many well written bills that would have help greatly to provide better consumer protections were never scheduled for hearings while those that would do very little if anything were introduced and scheduled.

SB801SD1, as newly amended, does almost nothing to help condominium owners as there is no licensing required for community Association managers who work for the management companies overseeing condominium associations. The broker who is required to be licensed is not managing any of the day to day management activities of condominium associations. So just please remember that one statement.

I've said it in my written testimony over and over regarding section 7. Please stop trying to improperly define the size of the Association, the height of the building as was previously written or the population of the county. None of this is relevant.

And adding this language shows clear bias to exclude the law for some and in some districts. And finally, to conclude, I am requesting that you amend SB801, SB1 properly to fully incorporate what can be seen in HB 1447 or its companion Bill, SB 1623, which requires licensing for all community Association managers.

I'm also available to assist you in this endeavor. So please, if you have questions or concerns with this Bill, to try to get it properly worded, I would like to see it redeemed so that we can actually help condominium owners. And this Bill, as written, does nothing. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Hawaiiana Management Company in opposition and five individuals in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us? Sing non chair Members.

Any questions?

Yes, Representative Lichico, question for Real Estate Commission. If you can just elaborate on your opposition and what Gregory had shared, if you agree with some of his comments. And I mean, I'm fairly new to this issue. Just, you know, what are the challenges when it comes to credentialing, licensing, and what is the scope of.

Of what is available for who we're considering as community managers?

Okay, so to, I guess, paraphrase Mr. Misakyan's testimony and kind of explain the regulatory structure.

Sorry, just if you can, just make sure to be as close to the mic as you can. They're having some audible issues.

Thank you. So kind of explain the regulatory structure. Condominium managing agents need to have a real estate broker license. 97% of those in the state are entities. And the concern that was brought up by Mr. Misakin is that the individuals employed by the real estate brokerage firm or assigned to the condominium associations do not require a license.

So the bills that he refers to require licensure for the Association managers. Our testimony points to a resolution requesting a sunrise, which currently does. There was a study that the Auditor conducted back in 2005. They found that the regulation was unnecessary given the amount of years.

There's another resolution to see whether or not the regulation is warranted at this time. And so we also do point to that in our testimony and another study as well, that was funds were appropriated to kind of further explore the issue in any potential legislative solutions.

But regulatory structure right now is that the managing agents need a real estate broker license. Typically they're entities, and then they assign the individuals to the Condominium Association. The concern is those individuals don't have a license.

So if someone were to file A complaint, let's say, like if a unit owner didn't get their documents, then the complaint will be filed against the license of the real estate broker firm, the money, the managing agent, the company, and not the individual that's assigned there because they are unregulated.

Would the license be considered regulation or are you saying you're supportive of ensuring that they do have a license, a.

Broker license, for the individuals, the Association managers? When the resolution comes, should it come for a hearing on requesting the Auditor to study, restudy, I guess, to say whether or not a license for community Association managers should be required. Typically, the Commission is supportive of trying to figure out and learn more whether or not these are warranted.

And again, should that resolution be scheduled for hearing, we're happy to assist the Auditor with providing information so that their efforts on determining whether or not it's warranted or not warranted.

But I thought we already just said we already did the study. You're saying there's another resolution to do another study?

Yes. So there was a study back in 2005. The Auditor at the time did not find it was warranted. There were several issues at the time. I guess the biggest issue was that the condominium law was being re codified from hrs 514A to 514B. And there were new solutions that were proposed in this new framework.

Fast forward 20 years and now we're seeing another resolution. We've been seeing some bills as well, but no resolution to do another sunrise. Just because the Auditor's first sunrise said it wasn't warranted.

But that doesn't bind this Legislature on this Committee from pushing forward with another request for the Auditor to do another sunrise to see whether it is warranted at this time, given the amount of time that's passed.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members. Further questions?

I see none. Brief recess.

Reconvening our 9 AM housing Committee agenda for decision making. First item is SB 26 SD2 relating to affordable housing. I recommend that we move this out with an HD one and making some comprehensive changes here. So bear with me. We'll place it under the purview of OPSD instead of HCDA.

Delete the task force Members representing DAGs, LUC, the Senate and the House. On page two, we'll delete C1, C2, C3 and C4. On page three, line seven, clarify that the study is subject to a legislative appropriation.

And then clarify that the study will assess the viability of housing development in transit oriented development zones near transit hubs, bus stations or urban growth areas on state or county lands.

Delete, quote, with consideration given but not limited to, and change that to quote, the study may consider the following and then Delete on lines 1 through 11 on page 4 and then change the reporting deadline to 2027 and dissolve the task force on January 1, 2027.

Reference in the Committee report that $500,000 will be needed to Fund staff positions and contractual services. Members Any questions? Comments Sign on Vice Chair for the.

Vote voting on SB 26 SD2, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Rep. Cochran excused Rep. Grandinetti, Rep. Kila Aye. Rep. Kitagawa Aye. Rep. La Chica Aye. Rep. Muraoka Aye. Rep. Pierick. No for Rep. Pierick. Chair the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 66 SD2 related to housing. I recommend that we move this out with an HD one also with some big changes, so bear with me.

On page four, line 14, clarify that certification shall include a statement from the county that there is adequate infrastructure on site and Then on page 5, subsection A, clarify that that has to be done in accordance with Chapter 6E. Clarify that the projects need to comply with all relevant codes and standards.

On page 4, line 21, delete, quote discretionary approvals and clarify that non compliance with any state or county regulations may delay issuance of the permit.

And then I recommend that we adopt the second amendment proposed by the AIA and their testimony to replace some of the wording on page four, lines 10 through 12, which will preserve the need for plans to be certified in compliance with county codes, but simplifies the language as it's redundant and then give counties the authority to establish rules to effectuate the purpose of the section and broaden the 60 day shot clock to include approval from all respective permitting agencies.

Members Any questions or comments? Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 66 SD2, the recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excuse absence of Rep. Cochran. Any Members voting no, any with reservations seeing none chair. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 332 SD1 related foreclosures. I recommend that we move out in HD1 simply with a defected date to July 1st, 3000 Members. Any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB332SD1 the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no, any with reservations seeing non chair. The recommendation is adopted.

Next item is SB 414 SD2 relating to restoring access to disaster affected areas. I just want to note that Dean mentioned that DOT is exploring doing this. I think it's still important that we move this bill forward for continued dialogue though, so we will keep it alive and we will.

I recommend moving it out with an HD one with a defected date to July 1st, 3000 and to mention in the Committee report that they would need $250,000 for an appraisal and legal services to begin condemnation proceedings in Section 3. Members, any questions, concerns or comments? Seeing none by Chair of the vote.

Voting on SB 414 SD2, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no, any with reservation Seeing none Chair the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 1002 SD2 relating to affordable housing. I recommend that we move this out with an HD1 with tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Also to add language to ensure that the 60 day shot clock doesn't begin until ship D determines that an application is complete.

To exempt projects utilizing federal funding because they are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation act, which requires public comment and will likely take longer than 60 days to change reasonable fee to instead be the full cost of the third party consultant to clarify that third party reviewers can't review projects that they or their employer has worked on.

To allow for Shipti Reserve the right to terminate a third party review contract if the third party reviewer has not complied with state historic preservation rules and statutes or has not completed assigned historic preservation reviews accurately and to because a third party review could come with additional costs.

To clarify that the applicant must submit an application requesting third party review prior to being considered for third party review. You don't want somebody being left with this additional bill for third party review if they didn't want it. And then clarify that third party review is contingent on the availability of a qualified third party reviewer.

This is based on Shipti's concerns that they could be bound to this time period, yet there's no available or qualified third party reviewers. And then based on HDA's concerns, to sunset the bill after five years in the hope that Shipti can get adequately staffed and can manage these entirely on their own within that time period.

And then lastly to add in the Committee report that the appropriation in Section 5 will cost $100,000. Members, questions, comments or concerns? Once again, I also just want to give a shout out to Jessica. Thank you for working with us on all these ship details.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB 1002 SD2, the recommendation is to pass with amendments Are there any Members voting no. Any with reservations seeing none Share the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 1263 SD2 relating to historic preservation. So, for starters, we will replace the language of the bill entirely with or, sorry, I recommend moving on to HD1 with the language, replacing the language of the bill with the language of our House version, which was HB 738 HD2.

And then on top of that, to clarify that the review period for every section of the bill is either 90 days or 30 days only if no historic properties are present within the project area, and then to essentially adopt all of HCDA's proposed amendments in their testimony, which I'll walk through.

So to adopt their amendment regarding programmatic agreements to delete the language which requires agencies to provide the entirety of the project scope, project area, construction phases and timelines for programmatic agreements to adopt HCDA's proposed amendment to add clarifying language where necessary, to add rights of way within the purview of programmatic review for Transit Oriented Development districts or areas under HFDC or HCDA control and then to adopt HCDA's proposed amendment to clarify subsection K such that provisions of subsections DEFG and H can be utilized within HCDA community development districts or other areas within its jurisdiction.

To adopt HCDA's proposed amendment to amend the definition of quote residential in subsection M to also allow supporting off site infrastructure and to adopt HCDA's proposed amendment to add, as applicable after the reference to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation act on page 6, lines 324 and then to include the recommended amendment from OHA to add OHA and the burial councils as parties to be consulted with and tech amendments as necessary.

Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Representative Keel, is that a question or.

Oh, sorry. Okay. Seeing none.

Sorry.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB 1263 SE2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any Members voting? No. Any with reservations? Seeing none. Sure. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The next item on the agenda is SB 576 SD1, relating to Financial Administration based on the Attorney General's testimony that Section 1 of the bill would be unconstitutional. We will be deleting section one of the bill, but moving the other sections on. And it already has a defective date. That's it. Members, any questions, comments or concerns?

Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB 576 SD1. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any Members voting no? Any with reservations? Seeing none. Share the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 942 SD1 relating to rental applications. I recommend that we move on in HD1 with a defected date and then also to change the 30 day time period to 90 on page three and I we can mention in the Committee report that this should be up for continued exploration.

In my mind, I think the testimony that we heard today was compelling in that sometimes you don't have, you know, if you're liquidating assets in some capacity, you don't always have something within 30 days to show that. So broadening the applicability seems prudent.

But I want more information so we can mention in the Committee report that this should be up for continued exploration by the next Committee Members. Any comments, questions or concerns?

Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB 942 SD1. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any Members voting? No. Any with reservations? Seeing none Share the recommendation is adopted.

Next item is SB 25 SD1 relating to housing. I appreciate the intent of the bill to making sure that we are not down zoning our counties and that we are adding the availability of units. But I think that this would create sort of weird administrative burdens for the counties.

It's hard to determine some sometimes when you're zoning changes or adding units or not. And so maybe those can be worked out in the future. But for now I will be deferring that bill. Next item on the agenda is SB 31 SD2 relating to property. I recommend that we move on HD2. Oh, sorry, sorry.

Taking items out of order here. Accidentally skipped a bill. SB 1413 SD1 relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. I recommend that we move on HD1 with the defected date Members. Questions, comments or concerns?

Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB 1413 SD1. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any Members voting? No. Any with reservation reservations for Rep. Muraoka? The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And again, sorry we deferred SP 25 SD1. Next item is SP 31 SD2 relating to property. I recommend that we move on HD1 with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and a defected date. Members, any questions, comments or concerns?

Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB 31 SD2. The recommendation is passed with amendments. Are there any Members voting? No. Any with reservations? Seeing that your recommendations.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Last item on the agenda is SB 801 SD1 relating to managing agents. A lot of input testimony came through on this. CPC has been doing a lot of good work on condominiums and so we will be deferring to the CPC Committee to work through some of these concerns.

So we will be moving this bill out just with a defected date for further consideration and dialogue. Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing None.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB 801 SD1. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any Members voting no? Any with reservations? The recommendation is adopted.

Great signal. Further business. This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you all.