House Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good evening, everyone. Now convening the House Committee or good afternoon. Thank you for the fix. Good afternoon, everyone. Now convening the Committee on Higher Education. Today is Wednesday, April 9, 2025.

A few minutes after 2pm we are here in room 309 at the State Capitol for the purposes of a hearing on a handful of Senate Concurrent Resolutions that crossed over. So with that, we'll just get right into it. And thank you, Representative Kila, for serving as our acting Vice Chair today in Vice Chair Amato's absence.

So with that, if you could assist with our testifier list. Thank you.

Thank you. Up first, SCR 50, Della Taraoka, University of Hawaii System in support. Next, we have John C. Jack Lewin from the Hawaii State Health Planning and Development Agency in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. Yes, clearly we have a nursing crisis in our state, and this would be a tremendous investment in our future. Maui is more stricken than the other islands in terms of both physician nursing and other kinds of shortage. So we'd strongly recommend seeing this investment as a real positive thing for our future.

Mahalo. Thank you. Next we have Paige Choi from the Healthcare Association of Hawaiian Support. Seeing no further registered testifiers on the matter before us. Is there anyone else online or in person like to testify? Seeing none, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Members, any questions? SCR 50. Okay. Seeing none. Move on to the next resolution.

Thank you. Up next, SCR 137 requesting the office of the auditor to conduct the performance audit on the University of Hawaii Foundation. First, we have John Han from the University of Hawaii Foundation in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair. Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to testify. I have submitted a written testimony and we stand by it. So I'm here to see if there are any questions I can answer to clarify the our position.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have the Office of the Auditor providing comments. Seein no further registered testifiers on the matter before us. Is there anyone else online or person like to testify? Seeing none. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Members. Any questions? SCR 137. If not, I have a few for Mr. Han. Yes, thank you for being here. I know there's a public perception that, uh, foundation is actually a part of the University of Hawaii. But you're saying that it is not, so I just have some questions. If you could just kind of, just kind of educate me on the nature of the foundation.

Absolutely.

Okay, so let's see here. So I know the legislative auditor did testify that they don't have jurisdiction over the, uh, foundation being a private nonprofit, so my inclination is to recommend deferral of this measure. But again, if you could just answer some questions for my edification.

How does the, UH foundation, internally, like, measure the effectiveness and efficiency of all the different funds and fundraising activities that you undertake?

Yeah, so we are governed by volunteer board of trustees, and they evaluate the foundation's performance and relative to how it's aligned with the supporting the University. So annually, we set fundraising goals as well as looking at effectiveness of the donor funds that are used and how it makes an impact and support the University.

Okay, and you did note in your testimony there are about 7,000 different accounts.

That's correct.

Okay, and how do you. What kind of systems do you have in place to monitor, like, the utilization and ensure that donor intent is made is met with those funds?

Yeah, so we use an enterprise system. It's called Financial Edge, and that is a system we use to keep track of individual account account balances and the faculty and staff, uh, staff who are authorized to use those funds.

And also it does keep track of all of the pertinent donor documents identifying the, the purpose and the use of the funds. For example, it could be for scholarship, it could be for athletics. And so we have many of those funds.

And it does take, you know, a lot of resources to just ensure that our funds are used prudently and effectively to support the University that's aligned with the donor intent.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Just a few more questions. So what are the processes the foundation uses to measure donor satisfaction? Or if you hear stories about donor dissatisfaction, how do you go about managing that?

Oh, we like to have direct conversation with the donors, so we meet with them. So if there are any concerns, we want to understand what the concerns are, and we try to address it immediately. So we do have number of public events where donors are invited and we share our impact and results.

And many times our donors will come up to us and give us feedback. And also, you know, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of just more intimate meetings with our staff and sometimes with the faculty who the funds are supporting.

And just try to understand, you know, how much of an impact that is making and how the funds are utilized. And I can give you a couple of examples if that would be helpful. So for our endowment donors, we send out annually list of their endowed fund and the payouts that was made during the previous fiscal year.

And then we also list the students who received awards from those funds. And sometimes the students will write thank you letters to the donors individually and also for some of the other types of endowments.

So if it's a chair of professorships, you know, they would kind of write, you know, how the funds were spent that fiscal year and the impact that has made for their research or program.

Okay. And then I know again, it's clear in your testimony that you've got folks go through quite a bit of various financial audits. Correct. Do you have any kind of system in place for performance audits?

Performance audits? Well. Sure. I feel, you know, there is some overlap with our financial audit. And so, first of all, we're benchmarked against our peers constantly. And that's one of the things our board of trustees ask and, you know, ask us how we measure up to our peers in terms of the size and the impact that we're making.

And then also, you know, with the annual financial audit, often there are checks in place where they would verify, you know, some of the spending is in line with the donor intent.

And so if there are things that come up, and as typically, what auditors will do is take a deeper dive, take a bigger sample size and, you know, review those records as well.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, any other questions? SCR 137, seeing none. Next resolution, please Vice Chair.

Thank you. SCR 138, Senate Draft 1, requesting the audit to conduct the management and performance audit of the Office of the Vice President for Academic Strategy of the University of Hawaii. Up first for SCR 138, Deborah Halbert. Steven Schatz from the University of Hawaii System providing comments.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Deborah Halbert, Vice President for Academic Strategy. We stand on our written testimony with comments. I'm happy to answer any questions. And Steve Stratz is here as well for any questions regarding P 20. Thank you.

Mahalo. Up next, we have. I'm sorry. We have Gabe Lee and Lori Tochiki from the University of Hawaii Board of Regents providing comments, seeing no other further registered testifiers on the matter before us. Does anyone else online or in person like to testify? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. Vice Chair. Members, any questions? SCR 138, seeing none. Next resolution, please.

Thank you. Members. SCR 142, Senate Draft 1, requesting the office of the auditor to conduct an audit of the University of Hawaii at Manoa Athletics Department's use and management of its funds. Up first, we have Lois Manin from University of Hawaii System in support.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair. Lois Mannin, Acting Athletics Director, University of Hawaii and Manoa Athletics.

We stand on our written testimony, I would just like to highlight that we acknowledge that we are not perfect by any means, but in our strategic plan, which is in working draft right now, we do have a focal area that is kind of like an audit on ourselves, where we will look at the operations and the procedures of the Athletic Department. And that is one of the focal areas of the strategic plan.

Thank you. Seeing no further for the registered testifiers on the matter before us. Is there anyone else, online or in person like to testify? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you Vice Chair. Members, any questions? SCR 142. AD Manin, if you don't mind coming back up, I have a few questions. Thank you. Just wanted to kind of dig a little deeper into your testimony.

So you mentioned that you feel that the purpose of this resolution would be a little duplicative of what's already conducted to meet NCAA bylaws and compliance there. Just like I asked the UH foundation, is that more of a financial audit in nature versus a performance management audit?

It is. It is a more of a financial audit, and it is recommended or actually required every year by the NCAA.

To your knowledge, do you recall at the time there was, like, a performance or a management audit conducted of the Athletic Department?

I do not. But there is a systematic process in place where we. It's called the performance evaluation system, where we do evaluate our employees every year with goals and objectives and meets and do not meet, does not meet criteria.

Okay. Thank you. In the resolution, as received by the Committee, it notes a $2.1 million deficit in FY24. But your testimony notes that there was a net income in the last two fiscal years. And I know you note the impact of the hazard pay award. Can you explain the discrepancy there?

Correct. So the. The discrepancy, the the deficit is shown in the NCAA report. That is, we're required to report every year. But the way that they asked us to report that, and Tiffany's not here, our business manager, but the way that they asked us to report it does not include information from different sources. So we have.

When we report the NCAA report, it does show a deficit, but when we actually compare our revenues and expenses, it balances itself out. I'm sorry, I don't know the exact terms of how to explain that without Tiffany here, but.

Okay. And then going further, in your testimony, you talk about some of the athletic department's priorities, and number one, you mentioned the house settlement planning. Can you educate the Committee on what that refers to? And then in your testimony, you note that there was a recent court case, April 7. So a few days ago regarding whether or not the terms of the settlement were amenable to Judge Claudia Wilkin.

Sure. So the House settlement is something that. Where all this name, image, likeness and the antitrust lawsuits were kind of trying to rein it all in. But there was a settlement hearing on April 7 in front of Judge Wilkin. The expectation was for her to approve it, but she has not yet approved it.

A lot has happened between the time that the settlement was presented and the hearing. So she is now evaluating more information that she's getting from everyone. So there has not yet been an approval of the settlement. Where we're at now is we're just waiting, but we are preparing for approval of the House settlement just in case that. And we were anticipating that she's going to approve it, but we can't wait for her to approve it.

What is the expected cost to the University for that settlement?

So it really depends because right now the mandatory back pay is about 150 to 60,000 dollars a year every year for the next 10 years, starting in FY26.

And the rest of the cost drivers, the revenue sharing and the Alston payments and the cost of attendance payments and the increase in scholarships, we're looking at about 16 above $16 million.

Okay. And then so this is for former and current players to receive like a.

So the back pay is for former players and the rest of it, the revenue sharing and the increase in scholarships and everything else is for current players.

I just want to very transparent in saying that the back pay is something that is required and the revenue sharing and the increase in scholarships are not required, but it is required for us to remain competitive because we are recruiting against people who are increasing and maximizing, like we said in the last hearing, the $20 million that that Ohio State is paying in NIL and revenue sharing.

Okay. And then are you going to have to come to the Legislature to ask for funding for that potential $16 million line item or is there.

There is a there is an ask right now of 12.8 million that I think went through the governor's memo and then that plus the 3.2 in recurring funds would be the $16 million ask.

Thanks for the breakdown there. Just a few more questions. You also note that the University is preparing for full membership in the Mountain West Conference. Is that going to be a financial gain for the University? I know the prior AD was working on eliminating travel subsidies that we used to pay to incoming teams. Can you just educate the Committee on what the financial impact of being a full member is.

So still evaluating what the financial impact will be total, I would say we don't have to pay once we enter, we don't have to pay the Big west travel subsidies, so we no longer will have to pay that, which is about half a million dollars, but we will still continue to pay the football travel subsidies in the Mountain West, which we are currently paying anyway.

But so the 500,000 in savings from the big west, we will have to figure out what the travel costs will be to those different cities and how that pans out, we're not quite sure yet.

Okay, understood. The third item you mentioned is fundraising, and you talked about NIL as well. You make a reference here about eliminating threats of donor frustration.

Is that the sense you get in the community that various collaboratives are having a hard time working with each other or trying to get on the same page about how best to support the Department?

I think there's a lot of support for the Department. I think there has been frustration in the past and maybe in the current landscape, where right now, because NIL is not in the University system, it's through collectives and everything else. Everyone's asking everyone. Right. So donors are getting asked 4, 5, 6 times.

And that's causing some frustration because now there is kind of a tug of war between NIL money that goes to the student athletes and foundation money or donations that come to the University for our operating money. So there's a little bit of a tug of war, and we're trying to get a handle on it.

And that's kind of what I meant when I was talking about that.

Understood. And then you reference here a new UH foundation liaison. Is that person.

He's on board already. Okay. For major gifts. And we are trying to figure out. I just met with Director Dolan and this person earlier this week, and we're trying to figure out how and if we can fold him into the NIL staffing equation.

Okay, thank you. Number four, you talked about facility upgrades and maintenance, that a facility master plan has been created but remains aspirational with no funding source. What is the cost of that master plan? And can you just kind of back up and explain what some of the elements of that are?

Holy smokes. The mast. The facility master plan was something that was completed within the last, I want to say, 12 months. Maybe it is purely aspirational. We have not discussed it as a campus at all. We have not really socialized it. But it is a master plan to build a performance center.

That would actually make us, you know, equal level the playing field with our peers. But it was also to relocate beach volleyball, tennis. I mean, it's everything. And there's one. There's one iteration where there's a campus, there's a football stadium on campus, and there's another iteration with the football stadium off campus. So we're just trying to figure it out. But it's upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars.

I can imagine. Are there plans to share that plan at some point with the Legislature or the broader community?

I don't know. And I don't know that if that's going to be my call. I would probably defer to the President and the new Athletics Director on what their vision.

Fair enough. Can you, you just mentioned the performance center, and that is an industry standard across all the group of five schools. What is it? What do you mean by a performance center?

So performance center is somewhere where we can have a central athletic space, where we can have an equipment room all in one place, where we can do all the laundry in one place, strength and conditioning, where we can have a, all the offices, the coaches offices in one place in one area, as well as the dining hall.

There's no real dining space in the Athletic Department right now where all of our student athletes can go and dine and there's a kitchen, but it's all kind of all over the place when it comes to feeding them.

So just to be more, I guess, better situated and where our student athletes can come and talk to their coaches if they need to talk to their coaches. A study area where they can all study. We do have a study area now. We have a Nagatani academic center, but it would just be all encompassing.

Where, a place where all athletes could just gather with their coaches and be close to everything instead of walking all over the place to try and throw their laundry here and go to the locker room here and stuff like that.

Have you conceptualized where that might be located on the lower campus?

It would be. Yes. It would be in the. Where the Ching Stadium is now. It would be on the Diamond Head side of that Diamond Head end zone.

Okay. So that assumes that the Nuala Stadium gets built and then you're able to repurpose the existing sheen field.

If. If it gets built or if it. Even if it doesn't, there's a way to try and just get rid of that stand, those stands, the grandstands right there in front of Les Murakami, and build it there.

Do you have a price tag for that?

Upwards of 300 million is my.

I don't mean to laugh. Okay, 300 million. Okay, got it. Last set of questions here regarding.

I said aspirational, right.

No, no, duly noted. You mentioned here that you have a current working draft of the three year strategic plan to cover 25 through 28. Can you explain to us that process was this like an internal process? Was a consultant retained to help with that?

Yeah, we had a core group with the athletic senior leadership, the athletic Director, the three associate athletics directors, and we had a couple of coaches on this core group. And then we also had an Advisory Committee that consisted of many of our stakeholders, representatives from the community, the business community, the corporate community, the community in general.

Sponsors, the foundation was on it. Campus leadership, the provost was on it. We had student athlete representation. A couple of coaches were also on that expanded Committee. So we tried to get as many stakeholders as we possibly could on that. We had a couple of meetings with them to get their input.

We started it in December of 2023, and then we took a little bit of a pause with the change in leadership. And then we revisited it in January of this year, late January, early February.

We made some edits to it, and now we're awaiting the review of the new athletics Director so that he or she can put their stamp on it and make sure that it aligns with their vision. The Administration of the Strategic plan was done by a community Member who does this for a living. They did it pro bono.

We got a recommendation from the business community to help us with it, and they're big fans as well of athletics so that we didn't have to educate them on a lot of stuff. So it really did help. And it was really good.

It was really good collaboration of pretty much everybody in the community and the stakeholders coming together.

Okay, thank you. I think that's the last of my questions. Members, any other questions for Director Manin?

Thank you.

Next reso, please. Vice Chair.

Thank you. Members, SCR192 request the University of Hawaii system to establish a veterinary medicine expansion working group to explore the feasibility of developing a doctor of veterinary medicine program at the Windward Community College. Up first for SCR192, Debora Halbert, University of Hawaii System, providing comments.

Good afternoon again, Chair. Vice Chair, members of the committee. I'll stand on my written testimony. We do have some recommendations for potential members of that committee if this measure goes forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, we have Stephanie Kendrick from Hawaii Humane Society in support. Seeing no further registered testifiers on the matters before us. Is there anyone else, online or in person, like to testify? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Members, any questions SCR192? Seeing none. Next reso, please.

Thank you. Members, up next is SCR193 SD1, you're requesting the University of Hawaii Community Colleges to develop a comprehensive list of bachelor degree programs and other innovative workforce development pathways that directly align with job opportunities and industry needs within their respective region of service. Up first, we have Della Teraoka from the University of Hawaii System providing comments.

Up next, we have Donna Mae Buscemi in support. And seeing no further registered testifiers on the matters before us. Is there anyone else, online or in person, like to testify? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Members, any questions SCR193? Seeing none, onto our last reso, please.

SDR203 requesting the University of Hawaii to explore the feasibility of establishing an Alzheimer's disease research center and identify the requirements for receiving federal funding from the National Institute on Aging for Alzheimer's disease research. Up first, we have Samuel Schumacher from the University of Hawaii System providing comments.

Next, we have Jack Lewin from the Hawaii State Health Planning and Development Agency in support. Thank you. Lastly, Kobe Chock from the Alzheimer's Association of Hawaii in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Kobi Chak with the Alzheimer's Association in strong support of this resolution, which would get the ball rolling on establishing an ADRC here in the State of Hawaii.

We have a very diverse population here, and we want to make sure that with all the great groundbreaking breaking research that's happening across the nation through funding from bipartisan champions in congress, we've got to make sure we're not missed and left out here. So appreciate your time, and here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further registered testifiers on the matters before us, is there anyone else online or in person that would like to testify? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Members, any questions SCR203? Seeing none. We are one short of quorum, so we're going to recess and hope we can get a member or two down here. Recess.

Very good afternoon, everyone, reconvening for the purposes of decision making on today's agenda. Up first, SCR50. This is the one urging the UH president and Board of Regents to establish a bachelor of science in nursing program at the UH Maui campus.

Members, you'll note that we did hear the parallel effort to this Senate Bill 119, which is still moving through. We know it's a high priority for the Maui delegation to build up to grow their own nursing workforce. So the recommendation here is to by the chair is to pass as an HD1.

Relatively technical amendment, but in the title it refers to UH Maui College. So what we'll do is change that to make it UH Maui. I'm sorry, it says UH Maui Campus. And we'll change that to UH Maui College. Members, any discussion? If not Acting Vice Chair for the vote please. SCR50HD1, thank you.

Members voting on SCR50, the Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments and adopt the HD1. Chair Garrett votes aye. Acting Vice Chair Kila votes aye. Rep. Amato is excused. Rep. Evslin is excused. Rep. Kapela.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Rep. Olds.

Rep. La Chica.

Rep. Sayama.

Representative Woodson is excused. Rep. Muraoka.

Aye.

Rep. Souza is excused. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you, members. Up next, SCR137. This is the one requesting the office of the auditor to conduct a performance audit of the UH Foundation. UH, as I noted earlier, the legislative auditor made it clear that they don't have jurisdiction over a non-profit private entity. So the Chair's recommendation is to defer this resolution.

Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Up next is SCR138SD1, requesting the auditor to conduct a management and performance audit of the Office of the Vice President for Academic Strategy of the University of Hawaii. For this one, the Chair's recommendation is to pass with an HD1. I do want to thank UH for not formally opposing this.

I know they said they didn't support it, but they said not oppose it either. So you know, I do believe that all audits can always be valuable to point out areas for improvement. So thank you for your public statement on that.

So with that, the Chair's recommendation for an HD1 is again rather technical in nature, but on the bottom of page two, line 41, it requests that the auditor submit a report. So we're going to change that to have the auditor submit an audit. So rather than a report. So, just that recommendation. Members, any discussion HD1?

Seeing none. Acting Vice Chair for the vote, please. HD1.

Okay, members voting on SCR 138SD1, the Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments and adopt the HD1, noting the presence of all members who were previously noted as present and the noted excused absences of the previous members, is there any representatives present that would like to vote with reservations or no? Seeing none.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you, members. Next one, SCR142SD1. This is requesting the Office of the Auditor to conduct an audit of the University of Hawaii at Manoa Athletics Department's use and management of its funds.

So, for this one, I would like to recommend that we pass it with an HD1 technical, non-substantive natures for the amendments for the purposes of clarity, consistency, and style. But I just want to say that I think there's value in doing this audit, considering the fact that we do have an incoming athletic director, hopefully this summer.

I'm hoping, timing-wise, if this audit is completed in a fairly timely manner, that it'll provide an unbiased baseline of information which would help the AD hit the ground running when he or she comes on board.

The auditor did not submit testimony on this one, but I did connect with them earlier today, and they said they're comfortable with the current scope as outlined in this resolution. So with that Chair's recommendation again is to pass with an HD1 with technical non-substantive amendments. Members, any discussion? Seeing none, Acting Vice Chair for the vote, please. HD1.

Members voting on SCR142SD1, Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments and adopt HD1 in the presence of the members who were previously noted present. Is there anyone wishing to vote reservations or no? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you, members. Up next, SCR192. This is the one requesting the University of Hawaii System to establish a veterinary medicine expansion working group to explore the feasibility of developing a doctor of veterinary medicine program DVM program at Windward Community College.

So, members for this one, I do have some pretty substantial recommendations to make in terms of the HD1. We did hear the companion earlier HCR195, which I believe we passed out as is.

But I do want to incorporate some suggestions from the University of Hawaii, and what I'll do is just kind of walk through my marked-up copy here. So in the title. Well, I think the main thing to note here is the fact that community colleges are not the appropriate venue to host a doctoral program.

It's just not the way it's designed. So what I'm going to do is strike the reference from Windward Community College from the title, so it'll read as such, requesting the University of Hawaii System to establish a veterinary medicine expansion working group to explore the feasibility of developing a doctor of veterinary medicine program. Period.

And as we work further down in the fourth full paragraph, it does talk about expanding Windward Community College's existing vet tech program to include the DVM program. But again, don't believe that's appropriate considering that it's a community college. So we'll strike that entire paragraph two paragraphs down from there, at the bottom of page one.

Again, it talks about how expanding when we're community college specifically would require these various studies and whatnot. Again, what I want to do with this resolution is take it to a much higher level at the UH system level. So I'm recommending we strike that paragraph in its entirety.

And going to the be it further resolved section regarding the working group membership. So again, taking UH's suggestions here, I'm going to add the UH president or the president's designee as a member of this working group and having them serve as the chair.

Two, we'll add a representative of the chancellor of the UH Hilo campus or their designee to serve as a member, and we'll keep the other members as noted.

And then with the changes to the working group, what we're going to do is add them to the list of parties who shall receive the certified copy of this concurrent resolution. Members, I know that was a lot. Any questions, somments, discussion? Seeing none. Acting Vice Chair for the vote, please. HD1.

Thank you. Members voting on SCR192, the chair's recommendations to pass the amendments and adopt HC1. Members, anyone wishing to vote reservations or no? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Members, penultimate reso SCR193SD1. This one requests the UH community colleges to develop a comprehensive list of bachelor's degree programs and other workforce development pathways that directly align with job opportunities and industry needs within their respective region of service.

So you recall we heard the companion earlier, HCR196, which was passed out by the subsequent committee, House Committee on Labor. So for this one, the Chair's recommendation is just to pass with technical, non-substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Acting Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Members voting on SCR193SD1, the Chair's recommendation to pass with amendments and adopt the HD1. Member, anyone wishing to vote reservations or no? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Last resolution of the this agenda ACRH. I'm sorry. SCR203 requesting the UH to explore the feasibility of establishing an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center and identify the requirements for receiving federal funding from the National Institute on Aging for Alzheimer's disease research for this one. Members, we did hear HCR31, the house companion earlier.

Unfortunately, it wasn't scheduled by Finn, but let's give it another shot, noting, you know, the school of medicine's concerns that this might not be the right time to establish a new research institute, considering the challenges with federal funding and whatnot. But doesn't hurt to keep this alive and see if Jabsom can at least explore this concept further.

So with that, the Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Acting Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Thank you, members. Voting on SCR. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. Voting on SCR203. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Members voting reservations or no? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, so with that, we have just concluded our last hearing for this regular session. So, members just want to thank you for your participation and your patience with me in my first rodeo as chair. So with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.

Good job, Chair.