House Standing Committee on Human Services & Homelessness

Good morning. We are starting, calling to order the Committee on Human Services and Homelessness hearing. Thursday, March 13, 2025, 10am in conference room 329. My name is Lisa Marten. My Vice Chair here is Representative Olds. And we have with us also Representative Amato and Representative Keohokapu-Lee Loy and Representative Takenouchi. We'll move right into our agenda.

First item is SB 960, SD 1, relating to SNAP. It appropriates funds to DHS to improve the SNAP rates, including establishing additional positions. And first up to testify, we have in person Catholic Charities Hawaii. Are they here? Yep. Thank you, Betty Lou.

Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair. I'm Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities Hawaii, and we support this bill. I just came out of a forum with Senator Tokuda and Representative Belatti talking about the cuts, and even more so I recognize that food stamps are at great risk. I'm sorry, I'm old school. SNAP is at great risk.

And I think this bill is particularly important because it would enable the state to fill those vacancies to get staffing to be able to work on this program. And we need to prepare for anything that's happening in the future. If we don't have staffing... It's just, right now, it's difficult. It's really a crisis for the people we serve who are trying to get in.

And that's not fault of the state. It's that, you know, there have to be more strategies to fill those vacancies. They're trying hard, but what can we do to improve that so that we're ready, we prepare. We don't know what's going to happen. Even if nothing happens, this is good. But if things are happening in the future, it's even more important. So we thank you for considering this bill, and we hope it'll become a major priority for you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have is Amy Miller from Hawaii Foodbank here. Nope. Okay. But in support. Do we have on Zoom Hawaii Appleseed? Daniela, please go ahead. You're there.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Yes. SNAP is one of the, if not the most important public benefit program that we have in Hawaii. It's really critical that it reaches the people that it needs to reach. And as previous testifiers have said, the Department has really struggled to keep and retain staff.

There are some flexibilities that they've been taking advantage of and they're definitely doing their best. But there are some other things that this bill would facilitate. And I think some of those things include being able to bring back retired eligibility workers and potentially contracting out some of the clerical staff to do some of the things that are not requiring a merit based status or a civil service status.

The other thing that could potentially be explored is looking at incentives for eligibility workers for performance based pay. So these are the kinds of things that we think this bill will help in order to streamline and make sure that everyone that needs to access SNAP can. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Department of Human Services.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. My name is Ginet Hayes. I'm the SNAP Administrator on behalf of the Department. And we'd like to stand on our testimony and appreciate all the support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we are going back to Zoom, the Hawaii Food Industry Association. Lauren Zirbel.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. I think, you know, some of the previous testifiers have touched on how important SNAP is to the beneficiaries. Right now we have 30% food insecurity around the state. It's up to 40% in certain areas.

But in regards to this measure and the next one, I just want to insert how important SNAP is to our food systems. Right. This brings in federal dollars to the entire food systems and it stabilizes the food systems. And this is vital not just for the beneficiaries, but for all of us that, you know, that eat and buy food here in Hawaii. So we strongly encourage you to pass both this measure and the next one. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have on Zoom, Nicole Woo from Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks. Not present, but in support. AlohaCare, Mike. Not present, but in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Please come up.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Nate Hix with Hawaii Public Health Institute. We're in support of this measure. SNAP is a massive lifeline. One in three families in Hawaii are facing food insecurity. About one in 10 are enrolled in SNAP, receiving on average per person $5,000 every year in benefits to help them buy groceries.

Over $600 million is brought in in benefits from from the federal government to help our people eat. This is a massive program. Unfortunately, about two in five of those who are eligible are not enrolled because of the difficulty that they're facing in trying to either enroll in person or over the phone.

Again, DHS is doing the very best they can with their limited resources. The demand for SNAP has gone up over 50% over the last several years, but our staffing levels have remained the same. And so we need to do everything in our power to make sure the SNAP process is as smooth as possible.

This is federal money we're coming in that we can bring in more. Right. If we hire just one additional worker, that could potentially bring in an additional $2 million into our state, into the hands of families in need. And so we need to be as creative as we can to get every... You know, if we can get 5 extra people on staff, 10 extra people on staff, that's hundreds of families that are now receiving 5,000, $10,000 or more in benefits.

And so, you know, I think if it were any of us who are facing the struggles to qualify for, whether it's our paycheck, our Social Security check, our SNAP benefits, we would want the state to be doing everything in their power to get one extra worker. And so I think moving this, making it a priority is absolutely crucial and can help and be a huge return on investment up front and long term. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. We also had testimony in support from the Executive Office on Aging, Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, Indivisible Hawaii, AAUW, Ka Ohana O Na Pua, Hawaii Food Bank, Hawaii Hunger Action Network, North Hawaii Community Action Network, North Shore Nutrition, Get Fit Kauai, Hawaii Food Policy, Hawaii Family Caregiver Coalition, and 48 individuals all in support. Members, are there any questions of our testifiers? Please go ahead. Yeah, yeah. The head of SNAP is here.

Oh yeah, great. DHS, thank you so much. You know, in full support of this, you know, for all the reasons stated. I was just really curious as to what maybe some of the barriers are for you actually getting staff on board. And don't worry, because we've heard it in many other departments and agencies.

Sure. I think it's the same issue that we have for any of the state agencies. The vacancy rate and the challenge to be able to fill those positions. It's been ongoing since COVID that we've implemented strategies to be able to employ individuals.

The challenge to retention just based on cost, take home pay is just not sufficient to be able to satisfy the needs for individuals that have to fill these positions. And so if there's going to be something that can change, it would be taking some radical steps to be able to do that.

And that's a need across the board for all state agencies. That's not just here for DHS. However, because of what this is tied into in terms of serving the public and the need to address food insecurity, it is one of the probably more priority pieces similar to other sister divisions within our Department. So the need is there and I think the need is there for the residents of Hawaii.

Great. And speaking to some of the radical, innovative thoughts. You know, one thing, one conversation that I've peppered in other agencies was this idea of a universal form. Oftentimes we have people applying for benefits, but they have to apply in Department of Aging or just other agencies. Has this Department looked at innovative solutions by creating a universal form? So there's this one stop shop where an individual could apply for services that could be applicable to all agencies that they could actually get funding and or resources from.

Sure. I believe that the Department has considered different formats. I'm not entirely sure. So please... I can't really say in terms of across the division. The concept for the Department is wraparound service through the concept of Ohana Nui.

And to be able to implement that, the next measure kind of talks about some of the system issues, systematic issues that we have. I believe that at some point that that can be something. But again, you've also got multiple federal programs that we would need to satisfy certain requirements.

And the vacancy rate clearly is not just for our eligibility staff. I think that's across the board, even from a programmatic standpoint. So for us to be able to have that, the resources are probably as stretched as we can make it, but the commitment from the Department is definitely there.

So, you know, it's great that we have a lot of collaboration and a lot of connection and a lot of support from our leadership. So, you know, definitely trying to see what we can stick to the board to make that happen. It's just more of the implementation timeline to be able to make that a reality. And the feasibility. Right. Because at the end of the day we have to answer to program accessibility, and we want to be able to ensure that these changes do not have a negative impact on that as well.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for those forward thinking thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. So follow up. I'm curious, how long does it take for you to receive a list of qualified applicants from DHRD on average?

With the Wikiwiki process that we have. Oh, Scott, do you want to? I'm going to defer this to Scott Morishige.

No, thank you. Scott Morishige, Division Administrator for Benefit Employment and Support Services Division at DHS. So for eligibility workers and office assistants, we actually use a Wikiwiki hire process. So we get the applications more quickly than, you know, when then we would in receiving the list for other positions.

So each week we get a list from DHRD and we do the recruitment in house in our division. So it has helped us to step up the recruitment for these entry level positions. But I think as Ginet was saying, the biggest hurdle is really the compensation for these positions because it is entry level. And so as soon as we get people in, once they pass their probation or their training, oftentimes they'll either leave for other jobs within the state or other jobs in the private sector.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Does anyone else have any questions? Okay, go ahead.

For DHS. Yeah, sorry. I was hoping you might be able to help me kind of get a bigger picture of what we're talking about in the deficiencies within the Department that you would be hoping to get in order to, you know, bring us up to where we need to be.

So I know the testimony is gives those percentages of how many the vacancy rate and everything, what is that in numbers? Like how many people do you think you would need to kind of get in? You know, dream world, we could hire them. How many people are we short right now to just get us to capacity to do all the work that needs to be done?

So I apologize. Off the top of my head... I don't want to give you incorrect information for the number of the vacant counts. Let me say this. I think we are making efforts to fill the positions through a variety of other means. So one of the things that we started doing in late December, early January is targeting recently retired eligibility workers and state employees to bring them back as 80/90 hires to backfill some of these positions.

We're also working with Department of Labor to utilize interns, the Holomua program, get them started that way and then transition them into the entry level roles. I think the other thing is we're working on creating efficiencies through our process.

So we've made some changes to our call center recently, which has allowed us to pick up more calls, reduce the wait times for clients. I think as we achieve those efficiencies, we can continue to look at what the number of workers is so that we can get a better estimate.

We're actually engaged with a consultant right now to try and figure out based on the call volume that we're seeing now in the call center what is the true count of workers that we need, but that analysis is ongoing. And Representative, I can get back to you with the number counts for the vacant positions. I just don't want to give you incorrect information.

Yeah, I think that would be helpful, especially when we get to next Committee to know like, you know, what that number we're immediately trying to fill and like what we might be able to fund or not to help you guys out. And so I know you mentioned. Oh, sorry, Chair.

Oh, no, no, no. Go ahead.

Thank you. And so as you're kind of doing this targeted effort and everything with the vacancies, is there such an, are these, are there local locations by county that we're doing, or is it just with one statewide location getting all these calls and doing all this work? Are we, are we seeing the need in certain offices or are we targeting that? What are the vacancy rates look like in the different offices?

So the vacancies are throughout the state. So we have 20 offices, I believe 14 processing centers statewide. And we see the vacancies across pretty much all of our processing centers. So it is a statewide need. What we've done to address this is rather than providing services by each office, a lot of our work is done statewide.

So our call center utilizes staff from all the processing centers across the state so that even if somebody is calling from a geographic location that may be more short staff, that we're still able to assist them with someone to be able to meet their need. And as I mentioned, some of our recent efforts have helped us to kind of reduce the call wait times for the callers that are calling in for SNAP and other public benefit programs.

Okay. And I know this bill didn't have a number ever kind of attached to it for a dollar amount. Do you guys have any idea of like, I guess, you know, knowing that we have the vacancies to fill. So maybe more for the question about that, you know, since it does authorize use for potential pay increases for positions to address what you mentioned, you guys mentioned about retaining workers. Have you guys run any numbers on what you think it might look like just for the existing staff if they were to get that increase for?

So the Department actually did submit a request to Budget and Finance which did not make it into the Governor's Budget for performance incentives for eligibility workers. And that was to offer, I believe, a 5% performance incentive. And that estimate was about 1.1 million per year.

That was just for all the existing positions?

Eligibility staff, to offer them a 5% increase based on meeting certain performance targets.

Okay, thanks. Yeah. And if I, if we could get the numbers to the Committee maybe through the Chair's office about those, the exact numbers for those other positions. That would be really helpful.

Yes. We can follow up. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you, Chair.

So. Yeah, so please email me and I'll distribute it to the Committee. I have questions about how this fits in or this would fit in with the other SNAP related budget items that are in play. So we have, you know, the emergency appropriation due to the fines. Would that go to staffing as well? Could that go to performance incentives? Or is that already pigeon for certain other items?

So the emergency appropriation and our budget requests related to SNAP are primarily tied to our new eligibility system that's being developed, Benefit Eligibility Solution or BES. One of the reasons why that's so critical for us is the eligibility system we're using right now, our legacy system is nearly 40 years old and there is a lot of functionality that that system is not able to support. For example, the next bill coming up talks about a number of federal waivers we could pursue.

The current eligibility system we have cannot support us to implement those waivers, which is why we really want to make sure that we can finish the build out of BES, and we will need both the emergency appropriation as well as the budget request we have to be able to complete, you know, that build out for the system. So the funding for that cannot necessarily be utilized for staffing incentives. That would have to be a separate request.

Okay, so all of that money is going to like third party contractors to do your system as opposed to internal staff?

Correct. But I think part of it is the complexity of building that new system and making sure that it has the functionality so that we are able to take advantage of waivers that will result in more efficiency that we cannot take advantage of currently due to our legacy system.

I'm not questioning the importance of the system, I'm just asking what it, what the money is going to. Okay, and then my last question is, so this week we did pay differentials, as you know, with CWS, and it was for recruitment and it made existing employees angry because other people were getting a pay differential and they were the ones who had been there a long time. So this is going evenly across the board to everybody, regardless of when they were hired?

Correct. I think it's the incentive that we had requested would be tied to performance relating to payment accuracy because of the error rate that we're experiencing as well as timeliness. Because those are both, you know, areas where we're looking to make improvement.

The other thing is it would help with retention because, as I mentioned, part of the challenge that we face is not just recruitment, but as we onboard employees, they don't necessarily stay with us for long periods of time. So I think the incentives would also assist as an employee retention tool.

So since it's a percentage that you're talking about, people that are more senior and have been there longer, presumably make more money, so they would have a larger incentive bonus than somebody who's new. Is that right?

I would need to look at the details again of how we structure or we were planning to structure the incentives. Again, it was a request that we had preposed which did not make it into the executive budget. But I can review that and get back to you with the details.

Yeah, no, I think that this is something that across the state is, you know, tools and so understanding what you're doing exactly so we can see how it works and what kind of unintended consequences there might be is really useful. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? Seeing none. We'll move on to our next measure.

Thank you. SB 961 SD1 Again, a SNAP Bill. This requires the Department of Human Services to adjust the minimum certification periods and participate in the Elderly Simplified Application Project, which is exactly what he was just saying they can't do on their current system right now.

And first up we have in support and just going by the order, they have it here, which is a little unorthodox, but we'll start with the Department again. Yeah.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. Jeanette Hayes, SNAP Administrator with the Department of Human Services to represent the Director. We stand on our testimony and are available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Sure. There will be some. Okay, next up we have in person AARP Hawaii.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Audrey Suga Nakagawa, Advocacy Director for AARP Hawaii. And we stand on our testimony and strong support of this measure. We really appreciate any efforts to simplify the process and application, especially for our kupuna who sometimes face a lot of red tape and bureaucrat bureaucratic barriers. So really appreciate this effort.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Betty Lou Larson. Betty Lou Lee, no From Catholic Charities.

Vice Chair, thank you very much for hearing this bill. I'm Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities Hawaii. Again, we see many clients who had difficulty getting through the process. So this extended recertification period would be very helpful. Usually they're all on stable income, so it's not really changing. You can pick up changes at the three year period.

I think it's even more important, again, to get these simplifications in process. So as we move forward, we have these ways to be more efficient, and therefore, we can better serve our people with whatever changes come. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have Hawaii Public Health Institute, Institute, Nate Hicks in support.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Nate Hicks with Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. And yeah, similar to what has been said, there are a lot of barriers to the application process.

And if we can extend the certification, take that load off of our SNAP workers who are already overworked and then also take that work off of our kupuna who have a lot of these barriers, I think it makes a lot of sense.

And I recognize that there are system issues, but the manual process, I think would also be a win, too. Right. If we were stuck with HAVI for the next several decades, I think it would be very much worth.

We don't want to be there, but it's important that we, you know, can take advantage of these opportunities as well. Mahalo.

Just to clarify, we've already been investing in the new system. We're definitely going there. Okay. On zoom, we have Hawaii Appleseed present. Daniela.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniela Spoto from Hawaii Appleseed here. Appleseed's in any support, in support of any bill that would streamline access to SNAP and make it easier for people to participate.

So the bill adjusts, as you know, the minimum certification periods for SNAP households, in particular our kupuna, which have unique challenges in not only accessing food, but being able to navigate these types of systems on a fixed income. Federal rules for SNAP require a lot of paperwork and documentation both upon initial application, but also for periodic recertification.

And so sometimes SNAP users will actually lose these benefits during the recertification process despite not having any changes to their eligibility just because of the work that it takes to reapply. The phenomenon is known as churn and it adds a lot of administrative burden to the Department to make the program work smoothly. I do want to apologize.

I want to correct some misinformation. In our testimony. It states that the current certification period is only six months. But my understanding, and DHS can confirm this, is that certification is actually currently 12 months with a six month interim report.

So I think that that is actually not the issue, but what this bill would accomplish and what I think the main benefit is for our 60 plus population of Arcupuna, which I mentioned, have these unique challenges. So for those folks, it would allow this longer 24 month certification, which ESAP does not.

You don't need to apply for ESAP for that. And then it also would require that we apply for ESAP which will actually last a 36 month certification period and waives the interview requirement along with some simplified application. So we're in support and we thank you so much for hearing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is Hawaii Food bank on Zoom? Hawaii Food Bank. Amy Miller in support on Zoom. She's not here. Okay. Do we have Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association, in support?

Good morning again, chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our testimony and previous comments in strong support of this measure and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Is Hawaiian Children's present? Aloha. Okay, so we had an additional 17 organizations and 41 individuals in support. Clearly we know the importance of SNAP in this state. Members, are there any questions of our testifiers?

For DHS, please, Quick couple of questions. So the date of fall 2026 for the new system that we're working on getting through in the other bill, that's when it's going to go live for users.

That is our anticipated date for statewide rollout. Yes.

Yeah. Anticipating everything goes to plan this year. Correct. Okay. And in the meantime for that I know you guys had listed and understand we just talked about the vacancies and everything.

So I guess your guys understanding of being able to manually process this, it wouldn't just be one or two staff Members having to continuously, it would be a number of people to do the manual system.

Correct. So like all of our application or recertification households, they're still subject to that review. And because we cannot automate within our present system, it would be a manual process for this group in addition to all of the current applications and recertifications.

So while there is a solution to be able to process it manually, the cons to it is that because it's manual, that there is a higher likelihood of potential accuracy issues which can negatively impact the household because of the focus on that particular group in addition to everything else that then weighs in in terms of the amount of work that's happening with the same group that's working it.

So the manual part, would that just be additional work hours for the people doing the certifications or you would, I mean, to do it manually, you would have to hire a whole nother group of people just to kind of do this automatic certification.

I'll defer to Scott.

No, I think one thing I want to add about the manual processing and the potential potential for error is that right now we were assessed last June $11 million penalty for payment error for having high payment error rates.

And that's part of the department's concern about a manual process that may result in further error is we're working very hard to bring that error rate down. The other concern that we have is that we're currently in corrective action for timeliness and manual processing requires additional steps or which may further delay the processing of application.

So that's part of our concern.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair Members.

Any other questions? I have questions. Okay, so for the previous bill, you wanted to start because of the delay in hiring June 1, 2027 is that accurate?

That was the recommendation when we did the testimony with the Senate.

So does that mean we would only need 5 funding for the second year of the biennium for this particular part of the project for the, for the SB960 for the staffing.

So I, I wanted to clarify that the 2027 date was an amendment that was proposed on the Senate side, but it was not necessarily the recommendation of the Department well, it came from somewhere else. Yeah.

I think the recommendation came because we had said that the date for statewide implementation for the new system would be fall of 2026.

But we would probably want to make sure that we assess the new system as it goes live and then come back to the Legislature or take those factors into consideration when we determine whether to pursue these waivers. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Okay, so I'm not talking about the waivers. This is back to the last Bill. I forgot to ask you folks, but before I cut the funding in amendments, I just want to make sure.

So for the positions, what came over from the Senate said you didn't want to start or they thought you didn't want to start until 7127 which would mean no money this year.

Again, that recommendation from the Senate, I think was based on the fact that the Department currently has a.

What do you recommend that? I'm just asking you.

Well, I, I think we would want to focus on filling our current vacancies first and then looking at, if we could, if we are able to offer the performance incentives. As I mentioned, that is a request that we put in. So that is something that we would be able to implement if we get the funding.

But in terms of requesting additional positions.

Your request with the numbers. So maybe, maybe the first year it's just the incentives for current staff and then the second year maybe it's additional positions. If you send me what you hope, then we can include it in the amendments.

So Chair, what we can send you is the request that we made for the budget, which didn't make it into the Governor's Budget, both for the incentives as well as to contract out clerical staff. So we can send that to you.

Okay, thank you. That would be very helpful. And we will include that in our recommendations for amendments. And then for this bill, you had you did want to extend the date to 7/1/2027 to give you time to have the new system up and running. Is that risky? It seems like new systems often have delays.

Yeah, I think we would want to assess the new system when it goes live, and then we do have the option to pursue the waivers.

So I think the preference would be to provide us time to assess the new system as it goes live and then assess our needs to be able to pursue those waivers and state options without necessarily requiring legislation.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Members.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to our next measure, SB 1419. This updates the name on the Neighbor Island Blind and Visually Impaired Service pilot program to Use the term visually impaired to replace visually impaired with low vision. This is something that we heard and passed previously through a House Bill.

And we have in person the Hawaii state councils on developmental disabilities. Is Daintree here? Nope. But in support. Okay, thank you very much. National Federation of Blind of Hawaii, James Gashell.

Thank you, Chair. Let's see. Tell me, what is this? 1496.

This is 1419. This is. Okay, good. This is the one to use the.

Term neighbor islands and low vision. I understand. Thank you very much. We had a little miscommunication and didn't get written testimony in from National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii.

You know what? I'm sorry. This is 1419. Yeah, yeah, 14.

So I just want to indicate our strong support for this bill. Very much appreciate the strong support.

Are you Brandon Young?

What's that?

Are you Brandon Young?

No, I'm James Gashell. I am Director of legislative for our. For National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii Legislative Chair.

And I just wanted to say how much we appreciate the strong support of the Department for putting this bill in our blind people on the neighbor islands don't get the kind of services that are available on Oahu very often, and also it's subject to some federal limits on eligibility and who can get the service.

This Bill will really do a lot for our neighbor islands blind, and we. Mahalo for hearing it today.

Thank you very much. We also had testimony and support from Department of Human Services. And I apologize. I switched. Had the right bill, but I switched my testifier list. Okay.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, I'm Leah Diaz. I'm the DVR administrator here. On behalf of DHS Director Ryan Yamani. We are in support of this bill, and I'm here for any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Disability and Communication Access Board. Thank you very much. And we also had testimony and support in writing from one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

I just want to clarify that we stand in support for the developmental disability council for 1496.

Yeah, I'm the one who called out the wrong name. Thank you. But I'm sure you also support this. Okay, Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much for being here.

And we'll move on to our next Measure, which is 1496, which establishes that it's unlawful discriminatory practice for places of public accommodation to deny a person with disability full and equal enjoyment of information related to their services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. So first up, we have not here, but the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Okay. Okay. And then we have National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii in support.

Thank you. James Gal, Legislative Chair, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii. Good morning, Chair Martin and Members of the Committee. Vice Chair holds. We very much appreciate the fact that you're hearing this bill today. I want to just point out that the.

In passing this bill without amendments in the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee noted a couple of things for future committees to think about. So I guess that's you guys. And we addressed those points in attachment one in our testimony. So I don't think I'll go through the details on that that be available for any questions. And.

And then. Then the only other point about this is, of course, that modifies the. What a place of public accommodation means to include digital as well as physical. When the laws about public accommodations were really passed in the 1980s, all we knew was physical.

Digital has become so very much important now because access to a lot of services occurs online. And so this modernizes the law. And the Civil Rights Commission did a very good job of pointing that out in their testimony. So we appreciate that.

I just want to say, too, that in the various cutbacks that we all hear about around DEI and at the federal level, the US Department of Justice has essentially put a pause, let's call it that, on enforcement of civil rights laws, meaning the Americans with Disabilities Act.

At the federal level, it just points up the importance of having strong state laws, not just federal. We can't depend on the Federal Government in this area or a lot of others. And so we do need this passed. We appreciate your hearing the bill today, and mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Disability and Communication Access Board in support.

Hi. Good morning, Chair Martin and Committee Members. I'm Brian Mick here on behalf of DCAB and our Executive Director, Kirby Shaw. DCAB is in strong support of this bill. As mentioned, more and more commerce is being done digitally, and as often happens, technology has outpaced the regulations.

However, digital accessibility is vital to ensure that people with disabilities are able to participate in public life in an equitable fashion. It's also a good business practice. As noted in our testimony and several others, the DOJ Web accessibility standards for state and local governments will become effective here in Hawaii next year.

That will apply to both the state and the four counties. This will be an important improvement for residents or visitors with disabilities who need to interact digitally with the state or counties. However, it would be unfortunate if when these same people try and interact with a private business or nonprofit they encounter digital barriers.

So this bill will help to provide an equivalent experience for these people, regardless of if they're interacting with a public or private entity. Thank you for the chance to testify.

Thank you very much. Next up we have is Peter Fritz on Zoom. Peter Fritz in support.

Good morning. My name is Peter Fritz. I've been an advocate for the disabled for quite a long time and some of my words appear in voting by Mail act as well as the law to provide that public accom, not public accommodation, public meeting notices have to include information on how to create and how to request an accommodation.

In scanning the testimony, I basically am struck by the fact that everyone keeps on saying we need this change, but nobody really read the bill. When I sat in on the DCALB legislative meeting, it was, well, we should support it because it's 12.1 without ever looking at that.

I'm an old attorney doing tax work and I've checked and compared a lot of laws and regulations. And one of the things that I noticed about this is that when you read the DOJ regulations, which by the way, are not just effective, they have two effective dates. There are a lot of issues.

There's been no opportunity for public comment. When the DOJ published these rules, they were only done after a hearing and a comment. So in instead of so looking at some of the FUCAS, the bill imposes a standard for websites that says that it's 2.1 or any later version. The latest version is 2.2.

No agency in the country has adopted 2.2. And if Hawaii passes, it was 2.2 because of the language saying any later edition, it will be the only state and the only place where 2.2 is the standard for website accessibility.

Web accessibility guidelines requiring small businesses to comply with standards that aren't in existence anyplace else could be a burden and a mistake could result in a flood of litigation because they didn't cross every t or every i. A larger business that might only have a web preference would decide I have to comply with 2.0 everyplace else.

And sometime 2.1. What do I need Hawaii for? I don't know that that's what was intended, but when changes like this are done, they're done by rules. And that's why I suggested that the HCRC do some rules because it gives the opportunity for the small business and the large business to tell what their problems and issues are.

So a small cracked store whose tech support is their grandson or grandchildren may not have the ability to comply as well as A larger company. And that's something that was recognized in the DOJ regulation but not carried over. The Department of Justice's regulations have one compliant date for larger businesses.

I'm sorry, larger state and local governments, which have bigger tech support, and they have a later one for smaller state and local governments that may not be able to comply as easily because they don't have that tech support. I don't know why Mr.

Gashell decided that there should only be one compliant date, because certainly that's something that could create a tremendous burden. And so that's something that really never been answered. And that's something that could be answered with public discussion and hearings and input about what works for Hawaii and what doesn't.

I also would note that when I write a webpage, I will use a software program such as SiteSort or level access to test my website for compliance. The State of Hawaii uses site sort to test its websites, but they don't test for 2.2. Some programs don't test for 2.1. So I could make an.

An error in complying with the website and not even realizing it. The DOJ regulation contains certain exceptions regarding compliance of things that I don't have to work and make comply. None of those were carried over from the Department of Justice's regulations into these bills. So there are no exceptions. So it's actually stricter.

And while there was a statement by Mr. Gaschel that Undue burden is an exception, it's not an exception, it's a defense. I had to deal with that defense when I sued the State of Hawaii when they refused to provide me with an accommodation.

So I think the public should have the right to comment and provide input, and that's the way the federal regulations have always done it. So in advancing this bill forward, you could accept only the definition of public accommodation.

Add in a sentence saying that the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission will write rules which would give the public an opportunity to comment and to express their concern over different subjects on it. I've read the comments that were submitted to on the Department of Justice Title 2 regulations.

I have compared 2.1 to 2.0, and if somebody would like at least one page of it, I can ask the client if I can show you some of the differences. So I support this bill. I haven't ever not supported accessibility, and that's evident by my activities in the Legislature.

So I would request that the board that this Committee pass the bill forward in the way that I suggested. And then if there's good testimony and reason presented by other people. The Next Committee can add it back. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, I'll be around to answer those questions.

I believe I have some contact information on my testimony.

Thank you very much. We have Department of Human Services. You didn't list yourself as testifying in person, but did you want to testify? And I would be very grateful if in your testimony, since we are not all experts experts in this area, if you would respond to some of the previous testimony.

I'm afraid I'm Leah Diaz, DVR administrator here on behalf of Director Ryan Yamani. The Department stands on its submitted comments. I am not a legal scholar really to be able to and I'm not as versed in the Department of Justice rules. So I'm sorry I'm not really able to respond to the previous speakers. But yeah.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this matter?

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair Members, Jack Lewin here, administrator of SHIPTA. Apparently I didn't get my testimony in, so apparently apologize about that. We're very strongly supporting this measure and I just want to make a couple of comments about it.

As we look at health care needs of people in rural areas and people who have disabilities and other issues, we're going to be increasingly using telemedicine and a variety of other technologies to provide care, particularly in the shortage of of healthcare workers in nearly all disciplines. So this will be important in terms of literacy.

One thing that might be a positive side on this though, in terms of we have a KUPUNA advisory council at SHIPTA and we're assuming that we're going to need to train up a large number of volunteer persons who we would arm with iPads to be able to reach out to people and actually be the high touch liaison for folks in terms of receiving essential health care services in the future as probably the only way we're going to be able to solve our workforce crisis.

And we'll have to organize that. But we think that we can provide early retiree volunteers in most communities and neighborhoods with an oversight program and an education program for those folks for maybe 5,000 per volunteer per year, which is far less than what it costs for a community health worker or a nurse's aide or others.

So there may be some positives here and some of those connections could be mediated by those kinds of individuals for housebound patients and people who won't have the technology. This is obviously going to cost a lot of money. It's important. We need to do it. And it is a basic Civil. Right.

But I want to just offer some comments in terms of some ideas we have at SHIPTA to, to try to get us there in the interim. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is anyone else wishing to testify on this matter? Members? Are there any questions? Okay, so I have. I have a question for our online testifier. Fritz. Yeah, I'm back. Chair. Yeah. So I, you know, to be honest, this bill had a sea of support and no real contested, but I.

So I was not concerned about it at all. I am a little concerned about. I run a nonprofit. We have a website. I do. I'm the own web designer. I have no idea how to do this or what the 2.1 or 2.2 is.

Even so, would this bill in its current form, ask all small nonprofits to be suddenly become expert in accommodations on their website?

If I might digress for a moment before I answer your question. Everything that SHIPTA does is a state agency, and it's not covered by this bill. This bill only covers businesses.

Right. So that wasn't. I'm asking about private sector.

I just wanted to make that clear because the testimony of supporting it, saying this is what SHIPTA have to do, isn't right there. With regard to your question. Yeah. As your nonprofit would have to comply with whatever standards came forward.

And so I know that there are programs that you can build a website with, and I know that they're set up to work for web Accessibility Guideline 2.0. But my point is, if it's 2.1 or 2.2, it's a change.

And that's why I was somewhat concerned about the fact that the compliance time is the same for you as it might be nonprofit as the same as it would be for City Mill. And I don't think that that's what should be the case. And there's been no discussion about how to ease into this.

And that's what the purpose of rules is for. Now, people can say it will delay it. Truthfully, I don't think so, because there's a framework out there already for state and local governments that can be adjusted and put forth.

But I get concerned when somebody says I see, 2.1 was adopted, therefore we should adopt it without looking into how all of it works. As I stated, I think I may be the only person that read the bill, read the regulations, have.

Has done this type of work, both litigating on behalf of businesses, as well as being an advocate for disabled and bringing my own ADA cases in federal court. But truthfully, I don't know that I would ever go to federal court, state court, because federal court is so much quicker and easier to do this.

And I have a bunch of laws and the same standards in federal court basically apply to everybody today. So I'm sorry, I'm drifting away. I don't know if you.

So the correct. What you are recommending is accept the definition of public accommodation and then ask for the Disability and Communications Access Board to do the rules.

Who does the rules? I worked with the Disability and Communication.

Which organization are you recommending?

Well, who would do the 489? It falls under the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Okay.

And I remember when the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission did its Title 1 employment rules and one of the things that I talked about to the Director at that time was, yes, you already have a framework for any rules you might want to adopt for Hawaii. So I'm very much in support of updating the standards.

Thank you very much.

My question is, is this the best way to do it? And I don't think so because you're basically telling the public we don't care what you think or what your responsibilities might be.

Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony and thank you.

For the opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, I have contact information. If you'd like some information on the different between 2.1 and 2.2, I'd be happy to email some points about it.

Thank you very much. Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none. We are going to move on to our next measure, SB 1610, SD 2, relating to Ohana Zones. This basically funds continued funding for the Ohana Zones program and authorizes HHFDC to exempt the Ohana Zones projects from GET. And first up we have, is DLNR here? Thank you very much. We have Department of Taxation.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Garrison Kurth for the Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments, and I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Jun Yang from the State Office of Homelessness and Housing Solutions.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee here. My name is Jun Yang. I'm the the Homeless Coordinator for the Governor's office. We stand on our testimony. Just wanted to just highlight that we understand how the bill is set up and we want to be able to work within what we have here.

But then just wanted to highlight that going off grid is something that we never want to prioritize in any way when we're working on creating some of our Kauhale projects. But due to the effects of COVID, we have some backlogs of components that have caused some time, some time problems for a lot of our projects.

For that reason, while we were building some of these Kauhales across our communities, we've had to go to a generator or off grid options. And so we wanted to be able to bring that to your attention to see if there's a way that we can work through this together. We thank you very much.

Next up, we have on Zoom, do we have the Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments? And we have support from Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation in writing. And comments from the Department of Human Services. Did you wish to speak or not? And support from the County of Hawaii Office on Housing and Community Development.

Members, are there any questions on this bill? Seeing none. I have a question for the office, Jun from the Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions. So as you're aware, we have a House Bill also moving through that would basically fund the same program, right? A different vehicle for the same goal. In that bill we do not have the GET tax exemption. Wanted to get your opinion on how useful that is and whether that should be included in whatever the final bill is that moves.

So I wouldn't be able to specifically speak to that. I think other departments might be able to. Let me get back to you on how that might be, you know, how might that work a little bit better.

Okay. And then a follow up. I do understand that nobody wants to do a project that doesn't have utilities. But in order to accommodate ones that maybe are in the process of connecting, we could have some language that just says something like the connection should be made to these utilities as soon as the project is able or... Do you have a language that you would recommend?

It would be something to that sort. The reason is right now because of COVID, for example, trying to connect to HECO to our electric grid here. They're great partners, we need them. But some of the components that they've asked for, transformers that need to power the site.

I'm not an electrical engineer and I'm not exactly sure what a transformer does. I just remember the cartoon. But these components, when we have to purchase them, they have to come in from the mainland. And what they've told us is it takes about 18 months for one of these transformers to come in.

In my previous position at Department of Transportation, I've worked with our district engineers and I've asked about some of these things for a different project. And they've told me about the same, 18 to 24 months for some of the components that they needed.

If that were the case and we were to receive the budget for these type of projects, we would not be able to spend it in time. And we want to be able to deliver projects to our communities that our unsheltered families need or unsheltered individuals need. So we just wanted to just bring that up as one of our concerns.

And do you have any projects in the pipeline or any projects that you think would be necessary in like rural or remote areas that you would not be able to connect?

In a timely fashion in...

Not about a timely fashion. About like just the utilities are not there.

That would be, at this point I'm not looking at... We're not looking at projects that would be completely off grid that would never have a connection unless there's a solar option. That would be something. If the community tells us that this is a location that they would like and that there are real ways to make sure that all the needs for infrastructure or the needs for going to the restroom, getting clean water, the health and safety for the site, electricity. These needs are going to be met in a very good and viable way. Other than those options or those projects, most of our projects want to be connected to infrastructure established.

Great. Thank you very much Members. Any other questions? Seeing then we're going to move to our last measure, SB9 298SD1, which is an appropriation to increase the Medicaid rates for in home services are services like bathing and errands.

We passed basically a comparable bill earlier in this Committee already and we have support from the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities and okay, thank you very much. And from AARP who Hawaii also in support.

Good morning. Audrey Suga, AARP from AARP and we stand our testimony in strong support of this measure. We really appreciate having this bill going forward. It really helps address the workforce shortage. That is being incurred by many of. Our home and community based providers. And we know we need them in. Order to help keep our kupuna to.

Age in home as well as helping to support their caregivers. So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in strong support of this bill.

Thank you very much. We have Department of Human Services with comments.

Aloha Chair, Members of the Committee, Judy Moore Peterson, Medcrest Administrator on behalf of the Department of Human Services and Director Yamani. We stand on a written testimony appreciating the intent of the measure and offering comments. We do respectfully request that the program.

And appropriation not conflict with, reduce or replace priorities identified in the Executive budget and that our preference is that the appropriation actually be through the executive budget and not a bill. And then the final comment is that it is currently included in the executive budget and request in House Bill 300. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have in support Disability and Communications Access Board.

Thank you very much.

And we also have written support from the Executive Office on Aging, Hawaii Self Advocacy Advisory Council and one individual Members. Are there any questions for our testifiers? Seeing none, we will move on to decision making. So first up we have SB960.

This is the one for funding for SNAP positions and a also the pay differential and Chair's recommendation is to to just have technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and to blank out any funding amounts and include in the Committee report the information that is shared with us from GHS on their recommendations for the 1.1 million and how that is broken up.

Vice Chair for the vote please. Members, are there any questions or comments?

[Roll call]

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is SB961SD1, which is relating to SNAP signing up for specific programs to make it easier for their clients to enroll for longer periods of time.

And for this one I recommend defecting the date to 713000 and then adding in the Committee report that DHS has requested to assess their new system when it goes live to determine the appropriate date of startup. Vice Chair for the vote please. Unless there's any questions or comments.

Voting on SB961, SD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is SB 1419 which is changing the wording in the to low vision from visually impaired and I recommend tech amendments. And then also in the Preamble of Act 253 there's a reference to the old name of the pilot program which we corrected in our House Bill.

So we will make that same correction here. And that's all. Any questions or comments? Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB 1419. SD1 Chair's recommendations to pass with the amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is SB 1496 SD1. I do have concerns about this. We're going to pass it along to the next Committee and I will work with that Chair on potential amendments. And so we will redefect the effective date. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on SB 1496 SD1 Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next one is the SB 1610 SD2 relating to Ohana zones.

For this one we'll have technical amendments and defect the deffect the defective effective date to 3,000 and then make some amendments on page three, lines 10 to 13 and just say here that provided that sites with the ability to hook up to utilities will be preferred when considering sites and connections to those utilities should be made as soon as a project is able unless there is a more cost effective renewable energy option.

And then also delete the repeal date that is included. There's a sunset date of 63029. Delete that. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB16SD2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is SB2 98 SD1. This is to increase the rates for the Medicaid in home services. For this one we will redefect the defective effective date to 3000 and switch out include some of the purpose language from HB702 in Section 1. Members, any comments or questions? Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on SB298SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. We are adjourned.