House Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning. I would like to call to order the public hearing with—for the Committee on Housing. It is Friday, March 14th, just after 9 a.m., and we are in Room 430. We will dive right into our agenda for today. Sorry—quick note.

For those on zoom, just please keep your yourself muted and your background your video off until you're called to testify. And please, no profanity. But we always have a very respectful housing Committee hearing. So I'm sure we won't get there. First item on the agenda is SP38SD2 relating to housing.

Vice Chair for the testimony HHFDC and support. Thank you. Department of Planning and Permitting. In opposition. Molly County Council Chair Alice Lee in opposition. Lahaina Strong. In opposition. Hawaii State Association of Counties. In opposition. On Zoom. Well, not present. Grassroots Institute of Hawaiian Support. Hi Good Neighbor. In opposition. On Zoom. Not present. Limby Hawaii in opposition.

Hawaii's thousand friends in opposition and two individuals in opposition. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB38SD2? Seeing none. Chair Members, any questions?

Dean, I have a quick question. Thank you. What are some of the common ways or the ways at least that the councils change the scope of the project that increase costs?

Some of the common ways are, for example for Honolulu, they recognize exemptions for units up to 120% AMI. So while our board might approve exemptions for units up to 140% AMI when it goes to the city, the city will approve them only for the units at 120% AMI or below.

There also have been some cases where they change the AMI mix of projects so they'll require more projects at say the 100% AMI level versus the 120% AMI level. And that of course changes the project's finances.

Okay, how about they ever change the fee waivers that are granted that you folks are granting?

Yeah, so that's like the sewer fee waivers that, that's a common amendment that they make at the city.

Okay. Okay. Thank you Members for the questions. All right, next time on the agenda is SB40 S2 relating to state finances. Vice Chair for the testimony HHFDC in support.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter? Seeing none.

Chair Members, any questions? All right, next on the agenda is SP71SD2 related to the rental Housing Revolving Fund.

Vice Chair for the testimony HHFDC with comments. Thank you. Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support. Thank you. Hakeem Catholic Charities Hawaii in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Members of the Committee. I'm Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Church, Hawaii. You have our written testimony. But I would like to go over a few very deep concerns that we have about this bill. First of all, changing the name, the, the rental Housing Trust Fund has been a very successful program.

And while we agree that there needs to be a focus on the state on for sale housing that seems to be the focus of this change, it could be done in a different way.

We feel that we suggest that going through DERF or something like that would give a more targeted, a more transparent and a more streamlined because it would be focused on that particular for sale initiative. How do you promote that? What's the best way?

Confusing it with the rental projects and the rental housing revolving Fund we feel would create confusion in the community and maybe in the Legislature also what's doing what. So we feel that we support other initiatives that might be looking at promoting that, but not this particular one.

Secondly, the removal of the elimination of the 5% set aside for those at 30% AMI and below. That's the only way the state is able to produce the those units. And they're critical units.

And it's not that there's overbuilding at the 50 or 60% aim high is that yes, these people are desperate and so they are going into these projects that they can just meet like they pay 50% of their income on rent. That's usually the standard in senior housing.

At least it's less for family housing, but so they get in there because there's nothing else. So we need to address that population rather than eliminate the set aside for them. We have other comments, but I would like to comment about the 5% a priority for having a loan of only 5 years.

If we have a mortgage, you have very high income to pay it back in five years. The only income for these projects is the rents and that means you have to have a very high income population of renters in order to afford this. That screening out.

I'm not sure even 100% MI would be able to afford to, you know, pay back loans in five years. So I think what the purpose of the rental housing revolving Fund was was to give stability to the market, to give a long term stability and to make it affordable. I mean that's why they had the lower percentages.

I was part of the group that started the Rent Housing Revolving Fund in the 1990s and the whole goal was let's get something that's going to be stable, it's going to be long term and it's going to be able to hopefully keep the rents low for the tenants.

Now, you know, inflation and all has affected that, but that was the goal. I think that should remain the goal because that's what's going to help our low and middle income people to really afford to stay in Hawaii. Is this Affordable rentals? Thank you very much for hearing me and for your consideration.

Thank you., Betty Lou. Church of the Crossroads in support. Hawaii Apple Scene in opposition.

Good morning. Arjuna Heim on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed, we're in opposition to the bill in this form, currently agreeing with Catholic Charities.

I would just like to point out in the 2023 funding allocations for regular rental housing revolving fund which is up to 80% AMI the LIHTC, there's $175 million awarded and there were 24 requests that totaled $45 million, $458 million. Sorry.

And for the Tier 2 program, 142 million was awarded when the total demand for Tier 2 funds was over $330 million. So in total there was 788 million in demand. But HHFDC was only able to award 317 million showing a massive shortfall in funding for price restricted rentals.

So we would respectfully request to either defer this bill or or change it so we keep the allocation priority as is and just expand it to that tier two program. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Hawaii Yimby with Comments Holomua Collaborative Wwith comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Joshua with Holomua Collaborative I'll largely stand on our comments.

I just wanted to note that the main thrust of them is we note that with the amendments that are proposed here, you do leave a gap in funding for projects for residents who have an area median income between 60 and 120%, which is a pretty important gap because a lot of the folks in there are going to be the people who are probably most likely to leave, have a hard time staying and have just enough means to leave.

So if you're going to advance some form of the measure, we would just suggest you do something to try to fill and bridge that gap. Thanks so much for allowing us to submit comments. Appreciate it.

Thanks Josh. We got one individual in opposition and three individuals in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify, please come to the podium.

Aloha Vice Chair, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. [Unintelligible] on behalf of NIAP Hawaii, apologies, you know for the mix up on our test written testimony. We will get that into the Committee as asap.

I just wanted to voice our concerns with this measure and of course, you know, it could clearly state we are in opposition to the bill. You know, for primarily, largely the bill excludes private development within, you know, development of affordable housing here in Hawaii or access to RHRF.

You know, partnership with the government and private developers has been successful in developing housing units across the state.

And we would like to see this continue in particular portions of the bill, including alteration of the prioritization, which include perpetual affordability and shorter loan terms, are very problematic in terms of obtaining financing and providing flexibility and attracting developers here to our state to ensure that our inventory and the building of our inventory continues to grow.

So, you know, for these reasons we do have strong concerns on the measure and you know, are available for any questions Chair thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this matter before us?

Seeing none, chair. Members, any questions? None. Alright. Next item on the agenda SB 378 relating to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Vice chair for the testimony.

HHFDC in support. Thank you. Maui County Council Chair Alice Lee in support. Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us.

Seeing none Chair.

Members, any questions? Seeing none—next item is SB572 SD1. End of Housing Vice Chair, of the testimony.

HHFDC in support

Stand on testimony and support.

Thank you.

Hawaii Habitat for Humanity Association—in support. Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement—in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on the matter before us?

Seeing none Chair.

Members, any questions? Seeing none—next item, SP1229 SD2, relating to the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund. Vice Chair, for the testimony.

HHFDC, in support.

Yes, sir, we stand in strong support of this measure. You know, in today's high-interest-rate environment, a program like this is really useful to help getting for-sale projects to be financially viable. And we realized that the measure was amended to make it—to continue the pilot program.

We would respectfully ask that it be made a permanent program.

Thank you.

Maui County Council Chair Alice Lee—in support. Hawaii Community Foundation—in support. Maui Chamber of Commerce—in support. Hawaii State Teachers Association—in support. Stanford Carr Development—in support. Castle and Cooks, Castle and Cook Homes Hawaii—in support. And one individual—in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us? Seeing none chair

Members, any Questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is SB 771 relating to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Vice Chair for the testimony.

HHFDC with comments. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 771? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions?

Seeing none. We are just blazing through. SB 602 related to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. Vice chair for the testimony.

Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support.

Thank you very much. We stand in strong support.

Thank you, Hakeem. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 602? Seeing none.

Chair Members, any questions? Seeing none. Next item is SB65 SD2 related to housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support. Thank you. Department of Human Services in support. Catholic Charities Hawaii, in support. Thank you. Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board number 34 in support. Kunia Village Title Holding Corporation in support. Anybody online or in person wishing to testify on SB65 SD2 Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Actually, I have a question for Hakeem. Good morning. Two related questions. One, could you walk us through what you guys want to do with the funding? And two, how much you're looking for?

I saw in an earlier Bill there was a reference to $10,000,000 or $10,172,000, a very specific number which was taken out and wasn't in the latest Committee report. So I'm just one, how much? Two, what are you going to do with it?

Thank you. So this is for the units that don't qualify for cipher, meaning that needs repair and maintenance. We've been averaging about $73,000 if we exclude anything that has to do with ADA, conversions that are required by law, those kind of things.

It is especially more important since the introduction of the Bill now that one of the five priorities for the Trump Administration is to eliminate public housing.

So we anticipate that as a result of that mandate that they want to implement, that they may reduce the funding that comes to us through other means to be able to repair maintenance.

So last year we got a $10 million appropriation. So far, we spent about 7 million or so. That's in contract. We believe that 8 to 10 million will let us move forward with 80 vacant units. And the vacant units every month we got additional vacancies, never static.

So if we look at the number today, tomorrow will be completely different because a lot of folks move through through different means. Okay, so 8 to 10 will do the job.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Members for the questions. Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is SB826SD1, relating to the low Income Housing Credit. Vice Chair for the testimony. HHFDC with comments.

Thank you. Department of Taxation with comments. Not present. Hawaii Public Housing Authority in person with comments.

Yes, thank you. We stand on Our strong concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Hawaiian Homelands in opposition on Zoom.

Yeah, on Zoom. Good morning everyone. My name is Keone Rivera and I'm here today representing Department of Hawaiian Homelands. In strong opposition to SB826. So for years LIHTC has been a. Critical funding source that has allowed us. To partner with developers and build affordable housing. Our Laiopua and Hanapepe projects are prime.

Examples how we have leveraged LIHTC to successfully bring housing opportunities. There's no reason why DHHL should be. Blocked from applying for LIHTC should we choose to develop projects independently in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments on zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We were reading the bill so that it really didn't make sense because. The. Bill only gives credits to people who file tax returns and we know government agencies don't do that.

But if what, what the, what the bill is trying to say is you don't get LIHTC credits if any government agency is involved in the planning or, or otherwise involved in the project. That really doesn't make sense either because agencies like HHFDC are involved in that. They have to certify them.

So I'm not really sure I understand what is going on with, you know, what is trying to be accomplished by this bill, but I don't think the current language accomplishes it. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Tom. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB826SD1 seeing none.

Chair, Members.

Members, any questions?

Dotax is not here. Right? I have a question I guess for Tom Yamajika.

Yes, sir.

So I am also confused. So I just kind of want to clarify. What you are saying in your testimony is that the language as is in the Bill would still allow a credit to be claimed by a state entity regardless of whether they're eligible to be allocated the credit? Right.

And that's because as I understand the statute currently says the credit may be claimed whether or not the taxpayer is eligible to be allocated a federal low income housing tax credit. So.

So I don't, I don't understand what the question is. I'm sorry.

So from my read of your guys testimony, you're saying even that state agencies already are not. They cannot get allocated the credit because they have no income tax burden, but the credit can still be allocated to a state agency, is that right? So state agencies that are utilizing LIHTC credits for development they can get.

This wouldn't impact their ability to get allocated the credit even if they can't claim the credit because they have no tax return.

If you're talking about allocation of federal credits, that's under federal law. So this. So this bill wouldn't impact federal.

No, I'm referring to the state credits. So. So I think we have concerns from state entities saying that they're not going to be able to utilize LIQ to develop housing. From your testimony, you're saying that this wouldn't actually do anything because the state entities can't actually claim the credit already because they don't have a tax liability.

So my understanding is even if they can't claim it, they can still get allocated the credit from somebody who can claim it. That maybe I can call up HG FTC to help clarify here. Sorry, Tom. I'll come back here in a second if.

Yes, sir. We're also unclear of the intent of this measure. It seems like the original version of the Bill was to prohibit certain state government entities from pursuing LIHTC financing. The current language though, it is, it's unclear what the intent is because as Mr. Yamachika noted, state entities do not file taxes. We don't claim tax credits.

But we're not sure if this measure was intended to prohibit state entities from pursuing LIHTC projects in General. So, for example, hhfdc, hpha, we all pursue affordable housing projects using vitec. And the way this is drafted, it says that task credit is not available for development planning or construction by any Department or agency of the state.

Does that mean that state agencies and departments cannot pursue light tech projects going further?

Okay, thank you. And so sorry, just to clarify. So Dean, sorry, so you don't, you don't have an answer? Then you are as unclear as.

Okay, and then, Tom, I think we're all confused. Yes.

Okay. My General State of being today. Okay, thank you, Tom.

Not only you.

Okay. Members, further questions? Seeing none. The last item on our agenda, SB 944 SD2, relating to the low income housing tax credit. Vice Chair for the testimony.

HHFDC in support. Thank you. Department of Taxation with comments. American Council of Life Insurers in support. Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii in support. Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Thank you chair, vice chair. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We'll stand in the written comments and be available for questions.

Thank you. Sugar Creek Capital in support.

Aloha chair, vice chair, committee members. Chris Delaunay with Strategies 360 on behalf of Sugar Creek Capital.

And yeah, just our recommendation would be to add back provisions listed that were listed in the companion bill, House Bill 949 HD1, and for lines 12 and 13 on page three, just the underlined language in those lines to be removed because it actually kind of says this act, but it's really refers back to section two.

So it's just to kind of preserve and protect what's already there and not to confuse the two. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, there were. There's a late testimony on your desk received from NAIOP. So NAIOP Hawaii in support. Oh, thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 944 SD2?

Yes.

Seeing none.

Chair Members, any questions? Seeing none. I'm actually going to go back to SB826SD1 from DOTAX. Yeah, could you guys, you have testimony on, on the measure?

Are we on 944? Sorry.

Back to 826SD1. Yeah.

Okay. So sorry, I didn't hear. So sorry.

826 is. I hadn't asked the question yet.

Well, I'm here on behalf of the Tax Department. Yes. And this bill seems to disqualify departments and agencies from the LIHTC credit. So. Yeah, I'm not sure what the intent of the bill is. It does more than clarify, but I didn't know if there was any questions. I'm not quite sure.

Yeah, I guess so the question that I am trying to parse out from Tax Foundation's testimony and from the comments made by HHFDC is that even if, with this current language, if we're saying that the tax credit is not available for any state agency where Tax foundation, as I understand, is saying they're not eligible already to claim the credit because they don't have a tax liability, but they can still be allocated the credit for development through the state LIHTC program through a transfer of the credit, as I understand.

And it's refundable. Yes. So. So, well, and I guess like, so. Even if they don't have a tax liability, they could still use it. I'm not sure at what extent departments are using it. Yeah, it appears that they are okay according to their testimony. So I. Okay. And it would help them to build low income housing possibly.

This is a tool that they use. This is a very popular tool tool for low income housing. So I'm not, I'm not sure what the intent of the bill is.

So your read of it though would be that it would prevent state agencies from being able to develop Li Tech housing for SW.

Yeah, that's possible.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Members, further questions? Seeing none. Sorry. Back to SB 944 SD2. Did you have testimony on that also?

So there was testimony from the Tax Foundation about that this language might be redundant and it possibly is, but it just does make it a little bit more clear that the transferer has to tell the Tax Department. But it is a little bit redundant, but I think we keep it in.

Thank you.

Members, questions?

All right.

We will recess briefly. Reconvening for decision making for our 9am agenda for the Housing Committee. First item on the agenda is SB 38 SD2, relating to housing. This bill would prevent the legislative body of a council from making changes to 201H projects that increase the cost of the project.

I think that there was compelling testimony from DPP that essentially any change could be construed as increasing the cost. If there's a redrafting or reorientation of, you know, the design in some capacity that would increase costs in a way that makes it really difficult to have this dialogue about these projects as they move through the legislative body.

That said, I do think that it is important to put some guardrails on what the legislative body of the counties can do to 201H projects.

So I recommend that we move this out with an HD1 and allow the legislative body to make modifications to the project but to prevent them from posing, imposing stricter conditions than those imposed by HHFTC. Stricter AMI requirements or a reduction in fee waivers that increase the cost of the project. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Yes, Representative Grandinetti.

Thank you.

So when Director Minakami talked about the 120 percent vs 140 percent AMI, that would no longer be allowed? Okay, thank you.

Members, further questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 38 SD2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments.

[roll call]

Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is SB 40 SD2, land estate finances. I recommend I move this out with HD1 with a defected date. Members, questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Noting the excuse absences of Representative Pierick and Cochran for the remainder of this hearing. Voting on SB 40 SD2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any members voting no? Any with reservations? Seeing none, chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Next item on the agenda is SB 71 SD2, relating to the rental housing revolving fund. Okay, so this bill is doing a lot of things and we're going to make some relatively comprehensive changes. So bear with me as I talk through some of this.

So I just want to highlight some of the notes that were brought up in testimony that it would delete the 5% set aside for 30% AMI projects. LIHTC and RHRF are a critical source of funding to ensure that these projects can pencil. These are for individuals and families that are really on the verge of homelessness.

And this we need to ensure that we can continue developing these units, yet the bill would delete the set aside and the preference for projects that allocate funding to them. It would also narrow essentially tier 2 to just 120% to 140% projects.

So as was brought up in a number of pieces of testimony, this would create a huge gap between 60% and 120% AMI. So above 60% are the households that are not going to qualify for, you know, state or federal assistance, yet they make too little to purchase housing in the market.

And this would essentially, as far as I can understand from the bill and as was brought up in testimony, delete any potential preference for housing projects that was providing funding for that group between 60% and 120%.

And then also it would put a preference for projects with a five year loan term which would be rapidly revolving which, as HHFTC brought up in their testimony, would likely lead to the targeting for higher AMI households as those are the ones that are higher AMI projects, as those are the ones that can more rapidly revolve.

And I think putting that together, I just want to quote a line from Appleseed's testimony. Quote, this bill's focus on higher income brackets would not only continue to neglect those most in need, but would also perpetuate the disparity between the availability of housing for those at the lowest and moderate income levels.

The house has expressed our position on Tier 2 and the Rental Housing Revolving Fund already in HB 432 which would establish the mixed income sub account to prioritize Rental Housing Revolving Fund for those between 60% and 140% AMI.

Again, those who make too much to qualify for traditional forms of assistance, yet too little to purchase housing on the open market. This is teachers, most blue collar professions, first responders, et cetera.

That priority is largely irreconcilable with much of the current contents of SB 71 in that they're doing, changing the same section of statute but doing very different things.

So my recommendation is that we move out in HD1, that we delete the entire contents of the bill, and insert the contents of HB 432 HD1 and reference in the committee report that an appropriation that we recommend an appropriation into the mixed income sub account of $75 million in each of the next two fiscal years and tech amendments as necessary.

Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 71 SD2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any members voting no? Any with reservations? Seeing none, chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda.

I am calling about an order I had placed back in February and.

Sorry. Next item on the agenda, SB 378 relating to the Hawaii Housing and Finance Development Corporation. I recommend that we move out in HD1 with tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style and a defected date. Also to clarify that the chairperson of the group shall be the chair of the board of directors of HHFDC or their designee.

Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 378. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any members voting no? Any with reservations? Seeing none, chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 572 SD1, relating to housing. I recommend that we move this out with an HD1 simply with a defected date. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 572 SD1. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any members voting no? Any with the reservations? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Next item is SB 1229 SD2 relating to dwelling and revolving fund. I recommend that we move this out with an HD1, with a defected date and tech amendments as necessary. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 1229 SD2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any members voting no? Any with the reservation? Seeing none, chair the recommendation is adopted.

Next item is SB 771, relating to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. I recommend that we move on HD1 with a defected date. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 771. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any members voting no? Any with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 602 relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. I recommend that we move this out as is. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 602. The recommendation is to pass as is. Are there any members voting no? Any with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 65, relating to housing. I recommend that we move this out with an HD1 with the defected date and to reference in the committee report that $10 million should be considered for an appropriation. Members, any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 65 SC2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any members voting no? Any with the reservations? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Next item is SB 826 SD1, related to the low income housing tax credit. Again, I just want to note confusion in the testimony and on my own part on what this would actually achieve. And so I want to revert. I recommend we move Solomon HD1 and revert to the language as originally introduced and to defect the date.

And I just want to note that this should still be up for sort of continued dialogue in the next committee to parse through what the impacts would be.

The language as originally introduced was more narrowly targeted to SFA and if it does what I think the introducer intended, then it would preclude SFA from utilizing LIHTC credits for the development of teacher housing.

I think that there is some logic there in that if we're developing teacher housing we want to make sure that all teachers can qualify for this housing and LIHTC credits would preclude many teachers from being able to to live in that housing. So I think there is some logic to more narrowly defining that.

Whether it actually achieves the intended purpose or not I think is up for further consideration and it'll be good if, you know, if dotax and others can sort of dive into this and let the next committee know what exact actually would do. Thank you. Members, any? Sorry if I didn't say it already, defect the date.

Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 826 SD1. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any members voting no? Any with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 944 SD2, leading to the low income housing tax credits. Tech amendments.

I recommend we move without an HD1, tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style with a defected date, and then to actually revert to the language from the HB 949 HD1, which was the house version of this with the exception of language on page three, line 12 starting at quote as amended through line 13.

And this largely will result in basically tech amendments. Just to clarify, the some of the sunset provisions doesn't change the intention of or or most of the content of the bill. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 944 SD2.

Actually, give me one second here. Let me just triple check that I said the right bill here. Yes.

Can I proceed with the vote? Thank you. Try this again. Voting on SB 944 SD2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any members voting no? Any with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you members. Thank you everybody here today. Seeing no further business, this hearing is now adjourned.