Senate Standing Committee on Higher Education

Call to order. The Committee on Higher Education Today is Tuesday, March 18th. It's 3:02pm we're in Rome Conference Room 229 and this meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. And the unlikely event that we got a abrupt for for some reason due to technical difficulties.

A Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Thursday, March 20th at 3:30pm in Conference Room 229. And a public notice will be posted on the Legislature's website. There is a one minute testifier per limit and with that we will start with our first agenda item. It is House Bill 718.

This relates to the positions at the John A. Burns School of Medicine. Sorry, that appropriates funds for the University of Hawaii John Abrar School for faculty positions in the fields of cardiovascular, vascular biology, tropical medicine and quantitative health, biostatics, biostatistics and environmental health and safety officer position. With that we have from Jabson, Samuel A. Shoemaker, Coco Simon. Aloha.

Aloha Chair Kim. Vice Chair Kidani. Thank you for having me. I'm here testifying in support of this measure. We will stand on our written testimony and be available to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Coco, did you want to also respond? No. Okay, nice Here. Okay. Christian Fern in support. Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Anyone on Zoom? Okay. We do have five others that sent in written testimony, all in support. So questions Members Shoemaker, if you want to come up.

So these positions are in addition to other positions that you're asking for for the.

No, these are newly positions I know.

We talked about getting more. More medical students in. So will these positions help that or separate positions?

They will. There will be teaching medical students as well as doing biomedical.

Okay, so that'll let us. You increase the class, what, 75 now? 77. 77.

And we are going to try to get to 80 very, very precipitously quickly. And we are working on the physician workforce position paper that you requested and we should have that available for your review quite soon.

Just want to make sure we're covering all the bases here. Okay. Any other questions? Question? No. Okay, thank you very much. We will move on to Senate Bill 1170, House Draft 1. This relates to the University of Hawaii resident tuition fee.

This requires the University of Hawaii to grant resident tuition fee for enrollment at any University of Hawaii campus to individuals who graduated from a Hawaii high school and are enrolling in undergraduate degree program under certain conditions. Let's see Keith Hayashi or DOE

Testify on behalf of the Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony in support of HB 1171.

Thank you, Terry. Deborah Halbert.

Good afternoon Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani Deborah Halbert, Vice President, Academic Strategy we stand on our written testimony and support. We have a recognized your comments and questions from the last time the Senate Bill was heard and tried to adjust our testimony accordingly. Thank you. Open for any questions.

I appreciate you doing that. By the way, I was going to ask you about last year. Let me just ask is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Anybody on Zoom?

And I believe Associate Vice President Gomes is on Zoom for additional technical answers.

Okay. So yeah, the last time we introduced this came up is it it went the gamut from 10 years to 6 years to 4 years to 2 years. I know community colleges back then, Mike Unubasami were fine with two years and possibly four years. So what is your folks's position on the number of years?

I believe the stated in the laws or in the potential revisions is four years in part to give students time to leave and return and still keep either complete an undergraduate degree or be ready for graduate school.

Yeah. I think also last time I asked the question whether or not we really needed Bill like this.

Right. And that's what we tried to do with our first paragraph here is to talk through why it would be useful though again we acknowledge that the administrative rules is another possibility or how we could revise those. And if MVP Gomes is on, I'm not sure if she's here. She can provide further details.

Yeah. So are you here? Yes.

Yes, there she is.

So has there been any attempt to look at your administrative rules since then? Since last year to now, there have.

Been conversations with the residency officers across all of our 10 campuses and they are prepared to move that forward if we're not able to get this revised via the bill. That is our at this point, that is our only other option for this desired outcome. It will take.

It will take a little longer if we go the har revision route, but it's an option.

So what's the Magic Number of 4 years, 2 years, 6 years? Have you first looked at that?

Are you asking from a, from an enrollment standpoint, a revenue standpoint?

No, from just the fact that somebody leaves Hawaii and they're gone for such a long time that it's like, well if four years are good, then why not 10 years? Why not 20 years? You know what I'm saying? What's the rationale?

So there definitely are different perspectives on that and depending on who you talk to, you'll get a different version. But the reason why we're supporting this version for four years is we have seen many students who have left the state and pursued a degree elsewhere and they return prior to actually obtaining that degree.

Maybe two or three years into a four year degree elsewhere, they come back here to Hawaii and they cannot immediately pursue the degree because of residency rules and that prohibits them from reengaging quickly. And then they, what we hear from a lot of people is they just never return after that.

So the, the four years is an opportunity for those who may have gone away and not completed the degree to still come back and finish without being interrupted by other life circumstances.

We do think that it's also an opportunity to address the brain drain that we see and also an opportunity for people who maybe made a difficult choice to go away and realized after moving away that was not the best choice for them.

That makes a lot of sense. And I don't know if you have any data that shows at what point do people who go away to school actually realize that they're too homesick, they want to come back. It really wasn't what they thought it was going to be.

I know for myself I stayed, I went to uh for two years and then went away because I was a little bit more acclimated to college. I was a little bit more mature. So I was able to, to sustain and graduate. But I know I had friends that went away from freshman year and they were really homesick.

And most of them come back within the second year. Right. Instead of the four years or three years?

Yes. So we see a lot of students that come back immediate. There's a large number that come back immediate after the first year. The number starts to drop in the second and the third year.

What we see with students in the second year is the amount of financial assistance that, that's available to students in that second and third year drops significantly across the board, regardless of the type of school they go to. So the decision is to come, come back home at that point.

Usually if they come back within a year. Did they lose their residency here?

Usually not if they qualified upon leaving. And so the first paragraph in the Bill actually addresses that. And it's a timing issue for most people. If it's within one year from, from the start of the semester, fall semester, then there's a good chance that they could still qualify.

And so the four years include that first year as far as you're concerned? Yes. Yes. Any other questions?

So to qualify as a resident they have to have been here. If they moved away, they have to come back and be here for a certain number of months. 12 months.

One year. Yeah. Residency with one year.

Right. The proposal, as it's written in this version, is an 'or' statement. And so as long as they graduate from a high school within the last four years, they do not have to physically be here.

She's asking now, without the bill, if they come back, they have to wait one year, right? Yes, that is correct.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. We are moving on. House Bill 1300 of draft one relating to cancer.

Appropriates funds for the University of Hawaii Cancer Center to conduct a multi ethnic cohort study focusing on the social determinants of health, lifestyles, environmental exposures and resilience factors of Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Filipinos, including an analysis of health effects and risk of individuals living in close proximity to landfills in Nanakuli.

Requires University of Hawaii Cancer Centers to seek federal funding to complete the study. So you can guess where this came from, this bill came from. Let's see. Testifying. Is McKenna Woodward in support? McKenna, you're here. No. Lonnie park on zoom. Aloha, Lonnie.

Hi. Hi. Hi. Chair and Vice Chair. Thank you for having me. I am Dr. Lonnie Park. I'm a researcher.

Can you speak up a little bit? Hard to hear you.

Can you hear me now? I apologize.

That's a little bit better.

Okay. So my name is Lonnie Park. I am a researcher at the University of Hawaii Cancer Center. I would be one of the researchers conducting this study alongside with Drs. Alika Mauna Kea and Dr. Brenda Hernandez.

We stand by the testimony that was submitted, the written testimony from the University of Hawaii, and we stand by for any questions that you may have.

Okay, let's. We'll probably have questions after we go through all the testifiers. Akira Sano. Hi. Come forward, please. State your name and then give your testimony.

Hi. My name is Kira Sana. Aloha, Chair Kim and Vice Chair Kidani. I'm here testifying in strong support of HB 1300. As a social science researcher, I understand the critical role that data plays in uncovering health disparities. But for me, it's more than research. It's personal.

My grandmother Kathy, who helped raise me when my mother was struggling with brain cancer, a native Pacific Islander who lived here in Aiea Heights, passed herself away from lung cancer.

She was also a strong advocate for AAPI rights, and as such, I want to honor her by advocating here today this year alone, over 9,000 Hawaii residents will be diagnosed with cancer and 2,400 will lose their lives. Like my grandmothers, Filipino and Native Hawaiians experience higher rates of advanced stage diagnoses for lung, prostate and kidney cancers.

Social determinants of health, including multigenerational households, access to care, income disparities and cultural stigmas must be studied to understand and reduce these disparities. This study will not only generate life saving data, but also position Hawaii for. Further national research funding, bringing more resources to our communities. For your time and consideration, thank you.

Welcome, Cynthia. Cynthia Au. On behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, or ACS, can we stand in strong support of this bill. Cancer is a leading cause of death among Asian Americans and the second leading cause of among Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islander individuals.

It is becoming more evident that health outcomes are impacted by social Deter Determinants. Your household income, how far your closest clinic is, or if you can take time from work to go to preventative screening.

But there are even more layers, such as whether where you live is in a multi generational household, cultural stigmas, or talk on talking about health problems and fears about going to a doctor and getting checked if you live in the vicinity of a landfill.

These are a few factors that contribute to the disparities that we see in health outcomes and especially cancer outcomes. Collecting data on the social determinants and environmental factors of the populations of Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders and Asian groups, including Filipinos, will help to provide much needed information on why these groups suffer higher cancer disparities.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you. See anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Anyone on Zoom? If not Members, we are open for questions. University of Hawaii Mani, are you still there?

Yes, I am. She is.

So, Lonnie, this is a two year study?

Yes. Well, the. It would be the pilots. What we would be asking for is appropriation of funds to conduct a pilot feasibility study. So the study would go on for greater than two years, but the pilot would be con. Would be for two years and the.

Cost is for the pilot only?

Yes.

How much is that?

Approximately 500,000 per year for two years.

And what is anticipated after that?

We would be collecting data from the participants that we would recruit to the cohort study. Those participants would be followed prospectively. We would obtain subsequent funding in order to follow those individuals and we can link them back to their cancer incidents as well as look at other health outcomes.

What kind of funding are we talking about?

Either federal or from other foundations.

Approximately how much?

How much? Two to 3.0 million per year.

And the 500,000 is that you're supposed. Are you. I know the bill calls for you to get seek federal funding. Yes, but it's not clear as to how much or what portion. Was there an intent there?

The intent is to obtain federal funding. We've continued to put in applications to try to obtain federal funding for this study, but I think having that feasibility data would help. It would make for a much more competitive grant.

It says the University of Hawaii Cancer center shall seek federal funding. It doesn't say if it's a matching funds or we would.

We would ask for more than 2 million per year as we understand that that's the necessary amount to continue the study in a full. In beyond a feasibility.

So what's going on with the Federal Government? Do you think you folks are going.

To get this so we understand that there are things going on with the Federal Government those are unexpected. But while I cannot predict what will happen in the future, I do know that our team has been very competitive in the past to obtain federal funding for similar a study that is similar but obtaining different data.

It does not have all the data that we would need. So I think we could obtain federal funding. We are also having have looked at alternative solutions as including nonprofit and private foundations.

So what would be the focus of this? It specifically talks about Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Filipinos and including analysis. If you're living close to a landfill and they even name nanakuli. Is that the intent that you're going to focus on that?

So the intent would be to focus on measures such as environmental exposures. So that would include the landfills as well as social determinants of health. And those things do they are correlated.

Okay, but is there going to be an emphasis on the landfills?

There will be an emphasis on the landfills and as well as other environmental exposures.

Senator Hashimoto. So I guess quick question for UH. So what are you going to do with this data and what is it going to lead you to accomplish? I guess after the study is done. So the study is trying to close. Down the landfill or what is the whole purpose? I guess so I think.

Well I know that the purpose is it's a longitudinal study. So it would be the participants events would be continued to be followed. The obtaining the data will allow for sort of looking at it in a longitudinal matter which is one of the few ways that we can assess risk of say cancer or other outcomes.

The goal would be to have the evidentiary support that would be needed, whether or not that would be to provide data to the state or to other organizations. That this indeed is associated with adverse health is one of the. Would be one of the goals.

Right. So, but, but what is it then that we get out of it?

The information would be these. Whether or not is associated with those outcomes, but is sort of beyond the scope to try to shut down for us personally. And I'm not saying I'm not going to argue whether. I mean, I definitely believe in wanting one way versus the other. However, that would be part.

It would be policyholders and key stakeholders. So it would provide necessarily necessary data for key stakeholders to be able to advocate one way or the other. I think it is clear that there's a lot of missing data out there. So it's hard to make an argument aside from the fact that everyone does not want the landfill there.

Okay, well, I guess the question is then, is, you know, if it's a study that in theory should be really useful, you would think there'd be people chomping to get, you know, private funders to Fund this. Right? Because then the outcome will allow them to do something.

And I'm just trying to have a hard time grasping what that outcome would be for us and what that data gets us. You know, I guess you want to study cancer more. Okay, that's one thing. Okay. You want to understand landfills, okay. We can't even figure out where to put our next landfill.

So, you know, we want to study this current landfill. So. So I'm just trying to make sure that if we're going to use public dollars, like, what do we get out of it other than, okay, it's going to keep you busy for the next two years rather than, you know, because we want to go someplace with this.

If we're going to Fund a study, we should be using the data to then make, you know, to. To move us forward instead of just us picking a topic, say, it sounds cool.

But then after the study, then we just have the data and it's going to sit on a shelf, and then we don't know what to do with it. And that's the concern, right. I'm trying to tease out of you. Like, okay, yeah, I completely understand.

I think there's. I mean, there's a lot of complex components. It is not just because it's something cool to study.

It is something that is clearly, people are seeing disparities in certain populations within the state, and those populations do reside in higher concentrations in certain areas and, and it may be associated with the fact that there are exposures that are, have.

That are correlated with social determinants of health and things that are sort of unjust in trying to avoid using certain terminology. But given the Federal Government, however, to be able to say that certain things should be moved, certain things should be closed down, there needs to be adequate support of that.

And while we truly, while there are populations that do believe that that is the case, there is, there's a lack of that data. So we can there.

It's hard to shut down some landfill or other environmental exposures without the adequate data that would be important to be able to say that, look, this is directly associated with an adverse health outcome.

So that's fine. And that's fine. You want to say that that's fine. I think what worries me more is when the cancer center starts to select things you have to really be thinking about.

Okay, you know, when you take a look at a self sustaining model for the cancer center of how are you going to find yourself into the future as, you know, tax, cigarette taxes, decline, you know, what are the things that are out there that will make your studies very useful? Right.

And what are the ancillary ways that you can raise money based on things that are questions that people really want?

Answ and if it's something that is not fueled by entities that will then help the cancer center move some type of research forward and doesn't have an end goal in mind that will help the center as a whole to generate some revenue at some point.

It's hard to really put it all together to really make us excited about, okay, we're going to Fund it because there's a future at the end, there's light at the end of the tunnel. Because if you do this, then it'll open the door to this.

Can I use a previous, can I use an example then from, from a few previous studies that are using the same perspective model?

It's fine. I'm just telling you that's the way that you should be pitching it to us. Okay. That's if you're going to convince me, at least it needs to be okay, this makes sense. Okay, we got to Fund this because this will open the door for the cancer center.

But when you say it's like, okay, yeah, nice to have, I'm just like, okay, so, okay, so I don't know, I don't know why it's worth the investment. So.

Well, yes, I see what you're saying and I do it really is that the Evidence needs to be there. For example, if we look at something like lung cancer, people have always assumed that lung cancer disparities. I get that.

I get that you want the data, but what is the data going to help you then? To open the door to helping our society in General?

So the data would also, you know.

Cure, or is it going to get us, you know.

Okay, so the data. Okay, so. Okay, so the data will allow us to really understand who the at risk groups are.

So for instance, if we go back to something like lung cancers or other things, we've been able to identify that there are at certain populations at lower levels of smoking, it is associated with higher risk of disease. And as a result, that has provided evidentiary support for the U.S.

prevention Task Force, the USPSTF, to change the guidelines for lung cancer screening. Originally, the lung cancer screening guidelines were at 30 pack years, and those dropped down to 20 pack years. Without having the published data showing that there are certain populations at higher risk for the same smoking levels that we could not make that modification.

That's great that you get that data, but is that going to help Fund the cancer center?

So this, I wouldn't say this is a goal to help. So we're saying that this goal would provide data to help Fund another subsequent study to be conducted. That is, yes, the data would be there.

Okay.

Because it would provide data that we could obtain.

Yeah. My point is, it's. We shouldn't. I don't know if your role is to just Fund study after study. I think your role should be at some point finding some innovation that will help us move the needle on cancer research to find some cure. And you need resources to do that.

So I think you got to work on that. You got to work on what is the end goal and how to get the money that you need to then do the hard issues of cancer. So anyway, I think. Please go back and think about that and come up with something and we'll go from there. Maybe.

Let me ask, on a scale of 1 to 10, how important you believe the study is?

I would say a 10. 10.

How many studies have you folks have been doing at the cancer center on different types of cancers?

We have a number. I would say, just as myself. Right now, I am. I have five NIH grants that are running different studies.

And those fundings come from what? Where?

Nih.

NIH loan grants. Okay. What I'm trying to, and I've said this before, is that, you know, Hawaii gets a lot of research dollars. How much of those dollars are really then Focused on the people here, the diversity, the ethne breakdown and so forth.

And it seems as though the only time we, and I shouldn't say only seems like the times that I've been here, that the Legislature had to Fund bile duct cancer because of all the funds you guys get, it didn't go to bile duct cancer. That affects Asians. They think it might have come from watercress, so forth.

You know, it's like this one, we're talking about Native Hawaiians, Filipinos, Pacific Islanders. And yet those nc, what is it? NCI funds that you're, that you're using.

They are, they're not from other institutions at the Nih.

So whatever that is is not going to Fund these studies. You come to us for General Fund Dollars.

So I'm just saying that, you know, I've been asking and hoping that we are really focusing some of the so called research dollars that you know, UH, brag about getting, but a lot of them are not being geared to our local population and the problems like this.

So specifically I would say for all five that are geared to our local population, they are looking at cancer and disparities in our local populations. I can attest to all five of them, yes.

Okay, so why isn't that include this?

So I have been putting in applications, but I think that we have been receiving a competitive score, but it was not funded. I do believe that with additional data that would help to make it far more competitive.

The other question I have is so what if the data comes back that landfills are indeed causing cancer? Landfills are indeed bad and it can be tied to cancer, all landfills. So then what do we do? I mean we gotta, it does, it does help. Does it go to Kawai Kai then?

I mean, you know, I'm saying where do we put them then?

That it would be beyond the scope of so one I would love to collaborate with someone to find out where, you know, whether it's engineers or policyholders to figure out that that is a different, that is beyond the scope of my expertise.

So I, I, but then what it would allow us to do is it would allow us to understand who that at risk group is. So maybe we could talk to their primary care physicians. Other, they're, they're the ones that they are working with in order to say that this group is at higher risk.

So maybe we do need to screen much more actively because they are at higher risk for developing a certain type of cancer.

I would think for prevention purposes and to be on the safe side whether the data shows it or not.

I think that those people that live nearby or that the disadvantage or whatever it is that they should be the, the physicians should be looking, they should be double checking, they should be giving them additional without having to wait for data. I mean to me that's common sense.

I would, I would love 500.

$1000 study to determine that.

I agree that it would be nice to be able to say that and if, and I would be happy to work with any physicians. But at the same time there are times where we do need some evidentiary support that has its evidentiary based medical practices.

I've seen many, many stories about small communities that were affected by the water or were affected by the power lines and they show case after case of the facts and still nothing was done or you know, they, they still did not get the kind of attention that they needed to.

So that, you know, makes me really uneasy about what all the data shows and whether or not it's going to do something other than us using knowledge and common sense to say, hey, there's got to be some impact.

I mean, I don't think you can necessarily live by power lines and, and, and landfills and not have some kind of impact. I mean that's just the society we live in today. You know, cell phones are not good for you. You shouldn't be putting it on your laps, you shouldn't be holding it close to your bodies.

And yet we do, right, we shouldn't be looking at the screen because your eyes, the blue light and all that is bad on you. I mean, so these are all the kinds of concerns that is out there.

And I'm just wondering what's going to happen if it says yeah, no landfills, period, then nobody throw your rubbish away, everybody recycles and no landfills.

No, but I mean, we appreciate the work that you folks are doing, but I think in the whole scheme of everything that we have to show the outcomes because there is, where do we get the money from? We're going to take it from somewhere. So do we take it out of the tobacco funds?

Do we take it out of the cancer center budget? It's got to come somewhere, right? It's not, we can't print the money. So do we take it from the seniors? Do we take. Because we can't take it from collective bargaining. We can't take it for our social programs, our social net, we can't take it from education.

So you, you got to think it's got to come somewhere. And everybody says, well don't Touch my budget. But where's it going to come from?

I do. I would like to add one more thing. I do agree with you that there are a lot of things that are unhealthy for us, but at the same time, not every one of us that are exposed are getting cancer.

And I think having that sort of data to be able to disentangle who is at higher risk within those cell populations is very important. And that is the sort of data that we would need because can't just tell everyone to move away. It's exactly what you had said.

But then to be able to personalize that, to be able to understand that these combinations is something would put someone at much greater risk, is something that we don't have data for and that would be able to help assess a better risk profile.

In order to say that this is the group that needs to be screened, watched more actively.

You get neighbors next door to each other, same nationality or may not be impacted the same way. You've got people in a family that one might get cancer under the same situation and the others don't. So I think that exists no matter what. Right.

I mean, there's going to be some data, but the data is always going to have diversions and not always. Yes.

And having a study like this would be able to help disentangle that.

I don't know that. Okay. Senator Kidani, you had a question?

Yes. I can't remember who it was that I think gave toast testimony that multigenerational families. Yeah, yeah. Can you explain that a little bit more?

Can you just come up and. Yeah, we don't have a lot of time.

Yeah. So multigenerational households being impacted by cancer. It definitely is an issue. As a social science researcher, there are a lot of different factors and why it's important that we study them is. That it helps us as ACS can. We're an organization that works on policy. It helps us do data driven decisions.

To work with policymakers like you guys. To be able to pass it long. Term to maybe shut down a landfill or move it towards an area where we don't have as many populations who are POC or multi generational. So it doesn't impact. We can more strategically plan where to place landfills. That's why it's important.

So is this study geared towards multigenerational? Yes, it is.

From my understanding of what the study was, it was multi generational. It was looking at different factors, social. Determinants of health, which includes this.

Okay, so when you say multi generational Are you saying that all the generations in the household have.

There's multiple generations in a household?

No, I, I know that, but they. All are getting cancer or only some. I mean, skips and generations.

Yeah, yeah. From what I've seen, I've seen it skip generations sometimes. I've seen multiple families get it from my experience. So, like my grandmother, my mom and me, I have a risk for cancer, colorectal cancer. I've seen my grandma be impacted by lung and liver cancer.

I've seen my mom have stage four breast cancer that turned into brain cancer. I'm also from California, and I've seen our entire community be impacted by breast cancer too. Just like within one city, it's been horrendous. And you live by a landfill. Yeah.

Thank you.

So that's why it's important for me at least to see these environmental factors. I'm also a researcher in environmental health, so I study and this is really helpful for us to be able to pass policy long term. Just to answer your question on why it's important we use this data on. The day to day.

We use it to advocate for these policies. We use it to inform these people that they are impacted because it's important for them to know that they are being impacted. And you'd think that is common sense, but it's actually not. And most people don't believe that. zero, they're like, zero, there's so many different factors of cancer. Right.

But there's actually preventable ones. That policy can actually move. So that's why I asked about how.

Close were you to the landfill?

I don't know how close exactly. Where do you live? I was in Fremont.

You're talking about in the mainland?

Yeah, yeah, in Heights. Okay. That's kind of far.

Yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you. One last question, Lonnie. How many participants would you guys be following in the study, approximately?

For the national study? We would want to follow at least 30. 30,000.

This is going to be a national study?

Yeah. Meaning if it was, when it was national, when we would get national funding, we recruit up to 30.

So what you're asking us for the $500,000 a year for two years, how many participants would you be following and would they all be Hawaii?

They would all be Hawaii. Every. All. Even the 30,000 would be Hawaii. The half a million would probably be. The. Would be able to recruit probably 10. Somewhere between 5 to 10K.

5 to 10,000 participants? Yes. And you're going to follow all of them in two years and you're going to come up with all this data in two years.

We would have to continue to follow them for the cancer risk, but we could obtain other cross sectional analyses to be able to see if there's correlations and associations. And I do want to confirm that, yes, it would be a multigenerational study.

If not. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on.

Our last item is House Bill 1168, House Draft 1, relating to the University of Hawaii revenue bonds. And let's see. Amy Kunz? I don't see Jan Gouveiia here. On Zoom...oh, there she is.

Amy Kunz, Associate Vice President Controller here in Calvert's place. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The University stands in support of this Bill and we're available for any questions.

Okay. I don't have anyone else justifying, so why don't you sit there. Jan, did you want to add anything to this.

I believe. Thank you, Senator. Yes, we have submitted our written testimony where we detailed a little bit further. Sorry. The. What. The. What the revenue bonds would be used for for student housing projects. And so.

And we also have Kyle Phillips as a senior analyst in my office who is in the room that can also provide additional information on the details of the project.

But in essence, we are supporting this measure to the extent it allows us to float revenue bonds to complete CIP projects planned for student housing upgrades and improvements for FY26 and FY27.

So you're looking at a 25%. Funding up to 25% of the housing capital projects?

50% is what the House proposed. Yes.

But in your testimony. Are you saying. You're saying 25.

No, we are saying 50%.

You are saying 50.

But 25%, Jan. Sorry. 25% is what the board was presented in November and the assumption.

Yes.

Made that 25% from the board was approved to be used for revenue bonds for housing.

And all of this, all of this funding is, would be utilized or for those particular projects and not be something else.

We could dedicate it to all of this to housing. Yes, there's substantial enough projects that. That need to be done.

Is there, is there a research one in here that I was told that might be a 50, 50 million dollar research?

I don't think that's far enough along in the process. I think it's a possibility, but not far enough along. And I'm not sure with the current federal status if that's still a viable project.

I don't see Vice President Samos here. That's his...

So I can check on that and get back to you.

Okay.

So I guess we don't have the breakdown, Jan, just so you know in front of us. So I think just to be clear, your FY26 list of projects is 61.5 million, and your fiscal year 27 projects is 57 million. Is that the number?

Yes.

Okay, so then it. Would you, we just need to divide those by two, then to get them out that you needed revenue bonds. Okay.

Yes. Sorry, Senator. Yeah, I think there's some balancing that we needed to do in terms of the level of detail that we could provide or that we should provide with the revenue bond flexibility, I guess, in how we word the revenue bond language. I don't know, Amy, if you can explain a little further. But yes, we. All the projects will be for student housing, primarily at Hale Wainani.

Okay. And maybe you can give us a breakdown on how the funds will be used, because these are borrowed money. So what are the types of things that we're going to be using for to capitalize these projects? So it's not like, you know, repairing, but it's like replacing. So maybe you can go over that for us.

Right. With the issuance of revenue bonds. I think we would prefer to be broader to cover student housing, even if some projects may be covered. But I would be worried about issuing a revenue bond for a specific location and only being able to use the revenue generated from that to repay that bond. Whereas if we say student housing, it gives us a broader revenue....

No, no, no. What I'm talking about is what are you spending the bonded monies on? Okay, so is it like you're buying windows, you're buying. What are you doing? Because where you're borrowing money to pay for some of these things? We just. We just want to make sure we know what. What those things are.

Right. And this would be full renovations on at least one building to make sure that, you know, building envelopes, infrastructure and interiors are fully replaced.

So that qualifies for bonding. Yes. Okay.

Is that Wainani, if you're going to do the full renovation? That was a plumbing issue, right. Originally, you guys told us the plumbing needed to be done on that building.

Yeah, there's actually. There's a lot of issues that need to be done in Hale Wainani. So it would be full gut and rental of building G and building H is where the funds would go toward. And that would be all ex- all of the interior plumbing, electrical, exterior, structural.

That full gutting is just for Hale Wainani is 65 million.

For just for. Just for two buildings. There's a total of four buildings in Hale Wainani, only two low rises and two.

High rises is for only two buildings? Or for the four buildings?

For the borrowed funds. The total CIP plan for FY26 and 27, which total 61.5 and 58 million, respectively, includes the majority of which will go towards Hale Wainani.

But it also includes other buildings as well as other health and safety improvements that need to happen housing wide like fire alarm systems and those things. Those would not, we would not be using the revenue bonds for.

I guess.

But it is part of the full 60 million. So if we're, if we're specifically looking only at the revenue bond funds and what those would go toward, it would go specifically towards two buildings, Hale Wainani, G and H, full gut and reno, and it's not going to cover the full cost.

It's the, the the full cost will. and Kyle, I think. I don't know if you're in the room too, if you have the...

Yeah. So I think we should get a breakdown because I know when you guys told us the plumbing had to be just the plumbing had to be done, I mean, I thought that was like in the $60 million at first.

So now you're looking at full, well, not full, but for the two buildings, full renovation. So that I would think would up the cost. And again, I'm not sure that this covers it. So.

Yeah. So to, to Jan's point, the 20 million. It would be $20 million that would be needed to do the gut and Reno of each low rise building at Holly WA. So there are two of those that would be $40 million for those two buildings.

The high rise, where the plumbing issues that were previously noted are also an issue. Work would be phased so as not to disrupt all of the revenue beds at a given time and also to account for time that would be needed for design of that high rise project.

Those funds to address those plumbing infrastructure challenges as well as the building envelope at Hale Wainani. There's a portion of funds that are included in this fiscal binding request that would help with design and support of that.

But some of that funding for the actual construction of the renovations at the high rise Hale Wainani complex would be in a later fiscal biennium.

So a later fiscal year?

Yep. So the low rise is what's within fiscal biennium 26-27.

And what's the time frame on the high rise?

So we can provide a breakdown for the highlight. One complex that would help that articulates this and breaks it out into each fiscal year, inclusive of the work to be performed and the anticipated source of funding.

And what's happening with Hale Noelani? Nothing.

So with Hale Noelani, there is a floodplain analysis that is in progress and a letter of map revision is being submitted to FEMA to revise the current floodplain lines to maximize the amount of high ground available at that site. Currently the way that the line is drawn, a portion of the site is within the floodplain.

So if we're successful in getting this flood map revised with FEMA, that'll increase the amount of land available for redevelopment and reduce some of the risk for redeveloping that property if it does go through a P3 solicitation process as we're currently anticipating.

So you're anticipating with that new change in the maps that you'd be able to put more units on that it.

It would reduce some of the code requirements for building within a floodplain. So if we are successful in revising those lines, it would maximize the amount of high ground where we could build and reduce some of the constraints that would otherwise be in place.

Questions, questions.

So the revenue bonds are used for these rent- these student housing projects. So the repayment of the bonds are from the rents.

Correct.

And how long is that going to take to pay off?

I believe...

Typically they're issued at 20 or 30 year bonds.

20 to 30 years. And that will cover the rents, will cover the cost to pay the bonds?

We would have to make sure that that math works out. Yes.

So do you guys have an idea of what that means as far as rents per room for students?

So we're currently working on a rate proposal for the student housing complex as a whole to make sure that as the program funds a portion of these capital projects that we are generating a sufficient amount of revenue to cover the additional debt service that we anticipate is going to be part of this equation to improve conditions.

You know that before you ask for bonds?

So I'll defer to Jan for details in that regard, but the direction that we received from the board this past fall was to plan for a three-to-one split between the general obligation bonds and revenue bonds.

So with the direction from the House, we have started to look at what that change would be if it is a 50-50 split.

And we also want to be cognizant of what this rate proposal may look like for students to ensure they have sufficient time to plan if there is going to be a rate increase, particularly if it's significant.

So we've done a market assessment to know what the going rate is for purpose built student housing locally, as well as what our peer and benchmark institutions are charging.

So we do understand what those constraints are in terms of pricing and are trying to work within those means to be realistic about what the program can finance, debt finance in terms of capital projects, and be thoughtful in how we put out a proposal that will very likely increase rates.

I think historically student housing has been a budget option for students. So we want to be mindful that those likely to be impacted by a rate increase are those trying to make ends meet that are looking for budget options.

So we are trying to be creative in identifying how we can potentially mitigate the impact to students with the greatest financial need as well.

I understand that and that's why I asked the question because, you know, I'm asking, does it pencil out how many other projects has a, does the UH have that are revenue bonds that are not fully paid yet?

Cancer center?

Yes. So we have, we have about. There's about 15 that are yet to be paid. The oldest one is 2015.

And the total cost of monthly or annual payments?

And this is just student housing, right? You're talking about or are you talking...

No, this is all, this is all revenue bonds. Revenue bond, yes, includes cancer center, former housing projects, college of pharmacy and Hilo as well as law school expansion so.

Because we were assured that our cancer center and jabs in that the bonds would pay for the debt service and now they're coming in and asking us for the funding. So that's going to be a situation. We don't want that situation to occur here. And that you have a reserve funds.

Are you going to when you gut and replace, are you replacing the same footprint or are you making it even smaller, more smaller?

So at Hale Wainani G and H, the exterior footprint of the building would be the same. As we renovate, there are opportunities to look at different unit mixes based on student preferences that could potentially increase revenue bed count. That building in particular is the only apartment-style living that is on campus.

So we presume that that would continue to be apartment style living. But the number of beds, there could be some adjustments.

So you're just gonna turn it into a...

No, I mean, so, I mean generally speaking, we did do due diligence in understanding trends in the student housing industry.

I think there's been, you know, push for more of these amenities and you know, nice to have type features. On campuses across the country, we're trying to be very pragmatic and thoughtful as to how we can provide a good experience for students. It's reliable. It's not going to be as lush or as lavish as the private sector.

But I think the programming that the student housing provides is a unique differentiator. So in terms of quality, we want it to be reliable. We want it to be, you know, maintained at a certain standard.

But the goal here is not to, you know, compete with the private market per se in terms of the amenities that they offer.

So do, is there a spreadsheet or something that you may have that shows all the different bonds that are floated and revenues owed and how you're paying them?

Yes. So we have this as part of our audit every year. So I actually copied the audit schedules. So we have all of the bonds listed. It has there the date issued, the series, a short explanation, how much it was authorized, and then the current outstanding balance. So we do have that list we can provide.

I can also update that with payment information. We do have schedules that show that when the debt. I'd appreciate that, thank you. Okay.

And just in regards to housing, we have done financial modeling to determine what the relative cost per bed per month would be if we did need to float these revenue bonds.

So we looked at that within the context again of what our current rates are, what are the market rates for comparable units and how much gap is there that we have to work with to put forth a rate proposal that's reasonable that would help cover these additional revenue bonds.

So there's definitely room to work there to ensure that the housing program itself can be self sufficient in paying back these bonds to the extent that it's reasonable over time.

Again, I think some of the constraint is when some of these rate increases would take effect if they are going to be somewhat significant to ensure that students have time to plan and budget and prepare.

Are your grants going to include future maintenance. Because it's one thing to pay off the bonds, but another thing to maintain the buildings. Because obviously when you look at the current buildings, a lot of it weren't maintained. So where is that funding? It's in RIM. Is that where you're funding going to come or?

It's a great question. It is something that we've taken into consideration. So in these financial models that we've been working with and producing, we are accounting for increases in the total number of custodians to be able to boost the service levels in that area. Also maintaining a operations maintenance budget of about $2 million per year.

That would increase roughly by 3% as a general assumption for escalation and cost increases. So in the modeling that we're conducting, we are looking at those operational improvements side-by-side with the additional revenue bond financing.

Because the roof's got to get replaced at one point. You know, I know the current dorms have leak leaking and their specimens get damaged. Electricity goes out because the wiring is bad and then all their specimens get spoiled. Infestation, rats, roaches, all that kind of complaints.

So yeah, we are accounting for those having an appropriate operations maintenance budget. We are forecasting increases related to personnel conservatively as well if there were to be collective bargaining increases for staff.

So we are looking at this comprehensively to know what our fixed overhead costs are, what this additional cost for revenue bond financing would be to ensure that again, long term, the program can close the gap with where rates currently are and where they may need to be to cover all these costs and ensure the facilities can be properly maintained.

Okay, any other questions, Members? No other questions. Thank you very much, Members. We're going to go into right into decision making. We do have two other agendas to deal with. So on the first one, Senate. Senate House Bill 718, House Draft 1. This is for positions at the John A. Burns School of Medicine.

The recommendation is that we pass as is. It already has a effective date and blanked out numbers on there. So any discussion hearing None. Chair votes Aye.

House Bill 718 pass on amended. [Roll Call] The Measure is adopted. Madam Chair, thank you.

On House Bill 1170, House Draft 1, this is relating to University wide resident tuition fee. Again this matter this bill is already have a defective date and so recommendation is two passages.

House Bill 1170 HD1 to pass unamended. [Roll Call] This is adopted. Madam Chair.

Thank you. House Bill 1300, House draft one relating to cancer. This is appropriating funds. I'd like to amend this bill to include that the federal funds that they shall get shall apply for federal funding. That the federal funds at least is matching, if not more.

And with that there is already a defective date in there and the funds is still blank. So recommended is to pass with amendment as is needed.

House Bill 1300 HD1 to pass with amendments. [Roll Call]

Thank you. And Finally House Bill 1168, House Draft 1 relating to the University of Hawaii revenue bonds. This bill also still has a defective date in it. It does have blank numbers in it.

So as it goes to ways and means, as we get more firm numbers back from the University answering some of the questions that were raised, recommended that we pass as is.

House Bill 1168 HD1 pass unamended. [Roll Call]

And with that, we adjourn this agenda. Convene on the 3:25 p.m. agenda.

Because I do have the chair. No, I don't have the Chair of labor either. Okay.

Oh, recess. Okay. I'm going to call to orderline.

Ready? Yes. Okay, we'll take Waterline and then we'll take. Because we only have one item calling to order, the Joint Committee. Oh, no, you're the lead.

Hey. Though we're all behind anyway. Okay. Aloha. Good afternoon and thank you for bearing with us in our schedules here at the busy capital. This is the Committee on Water and Land, the Committee on Higher Education, on its hearing notice on Tuesday, March 18th.

We're in Room 229 with regards to HB 309, House Draft 1, relating to fish ponds. And this establishes a fish pond inventory working group within the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program to create an inventory and map of all fish bonds on state land and conduct a literature review. We will proceed with testifiers on this measure. DLNR.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, senators. Michael Cain, on behalf of DLNR. We stand in strong support of this measure. Our office, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, worked closely with Kua'aina on a--to streamline the permitting process for fish pond restoration, and we look forward to working with them again on this next phase. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Department of Agriculture. Sends communication in support. We had noticed they were going to be here in person. On Zoom, University of Hawaii System. Katy Hintzen.

Hello. Katy Hintzen, on behalf of the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. We stand on our written testimony and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Olan Fisher, Kua'aina Ulu 'Auamo. You're here. That's right. Thank you. Thank you for being patient with us today.

Oh, yeah. Thank you, chairs and senators. I'm Olan Momi Fisher, advocate with Kua'aina Ulu 'Auamo or KUA, and we are a support organization for three large statewide networks, including our largest network, our Hui Malama Loko I'a, and we helped develop this measure.

We stand in strong support, and we think, especially now with food insecurity and lots of federal funds getting cut, now is the time more than ever to be investing state funds into our own aina resources and communities. So we're here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club.

Not available on Zoom, chair.

Okay, thank you. Also sending in testimony in support: Climate Change Mitigation Commission, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, County of Maui, as well as the Historic Hawaii Foundation, Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force, Nature Conservancy, Purple Mai'a. Testifying for Ocean Reef and Ocean Coalition, I saw Ted Boylan here earlier, but sends communication in support. We do have several other testifiers and members. They have been 17 in support with no, no opposition. Any discussions?

DLNR. So basically we're just doing an inventory of fish bonds on state lands?

That would be correct.

So you can't do that without this measure?

I--it--it would be an extensive project.

How many fish bonds do we have?

We don't know. That's one of the reasons we want--I think Kua'aina is asking for this inventory. We know that there were 500 documented at one point, but we've also heard from practitioners that there were large parts of the island left out, such as Puna or Ka'u on the Big Island. We hear there's a lot of fish ponds that weren't mapped during the last effort, so hundreds, but we don't know.

How much are we asking for?

I--based upon our other studies, I think Kua'aina is going to ask for 250 for two years, 250,000 this year and next year to hire the consultant, and also the--if we want a GIS layer for the state database--

What kind of consultant?

It would be either a land use consultant or a planning consultant team, I assume. So this would be a Sea Grant would take the lead. We would be a supporting agency. So I'm answering based upon--

From the consultants because most of the money go for their fees and then we end up doing the labor anyway.

I, I could defer to Sea Grant to see how they would proceed. Again, I'm supporting this and participating.

It's not your--

But it's, it's not going to be my--the way it's written now, it will not be my project or my...bill, but I--

Okay, well, I hope you get the message out that they have some answers for us by the time this goes to Ways and Means.

Thank you. I will.

Okay. If we're working with the University of Hawaii Sea Grant Program, are they contributing to this, you think? Yeah. Katy, a question for you.

Yes. University of Hawaii.

Yes. Apparently the working group and the Sea Grant Program, didn't you start a program previously before this measure came up? Weren't you doing something already with DLNR?

So we have a number of projects with DLNR. We've also worked closely with KUA and the Hui Malama Loko I'a in the past. For this particular project, I think we would work with DLNR and KUA to determine the scope and scale of the inventory, but as it stands now, I do think it's something we could probably do in house with the resources of graduate research students and our faculty within the program, Hawaiian language experts at the university.

So I think there's a possibility that we would bring in consultant expertise, but we could also do it within our program with existing expertise. I think that's something we would work through with KUA and Hui Malama Loko I'a.

So are you participating in funding this project as well? Because apparently, like, DLNR is supposed to fund this particular project.

So most of our funding for our staff and faculty at University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program is extramural, so this is well-aligned with our mission, but it's not part of our current scope of work, so...

All right. Thank you very much. Any questions, members? Nope? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll go into decision-making on this measure, and--okay, we're going to decision-making for the Joint Hearing, the Committee on Water and Land and the Committee on Higher Education. Chair's recommendation on HB 309 House Draft 1 is to pass this measure as is. Any discussions? Hearing none. The Committee on Water and Land--vice chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Chair's recommendation's to pass House Bill 309 House Draft 1 unamended. Chair and vice chair vote aye. [Roll Call]. Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

For the Committee on Higher Education--and Madam Chair, would you be amenable that we put in the committee report what the Sea Grant people told us regarding your participation?

Thank you.

Okay, we'll recognize that in the committee report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Same recommendation: do pass with amendments--do pass as is. Chair votes aye.

House Bill 309 HD 1. Committee on Higher Education. Chair votes aye. Vice chair votes aye. [Roll Call]. Measure's adopted, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The jurors are joint with Water and Land, and we will go into our joint committee--

Call to order the Joint Committees on Higher Education and Committee on Labor and Technologies. It's at 3:25 p.m. agenda, March 18, Conference Room 229. It's 4:15 p.m. We do have the chair of our Labor and Technology Committee also here.

Our first and only item we have is House Bill 4--I'm sorry--House Bill 546 House Draft 1, relating to artificial intelligence. Establishes and appropriates funds to establish the Aloha Intelligence Institute within the University of Hawaii to develop, support, and advance artificial intelligence initiatives statewide. And to testify on this measure, we have Christian Fern from the UHPA. Not here. We have Master Shelby Billionaire.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Not present in Zoom. Anyone else in this room? Anybody? Staff want to participate and testify on this measure? This is artificial intelligence, come on. Whatever you say, it's probably okay. Please, please. I just wanted to ask you some questions.

No, no. Intelligence and--doesn't mix.

Okay, we have no one here, members, to ask any questions. Chair, in talking over with the University of Hawaii, they would really like this measure to pass, and I think we certainly needs to have AI. That is the future. They recognize that the funding would be a problem.

They understand that and they've asked that we pass this and delete out the funding portion of the measure. So we would delete out from page six, lines 15, section three, all the way to page seven, and the whole appropriation section will be taken out.

And also on page six, line five, it says, 'aside from general funding, would like to add the word any, aside from any general funding from the Legislature. The institute may seek additional funding through federal research grants.' So that's the recommendation on this. Any discussion on this, members? No?

So hopefully that--it'll go to Ways and Means but then we won't have any, hopefully anything to impede this from moving forward so they can establish it and they can find money for it, and so they can come in and ask us for more funding. So with that, if there's no discussion, chair, recommendation to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

House Bill 546 HD 1: do pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice chair votes aye. [Roll Call]. Measure's adopted, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Okay. Labor and Technology Committee, same recommendation, and please note that we did hear a similar Senate bill. Okay. Vice chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Voting on House Bill 546 HD 1. Recommendation's do pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. [Roll Call]. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.