House Standing Committee on Finance

We're going to convene the Committee on Finance for our 315 agenda. Not 319. Okay. First up is Senate Bill 1536 SD2 HD2.

We have the Hawaii Tourism Authority in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. Thank you. Toddie Poe, Board Chair for Hawaii Tourism Authority. With me here is Carolyn Anderson, our Interim CEO. You have our written testimony. Just want to emphasize that as I look at it, one of our key needs to move HTA forward is to get a new CEO hired.

Our selection process has been in pause; we've worked out some of these types of issues which this bill addresses. And so, we find this bill very important in order for us to get to that selection process, get a new CO hired and make sure that HT is on the right track to move forward.

So, we do ask that you move this bill forward. We would love for the effective date to be upon approval, but we understand that some of those issues, including the language that was added in the last committee, something that we'll continue to talk to you about and work out.

But we're trying to make this as simple and quick as possible so that we can move forward without any hindrances to that process. So thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Thank you. That's all the written testimony we've received. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, questions? Members? Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next Bill. Senate Bill 121.

We received comments from the judiciary, but they did not indicate that they would be here in person to testify. And that's all the written testimony we've received. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay. Nobody to questions. So we're going to move on to Senate Bill 1202.

We have the Campaign Spending Commission in support on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tony Baldemaro testifying on behalf of the Campaign Spending Commission. The commission supports this Bill and will stand on its written testimony basically stating that child care and adult dependent care expenses are already allowed under two advisory opinions recently approved by the Commission.

These are for expenses that are directly related to a candidate's campaign. This Bill would basically affirm that decision and provide more clarification in the law. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will be available for any questions.

Thank you. Also testimony from Shelby Pikachu Billionaire with comments on zoom. Not present. Members also received testimony in support from the Honolulu County Committee on the status of Women, three other organizations and two individuals. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom questions, Members?

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next bill, Senate Bill 336.

First, we have the Hawaii Association of justice in support. Thank you. We have Hawaii Government Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Steve Teves for HGA. We stand in support of this. Just to give a quick background, this bill's been in the works for about three years from an act that passed in 2022.

This is a procedure we worked out with the Attorney General's Office, where if they do not wish to represent a state employee, a professional, certified state employee; either the state employee can get their own counsel, or they can, they will then -

If not, the State Attorney General will need to file a motion at court, and the judge will decide if withdrawal is proper. Like we said, it's right now based upon approval. We ask that it be passed unamended. And we thank you for all your consideration. I'm here for any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Members, also, testimony in support from Hawaii State AFL-CIO and HSTA. So, the written testimony we've received, anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Okay, questions Members? Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1469 SD2HD1.

We have the Department of Taxation in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members, Gary Sugunuma, Director of Taxation. The Department supports this administration measure which seeks to amend the statute of limitations on collections for various tax types. For each of these tax types, there's a 15 year statute of limitations on collections. So we have 15 years to do our collections on these debts.

The problem is that the Department is barred from taking collection action during the pendency of any appeal to the Taxation Board of Review or to the Tax Appeal Court.

And so where a case remains on appeal for a long time, like say 10 years, that means that when it's done, we have an additional five years to do collection actions. We don't have the benefit of the full 15 years.

And so what this measure seeks to do is, you know, since we cannot take collection action during dependency of a case on appeal, then we're asking for the statute of limitations to be likewise told or held in abeyance during an appeal.

That way we get the full 15 years to take vigorous collection action to collect tax debts for the state. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the written testimony we've received. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Anybody on zoom okay, any questions? Members represent Namasau for D Tax.

Thank you, Director. And thank you for explaining that in your testimony. Can you like, I guess, give an example of where you weren't able to collect after, I guess after the 10 years and given only the five year timeline after.

Well, okay, so right now, the statute of limitations say that after 15 years, the Department cannot levy or initiate any proceeding in court to collect the delinquent amounts. And so there are cases that have remained in litigation for the full 15 years.

That means even if we win in the case and we get a judgment, if we get the judgment after 15 years, we can't take collection action on the judgment.

And then as an estimate to, I guess, revenue loss at that point.

Do you have something I don't?

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Thank you for the questions. Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill. Senate Bill SB222 SD1 HD1.

Do we have the Honolulu Police Department in support? Okay. Shelby Pikachu, billionaire, in support. On zoom.

Not present.

Not present. We also received written testimony from three other individuals in support. That's all the written testimony we've received. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Okay. No one to ask questions. We're moving on to the next Bill. Senate Bill 227 SD1 HD1.

Members received three. Individuals all testifying in support of this measure, none of them indicating that they would be here today. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Okay, once again, nobody to ask questions of; we'll move on to the next bill: Senate Bill 825SD2HD2.

We have the judiciary in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. My name is Jeff Crabtree. I'm from the Judiciary Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution. We submitted some pretty detailed written testimony, available to answer questions, but just a couple of very brief highlights with the Chair's permission. The evidence is really clear that pre-eviction mediation works. We've got plenty of data on that.

Now, second, a good argument can be made that, even in times of uncertain budgets, a bill like this can actually save money. If only a small percentage of the people who are evicted end up needing homeless services, there'll be a substantial cost to that downstream. So, we ask for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Hawaii Realtors with comments. That's everyone we have checked in. Also, support from the Department of Human Services, two other organizations, and two individuals. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Please just state your name and position for the record.

Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Tracy Wiltgen. I'm the Executive Director of the Mediation Center of the Pacific. I stand in my testimony. I'd also like to add that the requested amount of $1.25 million annually to support the program statewide—we agree with this amount. We're available. I'm available for questions.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else in the room? Anybody on zoom?

Okay, questions? Members, Vice Chair.

Could I get the judiciary, please? Hi, thanks for being here. I just had a couple of quick questions. I'm just trying to make sure I understand—I guess what's currently going on in the program, because there's a lot of numbers floating around in all the testimony.

A lot of them talk about the original act, but just kind of get a better idea of what's currently happening. So, on page two of your testimony—the number—so you note that MCP, Mediation Center of the Pacific, did 119 cases mediated. Was that over the last year? Two years? What timeline was that?

Because they had a different number in.

Their testimony on page three. Two.

Number three on page two for your testimony.

Tracy Wilchen, who is just here and is still here, probably knows that number by heart better than I do.

Well, their testimony says they did 96 over the last two years. So, I'm just trying to get an idea—like for your guys' records—because you're going to be the expanding agency. So, how many do you have on record currently, either in the last year or two years, for this program?

I do not have that information with me right now. I'll be glad to provide it. I'm pretty sure we have it in our annual report.

Okay, and then—and also because MCP is not the only one participating in this program. Correct? So, what do you know—the other numbers for the other islands?

We would also have that information available. I can get it to you very quickly. I could get it to you today.

Okay, that would be good. Because you know the number—if we're talking about in number five, that. And also, that Mediation Center of the Pacific just talked about the $1.25 million. This is being estimated on 2,500 cases.

But I'm like if the numbers are just a couple hundred per island, I'm not sure how we get to that number of 2,500 cases.

No, that—I believe that number comes from the... hang on—two different reports. I want to make sure I give you the right name.

Sure, thank you.

I believe that comes from the Hawaii Budget and Policy Center report. Again, I have that report handy—it's online. I'll be glad to dig it out for you.

Okay. And then, that report is only for the rent evictions—not all evictions. Right? Because this program's only for the rent evictions, then.

That's my understanding, yes. I mean, it's certainly the lion's share of evictions. I mean, we're seeing that—we see that each year—and we're seeing it now on Maui, in the pre-eviction program that we're administering there.

Okay. Yeah. It'd just be helpful to really see like the point in time number if we're going to be.

Oh, I understand why you'd like to have it, and I apologize for not having it. I wish I'd been—I wish I'd prepared it for you ahead of time.

Okay. And then, maybe just another follow-up that you might not have, I guess. So, this is cases for the mediator fee and the administrative fee. So, is this per case that comes, or is this like per session? If there's multiple sessions, is it like 500 per session then, or is it 500 per case?

They generally allow for one mediation center. It's relatively rare that it spins over into a second one. So, it's per—I would say it's per case—but, you know, the mediator has some discretion on that.

Okay, Thank you. Okay, sure. Can I follow up to. Okay, I think that's good. I think maybe to the realtors for this one. I had a question about your testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. My name is Lyndsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors.

Hi, thanks. I just had a follow-up question about, I guess, the timeline of what this bill is outlining—I guess as a preface. You know, I have a lot of constituents in my district that are landlords, but, you know, they're not like big landlords.

They're probably renting out their parents' own home, or maybe they inherited, like, a small walk-up—that kind of situation. So, they sometimes talk to me, or, you know, even during COVID, when some of them were having problems with this, they were kind of concerned because they rely on that income. So, under this current bill...

Could you tell me what—I guess—the timeline between... I'm kind of trying an idea because there's a lot of, like, numbers—like the 10-day notice, the 20-day—all of this under the current bill.

What's the— the timeline, like the fastest and then the drawn-out timeline, for somebody who might need that rent money as a landlord to, you know, pay other costs that they have.

Sure, thank you for the question, Representative. I actually have my Government Affairs Chair, who is a professional landlord, online to be able to testify to some more specifics—if that's okay with you.

Yeah, her name is Kasandra Shriver.

Can I read Director?

Hi can you hear me?

Hi. Yes. Please proceed.

Hi thanks. My name is Kasandra Shriver. I am the Chair of the Government Affairs Committee for the Hawaii Realtors. So, as our testimony states, we really believe mediation is a fantastic tool, but our concerns are the timelines as well.

And so, if we just take, like, a normal delinquent tenant—say they didn't pay their rent, the first comes, the rent is due on the first, and they have a five-day grace period. So, the landlord generally waits till the 5th. When the 5th comes, then they're calling the tenant.

You haven't paid the rent. At this time the tenant may or may not respond. And—if you're a professional landlord—so what I would do is send notice. I'd send a five-day notice to pay rent or quit. That might go out on the sixth day. Those are business days.

So, if that falls, you know, on a weekend, that could delay the process until—let's just give it one extra day. So, if we're now on the 6th and we take six days, then we're on the 12th.

And so, that would be the soonest date that a landlord, under the current existing statutes, could file for an eviction. But generally, that doesn't happen. Generally, landlords want to work with tenants, right? We don't want the expense of an eviction process. So, the timelines get extended and extended.

So, with this bill having 10 days, you're going from maybe around the 12th—where you could request the assistance of the courts—to at least the 15th, if not later, if there isn't some dialogue between the landlord and tenant that delays that process even more.

So, essentially, you're missing out on that first month, during which time—if the current bill, if we're going using the timelines in the current bill—you would request mediation be scheduled. And then that mediation has to be scheduled, I believe, within 30 days of that process. So, then you're well into the next month.

If the tenant is delaying and delaying—which sometimes they do, right—this is a process where they're, you know, they might be intimidated, or they don't understand the, you know, the process.

And so, you get to the point were, with the current legislation, you're well into the following month past the time that a mortgage would be due—the second mortgage payment—before you could file an action. So, the current timelines really could delay that process.

And it might also have the unintended consequence of landlords not providing any grace periods. If we extend this initial period to 10 calendar days, then, as a landlord, I'm likely not going to give a grace period—because that 10-day period would start from the expiration of the grace period, which is generally three to five days.

So, while a good idea, if it's not a process that can be performed at the same time as an eviction, then it could really delay—and affect—the just the normal mom-and-pop landlords who are relying on the rent to either pay their bills or pay their mortgage.

So, under the Bill—sorry, sure, follow-up to clarify—so, under the Bill, potentially up to, you know, over a month, plus then going through the proceedings of the actual eviction, if they are not able to reach any kind of settlement from mediation.

Correct.

And how does all of that—you know, and then so, under the landlord-tenant code—that 45-day notice for eviction, when does that... Is that 45 days going to take place after the trial, if they're not able to reach mediation? Or how does that 45-day notice play into, like, this whole process right now?

So, generally, the 45-day notice comes into play when a landlord's terminating a rental agreement—either a month-to-month rental agreement or an agreement they didn't effectively terminate at the end of its term.

So, it may not play into this unless, in a court proceeding, the judge says, you know, now the tenant—you know, for whatever reason he finds that the tenant is, you know—does need to be evicted, and then gives them an additional amount of time to perform or to, you know, remove themselves and their belongings from the property.

But the 45 days generally has solely to do with when a landlord terminates a rental agreement.

Oh, got it. Okay. Okay. I think that answers my questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Further questions. Thank you. We'll move on to the next Bill. Senate Bill. Yes, yes, please.

For the judiciary—so I just wanted to, reading in your... Actually, in the a couple of the testimonies. The timeline that the Real Estate Commission or the Realtors put out—it actually says that the 30 days starts when the mediation center makes contact with the landlord and the tenant.

So it could be strung out quite a bit during this mediation process.

It could be. That's correct. That's possible.

Yeah, yeah, so, if someone wanted to extend their stay—you know, they run out of money, you know, it's a bad situation—they could use this to extend it quite a bit by just being elusive.

That. That's certainly possible.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Thank you for the question. Okay, thank you. Move on to the next Bill. Senate Bill 1367, SD1HD1.

We have DCCA, Division of Financial Institutions, in support.

Testimony.

Thank you. That's all the written testimony we've received. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay. Questions? All right, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill. Senate Bill 1048 SD2HD1.

First, we have the Department of the Attorney General with comments.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Christy Chang, Deputy Attorney General. The Department submitted testimony in strong support of this Bill. Specifically, the Department believes that this Bill will improve the efficiency and strengthen the Department's ability to regulate charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities, providing stronger donor protections while eliminating duplicative regulatory burdens.

We thank you for this opportunity to testify and are available for questions. Thank you. Thank you.

We have GoFundMe and support on Zoom.

Good afternoon. I'm Amanda Brown Lehrman, Vice President for Policy, Engagement and impact@gofundme. I am also the Executive Director of gofundme.org which mobilizes, most often in times of crisis, to provide direct relief to impacted individuals and communities. Thank you for the opportunity to testify to mend to amend provisions of Act 205.

We testify today in support of SB 1048 represents a compromise between GoFundMe and the Attorney General's Office based on numerous meetings and conversations.

It combines elements of SB 1048 with key provisions of HB 992, which was introduced by the AG and makes progress toward our shared goals of protecting the philanthropic space from misuse, while allowing also nonprofit organizations to raise the funds needed to serve their communities.

We believe Act 205, as enacted, will slow down donations, impose unnecessary burdens on the charities and the platforms, and also reduce the support for Hawaii residents, especially in times of crisis.

So overall, we believe that SB 1048 addresses many of the harmful provisions of Act 205 and provides the necessary fixes to preserve trust in online fundraising, while ensuring that all residents continue to receive the vital charitable support that they deserve. We're supportive of this Bill on charitable fundraising efforts in Hawaii.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, and I'm also available to answer any questions.

Thank you. We also received testimony and support from Hawaii Community Foundation. That's all the recent testimony we've received. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom.

Okay. Questions? Thank you. Moving on to the next bill, Senate Bill 1044 SD2 HD1.

First up, we have DCCA, Insurance Division with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Jerry Bump, Acting Insurance Commissioner. We have two comments, two proposed amendments that we've inserted into our testimony. The first one is that, and they're both related to HHRF, the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund. The first one is related to the provision in the bill that talks about the servicing aspect.

The HHRF has contracted an entity right now to explore restarting the fund. Part of its process is going out and trying to find who can service this business. Naturally, included in that is admitted insurers, which is included in this bill.

We're also proposing to add an amendment to also authorize, like TPAs, entities that specialize in doing insurance administration, just to broaden the scope of who could provide these services, to provide a more competitive potential for bids if we go that route and also to speed to market.

We've seen sometimes with residual market mechanisms like this, that insurers sometimes are hesitant to service this business. And in the past, we've had to utilize basically other entities other than insurers to service this business. So that's the first one. Second one, as you're aware, the current appropriation amount is blank.

The HHRF, in contracting with its vendor, we asked them to do a thorough analysis of the additional funds potentially needed. We're well aware of the state's financial condition. So, we also explored with BNF and with the Attorney General on what's known as reimbursable general obligation bonds with a revenue source pledged to insurance premiums.

That way it does not affect the state's debt ceiling or the CIP budget. That vendor had dictated that if demand was high, then an additional 200 million would be needed. We've spread that out. Over 100 million in FY 26 and 100 million in FY 27. If demand is not high, then we would not go to market with those bonds.

It's just more of setting aside that authority to do that if the demand is high or if circumstances change. Even right now, there are carriers who are assessing the risks on single family homes. There's a potential there that, you know, hurricane coverage could start to disappear from the single-family home market.

And the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund is now deploying its capital towards the AOAO market, and potentially the single-family home market would need capital as well. So that's just part of our request and I'm available for any questions thank you.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Realtors in support.

You. We have Gregory Masakian with comments on Zoom.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Masakian and I currently serve as the first Vice President of the Kakua Council, which is an elder advocacy organization in the state. Since 1972, I serve as a Director on the Board of the Hawaii Alliance for Retired Americans and I also serve on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board.

Today I have comments as an individual and I have participated in a cursory dive. I'd like to call it a deep dive, but it was on Insights on PBS Hawaii on March 13th with the previous testifier, Representative Scott Matayoshi and a Member of the governor's task force that was enacted from the emergency proclamation.

There's, there's quite a bit to unwind here and I don't have enough time to unwind it. But a suggestion is that, you know, you're looking at another study. I know AON is involved. I've asked how much AON is getting paid and nobody's been able to disclose that to me. It's been kind of withheld.

Another study is, you know, possibly useful, but it takes time. What I would ask is that you enable some of the people that actually know from the other side. Myself as a condominium owner, I've also served as treasurer on my condo association.

Let some other people come into the task force that actually know what's going on in the state and hopefully with some other inputs, I think you can come to a better solution. I think what's going to happen with a final comment because I know I'm running out of time.

As I've said it in my written testimony, most condominium associations won't be denied coverage, but there will be homeowners that own single family homes that are being denied hurricane coverage. And much of the insurance right now, it's for condo associations. Just a partial element of it is hurricane insurance.

So there's quite a bit that has to do with deferred maintenance and other things. So please look at that if you could. And that's my suggestion. So I support the initiative, but I don't support fully what the outcome of this bill is going to be. So thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Apologies, I skipped over Hawaii Bankers Association in support. Thank you, Members. Also testimony and support from Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority. Six organizations in support, two organizations with comments and four other individuals in support. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom.

Questions? Members? Okay, this is so on the GOR request. How do you come up with 100. You know, I know you said you probably need 200 and then you're splitting it up in your testimony over two appropriations. But how was that number justified?

So HHRF already had existing funds and it's expecting to deploy that and get to market with a policy by summer.

When the AON, the contracted vendor, came back to us, they recommended, with that existing, excuse me, with that existing money, that, that we would start with what's most likely easily to describe as the easiest to get started, which would be concrete high rise buildings.

We felt we needed to ask them, well, how much additional funds would you need to roll this out to all association types, Wood frame townhomes, single family home associations. And they went and did their analysis based on their previous market assessment they had done, and they came back with that figure of 200 million.

But with that said, it really is depends on the demand. So if, if the demand now, when we started this process at the end of August or actually once AON came in, that was really where the peak of the high of the market was as far as rates. And since then they've come down significantly.

So we're hopeful that it continues to come down and then perhaps HHRF, there won't be as much demand for it. And that would be a good thing because then rates are coming down. The whole goal of HHRF was to make the maximum impact for the AOAOs, but not to compete with our admitted market carriers.

Our admitted market carriers, there's only three of them that are currently riding in this space. And really HHRF was to force competition among the surplus lines carriers to bring their rates down. That's already happening somewhat naturally. But again, this market is rather volatile. There are a lot of other factors that are in play.

And so how it's trending right now may not continue to be that way. So I think what we're looking at is what do we need if the demand is great? Let's say half of those associations need coverage through the HHRF. That's where the additional capital request would be allocated towards if the demand was high.

Okay, so there was some analysis behind it. It wasn't like we just plucked the number out of thin air.

Is this something you can share with the Committee?

Yeah.

I don't have it personally. The AON vendor would have it and I can check with them to see if they've done extensive analysis on how they arrived at that.

That would be helpful.

Sure.

Okay. Any other questions, members? Okay, thank you. We'll move on to the next bill, Senate Bill 1318.

First up, we have the Department of the Attorney General in support.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department is in strong support of Senate Bill 1318. Department first appreciates the efforts made last year with Act 215 by the legislature. It clarified sections of 214 of the HRS dealing with violations of ocean recreation laws.

And however, that Act 215 actually retained portions of 214 Subsection C, which criminalizes violations of DLNR rules. Those penalties actually conflict with 342D of the HRS, which deals already with the same types of offenses. And because of the overlap, this bill will ensure that it will eliminate any confusion and potential conflicts within the HRS it will allow to enforce these penalties as the legislature intended. We'll be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Also, testimony and support from DLNR and one individual. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, questions, Members, thank you. Move on to the next bill. Senate Bill 589 SD1 HD2.

First up, we have DCCA Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Michel Angelo.

Thank you. Hawaii Public Utilities Commission with comments. Thank you. We have Hawaiian Electric in opposition.

Aloha. Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Kaiulani Shinsato testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric. We respectfully oppose the bill. The. The two primary topics of the bill are being worked on right now at the Public Utilities Commission. And they opened two dockets relating to distributed energy resources and intra governmental Wheeling.

They're very robust proceedings involving multiple stakeholders. The PUC is taking input from the parties. They're weighing many issues that pertain to the issues that are in the bill. So we respectfully urge the Committee to defer to the PUC to to complete their processes before legislating on these issues. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We have IBEW Local 1260 in opposition. Thank you. We have Life of the Land with comments on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Life of Land agrees with the PUC, the consumer advocate, IBEW, ULU, PONO and HIGO that the process at the PUC should be allowed to move forward. While the PUC is first going to look at whether intergovernmental Wheeling makes sense, whether it's in the public interest.

This bill proposes that it is in the public interest before the analysis is complete. Another section deals with microgrid services. Another Complex issue. One testifier noted that it would be very nice if an independent power producer could both sell to the utility and sell to a third party.

But under HRS 2691 that would make them a utility and they would have to register with the PUC, something no independent power producer has done. So we ask you kindly to hold this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Solar Energy Association in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Rocky Mold. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. I'll stand on my written comments and strong supporter of this bill. But I just want to note that we really need this bill.

This bill will allow us to accelerate the installation of distributed energy resources, rooftop solar and energy storage. We really need this to lower energy costs, lower energy burden for our island.

We need this for grid stability, and we need this to maintain a healthy solar industry going forward with all the uncertainty that there is that we're facing right now. So thank you for hearing this bill and we stand in strong support. And I'm here for questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have Ho Loho Energy and support on Zoom?

Yes. And am I on the screen? You got me. Okay. Yeah. Just to be clear, I am in support of this bill with regard to objectives 1 and 3, and I have no comments regarding the second objective, which is the intergovernmental Wheeling.

The objective, as the HSEA stated earlier, is really important for us to be able to deliver a stable grid to our citizens and our residents. And the section about appropriate compensation, I note, unlike some other testifiers, that this is only when systems are activated to support grid services.

And we believe that having the Legislature set this kind of guardrail in place is helpful policy direction to the Public Utilities Commission. Thank you for your time and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. That's everyone who indicated that would be here. Also six other organizations in support, one providing comments and eight individuals in support on this measure. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom.

Questions? Thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1500, SD 2, HD 1.

First we have DCCA, Division of Consumer Advocacy in support. Thank you. Hawaii Public Utilities Commission with comments. IBEW Local 1260 in support. Thank you. And Hawaiian Electric with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is James Abraham. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, offering comments and a proposed amendment to simplify Senate Bill 1500.

We appreciate the intent of the measure to protect utility customers when there's an imminent threat of a utility failing to be able to provide the service to the public.

Our amendments that we're offering seek to simplify the Bill by instead of listing particular types of utilities, broadening it to all regulated public utilities, which we believe is a more proactive approach to this measure. We appreciate the Committee's consideration of our amendments and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. That's all the written testimony we've received. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay. Questions. Thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1501 SD2HD1.

First, we have Department of Budget and Finance with comments. Thank you. We have the Department of the Attorney General with comments.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Randall Nishiyama for the Department of the Attorney General. We've submitted our written comments and are available for questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you. DCCA Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments. Thank you. Hawaii Public Utilities Commission in support. Thank you. Ulupono Initiative and support. Thank you. Hawaiian Electric in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Colton Ching testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric in strong support of SB 1501 SD2HD1 with the proposed amendments. This bill is crucial for our customers and the development of renewable energy projects.

We have been working with various state agencies as well as independent power producers to address the concerns raised in their testimony regarding this bill. We have submitted proposed amendments with our written testimony based on these discussions.

These changes clarify a few outstanding issues with the bill, which are explained in detail in an explanation document that's attached to our testimony. This bill will help us avoid higher cost energy contracts with independent power producers and ensure system reliability by addressing the financing concerns raised by these project developers.

Due to our current credit rating, this bill is for the benefit of our customers, without which our customers will likely see increased costs due to those aforementioned power purchase costs. Hawaiian Electric believes the solution offers the best way to address developers financing concerns and reduce costs to customers and strongly supports SB 1501.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Executive Collaborative Climate Hawaii in support.

Thank you, Chair. Members of the Committee, Jeff Michalina with the Climate Hawaii. We're representing some 15 organizations you can see in our letterhead that are supportive of this measure. We think it's an important policy to. Really provide that backstop to make sure. We can get the low cost, low carbon, renewable energy projects online.

So we strongly urge the Committee to forward this to the conference Committee. Mahalo.

Thank you. We have Clearway Energy group in support on zoom Aloha Chair, Members of the Committee, Nicola Park.

On behalf of Clearway Energy, we stand in strong support of this measure and stand our written testimony noting we did provide one minor amendment related to the length of time a step in agreement would remain in place after the utility becomes investment grade. Thank you. Available for any questions.

Thank you. That's all. Also testimony and support from six other organizations and one individual. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom Chair, Vice Chair. Hi.

Aloha. Eliza Talbot with AES Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this bill and echo the sentiments of Clearway that very supportive. We need this bill in order to make sure that we can continue with our PPA's and continue to reach our 100% renewable energy goals by 2045.

We have proposed a few amendments and they echo the amendments requested in PICO's testimony as well. Here to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And we have your testimony here also. Anybody else on Zoom.

Questions? Okay, moving on to the final Bill. Senate Bill 897, SD 3, HD 2.

First up, we have the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Director Ando. Thank you. Department of the Attorney General with comments.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Randall Nishiyama for the Department of the Attorney General. We've submitted our written comments and I'm available for your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. DCCA, Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Providing comments. Available questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Public Utilities Commission with comments. Thank you. Life of the land in support on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Lifeline supports this Bill in its current form. We're glad the $1 billion fund was taken out. The Bill allows securitization to be allowed by the PUC. This is something critical that a lot of industries across the country use and it should be a financial tool available to the utility.

We support the working group and we think that the co op and the way it's handled should be different from the utility as is done in this Bill. So we support the Bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Hawaii Association of justice and opposition.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Evan Oy. On behalf of the Hawaii Association for justice, we stand in strong opposition to this measure. You know, the liability caps that are proposed within this measure are the most aggressive caps across the nation.

And we'd be the first state to pass something like this and we'd be setting a dangerous precedent for future wildfires in our state. As currently proposed, the liability caps, of course, are the lesser of three separate options.

And one of the main options is of course, taking into account the tax assessed or assessed valuations of the structures here in Hawaii, you know, we're extremely concerned about this valuation at this point in time because right now the tax assess only accounts for the buildings.

And when you look at your tax assessed valuations, that's only a fraction of what your actual property tax assessed is when you. So, you know, this would create a substantial liability limit for many of our future, you know, future wildfire victims if there is another occurrence at this point in time.

You know, this is not reflective of what other states are doing in across the nation. You know, we have states like Arizona, Wyoming, Texas that are not even contemplating liability caps at this point in time. They're looking at presumptions which take into account compliance with their mitigation plans in their states.

So, you know, we don't feel as though the liability caps proposed in this measure are necessary and they undercut the rights of victims that may be in communities across our state, you know, so if caps are to be proposed, we would suggest being a limit, being more reflective of cost of repair to allow our communities to rebuild and our residents to remain here.

Because if the cost is not appropriately covered, many residents will probably have to relocate or be displaced by, you know, future wildfire if they're not able to rebuild at this point in time. So, you know, for these reasons, we respectfully oppose this measure and we will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Ulupono Initiative in support. Thank you. State Farm Insurance in opposition. Thank you. Hawaiian Electric in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jason Ben for Hawaiian Electric testifying in strong support of this Bill and requesting one clarifying amendment explained in my written testimony that we believe is consistent with the intent of the Bill and important to ensure that its desired benefits and outcomes are achieved. This Bill is forward looking.

It remains in the public interest, protecting customers from cost increases caused by utilities exposure to unlimited wildfire liability for future fires. It does not apply to past claims. And I want to again make clear our company's commitment to pay its $2 billion share of the global settlement with no contribution from customers.

Utilities must serve despite risk factors that are not all within their control.

And across the United States, there is growing recognition that unbounded wildfire liability risk leads to higher cost of capital, resulting in higher cost to customers and must be addressed through policy. More than a dozen states have passed or are actively considering bills and regulatory policy changes to that end.

Prior to August 8, Wine Electric's credit rating was as high as A minus. Its current rating is non investment grade, speculative and the lowest in the US amongst regulated utilities.

We continue to believe that the existence of a Wildfire Recovery Fund, which the Bill addresses by way of a study, coupled with a limitation on liability, provides significant benefits and represents the best balance of interests.

This Bill is critical to begin the process of returning to investment grade and reducing costs to customers, especially now as we need to make critical infrastructure improvements to address safety, reliability, resiliency and to meet the energy policy objectives of the State of Hawaii.

Please pass SB 897, SD 3, HD 2 with our proposed amendment and mahalo for allowing me to testify in support of this Bill and invite any questions you may have.

Thank you.

AES Hawaii in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair ASY stands in support of this Bill and appreciates the opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you. IBEW Local 1260 in support.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Leroy Chincio, Business Manager and Financial Secretary for IBEW 1260 and we stand in strong support of this Bill. We believe this is the best option moving forward to provide low capital and, you know, mitigating wildfire risk. We stand on our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Clearway Energy Group in support on Zoom Aloha.

Clearway stands on its written testimony and support. We're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Kauai Island Utility Cooperative in support.

Yes, Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Beth Amaro with Kauai Island Utility Cooperative. Just to briefly summarize our testimony, we do support the intent of this Bill and largely how it is written.

However, there are elements of the Bill that don't recognize the significant differences between HECO, which is a large investor owned utility, and KIUC, which is a much smaller electric cooperative. So the amendments that we've proposed, we feel without those amendments that the Bill would have limited applicability or benefit to KIUC and our member owners.

So we've provided an explanation of our reasoning in the testimony and since the intent of the Bill is clearly to apply to all electric utilities in the state, we ask that our requested amendments be incorporated and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's everyone who indicated they would be joining us. Also, testimony in support from 23 other organizations, two organizations in opposition and one providing comments as well as about 40 individuals in support. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom? Oh, sorry. Thank you. We have your testimony. Sorry about that.

Okay, anybody else in the room? Anybody on Zoom, take questions.

Okay, I have a question. Chair. Representative.

Thank you. Can I please have the Hawaii Association for Justice? I just wanted to clarify something, or I guess ask you to clarify something you said in your remarks, which is that if Hawaii were to implement this measurement, that it would be precedent setting.

And I'm assuming that you don't mean that in a legal sense because there's nothing binding about, like, there's nothing that we as a Legislature could do that would bind future decisions by ourselves and by other institutions as opposed to, like something that the judiciary or the, you know, that a judge can do.

I'm assuming that I'm interpreting that correctly. Is that right?

Right. And so sorry Representative, just for clarification purposes, what I meant by precedent is that we would be the first essentially implement such an aggressive cap for, you know, future wildfires in our, you know, amongst other states in our nation.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Thank you.

Thank you. Further questions. HICO, I think, you know, and subject matter will deal with a lot of these amendments that everybody's kind of requesting in conference.

But for this Committee, I think we, in general, I think like even the Senate, they're looking, I think they're pushing more for study and is my understanding, but they're still working that out. You know, we, we are different from other states. So even if we study other states. Right.

We are not an interconnected grid with other contiguous states and all the, you know, those kind of things. So, we are very unique. Right. It's, we're isolated. It'll be just absolutely. One chair. Yes. Yeah. So help us understand, like, the uniqueness of this situation.

And, you know, I understand why people want to study the mainland, but, you know, it's very different.

So I. Yeah, I mean, that thank you for the question. I mean, with respect to the nature of our grids to begin with, it is unique. Right. We're serving across multiple, not interconnected islands.

We serve the largest war fighting command in the US Military and Indopacom, and we have the highest penetration of rooftop solar in the nation, the second highest adoption of electric vehicles. We're the most electrified state in the union, so the utility is providing an essential service.

When I say most electrified, all of us get most of our energy needs from the grid or from electricity. There's not a lot of gas customers. There's a lot of EVs charging at home. So it's a super critical service. We cannot rely on the other islands to interconnect.

And when you talk about the uniqueness from a Wildfire perspective, with all due respect, I would say it's very unique in Hawaii. We have a legacy of changing land use that has changed the factors of wildfire under us. And we're working another way it's unique is I think we've driven down the risk as aggressively as anyone.

60% reduction from our facilities in one year. But I could go on, but I hope I'm answering your question. It's unique in the nature, the critical nature of what we're operating. We're not connected to anybody and we're not connected to each other. It's unique in the mission and it's unique in the risk from a wildfire perspective.

So, yeah, that's one of my concern is that a lot of times when we study other states and things like that, a lot of times we don't take into consideration how different we are. And that's my concern is that I wanted you to help this Committee understand as best you can. Right.

Like all the things we should consider that make us unique. Like, you know, and there's many things that I have discussed with this Committee about why we're different from other states. Not just in this issue alone, but tax issues, other issues. Right. Where we're different. We're just. We're the only state where we have one school district. Right.

And there's federal laws that actually hurt us because it applies to areas that have many school districts. So I just, when we study, I want it to be. I want to understand everything that you can possibly share with us to make us understand.

I don't know your business and what makes it unique, but it seems like we'll be very, very different from other utilities.

I hope I'm being as responsive as possible. I could probably go on for like a day. But with respect to this Bill, specifically with respect to Wildfire and our. And what we proposed, it is purposefully unique to meet the, the special needs of our state.

I think when people compare, as the previous testifier did, to what they called aggressive or most aggressive, I, I would, I would dispute that. I would say, I would think that the liability caps in other states are different for their needs, but potentially more aggressive. Like our cap does not cover physical injury or wrongful death.

I would say with respect to uniqueness, in every other state, they are paying claims. And so we're asking to securitize a fund that helps restore our credit rating. The other uniqueness we have is we need to invest in the grid and in generation. So the generation on each island is not helping its neighbor island.

Not supposed to say neighbor island. Each island has to have enough capacity. I'm sorry. Okay. Each island has to have enough capacity to deal with its own contingencies. And so we have to unfortunately, build for that on every single island. Right.

Those investments are coming and we need to make them now to stabilize the grid, and we have to make the grid safe. So it is very unique Chair.

Thank you. You know, part of the goal of this Bill is to help you stabilize your credit rating. And then you mentioned your testimony that, you know, prior to the wildfire, you were A minus. Yeah, yeah. What do you. And you want to be at investment grade.

What do you think with this Bill where you would end up?

I think it will help improve notches. The Modis and Fitch have indicated a precise recipe, without being specific about quantities of what needs to happen to return to investment grade. And actually S and P has to. We must settle in the courts and have a plan to finance our $2 billion commitment for the events of August 8th.

That must happen. That could happen soon. Right. We must address the physical risks of wildfire. And we've spent well over 130 million just in the past year without adjusting rates by reprioritizing to do that. And the third one is to address the risk of a future wildfire liability taking down the utility financially.

And that's what this Bill is about. We believe it's a balance of a Ffund and a liability cap, and that's why we're so strongly supporting this. We understand people are concerned about the fund. We want to study it.

But I think the cap is a huge first step and it's going to take all of those steps to get there. This is the first critical step Chair.

You think you'd get back to an A minus?

I think eventually we can get there. I think it's a step wise. The one thing, if I may real quick, the one thing about the credit rating agencies is you have to earn your way back in steps but overnight you can go to the bottom, and that's what we've experienced.

So with that being said, then strategically, the investment you make will be over time. Are you going to make it right? Because your rating probably is not going to be that great at the beginning.

Yeah, we're going to have to make those wildfire as, as long as the PUC approves our investments we are planning to make, just for wildfire alone, 130 million annually. Our credit rating. Like, just as an example, if we borrowed, let's say, annually, 3 to 5, let's say 500 million just to keep the number simple.

The credit spread difference to us over the next, every single year is like 24 million to customers just on our credit rating. So, you know, that's why it's so urgent that we get some support to improve the credit rating.

Yeah. Okay. For the question Members. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're going to recess, and then we're going to. More people gotta come. Okay, they're on their way. We're gonna recess and we're gonna get quorum and vote.

Okay. We're going to reconvene the Committee on Finance for decision-making on our 3:15 agenda. First up is Senate Bill 1536, SD 2, HD 2. Recommendation is to pass as is. Any discussion? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 121. Okay, Members, we're going to be passing this Bill out as is. This is a constitutional amendment. It is clean. And basically, it's just allowing the Senate more time to do advice and consent. So, we're moving this out clean. Any discussion? Representative Reyes Oda.

Thank you. The Judiciary is concerned that this may lead to judicial vacancies unfilled for a long period of time. The current process is already time-intensive. I'll be voting with reservations.

Understood. Okay. Any further discussion?

Okay. Vice Chair, please take the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1202. Recommendation on this one also is we're going to be passing this out as is. Campaign Spending Commission said they're already doing this, and this is just to codify this in law. Any discussion? Okay, as is.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 336. We're going to be defecting the effective date to 7-1-3000, technical amendments, HD 1. Any discussion? Okay, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1469, SD 2, HD 1. We're going to be also defecting this effective date to 7-1-3000, technical amendments. Discussion? Moving forward. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 222, SD 2, HD 1. Recommendation is that we defect the effective date to 7-1-3000 and technical amendments. Any discussion? Okay, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill. Senate Bill 227, HD—SD 2, HD 1. We're going to be blanking out the FTE and defecting the effective date to 7-1-3000 and technical amendments. Any discussion? Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 825, SD 2, HD 2. Members, we're going to be moving this forward. I know there's some discussion on the amount of the money and who it's going to be serving. We're just going to keep it moving for discussion and the conference committees can deal with this.

Recommendation is to pass as is. Discussion?

Chair. While I appreciate the intent and the latitude and the grace that this Bill would give people with financial hardship, I think based on personal experience and situations I've been close to, I think there's also a loophole for people of bad faith.

You know, actors of bad faith, are also situations where lease is not going to be renewed because of things like nefarious activities, drug dealings, and making it unsafe for families who are landlords or a community at large. So, I will be voting "No" on this one.

Okay. Thank you. For this, Representative Reyes Oda.

Or while I support efforts to prevent unnecessary displacement, I'm concerned that extending the notice period may lead to additional delays and operational uncertainty for property owners. I'll be voting with reservations.

Okay. Thank you. Further discussion? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1367, SD 1, HD 1. Recommendation is to pass as is. Discussion? Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1048, SD 2, HD 1. We're going to be defecting the defective date to 7-1-3000, technical amendments. Any discussion? Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1044, SD 2, HD 1. We're going to be making a few amendments. We're going to be taking the amendments from DCCA, except for the recommendation for the money. We're going to be putting $50 million in FY '26 in GO reimbursable bonds, only in that year.

And then, if they need more money, they can come back and ask us next year. And then, we're going to be putting language in there that they said they would, but—and they were using HHR Fund for some of these purposes.

So, but we're going to recommend that they put language in there that they use that first and before they tap the $50 million. And some technical amendments. Any discussion? Okay. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1318. Recommendation is to pass, defecting the effective date to 7-1-3000, technical amendments. Discussion? Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 589, SD 1, HD 2. We're just going to be making some technical amendments. We found some drafting errors. We're just making technical amendments on this Bill. Any discussion? Okay. Representative Reyes Oda.

Thank you. Currently, retail wheelings explicitly—is explicitly prohibited—by law and there is an open docket with the PUC to analyze intergovernmental wheeling. I hope we can wait until the PUC issues their findings before creating these requirements.

I also remain concerned about the Bill's potential impact on grid safety, long-term reliability, and possible increased costs to those without solar systems. For these reasons, I'm going to be voting "No." Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I know there was some recommendations that we defer the Bill, but I'm just going to keep it moving for discussion purposes. Any further discussion? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1500, SD 2, HD 1. Recommendation is to pass out as is. I know that PUC is asking it for us to change it from....to may, but we'll not let subject matter deal with that. So, at this point. As is? Discussion? Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 1501, SD 2, HD 1. Recommendation is to pass as is. Discussion? Step in. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next Bill, Senate Bill 897, SD 3, HD 2. Members, we're gonna also keep this Bill moving. There was—we're gonna let the subject matter committees deal with this in conference. There is a difference between what the House wants, and the Senate wants. So, this is far from over.

But recommendation that we keep it moving, as is. Discussion? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote. Yep. Representative Reyes Oda.

Thank you. This Bill is certainly better than previous versions, now that the shareholder ratepayer contribution has been removed. I'm still concerned about potential infrastructure charges on the ratepayers' bills to pay for those wildfire mitigation efforts. I'll be voting with reservations.

Okay, thank you for the discussion.

Okay, please take the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you very much. Members, we are adjourned.

Hi. Good morning everybody. Thank you for joining us. Today is - this is the Committee on Finance. It's Monday, March 31st. Opening our 10:00am agenda in Conference Room 308 to hear a number of resos. Members will be taking up the HCRs and the HRs at the same time.

So first up we're going to do HCR 59, HR 55, requesting the Department of Accounting and General Services to study the feasibility of limiting the cost of projects and construction management in each state construction project to 10% of the total cost of the project. First up to testify we have the Department of Accounting and General Services in support.

Gordon Wood, Public Works Administrator. The Department ...

Thank you. And do we have Greg, Gregory Misaikan in support on Zoom? Not present. Okay. That's all the written testimony we've received. Anybody? Oh. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, Questions? Okay.

Seeing none. Moving on to HCR 60, HR 56 requesting the office of Planning and Sustainable Development in coordination with appropriate state and county departments or agencies to develop methods to estimate costs associated with delays in certain public and private development projects. First up we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development with comments. Thank you.

That's all the written testimony we've received. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody? On Zoom Members, Any questions? Seeing none. Moving on to the next set of resolutions, HCR182, HR177 requesting that the Tax Review Commission consider certain goals for an equitable, efficient and adequate tax policy structure in its deliberations.

Do we have the Hawaii Food Industry Association in support on Zoom?

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA and apologies for submitting so late last night.

We are in support of this measure and one potential suggested addition to the list of goals we suggested adding evaluating the impact of our current tax code on Hawaii residents of different income brackets and ensuring that lower income taxpayers are not disproportionately impacted by certain taxes.

We think that this would just help this measure accomplish its goals and also work really cohesively with the following measure. And I'd be happy to answer any questions and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you Members. Also, testimony in support from NFIB and the Hawaii Government Employees Association. That's all the written testimony received. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom? Members any questions? Seeing none. Moving on to the next set of resolutions.

This is HCR 183, HR 178 requesting the Department of Taxation and the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaii to collaborate and develop data driven analysis of the impacts of tax policies on economic development, migration patterns and other factors affecting public policy. Hawaii Food Industry Association in support on zoom.

Good morning again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our testimony in support and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Members. Also testimony and support from the University of Hawaii System, NFIB and the Hawaii Government Employees Association, as well as comments from the Department of Taxation. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom? Members, any questions? Seeing none. Moving on to the last resolution of this agenda.

This is HCR 61 requesting a study examining how certain other jurisdictions produce fiscal notes. Nobody indicating they'd be present, but we did receive comments from the Legislative Reference Bureau and with comments and support from the grassroots - the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. Nobody to ask questions to. So, we will roll right into decision making.

We will recess to let members come down to vote. Recess.

Okay, thank you everybody. We are back for decision making on our 10am agenda on all of the resolutions we just heard. Okay, first up. Sorry. Remember, so we'll be doing a recommendations and taking up voting again in tandem with the hcrs and hrs. So first up, hcr59 and Hr55. Recommendations. Recommendation is to pass as is.

Any questions, comments or concerns. Okay, hearing none. Chair for the vote.

Okay, Members, we're voting on HCR59 and HR55. Recommendation is to pass as is. [Roll Call]

I never do this song thing. Okay. [Roll Call] Okay, measures adopted.

Thank you, Members. Next up, HCR 60, HR 56, recommendations to pass as is. Any questions, comments or concerns? Okay, Hearing none. Chair for the vote.

Okay, Members voting on HCR 60 and 59, noting the presence of all Members except except for Reyes Oda and Ward will be marked as excused. And for the rest of this agenda, are there any reservations or noes? Okay, adopted.

Thank you. Next up, HCR182, HR177 on the Tax Review Commission. Recommendations to pass as is. Any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on HCR182 and HR177. Any reservations or noes? Okay, adopted.

Okay, next. HDR 183 and HR177 for the partnership between Dotex and Uhero. Recommendation is to pass as is. Any questions, comments or concerns? Okay. Hearing none. Chair for the vote.

Which one are we?

180, HDR 183 and HR 178.

Okay. Okay. Voting on HCR 183 and HR 178. Are there any reservations or noes? Okay, adopted.

And last one on this agenda. HCR61 on fiscal notes. Recommendation is to pass as is. Any questions, comments or concerns? Okay, Chair for the vote.

Okay, I'm voting on HCR61. Recommendation is passed, as is. Any reservation or noes? Adopted.

Okay, thank you, Members. That's it for our 10:00 a.m. agenda. We're going to just go straight into our 10:15 agenda. This is our the agenda where everything was vetted in subject matter and we did not take testimony to let Members know. My intention is to move all of these as is.

But since we're going to be doing that in one vote by consent, I will let everybody take a couple minutes to take a look at the agenda. If there's anything you'd like to pull out of order for that vote. So we will recess. Okay.

Reconvening the 10:15 agenda for the Committee on Finance to take up a number of resolutions. Okay. As previously stated, we will be taking up this entire agenda by consent. Recommendations to move all of these resolutions out as is. Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Chair for the vote.

Okay, thank you very much. Members were voting on. Chair's recommendation is to move all measures on page one through four on the agenda, as is. [Roll Call]

Alcos, Reyes Oda and Board are excused. Okay. Adopted. All are adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. Members were adjourned.