Senate Standing Committee on Higher Education

Aloha and welcome to the hearing with the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism and on Higher education. Today is March 13, 2025. This is our 3:00pm agenda and we are in conference from 229. This hearing is being streamed live on YouTube in the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties.

The committee will reconvene on Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 3:01pm in Conference Room 229. We have one bill on this agenda, so let's go ahead and get started with HB 1494 relating to sports facilities. First up on the testifiers list we have interim stadium manager, Ch is Sadayasu, from stadium manager.

Chairs, Members of the Committee, Brennon Morioka on behalf of the stadium authority. We submitted testimony in opposition to the current version of the bill.

I would just make a note that if the Senate, if this committee chooses to continue to push the bill forward, we would prefer that some of the language from the Senate's version of other bills related to the stadium and our budget is, would be inserted instead. So I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next up, Calbert Young, testifying for University of Hawaii. I swear I know what each of you guys all look like, but he wasn't. He's not Chris. He wasn't Calbert. And new face.

New face. Sorry. You got me today. Aloha Chairs, Vice chairs, Members of the Committee, my name is Michael Shibata, Director for Strategic Development Partnership for the University of Hawaii, not Kalbert Young. Also on the call via Zoom is Vice President of Administration, Jan Gouveia. And so the University has submitted written testimony providing comments on this measure.

I would like to note that the University is in support of the NASED project and we are hopeful that the NASED project will be successfully executed and constructed so that our University has a sports facility for our UH Manoa football team. Thank you.

So that means you're in opposed to this. If you're support of one, you cannot be in support of both.

Well, yeah, we're in support of the NASED project.

And you're opposed to going, coming to UH. Is that what you're saying?

I think, well, we, we want to make sure that the NASED project is in full like is successfully delivered. That that is our.

Do you want it at UH or not?

We would like the NASED project to be delivered.

Do you want it at UH or not? That's the question.

We would like the project to be delivered at Halawa under the NASED project.

Okay. I guess Vice President Young didn't, didn't prepare you well for today's hearing, but thank you.

Okay.

Okay. Well, we kind of went out of order on that and wait to take questions later. Let's move on to Keith Regan with DAGS.

Chair, Chairs. Keith Regan, Comptroller for the State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting, General Services. We stand on our written testimony in opposition of this measure. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next up, James Tokioka for Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism.

Good afternoon, Members, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Jimmy Tokioka, DBEDT. We're in opposition to this bill, and, you know, we testified in opposition in the House as well.

We appreciate the language of the Senate, and we would like to request that if this bill moves forward, then you kindly consider putting in the language that the Senate had into this version of the bill. Thank you very much. And I'm available for any questions, if you have any.

So is Deputy Director Wicker, who has actually been working on the stadium more than I have.

So you're laddering the ball.

Thank you.

But I answered the question directly.

Well, you haven't really got my questions yet.

Stay tuned. Now, next up, Dawn Takeuchi Apuna, testifying for Department of Planning and Permitting, with comments. Stanford Carr, Stanford Carr Development, in opposition. Michael Yadao, in opposition. Here. Gino Soquena, testament for Hawaii Building and Construction Trades, in opposition. And then Deborah King, in opposition. Mike Mitchell, opposition. John Como, in support. And Jacob Weinsick, in opposition.

Anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Yeah, questions. Let's see, who do I pick first? Keith Reagan. Keith. No, you're not Keith.

I didn't like the way you said that. Thank you.

Okay, so what happens to the contracts should this measure go forward? What happens to your consultant contracts?

I'm sorry? Should the measure as it's presented go forward? Well, I mean, at this point in time, we continue to move forward with the procurement process. So it doesn't affect us unless we don't consummate an agreement. Right? As part of that process.

Well, if this bill goes forward, the money comes out, the fund changes. Right?

My understanding is that if we're not successful in consummating a contract or an agreement, then the monies would revert and be available for reappropriation to a, UH version.

Is that how this, this bill is written? Only if it doesn't consumate.

That's, that's my understanding. I mean, maybe I'm not reading it properly or maybe I missed something, but that was my general understanding of the House version.

Okay, so let's talk about this consultant. You have Crawford Architects and WT Partnership, correct?

Yes.

And that contract amounts to how much?

I'm going to actually bring up my Public Works Director Administrator to help us with that.

Hi, Gordon Wood, Public Works Administrator. That amount stands currently at about 28 million.

Not 31?

Not at this point. No.

It started out at how much? 26 million or less.

Ah, that's a good question that I cannot answer.

How come?

I don't have the history with me.

So you don't know when the contract for how much it was signed for. Do you?

I don't have that information with me, but I can get that for you, certainly.

Okay. I would think this, this would be on top of mind. Right? So the concern I have is this consultant cost has not been factored in as far as it's a separate amount of money from the $350 million. Correct?

It's that it is actually part of that $350 million and the additional $49.5 million that are in the Stadium Special Development Fund.

Okay. So this money that comes out, that means the cost for the actual construction that goes to the contractor is less than 350 million.

The amount that the contractor actually realizes may be less than 350 million, depending on what they depend on us to perform on the project instead of them. But at this point, the amount that we intend to award to the developer is the 350 million.

Okay, so you recently had some kind of audit on the contract. Correct?And you got back $441,000?

That's correct.

On the contract. So you know, I read through this.

Was nobody, was nobody awake at the wheel when all this was going on? That you guys had to go back after and go through a whole audit to see that all this, all this first class airfare and 71 nights at the Kakaako condo, midnight rides from Hawaii Kai, you know, cost for batteries, sunscreen, baby powder from ABC Store, all this cost, 15% markup applied to certain expenses that weren't allowed.

How did that happen?

Well, I can say this is an unusual sort of a project for us. Okay. And the consultant felt that they were dealing with it in very business like manner as they do with other contracts.

And the fact is that as a result of actually of the Civil Beat article coming out, we discovered that in fact our internal controls were weak and we have fixed that. And we've also come up with revised policies governing the reimbursement of consultant travel expenses, both Interisland and Intraisland.

So if this article didn't come out from Civil Beat, you wouldn't know that the internal controls were weak.

I have to be honest and say there is a good chance that we would not have uncovered it, at least for some time. Yes.

Okay, so I go back to you, Director. I mean, how is this possible? It's not like, you know, I can, I can go ahead and take expenses for baby powder and batteries and sunscreen. I can take a midnight ride. I mean, this is not unique.

When you say this is unique, I mean, come on, this is common sense. So somebody who's approving this at some point, I don't know are you, is somebody doing, not doing their job? Asleep at the wheel? What's going on?

Yeah, thank you for that. And to your point, as soon as it was determined that there was need for stronger procedures and oversight, we took those steps. I think at that point in time, I had been probably on the job for about four months.

And so as I was getting up to speed and understanding sort of the complexity of this particular project and this came up, I immediately took measures and steps to address this concern.

How long have you been on the job?

Since June of last year.

And before you guys? Who was there?

Chris Kinimaka, administrator Yes, I just hate.

When you say complexity, because you know what? Every project has complex.

Absolutely.

Every project. And that's why you guys are there. So I'm worried, very worried that you guys are going to still be on here and whether the fact that now you have stricter, stricter controls, I don't know. Maybe that's not enough. And you're not going to know that until another Civil Beat article comes out.

No, actually, Public Works Division has implemented certain procedures that help to address this and would prevent it from happening again.

Yes. As you might imagine, we've become very sensitive to these issues.

Well, you can imagine I've been here for, in the Senate for 25 years. HTA. We've had issues, okay. Every time, UH, we have issues. So, you know, for you to tell me now that this is, this is unique or whatever and complex, I don't buy it. Because this is not new. This is not new.

Accountability, transparency, following up, double checking. This is what happened with the Hawaiian Airlines Facility. Okay? So again, and that was complex, and it ended up in a lawsuit. We've had so many lawsuits. So I'm concerned.

This is a big project, and if you guys are going to be in charge and already right off the chute, we have all this kind of issues and I'm looking at $441,000. Is that all? The way I read this, we should have gotten back more money.

Actually, our Audit Division did a very thorough analysis of all the expenditures. So everything that you see in there is exactly what we were owed in terms of what should not have been paid out.

So out of the 30, $28 million, there was only $451,000. That's hard to believe.

Well, I can tell you that we have a very senior auditor who is responsible for this particular audit. So I would say they were very thorough in their analysis.

Where was this auditor when all of these expenses was being?

Well, the Audit Division, which is a division within DAGS, is not attached to Public Works. And so as issues come up, if there are procedural issues that need to be investigated, then we ask them, we actually commission them to conduct an audit.

This was one of those particular issues where we asked them to dig into this, find out what's going on, find out what was paid that shouldn't have been paid, and what are the recommendations to make the process stronger so that we can prevent this from happening in the future. That's exactly what they did.

And they worked very closely with Chris Kinimaka, who was the administrator at the time, to make sure that the procedures that Public Works Division put in place would not allow this kind of thing to happen again in the future for our major contract, any contracts that are flowing through Public Works Division that involves a consultant.

So that auditor don't do audits periodically. Because if in fact this auditor has not been doing, and all these years you guys have been working under those conditions, to me, which relax, and obviously nobody picked it up.

The auditor didn't come in earlier to say, you guys got to look at some of these things that you're doing. I mean, not wait till the problem happens.

Okay

Thank you.

Any other question? Senator Wakai

For the Chairman from the UH, I want to just kind of dig into the idea of putting a stadium and hardening Ching Field there. How would you describe the fan experience right now for those attending the UH football game?

I would say it's, you know, the current Ching Field arrangement is less than ideal. It's, you know, aside from some of the boxes, it's basically exposed to the hot sun. It's on bleachers. You know, again, the Ching Field experience is a temporary measure until NASED was to be completed.

So it's built in regards to expanding capacity to get to close to 15,000 yen.

Would it be very far fetched to say It's a terrible fan experience there.

And I wouldn't say it's the greatest. No. Yeah, but it's what we, you know, it's, given the circumstances, I think that was the best that we could do to get to expanding our capacity, given the situation. Circumstances.

So if you go there, you have to go and urinate in a porta potty. You might get a meal from. You guys have lunch trucks there that provide food there?

I believe so, yes.

You don't even have a place for the opposing football team to go any place at halftime or pre game. Right? They go to the baseball stadium. That's embarrassing. I don't know any other Division 1 football team that has that situation there.

And even just some people have this, this false belief that somehow you're going to make Ching Field look somewhat similar to Aloha Stadium, but you're totally land constrained there. From what I remember, it's like 7 acres. And the facility at the stadium being contemplated in Halawa is, is 20 acres.

So you can't even get to having a discussion about building something big when you have 7 acres, which will never get you past 15,000 seat capacity. Correct?

No, I think there are options, you know, regarding expanding beyond 15,000. I think, you know, there's probably further designs that could be accommodated to see if it could be beyond 15.

I would say, I would acknowledge that, yes, the site is very, the Ching Field site is very constrained and so you don't have as much flexibility to kind of allow for a more expansive footprint. But yeah, obviously those are things that would have to get ironed out and explored.

But yeah, I would agree that, yes, the site is challenging in that it's a smaller footprint and it's obviously tougher to squeeze in things into a smaller footprint.

And this idea hasn't even been blessed by the neighborhood board and the neighbors in the Manoa area. So even if we were to go down this route of moving our future stadium to Manoa, you'd have to go through EIS, you'd have to go get all that community support. How many years away would that possibly be?

Well, you know, I think all those factors, right, environmental, getting community input, both internal and external stakeholder feedback and input, identifying the necessary entitlements and environmental documents that would be required for a project. I think all those things would need to be evaluated and kind of, you know, determined as well as, you know, getting to construction.

So I mean, yes, it's, it's not like the construction would happen tomorrow. Right? So, you know, in my experience working on two projects at the University. Since I've been there, the P3 projects rise in Hale Haukani.

I would say generally the overall schedule from, you know, original concept to construction delivery is five years, give or take six months. But you know, obviously this is a is a larger, more complex project.

So I've never seen any community support for this initiative. No residents, no neighborhood board support for this. You're saying that at earliest would be five years down the road before you could even begin to potentially look at construction there. What's that going to do to the UH football program?

Again, I think what we're hoping for is, and again right, is that we support the NASEB project and to the extent that the facility can be built as quickly as possible, I think we want to find a home for our UH football team.

That's always, if you're lucky to start in five years, maybe construction would be another three years. So eight years down the road, what's going to happen to the UH football program?

Well, again, I think Ching Field is currently in its, they're currently playing at Ching Field. And again, it's less than ideal. But again, it was built as a temporary facility until the NASED project was built. That was always the plan and that's how it was constructed.

Well, Timmy Chang always mentions that it's embarrassing for him and hard for him, I should say, guys, difficult for him to recruit, playing in that kind of MacGyvered stadium and shoehorned into that small little spot and that every year that passes he has a harder and harder time to get decent players.

So he's just to no fault of his own, is having a harder and harder time to get decent athletes to play for the University of Hawaii, which will then make them potentially less competitive in the future. Wouldn't you say that that's a real possible scenario for him, that in eight years he's going to just have.

I don't know if he's going to have a program. He's going to have a pretty meager group of athletes to choose from for his football program.

I'm sure it's challenging and I think the University, that's why the University is in support of finding, you know, having a facility that can help support the football program in the long term.

Any other questions for the committee?

Yeah, What's the life cycle of Ching? Lifespan of Ching.

Sorry, I'm not aware of the life cycle on Ching. You're talking about the temporary Ching Field.

Because it was temporary, right? Is there a life period of seven years or something?

Yeah, maybe if VP Django Bea is available via Zoom. I know, I think she was having some challenges logging in, but if she's available, maybe she can address your specific question. Yeah, I don't have the answer, but I can find it out for you.

Is it your position that if we have a grand stadium, if we have a better facility that we'll get, we'll recruit better players from the mainland?

Yes.

So when we had a lost stadium for 55 years, we've only won two championships. We haven't really gotten that many really. I mean, we've got a few outstanding players, but.

So I don't know if the facility itself is reason why we're going to solve our problems with them. You know, I keep hearing this from sports writers, I keep hearing it all the time that it's because we don't have a stadium, we can't get good players.

But we've had a good stadium for 55 years and we still weren't able to necessarily recruit. I mean, we have other issues. We're in the middle of the island on the Pacific, we don't have that kind of following. The scouts don't come here all the time.

A lot of our high school all stars go to the mainland, Oregon State, all these other, other schools and they get recruited. So, you know, it's I, I don't buy the fact that just because we get a stadium that we're going to have a better football program.

And that hasn't proven out over 55 years of a group grand stadium. So, you know, certainly it may help, but I don't know it's going to take the program to where everybody is saying it's going to go. Thank you.

Any other questions on the committee? Stadium Authority, please. So Brennon, I mean you sat on the Stadium Authority in all these years. Tell me how we fast track or expedite the stadium so that we can, you know, get, attract better players, better venue, how we expedite this?

Well, right now the current process that we're headed down is in my mind the fastest that we get to that end goal of opening a stadium and our target still remains August of 2028. We are working with the current preferred offeror, which is Aloha Halawa Development Partners.

It's been, to be honest, it's been a little bit slower than we thought that the negotiations would go, but I think in the last recent weeks it has picked up and we're seeing progress towards final execution of a contract this summer. Which is still a goal.

And if we are able to do that, that keeps us on track for at least having a chance at that fall of 2028 target deadline.

We will, over the next course of the next few months, we will finalize a schedule that the developer that we are agreeable with with the developer that whatever end date it is, that will be a part of the contract execution and then all the other aspects of construction needs to kind of take care of itself.

But that's where the state, the Stadium Authority, the state as a whole, and the city is working very closely together to try and expedite permits, especially with the demolition, because demolition is a critical path.

And so we've been working not just with AHDP's team, but also with the City Department of Planning and Permitting on how they can help us expedite some of their reviews.

Part of the commitment that the city has made is that they will assign the same set of reviewers to the project along the way so that there's no learning curve and that each of those reviewers and stages of all the different permits that are required will be not, I wouldn't say fast tracked, but they'll be reviewed and approved as fast as possible or in the fastest manner possible.

So you know, when the plans came out to start the development and stuff, and you know, you guys had the developer, you know, two days ago we just did the GMs for two individuals and I was shocked to know that one of the individuals never even met the developer or were shown plans and yet he was coming in from re up of his position. How come?

We do, well, so we are, we, not all of our members are actively engaged in the actual negotiations because of sunshine laws and sunshine restrictions. So the general opportunities for our members to get updates is primarily during our open sessions where we provide NASED updates.

We did bring in, I think two meetings ago, we brought the developer in to share their concepts and their initial renderings of what they're planning to do. And that was also an opportunity for members to meet with AHDP's team.

So part of the concepts that the developer shared, is the 300, 400 million going to be enough? And if not, can we use the money from UH or just like put them all in the lava or are we having other people coming in and having to support that shortfall?

Well, and so the, the way that the procurement was always contemplated to be was that the state was only committing $350 million of general obligation bonds, and we always knew that the stadium was going to cost more than that.

I mean, our initial estimates was upwards of $400 to $450 million for just even the basic stadium that is in the RFP. So 25,000 seats, 16 luxury boxes, four locker rooms, certain different ability to handle not just football, but international soccer and rugby. So we knew that the cost was going to be there was going to be about $100 million delta.

And that's why with the restriction of the $350 million in GO bonds available from the state, the surrounding district had to be included so that the developer has an opportunity to make some level of income to pay their debt service on that balance, plus all of the infrastructure that they're going to have to invest in for the district itself.

And so as we work with our developer, they have the financial capacity themselves as a team, as a current team, to fund the delta if they needed to but what they're going through in their financial analysis is whether that's the best way to finance the delta of the project.

And so that's why they're looking at other financing opportunities like TIF or CFD. But also, I'm sorry, that's my thing. Alarm. That's the way I roll.

That's the way I roll. But so during this negotiation phase, this is where we're trying to help vet all the different kinds of sources of revenue, additional partners that they might be bringing on.

The AHDP is talking to a couple other potential development investors because if their other partners invest in infrastructure costs, that frees up monies that have been committed towards infrastructure that can then be moved towards the stadium and advanced on or help to fund a much larger stadium.

So that's why some of the back and forth on the actual stadium schematics is still kind of in flux, because they're trying to determine, you know, how much of the stadium that we are able to build from day one.

But we have been able to focus them on right now as a priority, just fund the basic stadium first, build the stadium first, and then we figure out how it's scalable and build it in sequences. Ideally, you'd love to build a bigger stadium from day one, but I'd rather have the basic stadium than no stadium. And so that's the current negotiation that we're going through right now.

Thank you. Any other questions?

So, If you don't get any more money from the ledge, you still pretty certain that we're going to be able to build the stadium by 2028?

Number one, I'm optimistic that we still have the capacity, financial capacity, to build the stadium. What we're working on through the final negotiations that will be in the final contract this summer is what the actual schedule is. I think if we hit our milestones, there's still the opportunity. We've always said fall of 2028 is already aggressive, so.

But that's some of the realities that we're working through the schedule right now.

Senator Hashimoto,

So what is your definition of a basic stadium?

What are some of the other?

So what we defined in our RFP is that it's 25,000 seats, 16 luxury boxes, four locker rooms, accommodations for not just football, but international rugby, international soccer at the professional levels. Which means it does have to be a slightly bigger stadium because a regular football field doesn't accommodate rugby or soccer.

Those are the basic priorities.

So you get nothing, no ancillary of the revenue generators outside of that then.

I mean, they're going as a part of the basic stadium. You're going to have much more upgraded food and beverage than what we've had.

Not talking about just the stadium, just talking about the housing and all that other stuff.

Oh, all, all of that is, well, the developer has to come up with their master plan in order to provide residential development, commercial development, hotel, office space, and all of that is meant to be commercialized so that they can generate revenue

But that's all factored into the basic stadium so that they can use that revenue to pay for that basic stadium.

Basic stadium plus their long term obligation for maintenance, operations and maintenance. Because stadium operational revenue can cover. While it can cover routine maintenance on an annual level, it cannot cover capital maintenance, which is some of the things that are larger over a longer period of time.

But I guess the bottom line question from the legislature is, you can do it though. We think we can make it happen.

I am optimistic that that can be achieved. Yes.

The basic stadium with the current appropriation.

Correct.

Okay.

If we can get more from other sources, through philanthropy, through other financing mechanisms, it just gets us a better stadium from day one.

No, and I agree with you. It's just a matter of that is looking very unlikely through the bill. I think that's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to say. And so I think we're very concerned that, okay, minus all that extra, any additional state funding, can we make it happen? Right?

I think the worry was, okay, maybe we got to go back to renovating the current stadium, but that's out of the question. Right? We want a new facility, albeit basic, but at least we'll get a new facility so that, UH, has a place to play. Okay. So hopefully, hopefully that will come to fruition.

Hopefully that is the plan. And, and you know, I think hopefully that is clear to the legislature that in theory the money that you have is enough. In theory, right? Barring anything.

In theory, yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Is Jan Gouveia on zoom? Can we, can we get. Can you bring Jan? Senator.

Hi, Senator. Sorry.

Hi Jan. We had a question. What is the life of Ching Field?

The current temporary facility has a 10 year lifespan and we're completing the fifth year. So right at the halfway point.

So if the stadium is not built by 2028, is your folks going to be able to accommodate it up until that time?

Yes, we can accommodate up until 2028.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

I have a final question for DAGS. How much more Is this contract with WT and Crawford.

The current contract is open ended, but we do not believe that it will extend beyond the initial construction of the stadium itself.

So what do you estimate that it's going to cost to keep it open until the initial construction?

Just as a gross estimate on the Crawford contract here, we're probably looking at 35 or 36 million. Overall.

Overall. And what about the WT?

WT is a subcontractor to Crawford.

So that comes under their amount.

Comes under Crawford. Yes.

So we're at 28 million. You think it's going to go to 35 million?

Yes.

What are they actually doing?

They are doing actually they are doing a lot of work. Okay.

And it has to do with making sure that we're working with HDP and by ourselves to get the various entities entitlements that we need to do to, to work through developing a federal NEPA assessment for the site so that we can work with the Navy to perhaps bring in federal funding for, for some portions of the infrastructure there.

Good luck on that.

Yeah, I know that's. Yeah. The landscape has changed on that. Yes. Right. Yes. Right.

Isn't the developer supposed to be doing some of this stuff? No?

Oh, yes. Yeah. In fact the, if you will, the risks and responsibilities on the project are being bounced between the state and the developer. So the state is responsible for some. The developer is responsible for the bulk of them. But we are still remain responsible for some.

As we do move forward on this. I hope that you folks will take a better look at this contract and what exactly is being delivered because I have some concerns with an open ended contract and the cost keeps escalating. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none, I'm going to go straight into decision making. I'm going to be keeping on my contract. Okay, so on HB 1494 HD3 relating to sports facilities, we're going to move this out.

And given the testimony in opposition to this bill today, it is clear the sentiment is not to move the stadium to UH Manoa. So I recommend that we replace the provisions in this bill and incorporate those contained in SB 1589 SD3. The committee already carefully vetted that measure in discussing the future of the new stadium.

In that way, we can continue the discussion on this new sports facility. And it is my hope that we can come to a satisfactory outcome for all who support Anuala Stadium. Also like to include in the committee report to keep an eye on the contract with Crawford as well as the subcontractor of WT. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you.

Okay. And for the committee on Higher education, same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.

Good afternoon and welcome to our Higher Education Committee, our 305 agenda. Let's see. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. An unlikely event that we have to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties. The Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Tuesday, March 18 at 3:05 p.m. in Conference Room 2 to 9.

And a public notice will be posted on the Legislature's website. It is Thursday, March 13, and it is 3:39pm as we take up our 305 agenda, starting with House Bill 563, House Draft 1, relating to the University of Hawaii Space Science and Engineering Initiative.

This appropriates funds for salaries and fringe benefits of positions for the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, Space Science Engineering Initiative, Workforce Development Program, Mauna Kea Scholars Program and Internship Program. Appropriate funds for office equipment, supplies, et cetera, et cetera. With that, we have Doug Simons University and support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Good to be back. Thanks for the opportunity to share a few thoughts about the bill at hand. I'm Doug Simons, Director of the UH Institute for Astronomy, and we've provided testimony on behalf of myself, Chair Dean Marioka from the College of Engineering, and Provost Bruno from, UH Manoa, UH stands on its testimony.

I'm here to have happily answer questions. I want to give you a little update too. Since the State of Hawaii invested considerably in the Space Science and Engineering Initiative, I'm really pleased to report we have recruited half of the faculty already.

We're in the middle of filling out the rest of those faculty positions and currently have, I believe, 10 students. Our first ever pre engineering students at UH Hilo through the efforts that have been made today to get the enrollment going there.

And we made good progress on the design study for a building on UH Hilo campus as well, which is part of the appropriation a couple years ago. So we've made a lot of good progress.

But this bill is really intended to help us fill a gap, and that is to reach into local schools, work with the, particularly the public schools across the island and engage them in the whole program. Mahalo.

Thank you. See. Wendy Lau's on Zoom.

She's not available on Zoom. Chair.

Okay, let's see. I don't show Mary Beth Laychak. There she is.

Good afternoon, Committee. Mahalo for the opportunity. My name is Mary Beth Laychak and I've been the program lead for the Maunakea Scholars Program since its inception in the 2015-2016 school year. Program works with predominantly Hawaii Department of Education high schools and it allows schools to customize the program to how it fits the curriculum.

So with that we work with students who are in AP STEM programs all the way to credit recovery programs. The goal of the program is not to create new astronomers, but rather to promote students ability to do stem, to empower them to believe that they are people who are able and interested in stem.

And I want to emphasize that this is a program that is poised for expansion. It's not a question of if there are teachers and students interested, but rather a matter of adding the capacity to reach them. If the Bill is passed and a dedicated staff Member is hired, expansion can occur fairly rapidly.

Mahalo for the opportunity and for your consideration.

Thank you. Let's see. Brendan, are you justified? Doug's justified. Okay. I don't show anyone else in person or on Zoom. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure? Anyone happen to be on Zoom? If not, we are open for questions and I do have questions. I'm glad you're here because I have questions for you.

I would find. Found you. So, Brendan, last year we talked about having an engineering program on Kilo, Right. And as a result, we did pass the Bill. We did get started, yes. So where are we in that process? But as far as know, achieving.

Achieving the goals and dreams of what we hope to accomplish because of Mauna Kea, because of Hilo, that we should be priming our students and them being able to get a degree in engineering in Hilo.

And to stay on island after.

Yes.

So I would say we're making progress and we're making, we're making good progress for something that never really existed prior. Right. So, you know, we are totally appreciative of what the Legislature you specifically did in supporting with the creation of the five positions at Hilo, of which four are filled.

And so we're actually, and I just interviewed one of the. For the fifth position this week. So we're well on our way to, number one, being able to provide the ability to teach all of the pre engineering courses that are available.

So as and as Doug mentioned, you know, this bill would help us take us to that next step. We have 10 pre engineering students that have currently registered at UH Hilo as a part of the program. Right now they know that they have to transfer to Manoa after two years.

But we need to fully understand what that level of interest is in the market, what the market would bear for an engineering program at in Hilo specifically because it does cost a lot of money to the undergraduate the first two years is much easier because it's more General Ed and the engineering courses are much more basic.

And the lab requirements we can just tag on to existing physics or chemistry labs. But if you start getting into the more upper division, 300 and 400 level engineering classes, it does take a lot more investment of lab space. Lab equipment and our equipment are not cheap.

So number one, getting a better understanding of what that market looks like in Hilo would help us inform or would help inform us as to do we just keep with the pre engineering program and having the pathway of two years in Hilo, have them transfer for two years.

And statistically we know if they've stayed in on another island for two years, more than likely they're going to go home because they don't want to leave. So that's one thing that we know can help. It wouldn't be the ultimate solution, but it can help.

But if we have sufficient interest, which is why having more outreach with the high schools and the middle schools and the elementary schools is critical to number one, get to the parents, not just the kids, but to the parents to help them understand what those opportunities are.

The engineering is a career that you can actually live in Hawaii, make a career, own a house, raise a family. Not going to get rich, but you're going to live pretty comfortably. And so having that opportunity to do that kind of education, I think would go a long way to helping us understand what that true market is.

And then from that we can make decisions on whether a true engineering program and whether it's one discipline or all disciplines. I mean, we can make that decision based on where the interest lies. And the MKOs have been extremely supportive, which is why they're also investing in, I think, one or two of their.

And I am very pleased to see that there are those programs in Mauna Kea and with the Akamai internship, yes, all of the internships and with people up on, you know, with the telescopes have put in money into the schools and so forth.

And but what we lacked is relaxed, that last step to actually get people with degrees to get the most expensive. And so while I think these programs are meritorious, I think that we tend to start a program and then get diverted because I want to see it come to fruition.

You know, instead of putting all the different hands out there and different budgets and different programs, you know, do we have a four year program so these students who are in Big island can stay there for four years, get a job there and get a good job and continue on?

And I understand we need to, you know, also cultivate our young people coming up. But there are programs going on now, as we've heard doing that. So what comes first, the chicken or the egg? And I'm saying that for years we've lacked having this whole. And we still don't because now we only have pre engineering.

And our whole intent last year was to not just have pre engineering, but to be able to have a degree coming out of the University. So I'd like to see you guys start prioritizing as to where we go, how we go and how we utilize the funds.

Because especially now with federal funds being the way they are, with all the demands, I mean, you know, we'd love to have everything and we can't. So we have to really look at you as to how we're going to manage this.

Now if we're going to just say we're going to be satisfied with the two year, then yeah, we're going to go give our money to everything else and say, so when these kids come up, where are they going to go after two years? And then they come to Honolulu, they like you to Honolulu.

They might not go back to Hilo, I don't know. But you know, these are long term vision things that we have to think. We can't be just knee jerk reaction every time a new Bill comes up and proposes a new program. Right, right.

And we'll be having this conversation with new, uh, President Wendy Hintzel as well. So.

And then the building. Are you folks looking at building a brand new building.

That was part of the original plan, but those efforts are currently on hold while we evaluate other alternatives.

Yeah, because right now brick and mortar is. With so many courses being done online. We have a pharmacy school building that is pretty new and the enrollment is very low.

I mean we have to start thinking on a large scale as to how do we utilize some of these facilities and some of these investments that we made into the campus without taking on more expense. Because some of that expense then could be used for other programs.

Right, Correct.

So are you folks pursuing that? Are you looking into that?

Those are some of the conversations that I still need to have with, with our upper Administration.

So. Yeah, and we will, we will. Yes. And so, you know, we're supportive again. We, we have to balance everything. The money just doesn't appear, guys. The money got to come from some program. We're going to have to cut somewhere to add on. Right, right. Did you remember any other questions? Thank you, thank you.

Hearing no other questions, we will move on to the next Item, Senate Bill 1337, House Draft 1, relating to endemic plants requires University of Hawaii Manoa College of Tropical Ag and Human Resilience to establish an endemic plant seed bank pilot program to preserve and promote the planning of plant species that are endemic to Hawaii.

Let's see, we have Matt Kear for DLNR. Hello.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. This is Matthew Kear. I'm a botanist with the Division of Forestry and Wildlife and we've submitted written testimony. I'm here to stand on that and be available for any questions you might have about endemic plants.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. [Unintelligible].

Mahalo for the opportunity. Chair Kim and Vice Chair Kirani and the Members. This bill requires CTAHR, I want to emphasize the word requires for us to build a pilot seed plant seed bank program. There are a number of small seed bank programs all around Hawaii.

They don't have capacity for large scale seed production and storage so that when there is a need at a larger scale, they cannot deliver on it. There is constant need for that. But whenever there are disasters like Mavi fire, then replantation, there is an immediate need for larger capacity. So we are saying that we can do it.

That is CTAHR can deliver. We have the land, we have the capacity and faculty. However, we would need some resources to get started and that it in my testimony. And the time is up. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all that I have. That said they would testify in person or on zoom. Is there anyone else that I missed or wanted? Please come on up.

Please identify yourself.

Yeah, Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Clay Trauernicht. I'm actually an employee at the University of Hawaii in the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resilience. But I submitted testimony, personal testimony, and that's what I'd like to just speak to today. And then I'm also available for technical questions on behalf of CTAHR.

And the three points I'd like to raise are just that there's been some major federal investments in seed collection recently. We myself and colleagues have been able to raise nearly $10 million to basically ramp up wild collections for disaster response.

And the current status of the seed banks in the state, as Dean Grill was mentioning, is really focusing on rare and endangered plants so they don't have the CAPAC for large scale storage. And I think this bill presents an opportunity for the state to also invest in, in this effort.

The last thing I'd like to just say is that CTAHR and uh is in a good position because you have to coordinate collections across lots of organizations and the future really is field based production. So there really is an opportunity for public and private partnership in this effort. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Not Members. Questions? Senator Kidani.

I'm not sure who to direct this to, but do you have any kind of program that includes the public to help grow plants and, and you know, cultivate the seeds? I mean, I have a yard and I love plants and I grow things but for my own use.

But if the University has a program that asks the general public to help them with this, that might be beneficial.

It could be and it could play a role. And there's some programs that are starting to do this with public schools, for example, one of the issues that we have is to ensure that the genetics of the plants are appropriate.

So it's ensuring that not only you tracking where those seeds have come from, from the wild, but also ensuring that you're not collecting and recollecting from the same cultivated populations because you do sort of lose all those traits that are existing in those wild populations. So it's something that you just need to monitor and keep track of.

But it's definitely something that could create opportunities to do this at smaller scale. Most of the, I would say in the continent they're moving towards large scale production that is partnering with farms.

And so they're going to these field based programs where you can actually industrialize seed harvesting, seed processing, to do this at the scale that would be relevant for say something like a wildfire Responding after a wildfire.

Yeah. I'm just saying that maybe we don't have that kind of land here. So it may be useful for you guys to reach out to the public more and do some kind of public program that would be helpful to you.

Yeah, could be part of it. Thank you.

Why don't you sit there? Sure. Can you come up to. So I'm looking at the bill, and it doesn't have any money attached to this bill. Basically, it says the purpose is to require University of Hawaii at Manoa to establish an endemic plant seed bank pilot program. Do you need a legislation to do this?

I asked this question a lot of times. A lot of things that require you focus on doing stuff. We need a bill. I have no idea. Okay. That's why I have both of you. I knew you were going to say that. Well, I think. I was telling you.

And I'm over here and I don't know if I want to be quiet because I'm not sure what it is we're requiring you to do.

So as I said earlier, I myself and then some colleagues with, you know, within the University have actually put in proposals. I would say we've secured funding, but we're not really sure what's secure right now given the State of Federal Government and what. What funds they're going to freeze, what funds they will release.

But we have amassed, I said, quite a significant investment from the federal side to build this collection program to give us capacity to actually bring in seed.

And really what's lacking, and I think why this fits the definition of a pilot program, is the developing the tools, the knowledge to be able to store the seed of these common species. So these are the things that we use for reforestation projects. They would be used for responding to fire.

And so on that side, there's been really no stepping up of the state to kind of contribute matching funds or whatever. So it's not. It's all really dependent on these federal funding right now. And given their uncertainty. And then, you know, there's a.

We're looking for an opportunity to build capacity at the University to actually be able to coordinate this and. And keep these seeds.

So my comment is that it seems to me that there is interest in this and there is need Federal Government is stepping up to help have a seed production program, or they did step. Up at 1.0. Right. And now you have seed produced. Where do you store it? How do you manage?

That part is the piece that's lacking.

So where do you start? But this bill doesn't have any monies in this bill.

So what we providing in our testimony that we are willing to take on this challenge and we have the faculty capacity to actually oversee the seed production and we would need a staff Member to coordinate the production across different stations that we will have and also any public partnership that might be willing to help with that, then plan and design a storage facility for storing the piece of seed.

That is beyond the scope. Beyond the scope of the bill. But if we can get the design dollars, then we can actually bring all these partners together. Envision and design. But why did design.

Okay, but isn't that something that Jan Govea or whoever it is at the University needs to look at to see whether or not it's feasible and it's going to be part of the University's priorities?

I mean, that is, if you all want this to be done, then we have to go in that direction.

Yeah, well, you know, we keep getting criticized about how we keep telling the University to do certain things. And if you folks are able to do it on your own.

We are not able to do it on our own.

You know, University has, has their funding. They have their own funding that they use for all kinds of things. So again, you know, we need to see what the priorities are for the, for the University and. Yeah, because the money's got to come from somewhere. So somebody's program might get cut, like Brennan's program might get cut.

Brennan, you willing to give us some of your money to put over here? No. He's shaking his head. No, let it be the only thing. I mean, that's, that's the case. Yes.

Senator, whatever you decide, we going to go along with that.

No, I know you're going to go along, but I'm just trying to say, you know, it's not that we don't think this is important. You know, there's a lot of great programs out there. It's like, where's the priorities? And you know, do we have the funding to, to do this?

And if you don't need a law, if you can do it already, and you're saying that you folks already have a small seed production program. There's five seed banks in the state already that work with endemic and rare native plant collections.

Yeah. So they have a small scale, you know, kind of rare plants. They will preserve them in liquid nitrogen and other storage, you know, cold storage and such, but they can't release that for large scale seeding.

Yeah. I think the issue is when we see disasters like Maui and the response to that is Literally importing weed seeds from other parts of the country because we have no capacity right now to be storing or creating seeds that are appropriate to this place.

And so the bill as it, you know, appeared, I no part in its drafting, but provides an opportunity again for the state to say, yeah, this is a priority. And so whether or not it is, I think get. All we can speak to at this point is the investment on the federal side.

And I just think it's a great opportunity for the state to sort of step up as well.

And that is a small investment to start with. At least if we can do the planning, we have the land so that we will invest in one of our stations could do this and production. We are also offering our land to do the production side wherever possible. We wouldn't compete it with the food production.

I recommend that you guys work together. I recommend that you put language together that will. Will achieve what it is we're working on and you run it by it. And we look at this and we have a more definitive plan on what we're going to do that we can.

If in fact it's important that we will invest the money. But at this point, I think you folks have those resources to get it started. Starting the design. No, just starting to put the plan together. So we know where you're going.

And I think you need to share this with the University as to how it's going to fit in with their priorities as well.

Right. So then what will happen next year? We can, yes, we can plan now this has surfaced then, you know, I would definitely coordinate with all the seed banks.

We can discuss it and we will have a concrete plan in terms of, okay, we need a 50,000 square foot facility or whatever the case may be, then what will happen from there? The design has to be done professionally. There is a cost to that.

And that's why you talk with Jan Goville who plans all that stuff. Right.

So then again, it is CTAHR is being required to do this. That is the issue that I.

Yes, but if, if we defer this measure to allow you folks to get the plan together. So when you come back to us and we can see. Because again, I don't require you guys to do something that I'm not even sure what and you're. You have concerns.

So at this point I think there needs to be a lot more discussion, coordination and planning.

And you would require us to have that.

We don't know.

Right. Because that's. What's your plan going to take some time.

Right, right. That's my right. Yes. And that time there's no requirements, you. Know, unless this bill passed, there's no requirement.

Yeah, I think it's. I would just add it's a pretty straightforward part of, of this larger process. Right. So if it's developed a native seed program for the state, what the pieces that we brought together are the collection from the wild populations and the production of the seed.

And the component that's really missing is the capacity to store it so that it can be available to respond.

Have you reached out to private like Nolani Town Association? We have, you know, the ability to do that. We have plants.

It's only on the production side. We've been talking to farmers. We have not gone to the like facility side to say where besides looking at sea tar land. But it's still putting the materials and, and in. In place so that the seeds have a, have a home.

Well, I'm just saying that that's another, you know, place that we, you could look, you know, there might, might be other associations that would be willing to help develop a bank for you. Yeah.

Thanks for that. Yeah.

Okay. The other not. Thank you very much. Okay. We have House Bill 3, House Draft 2 relating to beach management on North Shore of Oahu extends all this. Does Members extend the deadline for the University of YC Grant College Program to submit the North Shore Beach Management Plan to the Governor and Legislature.

We had this measure last year and I guess they need an extension of the date. So with that we have. Am I on the right place? Did I miss one? No, I don't. Michael Kane.

Yeah. Good afternoon, Seminary. On behalf of Department of Land and Natural Resources, please stand on our writing for our testimony in support.

Thank you. Michael Dolan Eversole, the University of Hawaii.

Yes. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the community, the Committee, we at the University of Hawaii will stand on our written testimony in support. I'm available to answer questions to you.

Okay. And not here. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure hearing? None. Members, any questions on this item.

Is UH doing the study? That's correct. Okay. Maybe you can come up and maybe you can give us an explanation why you need a extension. Because I think this is like we kind of need this information now because I think there's so many things happening in this area, especially on Maui.

You know, I think this will tell us what, moving forward, what the heck we should be doing on Maui in terms of all those things on Front Street. You know, I think it gives, gives us at least informs, but I don't know. Where are you with the study?

Yeah, that's a great question. And I understand your inquiry with this. I recall last year during testimony, there was a lot a sense of urgency that we need to do something to understand what's happening on the North Shore and start to address those immediately. That is our intent.

One of the realities here is it takes about eight months for the funding to actually get to the University. So we're. We're that far behind before we even have funding available in order to contract.

We're in the process now of the final contracting with local consultants to help us do some of the engineering studies behind it and the science behind the beach management plan.

As far as where we're at with the project now, we haven't officially rolled it out because we haven't had the ability to contract with anyone to help us with it yet. Having said that, in our Sea Grant Program, we have started to get our team together. We've engaged the community.

We have a community partner for this effort as well. It's the North Shore Community Land Trust. They're embedded in the community on the North Shore. We're working with them on a contract for them to assist us with community engagement.

So one of the reasons that we need more time is, one, we didn't get the money till pretty late, and two, going through the contracting takes a little bit of time. And three, we need adequate time to do community engagement.

So doing the plan is one thing, but we need to ensure that the plan reflects the values and vision of the community that we're working with. And we have a series of six community workshops and presentations that we're planning. And of course, you can't do that rushed. We need some time in order to do that.

So we're not asking for additional appropriation, just more time in order to do that. Having said that, we are aware of the need to present findings and information and as we go. And so we don't necessarily have to wait till the very end of the project to provide updates and findings.

And we're planning to do that with the Committee or the community on the North Shore as we go to bring them along with us and would be happy to provide additional information to your Committee as needed and other committees on what we're finding along the way.

So you're basically just contracting this all out then, or is it?

Not all of it? Majority of it, but there is a portion of it that is for funding for our time in the Sea Grant Program, some staff time, but the majority of the technical Work is going to be conducted by local consultants.

Okay, so I know there's another bill moving for Lahaina in a specific beach. Part two Sea Grant. So maybe there's something that you guys got to figure out on how to get some efficiencies there, because I think everyone's asking the same question and they're going to tell you guys, go to look into it.

And I don't know, I don't know if there needs to be separate contracts, if we're kind of, you know, going to get to the same point nevertheless. But interesting that it's, you know, I think people want answers quick, especially on the North Shore. I'm sure they're like, hurry up, things are falling into the ocean. Right?

Very much true. Yes. My phone rings a lot from homeowners on the North Shore wanting to know what to do. Yeah. All right, thank you. Chair.

Questions, Members. We'll move on to our final item on the agenda. House Bill 1345, House Draft 1.

This initial measure requires the Board of Regents to grant a waiver on all tuition and mandatory fees to a resident student enrolled in a four year college campus at the University of Hawaii system with an education program or that offers an education degree for semester or term that the student enrolls in the state approved teacher education program.

And we did float a and posted a proposed SD1 and that SD1 would authorize the Department of Education to subsidize all tuition and mandatory fees for a resident student enrolled in a four year college campus, the University of Hawaii, with an education program. So Basically the Bill 1345 HDF1 is requiring the UH to give waivers.

And the proposal that's out there is that this in fact would be funded by DOE. So having said that, I can call on our testifiers. Keith Hayashi for DOE. Anybody from DOE? Nobody here from DOE. Okay. Lena. Alan Le for Hawaiian Affairs, Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Here in support, Deborah Halbert. You're here.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the University. I'm Deborah Halbert, Vice President for Academic Strategy. We stand on our written testimony, but I did want to put it into the context that you just described.

Between the two different versions of the Ville, if the proposed SD1 were to go forward, we would defer to the Department of Education, who I believe recommends that we would look to their grow your own program. And I think Dean Murata is here to talk about the other ways in which the DOE already supports our students.

So that's the one piece. I also think that if the proposed goes Forward. It takes care of the concerns that our colleagues from Leeward raised about the two year campuses not being included given the language or that offers an education degree. I believe I'm reading that correctly.

On the other hand, if we go with the other version, then we would stand on our written testimony that offers comments and is generally supportive of the idea. As we all know, we want to solve the teacher shortage. It's just then a question of the cost of the tuition waivers.

So we've done a little bit of that calculation for the four years, but not for the system as a whole. And I'm happy to answer questions.

We will have questions. Yes.

Or bring up Dean Murata.

Thank you. Let's see, we have from HSTA or representative from HSTA because I know you're not.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair. Sarah Milianta for HSTA. I will go ahead and stand on our written testimony. Thank you.

Support both versions. Yes, thank you. Okay, anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure in person or on Zoom? None. Okay, so I guess we can have Deborah come on up. And so Members, I also, this is information. You know, the original bill sort of mandates and requires you to give tuition waivers.

I have a policy Members that I know, I get criticized all the time that we require New Age to do all sorts of things. And as you can see by many bills, I'm not the only one everybody else wants to require.

Uh, but one of the things with the tuition funds is that the Legislature gave UH the ability to utilize their tuition funds in whatever manner they saw fit. And we have, we cut, we cut the budget because of that. However, we still support the University to a pretty decent he said level.

And I'm hearing from other states quite a lot. But every time we ask you to waive something, then you're going to come back and say, well, you took our funds, so give us the money. Right? Or if I ask you now to waive for the teachers.

I know I've been asked before to wave for students that might take make Hawaii Hawaiian Studies their major. I've been asked to support to waive tuition for fallen veteran. I mean fallen police officers, law enforcement officers, for their children, their descendants, for veterans. I mean, it doesn't end right. They keep asking for all of these waivers.

And so you folks have the capacity and the ability to waive on your own, right? You do under policy.

We could add it to the policy.

You currently give out $162 million in tuitions and waivers and within that there's a whole slew of different people that you allot for waivers.

So I would hope going forward again, I don't want to dictate to you, but to look at where are the holes or the pukas in areas in which we need the, we need those areas like shortage of teachers, shortage of nurses.

So you know, there are so many areas that you would tailor some of that waivers that you're already given and a lot of that go to go to non residents as well. So you know, instead of me telling you who to give the waivers or this Committee, you should be, UH should be the one to determine that.

Okay. And in light of that and in the spill, we support the teachers, I certainly know we have a shortage of teachers and want to support them. And then I am aware, and I'm sorry, that DOE is not here, that they already do for college, that they supplement or they pay for the instructors. Is that correct or.

Yeah, we have an MOU or an MOA with the Department of Education for the really complex.

So in that sense I, you know, that's why we put together the proposed SD1, that if in fact it is benefiting the DOE and they're already doing it for early college, that we can do it for the student teaching as well.

Now I'm not sure if that's going to be a priority or not, but that is something I think that should certainly be looked at. Now, as far as the community colleges, I think the intent from HST was that they would be doing this for student teaching their last two years or their last year. Right.

That was the original intent, which doesn't. Necessarily comport with the community colleges two year degree. Is that correct?

It's my understanding though it does seem like the community colleges are concerned that their students would need similar benefits if they did do some sort of student.

Well, I think that would be the key, but at this point it's that. And so it's not to discriminate against the community colleges, but just to explain that that is what the intent of the original measure, which is what we just carried on in our proposed SD1, but having DOE actually provide the funding for that.

And of course this would have to go to ways and means and this would have to be looked at whether or not there's funding.

But in the meantime, I ask the University to please look at the $162 million that you folks already do in waivers and see if, if not the teachers don't rise to that level where the student teaching push and rise to the level of some kind of tuition waiver. Yeah. Thank you Members, any questions?

I see you thinking, go ahead, send it off.

So, so I know this is like likely not your bill, right. This was in a gov package, not something that UH, but I guess what, what is the, the data showing on why teachers aren't enrolling more?

And I'll also ask Dean Murata to come up to help with that answer. We have been looking at, there are multiple stages where these problems occur. So we have seen a decrease in the enrollment into education programs and you know, the national scene and the way in which teachers are looked at.

But I, I, I think I'll let Dean Murata give because we were having.

A conversation on tuition. Right. The question is, is tuition the barrier? I'm sure it, to some extent it is, but I, you know, I don't. Is it, is it the barrier that we need to tackle right now? I guess, I guess we just need to understand where we're going with this whole education thing. Right.

We all know that we need to fill a thousand teachers a year, but it's just a matter of what are we doing to. What is the, what is the strategy of how we're approaching that?

Chair Kim. Chair Kidani, thank you for having me. The strategy that we're looking at, as far as there is a national shortage, clearly we have one here. We are looking at ways to which to increase the teaching workforce.

We do know that anytime there is tuition assistance in some shape way or form, we will have an increase of potential candidates, particularly in the neighbor islands whereby they can stay on island and then we can subsidize and help them there without them having to come to Oahu is certainly a big plus.

But we do know for a fact that if there are some level of form of tuition waivers such as the grown, which we have a 30 somewhat student wait list of potential interested candidates that wanting to benefit from it. I think it certainly will help to increase the capacity for us.

But I guess the question is. So I think Roaron is great because it's DOE people and then they have to go back to DOE. I think the problem with the original draft the bill and that's why I support the SD one is that it's the Department paying.

So then you have some obligation in my mind to the Department. Right. I think giving straight off tuition waivers, you have no guarantee that these people are going to stay in the State of Hawaii or go to private school. That is correct. We still don't get that. At least with the person. Right.

For example, with the grow, we do have some built in mechanisms to monitor and to ensure that these students are providing a service obligation to the State of Hawaii.

So. But we haven't come back to ask for increase in grow our own though, since we have the wait list.

I just recently found out about the waitlist for 2425 and that's a recent anonymous.

Yes, sounds like. Right. So maybe that's where we got to focus more as well, is getting that wait list taken care of quickly. Yep.

And I can I just add we've been working really closely with the Lieutenant Governor on the teacher shortage and meeting regularly with her.

One of the things we did in that process is do some data analysis on the grow your own or how our retention rate is for our teachers who are from Hawaii versus those teachers who come from outside the state. And it's, it's pretty spectacularly different.

So we have the recruitment issue getting students in, which we're working on, and then we have the graduation piece, which is the student teaching piece, and then there's this re the retention piece once they are in the DOE and our grow your own students. I cannot remember. I think it was 75% retention versus close to 80%. Yeah.

So it's a substantially increased number of our students will remain teachers after five years if they're from here versus if they're not. So it does really lend credits to the kinds of programs like that.

And part of the challenge with the, with the University, with the Board of Regents monitoring too is we don't know.

We have to do some really internal kind of mechanisms to control, in fact, that they do stay in Hawaii to teach, you know, another layer of, you know, protocol that we'd have to ensure that if you're going to get this waiver, like Kim was saying, how do we ensure that they don't walk away.

And go, well, I am a firm believe in residency or requirements. If we give you something, you should, you should return something in exchange, right? Yes. You know, I think we were trying to get Jabsim to look at that, but I think every field that we're trying to. It's hard to staff we should look at.

But I think, I think that's what we got to look at. I think, I think we better go work on grow our own, make sure we get that list.

You know, I don't, you know, I think we're, I think the SD1 is headed in the right direction because I think it's, we got to have some accountability and for people to stay. I don't think we're in the.

The business of, yeah, we'll give you a free education and then you go help State of California or State of Las Vegas, Nevada. Right. So. All right, well, thank you, chair.

So how many students at the student teaching level or once they get into that level, actually drop out? Do you have any data to that?

Zero, you know, by the time they get to the student level, student teaching semester, the dropout is very low because they're. I think a lot of them realize that they're already there to complete the degree because if they were to switch out, they would probably have to stay another semester or so extra.

So a lot of them just finish up the degree, but it's very small.

So then let's go to this then. Does it make sense then to give a waiver at that level if we're not losing the students then? Because I know this was intended to retain the teachers and retain the teachers at that level if we're not losing them. They're kind of invested already. Yeah.

So I think that another entry point or where it might be.

Yeah, I think question would be then is how many of them that do graduate that actually go into a position, Teaching position right after they complete? Because there are a very small percentage of students that actually graduate but may elect to not teach right away and do other things prior to. We've got a.

I don't know the exact figure, but we do have students that elect not to jump into the teaching profession as soon as they're done.

So they do go through student teachers. They don't teach and they do not teach.

Right. When they're. They graduate. Correct?

Yeah. And when do you have any data to see when they do actually come.

Back that I don't have immediately, and I'm not sure if we do try. Can certainly ask my assessment people to see if we track that data because.

This, this measure doesn't say anything about. About that they have to teach. They have to stay in and teach. So we could give them this waiver and then they can choose not to teach.

Well, I think, I think they would have to realize when they. They do accept the waiver that there is a service obligation that's attached to receiving this waiver.

Pretty much like what we do with the. Grow our own with the promissory notes, et cetera, that each student has to get notarized and sign and return to us. So there is an agreement to serve.

Yeah.

Any other questions not. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Members that is the last item on the agenda.

I'm going to recess for decision making.

A call back to order the Committee on Higher Education. We are on our 3:05pm agenda starting and we're in decision making starting with HB6 563 HDraft 1. This is the University Wide Space and Science Engineering Initiative. The recommendation Members is that we're going to make technical non substantive amendments.

We're going to further defect the date to 07-31-2050 for further discussion and in the Committee report we're going to put in concerns that was raised here regarding the engineering program, engineering degree and you know, to be able to look at what our priorities are on that. Is there any discussion? Members hearing Non Chair votes aye.

[Roll call]

Thank you. And House Bill 1337 House Draft 1. The recommendation will be to defer this measure and I guess we've had that long discussion and hopefully that we the parties will get together and will come up with a plan and hopefully what the priorities are and come back to us if in fact that that develops.

So is there any discussion or any opposition to deferring the measure? Hearing None. Thank you. Now we go to House Bill 3 and this is relating to the beach management on the North Shore of Oahu. Extending the reporting date recommendation is to do technical non substantive amend and amend the defective date to July 31st, 2015.

[Roll call]

And finally on House Bill 1345 House Draft 1, the recommendation Members is to amend that to our proposed SD1 and further amend the SD1 to put in we want to have some kind of service requirement so that would be up to Doe to include that in there to ensure that we do in fact have our teachers or those that graduate go into teaching and that we make technical non substantive amendments and we defect the date to 07-31-2050.

[Roll call]

And that ends our hearing.