House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Aloha and good morning. We are convening our Committee on Water and Land. I am Vice Chair Rachele Lamosao and sitting next to me is our Chair Mark Hashem. We are in room 411 and today is March 20, Tuesday, March 25th, 2025 and we are starting our committee hearing at 9:44 for our 9:40am agenda.

Before we get started, I do want to go over some rules for this committee. So in order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a a two minute time limit per testifier. Because morning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify.

In the event, please know that your written testimony will be considered by the committee. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted if and your view your video off while waiting for test to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat feature will allow you to chat only with the technical staff only.

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

In the event that we have a network failure- 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 trade marketed- marketed or copyrighted image on YouTube. I'm sorry. On Zoom. For YouTube purposes, please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from from the hearing here in this room without and or on Zoom without the ability to rejoin this hearing. Okay so thank you. So for our 9:40 agenda we did delete HCR 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

The intention is to wait for the senate concurrent resolutions which are pretty much similar to these that were posted. So we are going to consider them when the senate crosses senate bills crossover so first up is HR 35 HCR 40.

So we are going to be hearing our results in tandem if there is a HCR and an HR available for each reso.

So the first one is HR 35 HCR 40 urging the Department of Land and Natural Resources and other state agencies to work with committed community groups to co steward community forests located on public lands for the betterment of the state's forests and communities. So first up we have Heather McMillan from DLNR.

Aloha Mai. Heather McMillan Urban and Community Forester with DLNR. We stand in strong support of this measure and stand on our written testimony. Happen. Happy to answer any questions from the Committee here.

Thank you. Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. Seeing none. I do have purple. My EF, My Eye Foundation. My EF in support. Climate Change and Health Working Group in support. Ku Aina Ulu Omo in support and two other individuals in support. Are there anyone here in the room willing to testify? Anyone on Zoom? Seeing none.

Moving on to HR. Sorry. Any questions? Member okay. Seeing none. Moving on to HR 58 HCR 64 requesting the office of Planning and Sustainable Development to convene a working group to evaluate the establishment and administrative placement of the Office of Resilience and Recovery. So we have Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority present. OPSD.

Morning. Vice Chair, Chair and Members. I'm Mary Alice Evans with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We strongly support this resolution and we offer an amendment that that I forgot to offer to the Senate when they asked for them. So I would ask that the House consider this one.

And that is to revise the group membership to replace the county civil defense representative with the mayor or designee which will give the mayors of each county flexibility in selecting the representative for their county that is most aligned with with resilience and recovery.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next up we have Hawaii Office of the Governor or Office of the Governor Recovery and Resilience Unit.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Luke Myers, Branch Chief of the Office of Her Resiliency.

We stand in our testimony similar to Mary Alice's comments, we would recommend one friendly amendment to allow the mayor's designee to focus on either a recovery resiliency subject matter expert in light of or in addition to the emergency management specialist available for any questions. And thanks for your time.

Okay, thank you. Next up we have the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Leah Laramie with the Hawaii State Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Next up we have Board of Water Supply.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Kathy Mitchell with the Board of Water Supply. We stand in support of House Resolution 58 and House Concurrent Resolution 64. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, that's all. We have registered to testify. Anyone willing to testify in the room? No one on Zoom. Any questions? Member, Rep. Belatti.

Mr. Myers, please. And I promise this will be short, but I again new to this Committee. Can you describe what the Office of Recovery and Resiliency when 1. When it was set up and what have you folks done?

Yes, ma' am. So the Office of Recovery and Resiliency is a special project that was created by Governor Green post the Maui Wildfires. Acting as state Disaster Recovery Coordinator, we've led the long term recovery efforts in coordination with the Federal Government and Maui County and private partners since that effort.

Currently one of our main priorities is looking at long term cost and fiscal tracking of the investments that have been made and working on the state's recovery operations plan.

How is this different from the Office of Wellness and Recovery or the other resiliency office that we have? And then I guess what is it that you're doing that Hyima shouldn't already have been taken care of?

Good questions. So the difference between the Office of Wellness and Resilience and the Office of Recovery Resiliency we are responsible for on the recovery resiliency side in coordinating the state recovery support functions.

We have seven recovery support functions that work with the Federal Government and our county agencies that when we have large scale disasters we look at the long term impacts, whether that's on transportation, housing, a number of different areas. So we do that coordination.

The Office of Wellness Resilience focuses on the mental and health well being of the survivors and others in the community. We do have a close working relationship with hi EMA at the State Department of Defense. They primarily are focused on the response side and the Stafford act missions.

On the federal emergency management, we look at the long term recovery items which may include block grant funding and other federal dollars.

Normally are special projects continued.

In previous experience at Hawai' I Emergency Management Agency. I was the administrator there. I've seen special projects go for a number of years, up to five years.

We have leveraged special projects in the past in this state on the emergency management recovery side due to the nature of the funding, it has been inconsistent and the special projects have been a vehicle for that.

So is the intent and the belief that because Lahaina funding is going to be going much longer because do we have a special, for example, do we have a special project continuing on with COVID emergencies.

On the state emergency management side when they get Stafford act funding, the public assistance programs, the individual assistance programs, the hazard mitigation grant programs. I do know that state emergency management does leverage special projects for each open disaster. So there are multiple open disasters that we have in this state going back for many years.

If you go Back to the 2018 disasters, we had the lava on the Big island, we had Hurricane Lane, we have had the COVID 19 incident. So there are project positions funded by a special project that use a mix of federal and state dollars.

So specifically for the Lahaina fires, we were very fortunate that the state actually invested in capabilities for long term recovery, not specifically relying on federal dollars.

The Orr already has a separate line item with General funds is what you're.

Saying as a special project funded position? Yes, ma' am.

Within Hyma with A funds and not FEMA funds.

Not in hyma, not in hyma.

In governor's office. Yes, ma'am. With federal funds or A funds?

I think there were previous federal funds that were set aside.

Any A funds at this time?

I am not sure on that. I can get back to you.

Okay, thank you, Chair. I guess. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, members? All right, seeing none; we are moving on to the next resolution, HR59 HCR65, requesting the land use Commission to coordinate with county planning commissions and county councils to conduct current reviews, concurrent reviews of general plan amendments, district boundary amendments, and zoning amendments when reclassifying land. First up we have OPSD.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Aaron Setogawa. I'm with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. OPSD stands on its written testimony with comments.

Thank you. Next up we have LUC. Thank you. Okay, anyone else in the room willing to testify? That's all we have to testify. Any questions, members?

I have one question. OPSD: it's curious to me that in your testimony you say spot plan amendment. And that just triggers for me spot zoning. Is that a good or bad practice?

It's a bad practice.

Okay, so is this an example of.

Our concern is that if, if an individual, for example, if this becomes a process that's established, our concern that an individual property owner can request a simultaneous concurrent land use commission district boundary amendment, plan amendment, and a zoning amendment at the same time.

And the difference between that and the county's processing for the general plan amendment is they go through a whole process of general hearings, consultation with a number of adjacent landowners. And so, it's a larger process.

Whereas if an individual landowner comes in under this and is granted, you could end up with a parcel, individual parcel, that all of a sudden went from the Ag district to say the rural urban district. And it's in the a county amendment to that and the zoning amendment. And it'll be out there like an island by itself.

So, we would prefer more, if we were this goes forward, we prefer it to be more restricted to county planning department-initiated actions.

Okay.

And then I guess maybe just for everybody else, can you just define what spot zoning is? Because I might be using a term that others don't understand.

Spot zoning, for example, is where an individual parcel is zoned urban and it's surrounded by parcels in the ag district. Or in the case of county zoning, it'd be zoned, for example, urban again, within a larger agriculture area. In other words, it's not contiguous, it's not a rational overall plan and not supported by county infrastructure.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Go ahead. Just to follow up. Excuse me? Just to follow up. You're saying the resolution as it's currently written may make it easier to do spot zoning?

Yes. If an individual landowner - if the process is set up, an individual landowner applies for this concurrent process, you may end up with that situation.

Can I have one follow up question with the - no, not the - with the another. Okay; with LUC: so, hearing that, and I notice your tepid testimony. Yes. How do you respond to that?

We agree with OPSD in terms of spot zoning is a bad idea. We hope that the counties would ensure that there will be no spot zoning. And that's why we're happy to work with the counties to try and assist in no spot zoning.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else with questions? All right. Seeing none, we're going to move on to the next brezzo on the agenda. Have HR 118, HCR 122 requesting the Department of Land and Natural Resources to establish a collaborative working group to survey, identify and monitor culturally sensitive shorelines impacted by erosion. First up, we have DNR.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Jessica Puff, the administrator of SHPD, and we stand on our testimony and the comments we've provided. We're here for any questions you have.

Thank you. Next up, we have OHA.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Lena Alola, Director of Advocacy with OHA. We stand on our written testimony with the suggested addition of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands as a named party to the working group. Mahalo.

Thank you. We don't have anybody on Zoom. Anyone in the room want you to satisfy. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Edward Halealoha Ayau. I wanted to support Ola's testimony on this resolution and ask that you give it careful consideration. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else going to testify for this? Durazo. Oh, okay. We have one person on Zoom, actually. Anna.

Aloha. Kakou. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Mehana Kapoi. I am a current undergraduate at the University of Hawaii and a student intern for the Climate Change and Health Working Group.

I stand before you today as a Native Hawaiian, or Kanaka o iwi, deeply connected to the kupuna whose iwi rests beneath the land that I call home. My identity is shaped not just for my family, but by the legacy of my ancestors who walked these lands before me.

As a Native Hawaiian, Ibi Kupuna are not merely remains, they are a testament to our belonging here. The bones of our ancestors shaped the land itself, and their presence in the earth acknowledges our existence, our connection, and our place in this world.

As we face the impacts of climate change, our islands are experiencing intense coastal erosion, which threatens the resting places of our ancestors. This erosion endangers the bond between the people of today and all those that come before us that shape the very Hawaii this Legislature serves. House Resolution 118 is a means of protecting our ancestors.

In protecting them, we preserve the ties between Hawaiians and their lands vital to their identities. The inclusion of representatives from different groups and agencies enables a collaborative effort that is essential to protect our ancestral lands while ensuring the voices of our community are heard. For all these reasons, I urge you to support this resolution.

It is not just a policy. It is a commitment to protecting the foundation of Native Hawaiian existence and belonging to these islands that we call home. Mahalo. For considering this important measure, we move forward. May we move forward in a way that honors the legacy of our kupuna and strengthens the cultural vitality of our community. Aloha.

Thank you. Anyone else on Zoom? Seeing none. Okay, any questions? Member, I have a question. Okay. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. Perhaps it's a question to the testifier on Zoom. And I apologize in advance if this is. I apologize for my ignorance.

But when we talk about Iwi kupuna and when Iwi were buried along within like the sand dunes or within the sandy shorelines, you know, when high tides came up, or if they were ever disturbed by the ocean, was it a cultural practice to move them further, move them to another location or is it culturally aligned for the ocean to take the bones?

I'm not sure. But I do know that things like that would be discussed within the working group and I think within such a collaborative working group, ideas like that and cultural significant things like that will, will come up and we'll be able to make a culturally sensitive decision on the EV.

Okay, perfect. Thank you so much.

Yeah.

Representative Belatti.

I have a question for. DLNR and possibly oha. So I was really interested in watching the news last night to see the decision on EV kupuna come out. This court decision.

I have a question for DLNR and possibly OHA. So I was really interested in watching the news last night to see the decision on EV kupuna come out. This court decision.

I am not up to date on that. I did not hear that last night. Oh, okay. I'm learning in real time. All right.

So I guess, well, what I wanted to ask is in the context of that lawsuit that was just like it was news last night. And I again don't follow this, want to be educated. Can you comment on how this. And if you can't, then you can come back later.

Just comment on how this may help inform some of the litigation around that. Around that.

Not having read the news article, I think that one of the purposes of this legislation, and there was a Bill that was introduced earlier this session that didn't quite make it through that would study this as well, is to be more proactive and engaging with the community about decisions regarding EV and at the same time trying to establish some sort of guide for how to address the issue of impacts to evolve and a more programmatic approach because it's kind of two handed.

On one hand we need a better plan, but on another hand it is so community and descendant driven like the decisions that are being made and ensuring that the descendants have a voice and are consulted with and also the existing rules related to inadvertent discovery of evidence.

It is placed in the hands of Shipti to make decisions about the treatment of ev. And this approach would I think be a more community guided plan to Shipti to the state on the treatment of EV as a whole.

We've had discussions about things like Shipti's desire to perhaps establish burial vaults in Ahupuaa specific so that EV isn't removed from the location in which they are, and that is not necessarily a universal supported idea, is to remove EV from the shoreline to a burial vault.

So we would hope that the working group would guide those discussions and SHIP D's policies as opposed to Shipti just making those decisions for ourselves, you know, independently inside of our own agency. So I don't know if that helps to answer your question.

That does help. And if I could ask the same question of the OHA representative, and I'm looking at the Hawaii News now video, and the case is it's an ICA case with DLNR. If you can comment and if you can't, you can. We can always ask you to come back.

But it seems like this might be a good thing.

Kamakana for a lead compliance specialist with Office of Hawaiian Affairs, actually at case more so had to do with archaeological permits, it doesn't really have any relation to what this working group would be doing. So.

Okay. The title of the news article is News Court Ruling Claims State Failed to Protect EV Kupuna at Maui Housing Development Site.

I think both this working group and the other one that is going to be heard by the Committee this morning are beneficial to the extent that they facilitate greater communication between Shipti and Ohan, the community, about what can be done to improve protections for EV.

Not commenting directly on the content of the ruling, but to your larger question of improving how EV are taken care of across the state. I think both these resolutions and working groups would help address some of those problems.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, we're going to move. Oh, sorry, Representative Poepoe.

For Halealoha I was, I think, to expand on Rep. Iwamoto's question. If you. I don't know if she should repeat it or if you could comment on that from, you know, your expertise of the complexities of, you know, the whole burial treatment plan process.

So my Kumar, Edward and Pua Lani Kanaka, Ole Kanahele. I've been doing care and protection of EV Kapuna for 35 years. So to answer your question, we cannot tell you because we wasn't there. But when our ancestors committed the Iwikupuna to the earth, her name is Papahanaomoku. Of course they knew that erosion occurred.

It occurred back then, it's occurring now. So in some communities, they say the transition from Papa to Kanaloa Kanaloa is the ocean, is the natural process that was anticipated. So they just let it go. They protect the process of transition.

Other communities say no, we want to maintain the protection of papa on those Iwikupunas, so we move them inland. So the answer is whatever the families in that community say, there is no, we're not. The assumption is that all Hawaiians are the same. We're not. We are defined by the islands we're from. I'm from Molokai.

That's why I act the way I do. But Kauai different, Maui different. So it's all dependent on the families of the community as Oho folks were testifying. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? All right, we're going to move on to HR145, HCR151 requesting the Department of Land and Natural Resources to submit a detailed report on its leases or lease enforcement process and procedures. DLNR is first.

Good morning. The Department stands on certain testimony, opposition.

That's all we have registered to testify. Anyone wanting to testify on this measure? Anyone? Okay, nobody on zoom. Okay, any questions, Members?

Representative, Russell Tsuji here on oom. I, I thought we would have had a representative inside the room. He's here, but he's here.

Thank you, Russell. Okay. All right. Any questions, Members on this measure?

Yes, I have a question.

Okay, go ahead.

Let me just pull up. Sorry, one second. Okay.

While you ask, look for your. I'll ask a question for DLNR maybe. Are you Kevin?

Yeah, Good morning. Kevin Moore, DLNR Land Division.

And. Or Russell, maybe you can help me understand. So I see in your testimony that you folks are looking to recruit and fill positions to have the land division to do inspection on leases once every two years. So upon filling these positions, when can you start doing inspections?

Russell, do you want to take that? I mean, as soon as we get the positions filled.

No, I don't have anything to comment on the filling of the positions, but I did want to comment in general on the resolution. If after Kevin's finished, the question is. About filling the position, filling the positions and when.

So after, like when can you start? Because this resol requires you to submit a report in 20 days prior to 2026 legislative session. So if you don't fill those positions, like what are you able to fulfill the request of this report essentially?

Well, I mean, if the resolution passes and we have to submit a report, we'll do it. But it's hard to answer the question on, on filling the positions in part because some of them have been open for months and we haven't got them filled. We've interviewed and made offers, but the applicants have not accepted because of compensation.

Pay is too low. So we've got to find applicants, recruit them, train them. Getting all that done in a way that will make a significant difference before next session is probably hard to do.

Okay, I do have a follow up question then. Since you're having difficulty filling these positions. On your. In your testimony you also mentioned. That. The House Investigative Committee had recommended that you folks hire a third party inspector to conduct physical inspections of all these properties every five years to ensure compliance.

So I just wanted to get your take on that. And if you folks are exploring, maybe setting aside funds for that type of work.

So the provision that you referenced there, it actually would pass the burden of the inspection onto the lessee. But we can't do that with existing leases because it's not part of the contract for new leases. We have a provision going in that will give the Department the right to require those inspections unless he pay for them.

Apart from that specific provision, we have use our own funds to. To contract with a third party inspector to do inspections on some of our commercial properties.

Okay. Would we be able to retroactive these. That I guess that recommendation in some of the. The current leases.

So I don't think we can retroactive the part that makes them pay for it because that would be an contractual issue under the constitution. But, but we can pay for them and going forward we can definitely ask the lessee to pay.

Okay, can I follow up on that? Okay.

Oh, sorry, sorry, Russell. When I asked for testimony, you should have just gave your testimony. So hold on. Yeah, I'm going to have Representative Belatti ask her question. Question.

It's a follow up and a clarification. For the clarification, I think of Rep. Lamosao question. When you do renewals of those leases, at that point you can renegotiate. And have you done that?

Yes.

So for the inspections.

Right. Okay. So for lease extensions, we now have clearance from the Department of the Attorney General to update all lease terms and conditions. So it's going into the extension leases.

So would we be able to get a list from you of there's a little bit of background. I was involved in that special audit. Right. So it's important for us to know when these leases are coming up, when the renewals can happen, and if you guys, if you.

DLNR has been successful at renegotiating these inspections, which is I believe a fair burden to place for the benefit of a renewal. Can you provide that information to us for all the leases that you folks have?

Yeah, I don't think that would be a problem. We, you know, that's a fairly recent development, so we're only looking back a couple of years.

Okay. And then moving forward, if there's old leases that are coming due, when, at what point are those renegotiations happening so we can hold the Department accountable to negotiate the best absolute deal for the state. Can you give us a timeline for those leases coming due?

And you don't have to answer now, but if you could go back and provide that information, that would be very helpful.

Yes, thank you. Maybe if I can add to clarify that, Representative Belatti, the Department doesn't negotiate necessarily until the land board in an open sunshine meeting has approved such an extension. And if the terms and conditions have not been nailed down, then it may say the parties may negotiate. At some point it would have to come back.

All of the terms and conditions would go back to the board or at least be approved by the Attorney General's Office. But the board must act on the extension by simply applying. The Department does not negotiate because all of the lease extensions terminations is never a Department decision, but it's a board decision in a sunshine meeting.

Just to clarify on that point.

Okay, go ahead. And then one follow up. So the board has now been instructed that this is something that is in their power. From what I've heard from the previous testifier that the AG has, has now made this available. And so is it in the staff's recommendation that the board take this issue up proactively?

Again, the point is.

Yes, if we're going to add such a provision, it has to be in a snp. That's correct. And it's like the default presentation and.

It's the default now versus it's a default to go to that position.

I'm sorry, with respect to the, with respect to the policy, paying the inspection fee or something.

When the, when the, when the time is coming up. What I want to like I think I wanted to hear and I see the head nodding here, that the default now is. Or to inform the board that they have this authority. The AG has cleared it and now the board has absolutely.

As to the inspections, the hiring of the third party inspector.

Yeah. And has absolutely that authority to ask for better and to negotiate for the best possible position for the state.

Yeah. Oftentimes in that provision we recommend the insertion or requirement that it be added to the. If we're talking about a new lease or an extended period, it'll be normally a standard term for the provision. Yes, that's our recommendation.

Not too much to negotiation because the Legislature has decided that it is appropriate to place them in new leases if we can under extension agreements. AG has decided it can. So we will be imposing those provisions into the new.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Russell, before we start, I'm gonna have you finish your comment. Go ahead.

Yeah, generally I just want to comment. I was going through the whereas clauses. I think there might be some misunderstanding. I just want to clarify because there's one whereas that says the Department has stated that it maintains a policy of not renewing and issuing leases, etc. And I would say no, we don't have such a policy.

The law, hrs 17113 actually is the statute that says no lease shall be. No applicant shall be eligible for a new lease if they have had a lease or permit permanent for failure to cure one of the defaults under a prior agreement. So it requires at least the the lease or permit to have been terminated.

The mere fact that you missed one payment or missed a second payment does not prohibit you from applying for a new lease. In fact nothing, nothing happens unless the staff we bring it to before the board, notifying the board of the lease terminate violation.

And if the lessee was given opportunity to cure and doesn't cure, the staff may have a recommendation perhaps for these termination and it will be a board decision in an open meeting Sunshine second there was I just wanted to make clear too also there's a lot of references to the Department.

A lot of these decisions on leases list issuance of leases, any kind of default correction or mitigation plan, any default situation and ultimately a lease termination. All of that is decisions for a Sunshine Meeting Open meeting, Sunshine Clear transparency. There is nothing done behind closed doors.

That's really what I want to say and if you have any questions I wanted to talk about it because there is some issues here that seems that we're doing things with with lack of transparency. But all of these decisions, these major decisions on these leases are done in a Sunshine meeting agenda.

Public meetings Public is free to come available for questions if you have any other on those topics.

Thank you Russell. Representative Iwamoto go ahead.

Thank you for the Department. So it's my understanding that this resolution was kind of drafted as a consolation to the the bill that was basically trying to do a tenant in good standing for renewals and extensions and new leases of existing tenants.

I guess I'm surprised that it sounds like according to the testimony offered by the Department that there were no leases ever terminated. When I, when I, when I when the public knows about instances where environmental cleanup MOUs were not completed on time when there may be, you know, violations of federal laws, environmental protections, but leases weren't terminated.

So there's this kind of. I appreciate the transparency but there seems to be some of kind a disconnect between what's reported in the media and then what we see kind of not happening.

Unless, unless you can say that the Department has recommended termination of a lease because of violations law because of MOUs for cleaning up of land was not followed. I mean was did any am I making that stuff up that none of this stuff. No, no.

No tenant of state lands has ever violated an environmental law that would have led to a termination or no tenant has ever violated an MOU to clean up land. Is that all just am I totally off base?

Let me try and respond and then Kevin back can add if I miss anything as far as I'm trying to think back. I don't recall a lease being terminated for an environmental issue.

And failure to clean that up oftentimes at the end of a lease, at the end of the term of the lease, the lessee wants to get off the property. We require at least normally our standard lease requires a phase one study to try to assure that the property is clean.

If it does require cleanup, try to require the lessee to do it. And now keeping that in mind, when I say require, we have to go back to the terms of the lease. Many of the 1960s issued leases do not have such a requirement. Today we do. Okay.

However, so we got to go back to the lease terms. And so sometimes we're in a situation where there's potentially some cleanup that should be done, but it's not obligated upon the lessee under the terms of the lease. And so we're in that quandary.

That's the kind of situations we have, but have at least been terminated for environmental problems. I don't recall none of the military leases, certainly if there's any implication in this resolute indicate that we terminated or nod meaning issued a formal letter of notice of default for environmental problems or non compliance to the military of any leases.

I don't recall ever doing that because that requires notice. And then in all of our leases there's opportunity to cure within a certain time period, et cetera. And if you cure comes off your list and you cannot terminate the lease just because after they cleaned it up kind of thing.

But Kevin, you know, you can add, however, we have taken recommendations for lease terminations like for example, that you to pay rent, maybe lack of insurance on the property repeatedly over a number of years despite warnings and letters in that kind of situations.

And it is a land board decision, is it automatically that just because staff recommends a termination that the board will, will approve it? The answer is no.

Got it.

The answer is no. It is open public meeting and it requires a majority vote. Public is free to testify, including the tenant, et cetera.

Thank you. Thank you.

And so I think what this resolution is trying to do also is to get, I guess DLNR to see the State of Hawaii as a whole and not just as a tenant of state lands, in terms of the State of Hawaii as a whole, like other agencies might have an issue with environmental protections being not being followed or the Department of Defense perhaps not remitting the entirety of impact aid to the Hawaii Department of Education.

So the State of Hawaii is the entity that holds the land The DLNR and BLNR does effectuate the leases, but potentially it's an offense to the entire state for a tenant to. And this is where the arrears comes in to lack of payment. It's not just payment of rent, it's payment.

It could be seen as an offense to the entire state budget that the one of our tenants is failing to to remit the full amount of impact aid that the Hawaii Department of Education is owed. And that's what I'm getting. I think that's what this is getting it.

That's what the initial bill to talk about tenants in good standing. The offense isn't again just to a lease. The offense is to the state, which is the landowner.

So if you're going to enter into another lease or extension of a lease or a new lease for land and you're a tenant who's not in good standing, meaning you owe the State of Hawaii, maybe a different Department than DLNR BLNR, but you owe the state monies.

That's where we feel like somebody should be paying attention to that tenant's practices. That's all.

If I may. Yes. There is a statute that says if you are in arrears of payment of taxes or anything owed to the state, then that would prohibit the issuance of a new lease.

What I was trying to point out was the provision that actually strictly prohibits you from applying or even getting a leases actually requires a past history of a lease termination, not simply a past default.

But at the time, if you're applying for an extension and you're an existing lessee and we find out that you owe, for example, State of Hawaii taxes, then we'll try to make sure that with, you know, make the let the tenant applicant know that this is going to be an issue going before the board.

We will not be able to give you the extension until you cure that default.

And I just want to make sure that it's not limited to taxes. There's other forms of remittance that should be collected from people. I'm just.

Again, the statute I'm referring to is N171. I believe it's 36. Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Chair, you have a question?

Okay.

Yeah, I do have a question. So going off of Representative Iwamoto. Kevin, you can answer this probably. So you. I'm assuming that DLNR requires vendor compliance certificate, correct? Yes, but the vendor's compliance certificate doesn't quite cover every default. So like Russell, you were talking about if they're in default, but that's mainly in default to the current lease.

Correct. Or provisions of default. Yes.

Being in default is not a termination. Right. And it's just that you may.

Until they hear it. Right. And they come back to compliance, they can comply. So we have an issue with people, let's say San Island, a construction company that is in litigation with the state for defective construction, construction defects on a contract that they have with the state.

And they have outstanding debt, but they're on state land in Sand Island. Is there any way to cover. Is there any way to check for that default? It's not the default on the lease per se, but it's. They're in debt to the. They may have outstanding debts to the state, to the Department of Education.

Is there any way. How would we address that, is my question.

Well, that's a tough one for sand island, especially because the state just has the master lease and a construction company would be a sub. Lessee of the master tenant. So we don't have a direct.

Okay. Some other one. Uncle Billy's or Uncle Billy's went on. I mean. Right. I'm a different. Like some other land lease of some sort.

But yeah, if. Go ahead, go ahead, Kevin. I'll follow up after you.

Again, our leases don't really cover that, especially the older ones, as Russell alluded to. They.

Well, my question is how do we make it covered?

Okay, so you would have to draft a lease provision that captured that and incorporated in the lease.

Okay. Can we work on that going forward? It doesn't have to be in the reso.

But I mean, this may be an issue going forward that if, if the, if somebody is applying for a lease or extending their lease, it's not just vendor compliance or we gotta expand the vendor compliance just beyond what it's tracking now, if there's any outstanding debt to the state owed.

Because it doesn't make sense for us to be giving leases to somebody that's in debt to the state $20 million because of some lawsuit that they haven't paid up. So.

Yeah.

Okay, can we work on this over the interim? We're not going to solve this issue. You see where I'm going, right? Or Representative Iwamoto is going down.

Yeah. And maybe we could work on this together as chair offline as well, because there are situations where lessees have payment plans, for example, for property taxes.

The county and our leases actually allow tenants to dispute allegations of, you know, if they're old property taxes and they dispute the colony's valuation, they can contest it and go through that process.

And we don't think it's fair to use that against them while they're contesting unless they have a decision or a judgment against them and don't have to cure that. But. Or set it aside so it doesn't affect the lease.

But that's the kind of situations we often talk about is because the tenant also has a right to contest. Right.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

All right, Any other questions? Representative Poepoe.

Thank you for DLNR. Just, I think to clarify, on something that was asked earlier and responded to, when you issue new leases, do you include a provision requiring the tenant or the applicant to return or maintain the land in equal or better condition?

Yeah. The short answer is yes.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions? All right, seeing none, we're going to move on to the next measure on the agenda. We have HR185 requests and HCR191 requesting the Department of Land and Natural Resources to convene a Kua Bay advisory working group. There's no one on our testifiers list that's registered to testify. Anyone in the room ashamed to testify?

Okay, go ahead, Kira. You can just give your whole testimony if you want to.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I. I apologize. I'm not sure why that wasn't included in the packet. But we, the Department submitted comments on this bill. Oh, by the way, Kira Kahohane, DLNR. So I'll just. I'll just read from our testimony.

Sorry, you are on. But yeah, you folks aren't registered. So just go ahead, though.

Okay. Yeah. So the Department of the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation collaborates with the peer users on management strategies at present. Of course, people have raised concerns about public safety in the region.

So under emergency rules that DOBOR was able to promulgate, they were able to establish closure hours for the pier from 10:30 to 4:30am DORBOR is working on implementing a permanent version of those rules that would authorize it to set hours of operation to provide an enforcement tool and help determine deter criminal activity.

So, unfortunately, no one from door is available right now, but those were our comments on the bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room wanting to testify or on zoom? All right. Seeing none. Any questions, members? Okay. No questions. We're going to move on to our next measure. HR186, HCR193 requesting the office of Hawaiian affairs to convene a working group to examine and consider the transfer of Native Hawaiian burial site management under Chapter 6E.

What? I revised statues from The State Historic Preservation Division to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. See here. First up, we have Dylan R.

Good morning again. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jessica Puff with SHPD. We stand on our written testimony and the comments we provided. We're here for any questions that you have.

Thank you. And we have. Next up, we have OHA.

Aloha, Leinaʻala Ley, Chief Advocate, OHA. We stand on our written comments in support. OHA drafted and requested that this resolution be introduced.

And we are not opposed to the amendments that Shipti has provided in their written comments because it's a important that the agencies go into the process with a clear mandate and understanding of what's being asked of them and that the process is inclusive as possible. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we have Edward Haleo. Aloha.

Sorry. Edward Haleo, Executive Director. So if you remember, I testified in the other bill and told you guys that that wasn't the issue. This is the issue. This is the important one. That's why we support it wholeheartedly.

Maybe had a hand in creating this idea, but the report that OHA cited previously, the Barrel Sites Working Group that the Legislature established, I was Vice Chair. We submitted our report. The gist of that report was what's being recommended in this resolution.

And that's why we support it, because of this history of mismanagement of the parasites program by SHPD, not Ms. Puff, her predecessors. And the real need to look carefully. You know, if you recall, the OHA CEO said that the developers being on the consoles are just theater. And, you know, I disagreed.

But really the problem, as we tried to explain then, was the mismanagement by SHPD. That's the real issue. And we want to be able to study the problems in Hawaiian.

It would be makawalu means take it apart, look at, study all the individual pieces and then understand it better, develop a report, come back to the Legislature and say, this is what we've been able to find. This is what we recommend in terms of legislation.

And the CEO of OHA also said that, you know, the councils represent the greatest expression of self determination by Hawaiians. Actually, the councils managed by OHA will provide self determination, an expression of self determination. Thank you. DLNR.

When the law was passed in 1990, that was on the cusp of the heels of Honoka Hua, and people were very upset at oha. And so the answer was anybody but OHA. But today I say only oha, Only OHA. Because Hawaiians need to manage their ancestor burial sites. And when Ms.

Pau said inadvertent discoveries are determined by DLNR. That's true under state law. And then with this study, hopefully and the transfer of the program to OHA will be the ones deciding inadvertent discoveries only of Hawaiian burials. The state would have to maintain a burial site program for non-Hawaiians.

So there would be two beit program OHA for Hawaiians, the DLNR for non-Hawaiians. Mahalo. Any questions?

We'll do questions after. Yeah, we're done with all the testifiers, but I appreciate you folks working together, so thank you. Next up, we have, I believe it's Kimmer Horson in person, not present. Okay. No one on zoom. So any questions, numbers or testifiers? No questions. Great. Okay, we're gonna move on.

We're gonna move on to the next measure on the agenda. Hc.

I'm sorry, I do have a question. Okay. For OHA, actually. So with the discussion about OHA becoming more like developers with Kakaako Makai land, you know, I mean, I can't imagine, I don't know if there would be even found on the Makai side of Kakaako given the history of that land. But maybe, I don't know.

But what would be the conflict? How would you resolve conflicts moving forward? If you guys move into the role more of the role of developer. And you're also the host of the burial council?

Yeah, I think that's a good question. I mean, the burial councils are comprised of, you know, five or more than five. They're nominated by OHA for the Moku seats and then the other seats are nominated by the Governor. And so they're, I mean, they function as an independent body.

And really the role of whoever supports the burial councils is to make sure that, you know, they are comply with public notice that the Members are trained on their statutory and administrative powers and duties to help them, you know, process paperwork.

I think to the extent, you know, OHA's own lands were to be before the burial councils, I mean, it would still, we would still have the same duties, but we wouldn't in any event ever be a decision maker and. Sorry, there's many things in addition to the burial councils that would be under consideration by the working group.

But we wouldn't, you know, be it Shipti or OHA, you don't really control the IBCs. You support them and their indecent independent decision making bodies. And obviously you have a duty to provide them with all the information.

You know, if OHA was the plan proponent and we were to find Evie, then we would be going before the Burial Council with our burial treatment plan for their. For their approval like any other land owner would do. So I don't think there's a direct conflict in the we heard of the.

Developer or the land owner, the large landowner, individuals recusing themselves from deliberation or vote yes. So I'm imagining all of the OHA designees themselves will the requirement to vote on this.

Yeah, I don't think the OHA nominees would need to recuse themselves in that situation because OHA nominates individuals based on their qualifications, their cultural qualifications to sit on the IBC and their knowledge of Malama EV practices. So really, you know, their qualifications to sit on the IBC have nothing to do with OHA.

It has to do with their cultural background and their familiarity with those issues. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions before we move on? Okay, Moving on to HDR197 requesting the Department of Land and Natural Resources to convene a working group to clarify the purpose of the Commission on Water Resource Management and determine whether the leadership structure and composition of the Commission should be amended.

We don't have anyone registered to testify in person today, but we do have a support from Ted Bolan of the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Anyone in the room wanting to testify? Okay, go ahead. Kieran.

Aloha Kira Kahahane DLNR Commission on Water Resource Management I apologize for our late testimony today. I just wanted to note so we submitted comments on this resolution.

I wanted to note when the Review Commission report came out in 1994, it contemplated that its recommendations would be adopted in some form and that there would be a follow up review taking place 10 years after those recommendations. But no follow up review occurred since then.

We've had the benefit of more than 30 years of case law which have developed a robust body of legal interpretation of the public trust doctrine as applied specifically to water and the work of Commission and Commission staff have had 30 years of experience working with the Water Code and with the way that our Commission is currently set up.

So we agree that the time is right to consider whether updates to the Water Code or changes to the Commission structure are appropriate. So we support the intent of this resolution. I'm available for any questions, but I truly think that this is an important issue and I thank you for introducing this. Breso.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Okay. Any questions? Members? All right, questions. Okay. Moving on to HDR 184. Authorizing the Hawaii Community Development Authority to conduct a study to consider residential, hotel and other land uses for the Kakaako Makai area First up, we have HCDA.

Morning Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Lamosao, and Members of the Committee. Craig Nakamoto, Executive Director of HCDA. We provide testimony offering comments. We appreciate the intent of this resolution.

The resolution really validates what we've already started to do for Kakaoko Makai, in that we have engaging with a consultant, hope to finalize their contract in the next couple weeks to engage in a community planning effort for Kakaokom Makai, as we've testified in the past on other bills. So we're doing all those things.

I'm joined here by my Planning and Development Director, Ryan Tam, Community Outreach Officer Francine Murray. So I think while the resolution validates it, the resolution may not be necessary at this point because we've already started all the work on this. The board has authorized me in October to engage in the community planning session. I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else in the room wanting to testify on this measure? No one on Zoom. Okay. Any questions, Members?

Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. Good morning. Representative Good morning. Thank you so much for your testimony. Of course, when given everything moving forward with the. The, I guess the community engagement that you're planning on doing, when will that be done, or do you imagine being that engagement being completed?

So while we're looking at. We're looking at the community, the proposal for. With the consultant, we hope to finalize that in the next couple weeks with the scope. We anticipate that everything will be completed by maybe end of 2026 and maybe provide an interim report to the Legislature at the beginning of 2026.

We've divided the work into four phases. We expect that at the beginning of January 2026, hopefully, if there's no delays, we'll be able to submit an interim report that shows the various land use scenarios that we're considering, also all the studies that we've conducted up to that point.

So to answer your question, Representative iwomoto may be four final maybe in December of 2026, around that time frame, but maybe an interim report in before the. Around the start of the January 2026 legislative session. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? All right. Seeing that we're going to move on to the next measure on the. zero, can I ask a quick. Oh, yeah, sure. Representative Belatti, sorry for H6 CR197, if this.

Sorry, 184, if this reso is not necessary, if it were to be revised to say that you folks present make a presentation to this Committee, you know, as part of this, and then submit that in a report that would then be parallel and actually would then make it something that's in alignment and add something as it adds a requirement that is new and, and enforceable.

Yeah. Thank you, Representative Belatti. I mean, I, I think if this Committee wants to sort of revise the resolution to make it align with that schedule that I just talked about, I think that's okay. As far as enforceability, I'm committed to getting this thing done.

We've, we've started process, so I don't think we need enforceability in all due respects.

But I'm happy if you want to revise it to say maybe an interim report, progress report will be presented around January 2026, and if there's, if we run into some delays, a representative will let this Committee know and then maybe a final report around December, end of December 2026.

So we're kind of looking at about a, maybe a year and a half or so from start to finish. Thank you, Representative. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? We are moving on to HR124, HCR128, reaffirming the state's obligation to uphold the constitutional rights of its people by recognizing the critical role of fresh water in maintaining healthy nearshore marine coast ecosystems. First up, we have DLNR.

Aloha. Kira Kahahane, DLNR Commission on Water Resource Management. We support these resolutions. If I may just very briefly note, of course, our muliwai, our ko'a, our limu, are part of aina, that which feeds us. And under DLNR's purview, these are some of the natural resources that we need to steward. Freshwater is absolutely critical for these resources.

And while streams and their role has been very well studied, there is a developing incredible body of research about the role of groundwater in also sustaining some of these ecosystems, such as anchialine pools and our coral reefs.

So, the Commission on Water Resource Management and the Division of Aquatic Resources are working collaboratively to better understand biotic responses to freshwater flows. And we look forward to increased collaboration between our two divisions within DLNR.

We are engaged in ongoing efforts to kind of, to update the research, to understand the current state of the research, and to develop methods to develop our groundwater-dependent ecosystems as well. So we appreciate the recognition that, of the role that freshwater plays in supporting healthy marine ecosystems, and we support this measure. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Okay. Anyone else wanting to testify? Sorry, we. That's all we have registered to testify today for this measure. But anyone else in the room? All right, seeing none, we're going to go. Any questions?

Members, I just have a comment. Okay. I love the drawing that was submitted as testimony.

Okay. We're gonna go straight into decision making since we have forum.

So are you ready?

Okay. Sounded like you made that mistake.

Thank you so much. Okay. Ready Chair? Yep. Okay. So for our first measure on the agenda, HR35, we're going to do it in tandem, if that's okay. Yep.

Okay. HR35, HCR40, we are going to pass this measure as is. Any questions, Concerns? Okay. Seeing none. Chair, you can go ahead and take the vote.

Yep.

Okay. Vice Chair's Vice Chair's recommendation is to pass HR35 and HCR40 unamended. The Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Are there any reservations or noes? See None. Okay, I'll take the vote for Representative Belatti. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. For the next measure on the agenda, HR58, HCR64, we are going to insert in the Committee report the budget request for line item bed 144 of $36,000 that was submitted by OPSD. And we're also going to add OPSD's amendments that they've stated in regards to to representation on this working group appointed by the mayors.

Any questions? I have questions. Okay. Really appreciated this because I've not been able to get up to speed on everything emergency management related.

I wonder if the chair would be open just because I know that perhaps Waterland here might be interested in serving on this Committee, but if there might be an interest in having two Members of the House and two Members of the Senate. Just because I would have grabbed this and requested that this possibly be under jurisdiction of.

Of PBS because we have management. So I guess the request is. Would. Would it be possible to ensure that there's two Members of the House and two Members of the Senate or the working group just because I like to do work?

Sure. We can go ahead and add representation from the House as well. You want one House from one Member from the House and then one Member.

Oh, it's currently one Member and one Member from the Senate but add. So there's two Members each. Okay. I'm looking at the Chair of Waterland. If he wants to serve on it, I will.

You don't have to Write my name into it. But I will come and attend.

Well, I guess if there's like. If there's two of us. Yeah. Who are interested.

Okay. I'm fine with that as well. Okay. So we're also going to take those recommendations as well. Two represent Representatives from the House and then two from the Senate. Anyone else with comments or concerns? Okay. Seeing none Chair for the fools.

Okay. We are voting on HCR 64 and HR 58. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments knowing the presence of all Members. Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. We're now going on to HR59 HTR65. I am going to pass this as is. I understand the concerns made by OPSD and luc but there is an interest in fast tracking some of these requests and I understand it is being worked on within the departments. But I am going to pass this as is.

Any questions or concerns.

I have concerns. I'm going to be a no on this one.

Thank you.

I'm just. Just noting my reservations and I'll be voting with reservations.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. All right. Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Okay. We are voting on HCR 65 and HR 59 concurrently. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended noting the reservations from Representative Belatti and no vote from Iwamoto. Are there any other reservations or noes? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HR118 HCR 122. We are going to adopt OHA's recommendations of including the Office of Conservation Coastal Lands.

And then we're also going to do some technical amendments and also changing some language in the RESO where it states that Shipti is responsible to the Island Burial Councils are responsible for determining if remains found in native wine barrel sites should be preserved or removed. And then. Yeah. And that's it actually. So any questions or concerns?

Yes Chair. Would you be open to considering the DLNR amendment to clarif one Member from each of the Island Burial Councils just to recognize the real place based nature of for your consideration.

Yes, I. So I. I am not going to take that recommendation up at this moment. I think we need do need to speak to the introducer of the bill at the request of it being only one Member. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Okay. Members are voting on HR118 and HCR122. Chair's recommendation is to pass with an amendments are there knowing the presence of all Members. Are there any reservations? Are there any noes? No vote. No vote. No vote from Representative Souza. Anybody else? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. We're moving on to HR145 HC151. I appreciate the discussion on this resolution. Um, I. I think there's still some work that needs to be done potentially in the interim in regards to better management and also inspections and enforcement of our leases. So at this time I am going to defer this measure. Any questions? Okay.

Moving on to HR185 HCR191. We are going to pass this as an HD1 and doing some tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. We're also going to include the governor's coordinator on Homelessness to be part of the working group.

And we're also going to remit a certified copy of this resolution to the private organizations who are invited to participate in this working group as well. And then we're also going to change the year. So this resolution is request advisory group to submit quarterly reports to the Legislature through 2028. But we're going to just put 2027.

Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

A Members are voting on ACR 191 and HR 185 concurrently. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments knowing the presence of all Members. Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HR186. HCR193. We are going to pass this as an HD1. We're going to adopt the amendments from DLNR. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Okay Members are voting on HR86 and HCR193. Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments knowing the presence of all Members. Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is at the.

Adopted voting on HCR 197. We're going to pass this measure as is. Any questions or concerns? Thank you. Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

We'Re voting on HCR 19197. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. As is. As is unamended. Are there any reservations or noes?

Would the Chair be open to pushing the date back to January of 20 or before the 2027? I think the Executive Director mentioned that he would the timing of his forward point support the full community engagement would be completed. I don't think we can run on HTR1. Aren't we doing HCR184.

No, yeah, yeah, we did that one already.

We're. We're on 197 only. Oh, 197. Yeah. Sorry about that. But we can do that though.

Okay. Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is adopted. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Okay. You're ahead of your time. Yes, we're moving on to HDR184. And.

Oh, okay, wait. Can you recess? So I said the wrong.

We are going to take up a motion to reconsider HR the vote for HR186 HCR193. Chair had stated the wrong measure for the vote, so he's going to redo it now.

Okay. I'm sorry I said HR86. It's actually HR186. Are there any changes in anybody's votes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation has adopted.

Thank you, Chair. Okay, we're going on to HCR184 again. I am going to take on the recommendation and pass an HD1 made by. Actually the discussion that was made by Representative Bellotti for the for HCDA to submit an interim report 20 days prior to the January 2026 session and. And a final report in December of 2026.

Okay. Any questions or comments? Any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none ready for the vote. Okay, Chair, go ahead.

Okay. Members are voting on 8. CR184. That's the correct number this time. Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments. Are there any reservations or noes? See none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. We're moving on to HR124 HTR128. I am going to pass this out as is any question or concerns. Go ahead, Representative.

Thank you, Chair. I have one minor edit to ask for. Just in. In line one, it says where is the state is renowned for its pristine beaches. I wanted to ask to change the state to Hawaii. Rob. Okay. If that's okay.

Thank you. Sure, I will do that. So we're going to change this. We're going to pass this amend with a amendment and changing that first line from state to hab. Any other questions or concerns? Okay. Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Hey, Members, we're voting on H. HCR128 and HR124 noting the presence of all Members. Are there any reservation? Oh, Chair's recommendation is to pass this with an with amendments annoying the presence of all Members. Are there any reservations or noes? See none. Chair your recommendation is enough. Yeah. You made amendments, right?

Yeah, I made amendments. Yeah.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

Sorry. We actually are done with the questions and concerns.

Well, this is actually procedure. I would like to request a reconsideration of. Oh, okay. 145. It's the only resolution set of resolutions that you that this commit that that there was a recommendation to defer. And I was just checking in to see.

I would like to record if you would be open to doing a recommend a hold holding the bill so I can record my support for the resolution, which is allowed through.

Right, right. Right. I appreciate your comments. I. I think at this time, I still would like to defer this measure. Yes. Thank you so much, though. Thank you.

Okay.