House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Welcome to the Committee on Public Safety. Today is March 21, 2025 so I think we're trying something new. The Chair has handed over the gavel to me and will be so I'll be doing the resolutions for this Committee in order to allow as many people to testify as possible.

There may be a time limit per testifier, although I feel like we have quite a bit of time this morning until the floor session, so I'm I'm going to be a little bit more relaxed because morning hearings must adjourn prior to the noon floor session and not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. Testify.

In that event, please know that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee. Please keep yourself and this is for the people on Zoom. Please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only.

Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the Committee meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. So we're going to first set of resolutions both the when when there is a Concurrent Resolution and a RESO on the same issue. We're going to be hearing them together.

So the first one is HC CR6 2HR57 requesting that the Sheriff's Division of the Department of Law Enforcement fly the National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in the Southeast Asia Asia's Flag Year round at the State Capitol and I see there is no one here registered to testify in person.

In Is there anyone in the room or on Zoom interested in sharing your views on this? Seeing none. We'll go on to the next one.

Requesting the it's HCR154 HR149 Requesting the Auditor to perform a comprehensive forensic audit of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Department of Accounting and General Services regarding special related to the planning, design, maintenance, design, financing, construction and maintenance of a new jail to replace the Oahu Community Correctional center.

And I see that we have 26 testimonies and support zero in oppose zero posts and and one comment and I see that we have one testifier on Zoom Gregory Misakian not present, not present. And then I see Kerry Anchorota from the ACLU testifying in person.

Good morning Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto Committee Members. Carrie Ann Shirota, Policy Director on behalf of the ACLU Hawaii, we strongly support both resolutions in requesting a long overdue audit of spending from DCR and DAGS relating to jail planning.

And I want to share some context because even though we're focusing on the more recent appropriations over 20 million we need to look at at the last 20 years, we've spent millions on jail and prison planning.

From Kauai to Maui to Hawaii island and on Maui alone, we spent close to $20 million for regional complex that was never built. The community opposed millions that could have been used for diversion, housing, mental health, drug treatment in our communities. We want to start off with a few points. One, building a new jail is unnecessary.

And while we know that that may seem off topic, I think it's relevant here. Prison Policy Initiative, which is a national criminal justice think tank organization, recently issued a memo last month focusing on occc and they've reached the conclusion that based upon our own population forecasts that we can invest alternatives instead of building a new jail.

This is a national think tank organization with expertise and in other states they've also issued memos and in those states they decided to avert prison construction or to renovate instead of building a new construction. Please take a look at that report and I'm hoping this Committee will host them for an informational briefing.

Second, building a new jail is fiscally irresponsible. At this moment, we know that the state is going to be facing severe budget cut shortfalls to Medicaid, housing, health care, you name it. So why would we expend potentially another 30 million when we don't really have a true understanding of how this money was spent?

And we have in here a listing of what's been posted by DAGS and DCR, but it's just a lump sum. It's not giving us a full accounting of that. The third point is that DCR has continued to contract with at least one consultant who selected subcontractors with a history of fraud and corruption among its high executives.

This has been noted in civil beats some years ago. And it's our understanding that this consultant is still a part of the team and that they're still, I believe, have a subcontractor.

And when Asked about this record of corruption and fraud, this consultant Architects Hui, and I quote, said that Architects Hui signs confidentiality agreements with all of its clients and therefore cannot legally comment on any of these projects.

So not even you as lawmakers in the public can have an understanding of what has happened because of these confidentially caused. Is this in the best interest of the community? Number four, good governance requires an audit and a full counting of funds spent.

Again, we don't have a full accounting, but it's very puzzling to me that our consultant team consisting of DCR DAGS and others at least traveled to the continent in the last year. Two different events, one of which is considered an industry event, where they were pitching this new jail project to the industry.

Is that the best use of taxpayer dollars. And this convention was held in Tennessee, the corporate headquarters of CoreCivic that we are contracting with and sending our people out of state instead of keeping people home in Hawaii. Is this the best use of resources?

And is there an issue about having these communications outside of public hearings and are they possibly having an advantage or if they're trying to bid on this $1.0 billion project? And last, we just want to highlight that Bob Merce, who wrote the Getting It Right report, which has been. It's on the Attorney General's website.

He was a Member of the HCR task force. He noted in this report several pages dedicated to the problems of P3 public private partnerships. While it might be appropriate for maybe bridges, tolls, roads, it is not appropriate for a jail and prison setting.

And as lawmakers, you should be very careful about our state proceeding for a project that's projected to cost more than $1 billion and that you will not even have access to information because of the way that these P3 schemes are set up.

And so for all of these reasons for good governance, for transparency and accountability, we ask that you pass this measure. And I understand that the auditors have said that they don't conduct forensic audits. So whether it's more appropriate for management performance or FIs, or financial audit, I think that's something for consideration.

But we purposely use the word forensic to make a point here because there has been past recorded lease subcontractors convicted of fraud and corruption. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm here for further questions.

Thank you. ACLU. Let's see, there is no one else indicated to testify in person. Is there anyone in the room who wants to testify on this, these resolutions? Anyone on Zoom? No. Seeing None. Are there any questions from the Committee Members?

Is there anyone from Auditor's office here at all. Unfortunate. Okay. Thank you, Chair.

So no other questions? Oh, okay. I have a question for the ACLU. So the. You read the Auditor's comments and you already addressed one of their issues, which was the use of the word forensic. And thank you for being open to amending that to some other terms.

Yes.

And it's my understanding that obviously if, if the Auditor does find whatever you name it, if the Auditor does find fraud, I, I have seen in other audits they've done, they've actually mentioned it. So they're doing the same duty. Just under. Is that your understanding?

Well, again, I'm not an Auditor, so I just have to say. Right. I'm not an Auditor. But my, my understanding of it is that typically there is a certain, I guess, terminology within the field and forensic usually conveys a sense of an investigation, possibly fraud. But you're right.

I think even under other types of audits, if there are some irregularities, inefficiencies that they could potentially probe further, at least noted for possible further investigation in the future. Thank you.

And I know that you work with other community stakeholders. Would the ACLU and the various stakeholder groups, do you think, because the Auditor also mentioned the cost involved. And if, you know, if you guys can give them a jump start by providing them with some of the points you raised, you raised a lot of good points.

And if you and other stakeholders could just say, hey, if these resolutions do go through and there is inclination, can you guys just give them a document to say, hey, start, start here?

Yes. Save money at least on behalf of acl. We could do that. We have a literally some binders with things over the last 20 years relating to prison, jail spending. I think that might be helpful to the Auditor's inquiry. This passes. Okay, great. Thank you so much.

And I just have a question misheard. I mean, I appreciate what's trying to be attempted by this. And I just am looking at your testimony now. I'm looking at the allegations of fraud and abuse by this one contractor.

But as I'm looking at this story, you know, there's some other, I just think it's a little bit, it's a little bit unfair because some of these things are like go back to 2005. And so my hope is, I'm, you know, casting allegations is that that there is fraud, waste and abuse. It.

I understand the concern, but I'm just a little bit that as a justification, I mean we as a state, and I certainly will raise this with DAGS, but to Say that it seems a little unfair. Your testimony seems a little unfair. And this, this article that you're pointing to, citing to for fraud, waste and abuse. Right.

As a civil beat article, it just seems a little bit missing the mark. And again, it's from 2016. That's like almost 10 years ago.

Can you speak to that? Sure, I'd like to. First of all, I can provide you with other articles for the national news that has confirmed that these allegations were proven to be true, where people actually prosecuted for federal corruption charges, so they've.

Been criminally held responsible. So those are individuals. I just think it's, it's, you know, to cast aspersions. I think an audit of some sort is important, but I also think that we don't want to inflame the situation either. So I guess that's my comment. So please respond.

Yes, sure, sure. So again, that has been verified. The second is, even though it's some years ago, this is a 2016 article. We're continuing to contract with these consultants and with this proposed 30 million, the next billion that's projected if we continue to contract with the same actors.

Are you as lawmakers and the public, truly aware of the record? And there should be some sort of mechanism and oversight. And so this is one of the many points here that I think that we're raising. It's not the only point, but I think that it should raise some concerns about this practice.

And it further illustrates that if we pursue the P3, there's going to be even less transparency if we go down that road. And I think the larger issue is we keep spending millions on planning. And there's been scrutiny of the DOE on school projects. There's been scrutiny of the stadium, which possibly the project being scrapped.

There's also been scrutiny of the Hawaii State Hospital, not to mention the rail, which started as a P3, but then was aborted because of the problems. And so we're trying to say here, let's not keep spending billions more, possibly billions, not to mention operational costs.

And perhaps this audit will reveal information and it may allow lawmakers to make a more informed decision whether DAGS and DCR should pursue a P3 for this jail.

Okay, well, thank you for those comments. Yes.

And Representative, I will send you that other information. Thank you again.

I think it's really important because, like from the article that I've read, people have been criminally prosecuted, fines have been paid. And so, you know, just like people can be reformed. Yeah. So I just want to say. And that's all you need to. No need for you to comment anymore. Thank you.

I believe so. Thank you, okay any other questions from the Committee Members? Seeing none. We'll go on to the next one. HCR 63 requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to make available to correction-correctional facility staff Mmmbers throughout the state clinical counseling services that are separate and distinct from the existing mental health resources available to inmates.

And here I see we have one testimony from Frank Schultz and support. No one is indicated to testify. Is there anybody in the room or anybody on Zoom wishing to testify? Thank you. I will go to the next one.

HCR23 requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in planning and designing the new Oahu Community Correctional center in Halava to include circuit and district court facilities and establish a release procedure under which detainees or inmates, upon release, are transported to a site other than the residential communities or public spaces.

I see that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicated that they would like to testify in support of this. Hi, Director Johnson. I just. We are now on HCR23, which is about offering counseling services to your staff. That's separate from the counseling services available to inmates. It's HCR 23.

I think that's a different.

Would you.

If we're on HCR23, it requests that we designate. It's different than what you mentioned. I think you're mentioning 63.

Sorry.

23 is the court rule.

Sorry, you're correct. Okay. That's correct.

All right. So are we on HCR 23? Yes. Okay. So we support the intent of this measure. I did have conversations with Chief Justice and also with the court's administrator, Rod Maile. He will be the point of contact. We believe that one multi purpose courtroom that can do both district and circuit court proceedings would be sufficient.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to testify in the room or on Zoom? Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Director Johnson? Okay. Is that okay that we take questions from the previous resolution? Oh, I just need to keep moving. Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm kind of new to this. Member Shimizu.

We're going to keep moving if that's okay. Thank you. So, seeing no other questions, we're going to go on to the next. HCR 37 requesting Hawaii Emergency Management Agency to collaborate with relevant agencies to develop initiatives and outreach programs to inform KUPUNA about emergency preparedness. And we had 11 testimonies in support, I believe. Let's see.

The Chairman of the Pearl City Neighborhood Board wishes to testify in person.

Well, good morning and aloha Chair Bilotti and also Vice Chair Iwamoto. Thanks for getting me on the schedule. I'm Larry Veray.

I'm Chair of the Pearl City Neighborhood Board and I'm submitting my testimony representing our board as a whole because in for our 2025 legislative priorities we had emergency preparedness detailed in there stating our requirement for HI-EMA to develop and improve emergency preparedness for our residents, in particular our kupuna.

The Pearl City Neighborhood Board has made it a priority for Pearl City to be prepared for natural disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes. I'm in strong support of HCR 37. Our greatest concern during HI-EMA ordered emergency evacuations and preparedness.

We have a large elderly population in Pearl City and our kupuna are extremely vulnerable in emergency situations due to their physical limitations, their chronic health conditions and and lack of access to communications resources. We have numerous elderly care homes in Pearl City and throughout the islands and the care and safety of our kupuna are paramount.

When we have to evacuate due to disaster, we require HI-EMA to outreach program to make sure our kupuna are well informed about emergency procedures and evacuation plan for the location care home our care homes they are residing in. We need to make sure each care home has a solid emergency evacuation plan.

And I'd like to add to this as well as all our townhomes in Pearl City, they need to be accountable. I'm President of my homeowners Association. We have an emergency preparedness plan. We will not leave our Kupuna abandoned.

So the Pearl City Neighbor board requires the state Legislature and hyima need to collaborate and build solid relationships with all emergency agencies, federal, state, city levels and agencies. The state Legislature in HI-EMA needs to make sure kupuna care homes have a solid emergency evacuation plan. And it starts with a siren that works.

Ours is still broke for the last two and a half years up in Pacific Palisades. Any questions? Mahalo. Thank you.

Is there anybody wishing to testify on this issue? Yes.

Aloha. I'm Kelly E. Lopez, State Director of AARP Hawaii. Thank you. Chair Bellotti and Vice Chair Iwamoto and Committee Members. AARP stands in strong support of HCR 37. We appreciate on behalf of our 135,000 Members statewide that you are hearing this resolution.

As you may know, tragically the Lahaina wildfires made clear to us the degree to which Kupuna and others are very vulnerable to natural disasters. The key issue there is, if you don't know at least 2/3 of those who perished in the Lahaina Fires were 60 years and older.

Kupuna and those with disabilities tend to perish twice as likely than most individuals. And again, as stated earlier, part of that is around their ability, their mobility and ability to get out.

Even though, for example, there was the Lahaina fire final report, there were three phases in that they talked a great deal about the fact that many Kupuna did pass in these fires, but there was no recommendation of any kind related to what steps should be taken specifically for Kupuna and those with disabilities. So this resolution is important.

I think the other issue is to have HI-EMA understand its role as a statewide entity and not necessarily rely on just the counties to figure out what they're going to do in the situation of emergency. AARP has been very involved in the issues of disaster. This is an important thing for us. We do disaster preparedness training.

We've worked with FEMA to develop a resiliency toolkit for communities to use to. Again, oftentimes when a disaster happens, it's really your family and neighbors that are going to come quickly to your aid.

The degree to which HI-EMA can work with communities to create those plans so that people are prepared from day one, or in fact prepared even advance of a disaster is what we're really looking forward to. So we're in strong support of this resolution and appreciate its introduction. Its introduction. Thank you.

Yeah. Please come up.

Good morning. Chair Belotti and Vice Chair Iwamoto. Representative Shimizu and Representative Souza and Poepoe. I am Raelene Tenno with Hawaii Council of Community Associations. I'm the Education Chair. And this has been my battle for condominiums.

I totally support this as an individual and as for Hawaii Council as well, but one of our battles in dealing with condominiums has been a lot of backlash from the board. After the Marco Polo fire, one of the requirements or one of the items on the LSE was a mobility list for the most vulnerable.

So I had worked with the fire Department to create that list. We sent it out and the comments coming back from some board Members were atrocious. I was like, I like what, you know, they. And it said voluntary, big bold letters, you know.

But the comments coming back from some of the board Members, what makes you think that we can do an assessment, blah, blah, blah. And you know, we don't have time to do this. But, you know, your seniors don't move handicapped and seniors don't move as often as your younger generation.

So it's not like it's time intensive for them and a good resident manner General manager. They know the ins and they know who's moving in and out. So it's not like it's labor intensive. And so we kind of like, we're like, okay, whatever, but we really need a top level coming down hard.

And we also want to make it clear that it's the on site people that need to be responsible for the evacuation plans, not the management company. They don't know the ins and outs. They're not even on site. So it has to be the on site people to implement the plans.

Like on the lSC, for example, one of the engineers in the building condo recommended that they install a gas generator on the rooftop to operate the elevator in the event of a fire. And I said, I remember kid time. You're not supposed to use the elevator, you're supposed to use the stairs.

But he said it was to operate the elevator. I'm a Chicago fire groupie, you know, And I remember one episode that they were evacuating a building, a mom and a child. The fire guy is told, no, you need to follow these people down the stairs. And she's like, why can't I use the elevator? He says, you can't.

Plus the operator, the elevator wasn't in operation. It was Otis that told her to follow these people. When he went down and got the elevator door open, there was the mother and child burnt in the elevator. They didn't follow the instructions.

And it just so happened the other day I was in a building, newly renovated, renovated building Action Meeting Pacific. And I saw the sign, do not use the elevator. So I clipped it and sent it to this board member. See, it says do not use the elevator.

So there's kind of like some misinformation going on as well, you know, so it's got to have some clear understanding of what's to happen, you know, so that there's no misinformation. I mean, I've told some condos, I go, if my mom lives in your building, I would make sure she was on that list. I don't care.

I would go down, march down to make sure, you know, even though my mom would be, no, I'll be fine. I'm okay. Oh, no, mom, you're going to be on the list. You've had two knee surgeries. You need to be on the list. I don't care.

You know, but we need to make sure because Marco Polo alone, their list was quite big. I, when I saw the number, I was like, God, when did they change to a care home and a lot of them were needed. Needed. We would have to hand carry somebody down.

That's two guys, two men that have to hand carry someone down the stairs. You know, a lot of them were walkers or they're flat on the back. They can't move. Right. So we really need a bigger effort.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else in the room who'd like to testify on this resolution? Anybody on Zoom would like to testify on this resolution now, any questions?

Thank you. Chair, for the woman who just testified, you mentioned generating a list. Can you send that information to the Committee, please?

Sure. It was done in conjunction with the Fire Department.

Yeah. Thank you.

And that's the other thing to the Fire Department. The rank and file have changed, so some of that information has trickled down to the new people.

All right, that's. That sounds helpful. Thank you for doing that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair or Mr.

Verray. Mr. First. Thank you.

An action of the.

I'm also Commissioner for the neighborhood Commission. I'm getting the word out with an information paper to all our boards. We need to fix that. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Veray, and thank you for coming down to testify on this. In your verbal testimony, you mentioned something about your neighborhood board having had a plan or you've initiated a plan.

No, my homeowners Association. I'm also President Wild Garden Sky B.

Okay.

For the 38th year.

So your homeowners Association has developed. Can you elaborate on what this plan is?

This emergency plan, our emergency action plan includes with we have everybody to be registered for Association in the event of emergency. Communications is vital. We're already bringing in. We've got ordered Starlink. That's going to be our backup for our Association. We're also setting up our pool area is going to be the central point.

We know in Pearl City that it's unsatisfactory. All the evacuation points, we're going to buckle down. We're going to transition from an Association to a village, and we're going to take care of our own.

And that's something that you and all the kupuna. I've already been. I have a list of all the kupuna, but one thing I didn't have, I didn't get that list of the Fire Department. So I got some out of this today for that. But. But the other thing is. Yeah, we.

Okay.

We've got to make sure we know who needs help.

And the reason why I'm asking this is because this resolution is designed and is entitled requesting HI-EMA to collaborate with relative relevant agencies. One of the things that's been moving through our committees has been this notion of community readiness centers.

And what it sounds like is that in the event of a disaster, you actually become your own kind of readiness center.

Yes.

Yeah. Our board. Our board puts on another hat, and we are buckling down, taking care of our own.

So when your Association designed this plan, did you have any outreach to HI-EMA through their HR programs? Does any of that.

Only. Only through the neighborhood board. Okay. I haven't done anything from. Because I'll be honest with you. Our. Our Association, we're just focused on ourself.

And that's absolutely fine.

But since I got a dual hat with my lessons learned, because we're creating this, we're developing it as we go along, I'd like to see it for all the town homes in Pearl City. I'm hoping to influence that in. In my capacity.

Okay.

All right. No, thank you. Thank you for elaborating on that.

Yeah, thank you. I'm an AARP Member, too.

I just wanted to add comment, also to add on to Kaylee's testimony after the Lahaina fire, because I'm also a PABEA Member. Policy with Executive office. One of the comments coming in from the Maui office was that, I mean, she asked if it's required, and I said it's not. Oh, sorry. Disadvantage of being short.

I said it's not required in statute, but we encourage associations to create that plan, so. And you got to realize we have an aging in place statute, so there's a lot of seniors downsizing into condos. So it makes it really important.

And I have tried to reach out to Hyema because I took the names off of another testimony off of another Bill, and they had their email addresses, and I even called the office, but I haven't had the courtesy of a reply.

Thank you. I have a question for you, actually. So I think you mentioned that you contacted the fire Department to speak with them. Did you go through their website where they actually have an interactive website where you can request.

So buildings such as yours can request the fire Department to come and do a presentation and even do an assessment.

We've actually had them one of our seminars.

Okay, great. Yeah. So they are very accessible, as you know, to coming to each and every building to do an assessment. And you mentioned people going into the elevator for some emergencies. The suggestion from the fire Department would be to stay in place even for a fire in A condo building, if that.

Just call 911 to let them know where you are.

Especially instead of moving people who are confined to wheelchairs to try to get them down 33 flights.

Yeah. And that's the purpose of the list. So they can immediately identify which units have an occupant, a possible occupant that is immobile. So they would attack those units first in.

In theory, how that was developed. Got it. Thank you so much for being here to testify. Is there anybody else with questions?

Just a request, Mr. Veray. Same request. If you could forward your plan and information, I think you have some good ideas and we'd like. I'd like to be aware of them and try to collaborate and coordinate. So thank you. If you could point out that.

Actually, I just wrote that down. We must have been thinking the same thing.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

So let's go on to the next set of resolutions. HCR 69 and HR 62, requesting the office of the State Fire Marshal to convene a vegetation management working group to study, evaluate and make recommendations for regulations that define property owner obligations for vegetation management on public and private property to mitigate wildfire risk.

And I see that we had seven testimonies in support and one comment. And let's start testimony with Michael Angelo with the DCCA, Division of Consumer Advocacy.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Angelo, Executive Director, Division of Consumer Advocacy. Largely stand on our written testimony, but I did want to supplement that with some of my own personal experience with this because I think it's relevant to highlighting the need for this vegetation management plan from private homeowner, private owners, landowners.

At my own home, there were two incidents where there was related to electrical lines and vegetation. One, the first one, there's a climbing vine that was coming up, and was coming up through a service drop from the transformer above the lines had failed. The electrical lines, perhaps due to degradation by the climbing vines.

It caused a large sparking incident. The utility pole caught on fire for a time being. The fire department had to respond. The utility responded promptly to address the issue. But that was one incident. Several months later, you could see how quickly something like this could happen.

But the reason I bring it up with the vegetation management is this climbing vine from the ground, who's supposed to take care of that? Trim it before it goes all the way up to the transformer. Right. And then there's other issues when it goes onto the pole with who's responsible for clearing it within those areas.

There was also a hedgerow that was put up around the pole to, you know, prevent, to make it more pleasant to look at around the utility pole. So how do we deal with those situations is very complex. And then the other was a stand of bamboo.

That same line farther down touched the line and it was throwing sparks continuously for about an hour. You call the fire department and they said, is it on fire? I said, no, but they said, call back because there's a lot of this going on right now. So it's very concerning.

We fortunately live in a wetter area, and it was during wetter conditions that this happened. But the fact that it happened twice shows the level of risk and it's related to vegetation in the vicinity of power lines and the complexities that go around. Who's responsible for. For maintaining that vegetation. So that's why I share that today.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and express support for this, for this working group. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Jade Butai from the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.

Great aloha Friday. Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto and Committee Members. I'm Jade Butai, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony appreciating the intent. We'll be helpful as long as we can be helpful.

However, you know, vegetation management is not only outside of our circle of competence, but also could be outside of our purview if the Admin Bill to transfer the State Park Council and the State Fire Marshal to the Department of Defense is effectuated. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Next we have Leo Asuncion from Public Utilities Commission.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. My name is Kyra Howe, utility analyst at the Public Utilities Commission. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure and are available for, for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have on Zoom Kiko from IBEW Local 1260.

Good morning. Chair Kiko Bukowski on behalf of IBEW 1260 in strong support and we stand in our written testimony. Just wanted to add a few comments. We do. We did offer some proposed amendments to this to these two Concurrent Resolution and resolution.

We recognize the importance of identifying whose response areas that need mitigating and who's responsible for mitigating vegetation management related to fire risk. However, we do want to note a critical component of this type of work Are the individuals actually performing the work in and or near electric utility facilities.

As the previous testifier stated, some of this work is very specialized and highly hazardous. We noted it in our testimony.

We also noted and cited other states such as California, that have already adopted safety standards, minimum safety standards and qualifications and proper training for the actual individuals performing this type of extremely hazardous work in and or near electric utility facilities. So we ask for your consideration and inclusion of our amendments into these two resolutions.

As a closing note, we also want to highlight that Senate Bill 11, which addressed this issue and included language regarding safety standards and minimum training and qualifications for individuals performing work, was in Senate Bill 11. That bill was deferred and this working group was recommended in its place to take a look at the issue.

So we just like to continue the discussion. We are part of the working group. We're included in this resolution. However, we wanted to be made clear that part of the discussion center around the individuals actually performing this work at or near electric utility facilities. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Wendy Oda from Hawaiian Electricity.

Good morning, chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Wendy Oda and I'm here on behalf of Hawaiian Electric. We have submitted written testimony, but I would like to add to our testimony.

Hawaiian Electric understands the community's concerns about wildfire risk and believes the formation of the vegetation management group is a first step in defining property owner obligations to perform vegetation management on public and private property to address wildfire risk mitigation.

Hawaiian Electric understands and is sensitive to to the major challenges to vegetation management and landowner compliance, but looks forward to participating in the vegetation management working group.

Hawaiian Electric believes the vegetation management group will consider wildfire mitigation measures such as regulations identifying vegetation management obligations of landowners as well as practical vegetation management programs for landowners and public utilities. Thank you for the opportunity to add to my testimony. Available for questions.

Thank you very much. And that's all I think we have testifying on. Okay. Yes. Please reset your name.

Yeah. Good morning again. Larry Veray, Chair of the Pearl City Neighborhood Board Chair, Vice Chair, I did not submit testimony, but really got me thinking here. This is a very important resolution, HDR 69, because we need communications between our neighborhood boards and the fire marshal.

The Pearl City Neighborhood Board has already initiated our requirements for wildfire mitigation management. We've identified those areas. We identified the vulnerabilities of one way in, one way out ingress egresses. But I would really like to see communication between the neighborhood boards to be able to.

They know what areas are at risk and be able to put those addresses for those houses in and give them to the fire marshal asking them to inspect. So. But that's all I got. I got something out of this today. Thank you.

Oh, great. Thank you. Oh, yes, please. Come on.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Steve Tevis for Comm Schools. We support the resolution.

And to add on to what, just so the record's clear, what he just said, the working group will look at the responsibility of the landowners and the easement holders, not just the landowner's responsibilities and obligation, but the easement holders responsibilities and obligations. Thank you for testifying. Available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify on this matter? Is there anybody on zoom wishing to testify? Seeing none. Let's go on to the next.

Can I ask a question?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Chair, Hawaiian Electric, please. You know the gentleman who I think is from DCCA, you mentioned your personal experience with the bamboo touching the lines. Did you hear his testimony that.

Yes.

Would HECO be the person to call and address that instead of the HFD.

We would be there to turn the power off when the pole is on fire? But in terms of vegetation, we would not necessarily be the ones to do the vegetation. Again, as he stated, it would be good for. It starts from the ground.

So if we can cut it at the ground level, as opposed to wait till it's up here, it's probably more appropriate. And so I think that's what the group is going to look at, is the responsibility of who's responsible from the ground level up to, you know, where our lines are. And that's the.

That's understood. And until we get to that point, HECO doesn't have any line management, maintenance or observations where they, they can flag something that's. This sounds very dangerous, possibly, you know, a big event.

So does HECO have any kind of public engagement or your own maintenance where you see something and you may not be able to do it because you're saying it's not your responsibility, but follow up on getting something accomplished so that that problem is not there.

So we do have a program that goes out and manages the lines, you know, the vegetation close to our lines. There is also a, I believe, a site you can call, a number you can call and have us take a look at it, and we will go out and take a look at it if those situations occur.

So there is a communication to us that we will go out and take a look at. And again, we do have systematic inspections and maintenance of our lines around the islands and from all the companies.

Okay, maybe that would be good for you to submit that information to the Committee and even put it on your constituent newsletter that you sent out with your invoice. Because when I first posed the question to you, I felt like you deflected it, and it's like, it's not our problem. We'll turn off the power.

And then when I pressed you on the second question, then you were able to volunteer some information that, oh, we do have this public notice thing and so forth.

So I think it would be very important, since the public really relies on you as the sole source, that you would really be mindful of this and reach out to the public as much as you can to help as. The.

Big brother in the room, so to speak, that you would be watching out for the public in these matters. And that's just my personal opinion, and as a. As a Legislator, I'd like to see that happen.

So I believe that there is a number on our website that you can contact. So. But yes, I'll get you the information.

Because that's not just marketing. Yeah, that's good. Relationship. Win. Win. Partnership. For. For Ohana.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

We could be pono on everything.

Yeah, sure. So we do get a lot of calls, and we do respond to those calls. Our people go out and then we, you know, we call that contact them back to let them know what the situation is. So we do have a lot of those calls also, but we'll get. We'll get you the information.

Yeah, I mean, my last point is, you know, people call the government and they're trying to get information, and everybody's trying to point the finger to somebody else, and somebody has to take responsibility, and I'd like to see he could do their part. So thank you. Thank you for that.

We do. If you call us, we'll go and take a look at it. For sure.

All right, thank you.

Are there any other questions from Members? Actually, I have one for Department of Labor Industrial Relations. I just wanted to clarify that in your testimony you pointed out that there's a bill moving to transfer the fire marshal to a different Department. And I just wanted to. So would that be the Department of Defense fence?

Yes.

Okay. But it's. Because it hasn't gone. Would you. Do you think we should also say. Or whichever agency is the linked administrative agency administra-.

Where the State Fire Council or State Fire Marshal is administrative. That we're fine with that? Okay, great. Thank you so much.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you very much. So we're going to go on to the next set of resolutions. HCR 168 and HR 163 requesting that the Hawaii State Fire Code clearly define stages of wildfire suppression and related efforts. And I see that we have one individual from Hawaiian Electric interested in testing. Fine. This would be James Abram.

Good morning. Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Bernal on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, testifying in strong support of this reso. If you have any questions, I will be available. Thank you.

Is there. And is there anybody else in the room or on zoom interested in testifying on this matter? Any questions from committee members? Okay, seeing none. We'll go on to the next. We're going on to HCR 133 and HR 128 strongly supporting the construction of a floating driver rye dock at Pearl Harbor.

And I see that we have five testimonies in support and one person who would like to testify here from Pacific Shipyards International Anchor. Okay, is there anybody else wishing to testify, please.

Good morning again, chair, vice chair, Larry Veray here, submitting my testimony as the chair of the Pearl City Neighborhood Board. Because we have a great relationship with public affairs at Pearl Harbor. We get briefings every month on their dry dock operations. But also I want to provide testimony. As a former U.S.

Navy veteran command master chief, I've did 14 submarine patrols in my career and I can't overemphasize how important that dry dock is to our country for a national offense. Our Virginia class submarines are the largest fast attack submarines that we have. We need to have a place to fix them.

And our shipyard workers, they need to be able to make sure our battle force is ready to go when needed. They need to be fit. And one thing about submarines, they're stealthy and we need to maintain our stealth force. And I most strongly support this resolution. Thank you.

Is there anybody else in the room or online wishing to testify on this, on these resolutions? I have a question. Since you're the only person here who testified on this and that you do have a connection to Pearl Harbor, is it, well, is it unusual that the state legislature is making recommendations about what the military should do?

I can't answer that question because.

And I had the same question because when I saw that pop open there, why is this here? And they've already started building it and it's probably for more funding. That's what I would think.

And if those of you that don't know it's being built out at Hospital Point, it's a really good area out there and they got a. It's- It's the right place to do it, but I'm sorry, I can't answer that question.

Okay, thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Any other questions from members? Seeing none. Let's go on to the last set of resolutions, HCR 207 and HR 199, urging the Department of Land and Natural Resources to conduct a comprehensive economic analysis of of all military leased lands. And we had 34 testimonies in support and two testimonies with comments.

And I believe we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources here to testify.

Good morning, vice chair and chair and members of the committee, Dawn Chang, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today. I did want to comment about a few items in the resolution. There is an existing transparent process we do have.

There are Environmental Impact Statement, public hearings, there's land board meetings, there's other regulatory processes. But more importantly, we have strongly urged the Department of Defense. It is their responsibility to engage the communities. We are the regulatory agency. We're not the advocate for the project.

Therefore, we are urging Department of Defense to take that responsibility on with regard to appraisals. Appraisals are required as part of our leasing process process. So that would be conducted. And finally, I do want to share that the items to be assessed by the Department and a report provided by 2026, we would. We find it to be.

Well one, we don't have the capacity. We're estimating that it would probably cost us about $2 million to do this and we would not be able to complete it. We don't anticipate being able to complete it by to provide the legislature report by 2026. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Next we have Russell Tsuji from the Department of Land and Natural Resources. I think testifying via Zoom.

Thank you, chair. My testimony would be identical to what Chair Chang just testified to. Thank you.

Thank you.

Available for questions if you have.

Great. And I think we also have Kalahui Hawaii via Zoom in support.

Yes, thank you. Aloha Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto and members of the committee. Kalahui, Hawaii is in strong support of HCR 207. This resolution is necessary to protect the public land trust and to ensure that the interests of Kanaka Maoli and the broader public are represented in a fair, transparent and data informed process.

As DLNR has acknowledged, many of the military leases were made shortly after statehood for our nominal fee of a dollar and lacked protections for Ina and accountability to the people. The result has been significant cultural and environmental degradation, contamination from depleted uranium, unexploited- unexploded ordnance and damage to sacred sites.

While DLNR cites existing public processes under HRS Chapters 171 and 343 in their testimony to the ledge on January 28th, 2025 where they noted in- Sorry so why they do cite public processes in their testimony on January 28, they stated the the department has initiated discussions with US DoD on the department's land disposition process, including environmental compliance, cultural impact statements, kapaakai analysis, and expectations of proactive and extensive community engagement by U.S.

DoD. This statement suggests a level of engagement already taking place between DLNR and the DoD. Moreover, it is essential that the state not operate under the assumption that lease renewals will happen or that negotiations will inevitably lead to renewed agreements. No decision about the future of these lands should be presumed.

Doing so risks undermining the very public process that DLNR and the legislature say they are committed to honoring. If negotiations are occurring now, before key facts such as economic value, environmental damage and opportunity costs are fully understood, it undermines public trust and weakens the foundation of any future agreements.

That is precisely why it is critical that lease discussions are not happening prematurely or behind closed doors. According to a December

13 Honolulu Magazine article, it is clear that Dawn Chang, the current chair of the state's Board of Land and Natural Resources, is already publicly supporting negotiations which, according to her written testimony, is the last step of the long process for land retention. So what is it? Is it the first step or the last step?

She states that the military and the State of Hawaii could be inspired by last summer's novel climate change settlement in Navajine F vs Hawaii Department of Transportation. As in that case, she says, the parties was able to set aside the usual adversarial elements of a negotiation and work together to reach the best deal for both parties.

And this is in the Honolulu Magazine. No meaningful negotiation can occur without first knowing the true economic value of the land, the cost of cleanup and restoration, and the lost opportunities these lands represent for housing, agriculture, education and the betterment of Native Hawaiians.

HCR charts a responsible path forward grounded in transparency, data and community involvement, and ensures decisions made today will not compromise the future of our aina and our lahui in our kiki. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Sierra Club of Hawaii.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Wayne Tanaka with the Sierra Club of Hawaii. You have a written testimony I submitted a little late, but it's in support of this measure. I'll just add to that.

So last I believe it was April, there was a proposal to give to delegate to the Board of Land Natural Resources Chairperson the authority to develop a contract for assessing the fair market value of these military leases.

That proposal was roundly rejected and largely because there's so many questions and concerns from the board members and from the community at large about what would you consider as part of this fair market value, will you consider the sacredness of these lands or the food security and other opportunity costs, or how would you account for the remediation costs that would be necessary.

And so I think this resolution really does provide that starting framework where people can start understanding, okay, we're going to actually look at these things and at least that way, beginning understanding what exactly we're dealing with when we consider the potential retention of these lands.

And yeah, it's a little unsettling that the department is saying that they can't actually do this kind of assessment, because I would think that's what you'd have to do to begin negotiations. Right. You need to know what you have before you start. So that's also something that just kind of hit me right now.

But other than that, you know, happy to answer any questions and otherwise we'd respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Next we have Greenpeace via Zoom.

Aloha, Good morning. Dave Mollinix here representing Greenpeace Hawaii and our thousands of members statewide. Thank you so much for hearing this resolution. I think it's essential. You know, the military says that they take these, actually stolen most of these lands for national security.

But national security, what means to them and what it means to us, I think are different things. We saw at Red Hill that the national security to them was protecting their asset. Even though they knew full well that they were poisoning the people of Hawaii.

Even though when they knew that was going on, they hid that from the people. Even though they knew full well that that was continuing to go on. They- They gaslighted us. They did everything they could to keep that asset on their books. Even though it was hurting the people of Hawaii.

To me, the people of Hawaii are the national security. So we know that this is their focus, their first focus. And we also know that when they contaminate lands, they never, ever, ever clean them up. There are contaminated lands all around the world that the US military has contaminated and they don't do anything to clean them up.

We have Koolawi, Pearl Harbor, Makua, Poakaloa. It goes on and on. I think there's scores of sites here in Hawaii that they have never, ever, ever cleaned up. They asked for $800 billion for the military, for all their fancy weapons and all that.

That's our hard earned tax dollars that is being siphoned away from social services, Healthcare, education, infrastructure. Because they want the latest technology and they want the new toys. Well, that is hurting the people of Hawaii. That is hurting our nation, really. National security is the people of Hawaii, and that's what they should be focusing on.

So we cannot trust the military. We've learned that. And so I think it's essential that we do everything we can to make them honest and that we protect ourselves. It is, you know, all of our duty to protect the people of Hawaii because the military are not doing that.

And so that's why it's essential that this is, I think, a first step to making a difference, to say that, look, we demand that, you know, you've got to look out for us, and we're going to make sure that we look out for us. We can't trust you anymore. Thank you so much for hearing this.

Really appreciate this being put forward. You're really, this is what, why you guys got elected. And I just really appreciate that you're looking at this and taking care of this. Have a really good day. Aloha.

Next we have Kimmer Horson.

Aloha, maikako. This is a very, I only have two minutes. This is a very pertinent, important, significant decision because we cannot, you guys represent, it's not, don't take it personal. You guys represent the State of Hawaii. You represent the United States, the Department of Defense.

They represent the United States military and all of its, what it, whatever it represents. We cannot, we cannot go on. Hawaii will not be sustainable, you know, the way it's going. And like he said, you know, what is the military doing here? Not only do we need a financial audit, you know, we have DLNR.

They're saying it's not our responsibility. We have the military saying it's not our responsibility. You know, whose responsibility is it? You know, who's gonna speak for the water and the dolphins and the whales and the seaweed and the, the, what do you call that? The reef and that's. That kind of stuffs. Yeah, our freshwater tables.

Who's going to speak for them? You know, we cannot live without water. We are already overcrowded. All right, on Oahu, you know, we are already, you know, selling out and placing money over and jobs and economy over our natural resources and our people and violating international law.

Know, I, I don't want this to sound like a scolding, but it is a scolding. Yeah, you guys are responsible. The military is here while Lahaina's burning up. You know, the active duty military, everybody, the marine. Where was your submarines when Lahaina was burning? We could have put people on submarines and get them out of there.

You know what I mean? Like, this is ridiculous. What are they doing here? I- I- I promise you, when I was in the military here, the military is sitting here looking at child pornography. Right? They're sitting, they're sitting here posturing and training for no war. There's no wars going on. All they do is talk about war.

And I'm gonna, you know, all the big guys, you know, that's all that's going on. Just posturing here. All right? It's ridiculous. We don't need the military here. It's not even there. It's not even their kingdom or country. Right. But international law. So give it back to the, the Hawaiians, the aina. Yeah.

And quit violating the queen and king of this kingdom. It is so shameful that I have to keep coming up here with these bills. People that just want to make money and be here and be greedy. I'm, I'm so tired of it. That's how you'll get rid of me. All right? Okay. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Is there anybody else wishing to testify on these resolutions in the room?

Good morning. Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto and members of this committee. My name is Emily Serrasa. I'm testifying on behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii in strong support of HDR 207 and HR 199, urging the Department of Land and Natural Resources to conduct a comprehensive economic analysis of military leased lands.

It's the ACLU's mission to protect fundamental freedoms as enshrined in our federal and state constitution. Under Article 11, Section 1 of the Hawaii constitution, DLNR has a positive duty to protect the lands that are held in trust for the state by the state for the benefit of the people.

To fulfill this constitutional mandate, DLNR must perform this economic analysis. This was affirmed in the Chingvi case, case where the Supreme Court of Hawaii recognized that the state has a positive duty to Aloha Aina and steward and care for these lands. And the state, in many ways, has persistently failed to do so.

I was actually writing a report about the hearing last year, the spring hearing that Wayne referenced, where the land appraisal was in question. Hundreds of people from the community came out to testify. Because an appraisal is that language is vague. It's not comprehensive enough. It cannot fully account for all the damages, the cultural, economic, and environmental costs.

So there is no way to appraise the land without fully understanding those damages. The U.S. military. To say that it's a bad tenet would be maybe an understatement. When we consider the unexploded ordinances, the pollution, the live fire missile training, those are all significant harms.

I don't think that the word appraisal can fully understand and evaluate all of those harms. And the lease renewal here is an urgent matter. These leases are coming up in 2029, and the reason why the community came out in such, like, adamant opposition is because it was seen as a formality, this appraisal.

It seemed like the decision was already made, and that cannot be the case without this full understanding. So transparency is really vital to good governance and before even considering whether to renew the leases. DLNR has a constitutional mandate to perform this economic audit.

So I urge you to fund whatever is necessary to do so and support these resolutions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify on these resolutions? Is there anybody else on Zoom wishing to testify? Members, do you have any questions for any of the testifiers?

Thank you, chair. DLNR, can you clarify for me, director, if there is a formal expiration date of the- the lease for the military lands?

There are- There are several different. Oh, I see. Yeah. So it depends. Most of them, it is true, will expire in the. In, excuse me, 2029. But there are other leases that may expire a little later. But most of the critical, at least the U.S. DoD army leases will expire on August 16th, 2029.

Last question. Chair.

Yes.

You referenced Chapter 171 and 343 of the HRS. My question would be, without me looking there, who is the state representative that would be responsible to negotiate with DoD? Is it DLNR or BLNR?

Yes, it would be the Board of Land and Natural Resources. So the process is the environmental processes under Chapter 343, as well as under the National Environmental EPA.

It is the- It is the applicant in this case, it would be us DOD's, their responsibility to fully disclose all of the environmental impacts of the proposed project, which would be to continue on the leased area. And they're currently going through that process right now.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources previously commented to the Navy that they're, excuse me, the army, that their first draft environmental assessment was inadequate, so they had to do it again. So some of the questions that were raised today about that, we've been engaged in negotiations.

What we have done is our comments to the draft EIS included, Community engagement included. You need to do the Ka Paakai analysis. So all of those statements were part of our responses to the eis. So the EIS would be the first step.

They'd have to do an environmental assessment on the impacts of their proposed uses, as well as what's the current status of the lands. And then they'd have to go. There's another process. Some lands, most of them are conservation, so they'd have to get a conservation district use permit.

And then once all that gets approved, and should it get approved and they pass litigation, which we are assuming will happen, then they come to the board to request a lease for the lands. And yes, that would be decided by the Board of Land and Natural Resources.

So would there be one EIS for everything or EIS per agreement. And the EIS that you mentioned initially, that was preliminary submitted and you rejected. What was the date of that?

Do you remember, Luke?

It was 2024. So that's up to the applicants. So in the case of the army, the army has done- they've done one application for pohakuloa on Hawaii island, and then they've done an application for the Oahu sites at Makua, Puamoho and Kahuku. The Navy, they would. They are required to do their own EIS. We've not received.

We've received. We've not received an EIS for the Navy parcels. Likewise, the Air Force would be required to do their own EIS. And we have not received. And I will be on record, they're very late. This is the year 2025, and these leases expire in 2029. But those documents are very late.

Thank you, Director. Thank you for your good work. Thank you.

Chair. Yes, it's some somewhat along the same lines of Representative Shimizu. And I'll just start. I- I support us moving something forward because. But the things that we have to.

I feel like we have to balance with is the information the public deserves to know and have separate and apart from the EIS that's moving forward in that process, the timeline of all the leases and obviously the costs like. So we are operating in this environment where things are happening already. But I'd like us to do something.

So knowing that you said that the first lease will expire in 2029.. Do any of the leases have clauses where there would be any kind of automatic extension in the event? So it's like those.

There may be a possibility for holdover. We've not. But that's only one year, so there's not an extension.

Okay. My second question is, and I had asked this previously in another hearing and I apologize, I have not kept up with all my emails, so your staff have already provided this information to me.

But I was interested in having your calendar of like all the timelines, the deadlines that for each of the military leases that have to be met.

Knowing that you guys have probably mapped out the EIS process and all of that, if that can be shared with the committee, that would be helpful so that we know where the timelines are.

We can share with you what we have. And as I've indicated, the only documents that we've received to date are from the United are from Army. We've not received from the Navy or the Air Force. But we can share with you a timeline of the documents that we have received to date.

And again, a lot of that is the remainder of the timeline. We can give you the outside date, which is August 2029. But to a large extent, the timeline is dictated by the applicant when they submit documents to us, when and when. So those EISs would have to be approved by the Board of Land and Natural Resources.

To the degree that you can. Does your staff have a timeline or a calendar? Not with the dates because as you said, it's being driven by conduct by the applicants, if that.

But in your calendar, do you have a timeline like that says if you hit the submission of the EA, you have 20 days to respond. You can create that kind of calendar for us.

We have statutory, statutory requirements. So normally, you know, you and some of those are dictated under Chapter 343. So upon which we. And there's it's. We don't have to approve an EIS. I don't believe we don't have to approve an EIS by certain time period.

But there is a statutory trigger date for when you can appeal the approval of an EIS. But I don't believe we have a deadline in which we have to accept it. Why don't you come on up, Luke? I know. That's why so.

Good morning, Luke Cyrus, DLNR so The submission of EIS triggers the timeline for us to respond. That's 45 days. And that's just to take it to the board for the board to make a decision. We don't make that. We just make a recommendation one way or the other. Okay.

So there's beyond that as, as chair was saying that it's almost entirely driven by when they can provide those things and then subsequently the litigation timeline, which is hard to.

I mean somebody's going to request a contested case for these that's probably going to proceed however it will and then through as much litigation as possible in a couple years easily.

Okay, so on with that. On that note, like if there's a contested case hearing that would also be before the board, and then it would potentially lead to litigation.

The contested case wouldn't necessarily be on the 343. That would be a separate. A challenge to a Chapter 343. But if they have to do a conservation district use permit. Yes, that would require that trigger a conservation contestant.

As I'm hearing all of this, I don't even understand how anyone's going to meet the August 16th, 2029 deadline.

Yes, I know. We keep on moving. So sorry. So sorry. And they are well aware of that. They are well aware of what the timeline is. So. And we have been- We have been beating this drum at least since I've come on board, and I'm assuming even before I came on board.

But yeah, just two more questions and I promise I'm done. Second, one question is about calendar timeline. I have a question about funding. Right. I mean, what we're asking is. I'll be the first to acknowledge it's a lot that we're asking, actually. And then a comment.

I heard in your testimony that you said that you think that the Department of Defense should be the one to take on this kind of analysis. But I, I don't know that I agree with you because I think it's something that they're gonna. If they were to take on this analysis, they're gonna be. It's gonna be biased.

So we really need, like, an agency, someone to do this kind of work for us. And if it's not you, then who might it be? And could it be a given this timeline, could it be a Shorter timeline that's more cost efficient?

So let me apologize if that was what I conveyed. That was not my intent. The responsibility of the applicant DoD is to advocate for the project, not DLNR. So when the bill talked about transparency, community engagement, that really should be the applicant's responsibility. We're not advocating for the continued leases. That's not DLNR's position.

DLNR's position is we will review the documents when they are submitted to us, but whether we have to. So we do this. And so what you've outlined here to a certain extent is done in the context of both. It's fleshed out in the Chapter 343 or the NEPA analysis. What are the impacts?

And then the appraisal also takes into consideration some of these factors in determining fair market value. But that's. So I do want to clarify what we came to the board with, and I guess it was April 2023. It was not to delegate to the chairperson to negotiate. It was, as I do for many other divisions.

It is to delegate to the chairperson to hire an appraisal to conduct because that's a critical information. I think we all agree the board needs to know what's the value of this property before we even continue to engage further in these discussions.

So some of what you're asking us to do in this context is some of it is the responsibility in the context of the appraisal fair market value. How do they determine that? But much of what you're asking is really, it is far beyond what we are required to do under Chapter 171 to determine a lease.

And some of this is speculative. What would be the loss income of the state of the trust lands instead of the $1 item 4? What's the lost tax dollars to the state of these trust lands if they were utilized for productive purposes? I mean, it is hard to say what would those purposes have been.

Would it have been because most of these lands are conservation. There's a very limited use of conservation. It's not like they could bid a hotel on it. They would, you know, much of this would be so much, much of the land that we are leasing, Kahuku, Makua, those are.

Most of those lands are conservation or they're ag land. So they are limited. So again, to determine what would be. The analysis would be based upon the zoning of the lands and the appraisal will look at that.

This is really a cause for a lot of conversation. And I'll just ask one last question. Defer back to you, vice chair. I'm so sorry. The last question is, has there been any change given the new administration with the kind of tenor or conversation that's been happening from your observations? Because I think that's also of a concern.

And that's a very fair question. Not that we have received. However, I think we are. I think we know that this administration has a very different posture than the previous administration.

You can leave it at me. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair, I have some questions. So I sense that there's a sense of frustration from the community in terms of the economic analysis of the leased lands. How many actual leases are there?

There's approximately.

Specifically to the military.

And some of this varies. It could be like an easement for telecom facilities, but we have. It varies. Maybe about 33 general leases. And again, they vary in uses. There are several executive orders and then there are several, what we call revocable permits. Most of the parcels are under lease and I do want to clarify.

There is this perception. Let's take for example, Pohakuloa. Pohakuloa is probably over 200,000 acres that the U.S. military army is using. Out of that 200,000, they only lease from the state approximately 20,000 acres, 23,000 acres.

So if you recall, so when in under the admissions act, the Federal Government kept a lot of land when we became a state. And so much of the lands that are under that are being used by DoD, the Navy, PMRF, Makua. Makua is another really good example. Most of that valley is actually not under lease.

It is under DoD. So Makua, approximately. Luke, how much do you remember? But. But the rest of the valley is currently under jurisdiction of DoD of the Army. So we don't DLNR. The state does not control most of the valley, like PTA, like PMRF. So the public's perception is that this lease, there's a lot of land undoubtedly.

So we do not disagree with that. And quite frankly, probably many of the lands that we do that they are leasing from us are critical to their operations. But for purposes of the scope of what they're leasing, it is probably a much smaller amount than what they currently.

And I don't want to say own, because they don't own it, but that they retained under the Admissions Act.

Got it. So I think- I think that with the community, perhaps this analysis, the report would give the community a chance to see all of what you just said in one place. And then also all the conservation land, if you're like, there's no economic value.

So that takes care of quite a chunk, you know, of it limits the analysis needed. Right. In terms of what's the income that could be generated if it was given to a different person.

So hearing your testimony or reading your testimony about how much the cost involved, I don't see if you excluded a huge, huge chunks of land that it would be that much. And then secondly, are you allowed to go to Uhero and ask them for help for some of this analysis?

Maybe. I mean, we haven't done that.

Sorry about that.

That could be a possibility. I mean, we. Yes, I'm sorry, we have not explored what the options are for contracting. This would be and.

Okay, thank you. And then finally, in terms of alternative uses for this land, is this the time. Do you receive other notifications of interest in that land? Because is that something you take into consideration when making the decision we're going to lease it, we're going to extend the lease or renew the lease for the military.

Oh, but look, here's this other community group or state agency that wants the land and they're going to do this with it.

That's a very good question. Normally under Chapter 171, when we have public lands, we would have to put that out to public auction. So that's when we put out a notice saying we've got this land available. Anybody interested? But in the case of Federal Government or other state agencies or county agencies, we can negotiate.

So that's under the statute, we're permitted to negotiate with the Federal Government for this lease without putting it out to the general public to compete for that parcel.

Okay. So it would be the right time now for the community to start stepping forward and, and beginning discussions.

Yes, it could be. I mean, so. But I think in my view the appropriate.

They are free to send us their comments, but I would prefer that it be part of the public record on the chapter on the EIS, that the EIS, the members of the public are saying, hey, we would like to use this land for other purposes. That's their comment on the record that is being provided by.

To the military as well as that gets transmitted to us. But there should be a record for that. And if they just send it to us, we only get it. But. So in my view, the appropriate vehicle to lodge those kinds of interests should be in the context of their comments to the environmental documents.

Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other questions?

Sure, I just have a request. Thank you, director, for all the information, valuable information you shared. You. The last thing you mentioned that I heard about was the maps. Excuse me, not maps, but the land and some conservation, some that quote under ownership, for lack of a better term, by the military.

Would you have like a map that you could send us that information or list or something that we'd have a better understanding? Like you said, the public may be misunderstanding. What is the scope of the lease renewals? Yeah.

So let me go back with my staff and we'll work on preparing some for me. Whatever- whatever they- whatever the applicant submits to us is a public record. So for example, in their application or when they come to the land board.

So we will provide to you because the military did provide us some maps showing the zoning where, what they're proposing to use, what land that is under their current jurisdiction versus lease lands. So I would let us gather that for you and then we'll submit those to the chair and the vice chair. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Godspeed for your work.

Thank you one last thing.

Sorry, Chair.

If these resolutions do continue to move, will, are you able to generate some kind of report, some kind of analysis to say given the the limited funding we received from the legislature, this is what we're able to compile. These are the resources that we're able to gather and put into one place given our limited or no budget.

This is one what we can offer you. But this is what. But coming. If you were to extend another year, this is what we could give you more details for this amount of money. Like it would be really helpful if we could get something.

And we're willing to do that because I do recognize that a lot of this frustration by the community is a lack of information. And to a certain extent the department has felt that is really the responsibility of the applicant. But I recognize that that's not happening.

So let us go back at DLNR and then we will try to see what is it that we can share. We'll share with you at least what we've got. And if there's a possibility, well, I won't commit our department.

I was going to offer something beyond, but I said no, I better go back and talk to my department first. But I think we're open to considering something less than and something more realistic. But let's try to get something to you so you can see what information we have.

Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

So that's the testimony and question and answer for all of the resolutions that were sent to the that were referred to this committee. So we're going to be. I don't need to take. I like an open discussion. So personally, I don't feel that we need to do go into recess. Can we. We do have quorum. Can we.

Do you want to get more. Do you want to make a call so that we have more members who want to participate or we can just go forward, chair.

Yeah, I feel like we have quorum here. Let's proceed. Unless. Did we put out a message to the committee beforehand that we're waiting?

No, I don't believe so. Okay.

So, Vice Chair, we should--if you want to conduct the discussion and make your recommendations, you can go.

Correct. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just getting some of this together. So regarding HCR 62 HR 57--and I want to, you know, there was no one who came to testify on this and since we have the benefit of having the introducer of this resolution, is it appropriate to just have a discussion with you now about possibly amending the HCR?

The preamble or the whereas portion indicated that the law that was passed only mandates that it be flown on six national holidays, but your resolution said year-round at the State Capitol. Would--that's--would you be open for the HCR being amended to either those same six national holidays or one day?

So this was introduced at the request of a constituent who is a Vietnam veteran and he felt very strongly that there ought to be a daily reminder of the missing as well as prisoners of war, so you're correct.

There was a resolution that acknowledged and requested the flag to be flown on specific holidays, and his request was to make it every day. But I respect whatever you would like to do with the resolution or amendments that you'd like to make. That's fine.

Thank you. Let's see. So I'm actually going to recommend that we amend HCR to the six national holidays, the same six national holidays that the feds require, and I am comfortable--and I don't know how unprecedented this is--but I'm comfortable moving the HR just as is so that there's a choice for the next committee because this is going on to Judiciary. So the Judiciary can actually look at the original version, but if this were to go on to the Senate, it would be limited.

She says, okay.

Okay. So that's the--oh, so, sorry. Any discussion? I thought we were having a discussion. Anybody else with some thoughts on this?

So when you gonna amend to go back to the current six holidays and one you're going to leave it for year-round? Is that what you're saying?

Correct. The HR 57 would be just as is, which says, you know, year, all year, year-round, and the HCR version which goes on to the Senate would limit it to the six national holidays.

I think those are two good recommendations and it gives the choice for JHA to move forward. The--and I would say, well, because most things with the Capitol require consultation with the Senate, I actually think a concurrent resolution would be a stronger vehicle to move.

Oh, but we're moving both.

Yeah. And so you can do both.

Okay. Are the amendments and the as is, all that clear to everyone? Okay.

Okay. So chair's recommendation for HCR 62 is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. [Roll Call]. Okay. Recommendation on HR 57 is to pass unamended. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is passed for HR 57.

Okay. The next is HCR 154 and HR 149. Given the testimony of the auditor regarding the term 'forensic,' I believe we should--I would recommend amending that language on both resolutions and removing just the term 'forensic' so it's just an audit. Is there any discussion?

Do you want to designate it as a financial audit or I believe the testimony was--

I think they didn't--well, and thank you. I'm open to actually replacing forensic with 'management performance and financial audit.' So that is the updated recommendation from the chair, and this would be for the HCR and the HR. Any comments or questions?

I would just note some reservations, Chair, because these audits are quite comprehensive and the timing of it--I would just be concerned about the timing, and typically for something this big, the auditor, we sometimes appropriate monies or, you know, enable, empower him to get contractors, but those are--those are issues that could also be taken up by the Finance, so I just, I just share that with you.

Okay.

I share the same reservations. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Can I take a vote?

Yes, please.

Okay. So for both HCR 154 and HR 149, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes with reservations. Vice chair votes aye. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any other reservations? Rep. Souza. And any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation's adopted for both HCR 154 and HR 149.

Now onto HCR 63. My recommendation is to just pass it as is. This was the clinical counseling services for staff. Any comments, questions, concerns?

Chair's recommendation is to pass HCR 63 unamended. Noting the excused absence absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any reservations? Any noes? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

Onto HCR 23. This was the--including the Circuit and District Court into the new Oahu Community Correctional Center. My recommendation is to pass as is. Any comments, questions, concerns?

I think the--excuse me, Chair--I think the testimony by the director that stated that he had communicated with Judiciary to provide one multi-use instead of two separate is viable inclusion.

Okay, thank you. And I don't, I don't think the--does the resolution state too that they should be separate facilities? Okay. Can we just say court facilities? Should we amend the resolution just to say--I mean, because it's--the way I took it was it's a shared-use space, so it's the same result to say District and Circuit Court. Do you know what I mean? If there--it is addressing the needs of both courts to have them use one room.

The facility would be singular.

Oh, okay. I hear what you're saying. So just amend it to be a singular facility. Okay, I think that's a--that makes sense. So it's as amended or is that a technical amendment? I don't know. What do you think?

I'll leave it. It's an amendment.

Okay, so it's as--so let's do it with amendment recommended by the department and also pointed out by Member Shimizu.

All right. Chair's recommendation is to pass HCR 23 with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

The next one is HCR 37, and it's the reaching out to kupuna about emergency preparedness. My recommend--oh--the recommendation is to pass as is. Is there any comments, questions, concerns?

Chair's recommendation is to pass HCR 37 unamended. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any other--any reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Onto HCR 69 HR 62. My recommendation is to pass with amendments, specifically including the language requested by IBEW that states in their testimony and make recommendations that define a line clearance tree trimmer and establish minimum safety standards, training and qualifications for individuals performing line clearance tree trimming at or near the electrical utility facilities.

Further, given the testimony of DLIR that there is a bill moving to move the Fire Marshal into the Department of Defense, that we--that the resolutions be amended to state to replace DLIR with DOD, also to allow for the fact that the bill, if it doesn't pass, that it also states or whichever department the Fire Marshal is administratively linked to. Are there any comments, questions, or concerns? Okay. Seeing none. Let's take a vote.

Chair's recommendation for HCR 69 and HR 62 is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, are there any reservations? Are there any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Oh, darn it. Okay. There was one more thing that we--but that's okay. So maybe for the committee report, on HCR 69, I just wanted to add in that the next committee should consider Kamehameha Schools' testimony that pointed out that not only is it about landowners' responsibility, but also easement holders' responsibility.

So let's include that in the committee report. Sorry for not checking my notes. Okay, next is the HCR 168 HR 163. My recommendation is--this is one, it's asking that the Fire Code clearly define stages, avoid fire suppression, and related efforts. I want to just be clear about who we're requesting that of and that be the Fire Marshal and the council, the fire--is it the Fire Council? The gentleman left the room.

Say that again, Chair? I'm sorry.

There's both a fire marshal as well as a fire--

The State Fire Council.

State Fire Council, that they work together to come up with these definitions. So that is the amendment for this one. Are there any comments, questions, concerns?

No? Okay, seeing no comments, questions, or concerns, Chair's recommendation for HCR 168 and 160--and HR 163 is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Given HCR 133 HR 128, I'm going to--I have separate, I have separate recommendations. I want to pass HCR as is, and this is for supporting the construction of a floating dry dock at Pearl Harbor. So it's, again, to pass the HCR, and then I'm going to ask that we vote to hold the HR.

I did speak with the, the Chief Clerk's Office, with their, with his staff--I believe, Rupert--about the practice of holding a bill or a resolution that in the past it's been construed as a, kind of, I guess, it was making a point.

However, because our forms don't have an opportunity to vote on a deferral, I'm going to use the hold as a way to vote on a deferral, and if we choose to bring, in the future, the HR 128 back, all you need to do is to take a vote on reconsideration. So it's basically the same effect as a deferral. It just allows all committee members to exercise a vote on holding it, but it's according to the rules and Rupert, has the same effect. Okay.

Can I ask a question? Why pass one and hold the other? Does that send a mixed message about the issue?

I don't think so. I think it says that--well, no. I think it says let's get the Senate's input on this, whether or not sending a message to the military that we strongly support it and that it's a, it's a, it's kind of a big endeavor that has to do with a lot of resources, so why not get the Senate's input on one and dispose of the HR version?

Chair, can I--may I interject?

Yeah.

My understanding is there is a current dry dock project that is already funded. It's the biggest federal funded public works project that is ongoing and it's--my understanding is this resolution is just expressing support for that? Right?

Yes.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was clearly understood.

Exactly. It's a--I mean we're just basically expressing support and so why not let it be joint support between both chambers, the House and the Senate? Yes.

Question? So if by any chance the concurrent resolution doesn't make it, the House Resolution still shows the support of the House; there might still be some value in showing the support of the House as a body for I think a very important project, as Rep Shimizu pointed out. Are we--

Yeah, wouldn't--if the House votes on Third Reading, I guess, and passes it over to the Senate, does that convey that the House supported it?

On the concurrent resolution? It does, but ultimately the resolution dies versus the House Resolution is adopted in final form when it passes out of the House. So it completes its journey, I guess you could say, as a House Resolution, but the House Concurrent Resolution will or could possibly die. I guess I'm just worried about the signal that we're sending on whether or not we support the project.

Can we say we support the project? Can we support the project jointly?Especially because this is kind of like it's already being done. You know, what is the weight of supporting it just as a single chamber?

Better than nothing.

Okay.

What I would say, if Chair wants to make--continue to make that recommendation, I think we make it clear in the committee report that the intent is--that the whole does not signal not support and there would actually be time within the session--it would be unusual, but there would be time in the session because there's actually--because HRs don't have to cross over, we could take it up.

Yes.

We could take it up even after the deadlines.

Or let's do this, because what I kind of would like to explore is voting--okay, I'm going to make the resident--I'm going to make the recommendation to vote for hold, and if that fails, then I'm going to make the recommendation to pass. I just think it's really--I think I want to, I want to show a flexibility as a chair--as an interim standing chair, whatever--that, you know, that we're listening to the committee, and so let's take a vote and then take, if it fails, if the hold fails, then I will make a--I will make another recommendation to pass it.

I have a question, Chair. So do we have time if--let's say the Senate kills the HCR, do we have time to bring back the HR and approve it so that at least the House has a chance to approve it?

I don't, I don't think--no, I don't think that's how it's going to work. I think that the timing doesn't work that way.

I just want to put on the record that I share Rep Ichiyama's concerns about, about both, yeah, and whatever procedure you want to do for us to vote on the, on the hold I'm okay with, but I do share her concerns. Thank you.

Okay. I appreciate that. So do we--we'll need another form because I have a feeling the hold is going to fail, which I am so open to. Thank you. I think it's really good that we have a transparent process where it's okay for the acting chair to be voted down on and that it's okay.

I'll just say that I put my concerns on the record. I'll be supporting the chair's recommendation. I just wanted to make my concerns noted.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. I'll vote against you.

Okay.

No personal, but I think we should--

And it shouldn't be per--that's my whole point with this exercise is it's not personal. There's nothing--there should not be a sense of betrayal or anything. Yes.

I would prefer to either pass them both or hold them both. I don't--or I don't know because I'm still not quite understanding why send one and not the other.

Okay, so, it's just so we--

I mean, I heard your explanation, I just don't understand it.

So I will be taking a vote to--so why don't we do the first vote--it would be the HR version--and, okay, so let's do the first vote on the HR to hold and then again, if that fails, if the chair's recommendation to hold this resolution fails, then we're going to take them--then we're going to vote to pass both.

So I'm just letting you know that's--so please do vote against my recommendation so that we can--yeah, I just think it's important to exercise this and to demonstrate that people aren't getting--there isn't--there shouldn't be any kind of problem with voting against a recommendation and that it could lead to an alternative path.

I just have another concern. Just, I just--maybe this is just a procedural question, but is it possible to separate the vote like that?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

So, Vice Chair, let's vote on HR 128.

Okay. Voting on HR 128, Chair's recommendation is to hold. I vote with reservations. [Roll Call]. Chair, your recommendation is not adopted.

Perfect.

Because it's tied.

Perfect. Thank you very much everyone for participating in the exercise with me. So now the recommendation is to pass both HCR--oh, sorry--HCR 133 and HR 128, to pass it as is.

Chair's recommendation for HCR 133, strongly supporting the construction of a floating dry dock at Pearl Harbor and HR 128, again, also strongly supporting the construction of a floating dry dock at Pearl Harbor is to pass unamended. I will take the vote for these singly, just to be very clear.

On HCR 133, noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any reservations? Any noes? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted. For HR 128, Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any reservations or any noes? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Thank you again, committee, for participating in that. So this is for HCR 207 HR 199. I appreciate the the DLNR's comments, but given the community's testimony and these longstanding concerns, my recommendation is to pass both resolutions as is.

Chair's recommendation for HCR 207 and HR 199 is to pass unamended. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Lamosao, Morikawa, and Woodson, any reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendations are adopted.

Thank you. Do I adjourn? Thank you. Adjourned.