House Standing Committee on Labor

Morning, everyone. I'm calling the House Committee on Labor to order. It is Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026, 9:30am. We're in Conference Room 309. Welcome, everyone, to the first hearing. Happy New Year. As you can probably see already, we have a new audio system.

So when you do come to testify, instead of talking into a mic, we just ask that you project your voice. Talk clearly, and the audio system in the ceiling will amplify your voice throughout the room. If you do have side conversations, there is a possibility that the audio system will pick up that conversation and amplify it.

So if you do want to have those side conversations, please cover your mouth with a paper or folder or you could step outside. With that, just some housekeeping. We'll be keeping the testimony to two minutes to allow for as many testifiers as possible before the floor session begins at 12.

If you are testifying via Zoom, we ask that you please keep your microphone and video turned off until it is your turn to testify. If you are having some technical difficulties, please contact our tech staff in the chat and we'll get back to you.

If we are disconnected unexpectedly, we will recess and if necessary reconvene the hearing at a later date, which will be notified. Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. We'll just keep this civil. We'll have a good time, and looking forward to working with everyone and having a productive session.

Okay, with that, we'll begin with our first item on the agenda, HB 1660, relating to county labor standards. First, to testify, we have Director Jade Butai from DLIR in support.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and Representative Capella. And congratulations on a very active start. We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in support on Zoom.

Hello, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Mark Clemente. On behalf of the Hoya Regional Council of Carpenters, I stand on my written testimony, but just want to make 1.0. Construction occurs under county permits.

And when contractors are cited for things like wage theft, misclassification, or failing to provide the required insurance, they can still continue pulling permits and working for months or even years. And that enforcement gap actually hurts workers, undercuts honest contractors, and cost taxpayers lost payroll and income tax revenue. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons in the room here to testify on this measure? Any persons on Zoom? zero, yes, please. For the record, please state your name when you're at the party.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair. My name is Dwayne Bautista. I'm a lobbyist for the iron workers stabilization Fund. We support this Bill. This Bill is very important because we've been as for construction, it's real important that we do not cut corners and make sure that these projects are being built.

We need to make sure that the infrastructure being built being compensated highly by our skilled workers. By doing this, we can ensure that the project is not just saving money or cutting corners, but it's a public safety to make sure whatever we're building to make sure that our families and the construction industry is going safe.

So we as iron worker stabilization Fund, we do support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons in the room here to testify? Anyone on zoom? Hey. Seeing none. We do have written testimony and support from the operating Engineers Local 3 as well as Pacific Resource Partnership in support Members. Any questions? Okay, Seeing none.

We'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda, HB 2028, relating to Labor Day. First to testify, we have Gary Suganuma, Director of Taxation, with comments.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and Members of the Committee. My name is Robert Avila on behalf of DOTAX. The department stands on its written testimony providing comments, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have about the tax administration of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Kerrie Shahan from the Executive Officer for DCCA Contractor Licensing Board with comments.

Good morning, Chair Sayama and Members of the Committee. My name is Kerrie Shahan. I am the Executive Officer of the Contractor's License Board. The board has not had an opportunity to review this yet. It will be reviewing it at its February meeting. At this time, we'll stand on our written comments, and I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Michael Iosua from the Hawaii Ironworkers Stabilization Fund in support.

Morning, Chair, Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Iron Workers Stabilization Fund is in strong support of this bill. You have our written testimony. But just to make a few points. Labor Day is really important for American workers, all of them across the board, especially for labor union, organized labor, primarily because they are the ones that founded this Labor Day holiday.

So it's a little bit unfair that the folks that are really behind celebrating Labor Day don't get the opportunity for paid Labor Day holiday. This would rectify that situation, so we urge the committee to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have George Paris, Managing Director for the Hawaii Ironworker Stabilization Fund, in support.

My name is Cody Sula on behalf of the Ironworkers and our Managing Director George Paris. You know, Mike said it, but we just want to go and reiterate that we're in strong support of this bill. And part of the reason why we're just looking for some recognition for our hard working construction members. You know, we're not only looking out for our craft, but we're looking out for entire construction trades. And you know, construction has always been hailed as the backbone of our economy.

We held us up during COVID, and all we're looking for is some type of recognition because our tax dollars and our tax monies go to funding a lot of the 13 paid holidays that many of our elected officials enjoy. So we're just in support to have some of that go back to help our workers and give them the recognition they deserve. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure, please come up.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Cliff Laboy. I'm a lobbyist with the Iron Workers Stabilization Fund. We definitely are asking you to please support this bill. But besides the iron workers, I have a list of other unions that's in back of this and highly supports this bill.

Just so that you guys aware that we're not here by ourselves, standing by ourselves. We got the electrical union, the elevators, the plasters, the cement basins, insulators, bricklayers, plumbers, sheet metal union, Hawaiian Teamsters, IBEW boilermakers, glaziers, floor layers, and the painters. We representing today 35,000 construction workers.

We feel that we've been, we've been having a lot of meetings pertaining to what we call unfair practices as far as being compensated for holidays and stuff. When we look at the state, we look at the city, both sides give 13 days paid holidays. Construction, who is the strong bone of the economy in the state of Hawaii gets zero. So we're asking to see if we can work something out between all the parties and be compensated for our Labor Day. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify, please come up.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Mel Kahele. I submitted testimony online. I'm not sure if you received my testimony, but it was just a short testimony in support. But I want to just add to what the prior testifier just stated. You know, when we were in a bind, a financial bind, when we had the pandemic, it was the construction workers that kept the economy alive. It was us that was put on the front lines. Everyone else get a paid holiday.

I'm not going to remind everybody else but we just stated, but state workers got a lot of benefits. Construction workers get zero holidays. This is one way of showing the state's appreciation to the hard working construction workers out there, and we urge that you pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure?

Morning. Bautista again, Ironworkers Stabilization Fund, in strong support. As my colleagues was mentioning, yes, this bill we support. Labor finally needs something. It's not... It's more than a day off. It's just being recognized for the labor of the people of Hawaii who actually built Hawaii. During the construction day time, everybody was off.

Like Mel Kahele said, construction labor kept working. We kept working. We built the skylines, we renovated the schools, we kept going, kept pushing. So all we ask is our fair share of being recognized as labor or construction.

And we feel that labor is a force that, you know, we can actually have our members, our labor people have a day meant for them with the rest. Everybody else. We just want our fair share as a construction worker or labor to have their part as a holiday. Thank you. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing... Anyone on Zoom? Okay, seeing none. We do have written testimony in support from Onipa’a Consulting Group and an individual also in support. Members, any questions? I do have a question.

Anyone from the Hawaiian Ironworker Stabilization Fund, since there are so many of you. Thank you. So this bill, I think, identifies 16 some broad categories of labor, many who work in the construction industry. Are there any other forms of labor that you believe deserve recognition under the Labor Day holiday?

You know, we'd love to have everybody get a paid Labor Day holiday. Those are the construction unions that we recognize or we work with. But we're open to expanding if there's other labor unions that are interested in joining as well.

Okay. And to clarify, how does the contract work between the construction workers and their employer when it comes to negotiating, say, paid holidays?

You know, I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't know exactly how the CBA would work in this situation.

Because, right, that's the comparison is to the public union employees and they have the contract with their employer. So I'm just curious how that's supposed to work with the private unions.

Yeah, I'll have to get back to you on that, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Thanks. Members, any other questions? Okay.

Xingnan will be moving on to HB 1859 relating to workforce development. First to testify, we have. Executive Director Lawson Chain from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women in support.

Hi, good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I stand on my written testimony and support and ask for the committee's consideration of the Commission's recommendations and comments on Bill Amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Director Jade Patai from DLIR with comments.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Capella. We stand on our testimony. Appreciate your intent. You know, our first responsibility is to ensure the program can do what it was created for before asking you to do.

Thank you. Next we have Deborah Halbert, VP for Academic Strategy, University of Hawaii in support of.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the university where I will stand on its testimony. But I will note that we have been involved with this work for some time and our Director of Workforce Development, Dr. Christine Bolle is here for any specific questions you might have for us. Thanks.

Thank you. Next we have Deborah Ziman, Deputy Director for City and county of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the City and County Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization stands on our written testimony in strong support. Thank you for hearing a measure.

Thank you. Next we have Matt Stevens, Executive Director for the Hawaii Workforce Funders Collaborative in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. I'm Matt Stevens, Executive Director for the Hawaii Workforce Funders Collaborative and the convener of the Learn Work Tribe Hawaii Community Coalition dedicated to advancing Hawaii's generational workforce commitment. Just want to take a moment to say, you know that Hawaii's workforce challenges really are structural in nature.

They shape whether people can build stable lives here even when they work, pursue education and do everything right. Our research shows that over the next decade we're going to have 170,000 youth enter the workforce in Hawaii, but only 101 projected under 1,000 projected job openings that pay a living wage.

And higher education does not reliably change that outcome. Unfortunately, with only 43% of our four year graduates in Hawaii able to get a college level job within five years of graduation. And so these dynamics are even more pronounced on neighbor islands.

The generational workforce commitment was created in response to this reality, really to a long term goal to ensure that by 2045 all people of Hawaii can learn, work and thrive in the state. And so HB 1859 doesn't create a new program, but it anchors that shared goal and statute so that we can guide workforce planning over time.

It does three important things. It requires a comprehensive statewide workforce strategy tied to a generational goal to guide every iteration of our state unified plan going forward. Regardless of planning cycles and across administrations. It clarifies responsibility for interagency coordination without centralizing authority.

And it makes progress visible and measurable over time so that our alignment can accumulate rather than resetting with each Administration. I do want to take a moment to address, you know, how these statutory changes align with existing federal requirements. I think concerns about WIOA compliance are legitimate.

You know, funding, federal funding does matter, but coordination and innovation don't put WIOA funds at risk. Federal workforce policy has evolved to encourage alignment and efficiency. The Department of Labor regularly issues guidance that supports this approach.

If you could please wrap up your testimony.

States such as Washington, Maine and North Dakota have embedded long term workforce goals into law while remaining compliant with wioa. And so, you know, workforce challenges of this scale require time and sustained coordination. And so for these these reasons, I respectfully urge your support for this Bill.

Thank you. Next we have Erica Nakanishi Stanis Advocacy Director for Hawaii Kids can in support.

Hello Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Erica Santa. I'm the Advocacy Director of White Kids Can.

We stand in strong support of our written testimony here for this building and would just like to reiterate that the long term durability of this with the work that we did last session creating a data sharing platform or the framework for a data sharing platform among state agencies.

So what we're seeing is alignment and movement towards this unification and sharing of information for better workforce decision making in the long term.

If we have the data structure underpinning this, we can start to answer questions about about our students, long term earnings outcomes, job codes, where they move, where they live and we compare that with a unified strategy that works across agencies and administrations.

So we strongly support encourage you to support this measure and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next we have Matt Palberg, Director of Policy and Communications from Maholo MOA Collaborative and Support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, mahalo for the opportunity to testify. Hi, my name is Matt Krelberg. I am the Director of Policy and Communications at Holomua Collaborative, a local nonprofit dedicated to advocating for policies that give local working families hope that they can afford to stay in Hawaii.

Wages are one of the major causes of folks moving to the continent. Too many folks here do not have the wages they need to afford our astronomical housing costs, to afford our increased grand grocery costs and increase healthcare costs.

There's a lot of great work being done on the workforce development front through DLIR, through uh, DOE, P20DBED and many other non profit organizations. But all of this great work is not coalescing together in a singular formalized strategy.

And having this measure authorizing the WBC to facilitate the alignment of these efforts will allow us to push forth a singular strategy that will give our residents the opportunity they need to have a living wage job. A singular focused commitment rather than short term goals is what is going to open up the workforce development space.

In surveys that we have done at hlomua, we have found that there is a notable lack of awareness of all of the great workforce opportunities that are out there right now.

As you can see in our survey, nearly 50% of our respondents of a 3200 person survey of local working residents report that they're unaware of existing workforce programs. This lack of awareness is Most severe amongst 18 to 34 year olds, hourly workers and those in the tourism and recreation sectors.

A singular unified state goal that is authorizing the facilitate facilitation of alignment between the different agencies will allow opportunities to close this communication gap and let the folks in our community know that we are fighting for them to have a living wage. Mahalo.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure here or on Zoom Seeing? None. Members, we do have written testimony with comments from Department of Human Services and support from dbed, support from AUW Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii Title Guarantee of Hawaii AIO family of companies and also to individuals in support Members. Any questions?

Okay, I do have a question. Does anyone from WDC here, if not just dlir?So Director, the WDC that falls under as an advisory group under dlir, is that correct?

That's correct. Okay. Yeah. The reason WDC was created was to comply with the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act.

Right. So is that its primary function is the compliance with Wio? That's correct. Okay. And outside of that, does it do any kind of initiative with regards to what was described by the testifiers, consolidating data to maybe a platform that like a one stop shop for workforce development programs?

Well, they write the unified plan and they, you know, they convene groups, have meetings so they can, you know, that's the part that they can, you know, have everybody. I mean there's nothing that has been said that we would disagree with. You know, we're all willing to work together and collaborate.

I think we, you know, we all know that, you know that the need for workforce development strategy, you know, so, you know, we're both on the same side, but I think we're standing on different, with different views.

Okay, thank you Director for the questions. Members Any questions on this measure? Okay, seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 1851. This is relating to taxation. First, to testify on this measure we have Director Butai from DLIR in support.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee J For dlir, we stand on our testimony supporting and referring to the Department of Taxation on implementation of the tax credit. I just want to note that apprenticeship is a proven pathway to sustainable wages and to us, from our perspective, it's underutilized. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Gary Suganuma from dotax with comments.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the. My name is Robert Avila. On behalf of dotax, we stand on our testimony, our written testimony as submitted and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. The Administration and spill.

Thank you. Next we have Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Aloha. My name is Colleen with the Tax Foundation of Hawaii on behalf of our President Tom Yamachuca who is in another. The TAK foundation stands on its written comments located particularly in the last two paragraphs of our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Lauren Zirbel, Executive Director for the Hawaii Food Industry association and support on Zoom.

Not here, not here.

Okay. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure in the room on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, any questions for this measure? Okay, we'll be moving on to HB 1545 relating to health care plans for workers. First to testify on this measure we have Director Jade Butai from DLIR in opposition.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Jade Butai for dlir. While the intent of the Bill is commendable, we strongly opposes this measure. The proposal risks undermining the Prepaid Healthcare act, weakening long standing worker protections and incentivizing employers to ship workers to non traditional arrangements to avoid coverage requirements.

We also lack the resources and expertise to administer a new health insurance program and the measure raises serious concerns regarding the federal Ariza preemption and legal risk. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Next we have Scott Seiki, Insurance Commissioner from dcca. Comments?

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Justin Chu on behalf of the Insurance Division. The Insurance Division stands on his written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Next we have Walden AU Director Government Relations for HMSA.

Comments Chair Sayama, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee Walden, on behalf of hmsa, we appreciate the intent and the efforts that the Legislature is making especially to address a lot of the federal uncertainty that's surrounding access to health care. We stand on our written comments and hope to continue to be a part of the conversation. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other persons here in the room to testify on this measure? On Zoom seeing non Members, we do have written testimony and support from the Hawaii Realtors, University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, Hawaii Primary Care association and Indivisible Hawaii Healthcare Team. With comments. Apologize. University of Hawaii Professional Assembly Testifying with comments, not support. Okay.

Members, any questions?

Okay.

Okay. For dlir I have questions. Can you explain in more detail how this measure would potentially weaken the prepaid Health Care Act?

We currently have in Hawaii Chair Joanne Biddenhar. She's our administrator of the Disability Compensation Division. She can speak to the question.

Okay, thank you.

Chair. Vice Chair, good morning.

Morning.

And Members, thank you for that question. We believe that the decent incentivizing of employers through this measure, they would weaken the prepaid Health Care Act. The prepaid Health Care act really provides insures employers with limited deductibles as well comprehensive health care.

And having a health high deductible plan with the catastrophic plan would weaken the prepaid Health Care act if employers were to reclassify the employees to not no longer qualify under prepaid. So anyone that's eligible at this time is someone that works 20 hours or more.

And we have seen that other types of measures has provided the avenue for for an employer to maybe reduce an employee's hours worked so that they no longer have to be under prepaid health care and so they no longer mandated by the by the statute to provide health care services.

And so then the Hawaii workers would receive less of a health care under a plan that would be a high deductible, costing more for the Hawaii workers to provide health care. And we've seen through there are health care high deductible plans currently available through the federal marketplace.

And what we've seen through that is when people need to have medical care because they can't come up with the high deductible, they delay their care. And so that would in our eyes, weaken the prepaid health care.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. For dir. Insurance Division for dcca. In your written testimony, you indicated that this Bill also might conflict, if not violate the single or full requirement under the aca. Can you elaborate on that? Sure.

Under the definition of what a portable health plan would be on page nine of the measure, 9 and 10 states that the portable health care benefit plan means a group health plan that is paragraph three is assigned to an individual beneficiary.

So there's a little bit of conflict or confusion as to whether or not these plans will a group or an individual plan.

So under federal law, all plans are classified as either individual plans or group plans that are tied to an employer or some kind of, you know, association of employers or individuals that can purchase them in a group.

But individual plans must be single rated, which means that like everyone in the in the single, everyone in the individual market has to be considered in their in the risk rating of the actuarial rating.

And so if the intent is to have these plans rated as group plans, that would violate the single risk requirement because they would be sold as individual plans to each person under the definition of affordable health care plan.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. No further questions. Members, any other questions on this measure?

A quick question.

Yes, Rep. Capella for the Insurance Commission.

Thank you so much. I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask this question of, and I'm not fully sure how to phrase it, but I think this Bill is trying to get at who are the folks that don't necessarily qualify under a group or would qualify through their employer and how do we help them?

Are there ways that we can create maybe guardrails that protect the employees that are certainly working more than 20 hours a week, but whose employers may want to try and brush them under so they no longer have to carry that plan, but still finding a way to support these workers like the realtors. Right.

Who may or any independent contractor who might not be able to qualify for like a group insurance plan.

Sure. That is a great question and I am definitely not the right person to answer. Okay. Sorry.

Any further questions Members?

No, I guess not.

Okay. Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 1662 relating to allowance on service retirements. First to testify, we have Brenna Hashimoto, Director for D Herd in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, D Herd supports the intent of this measure and for the to add certain enforcement Department employees into the Class A membership retirement plan. And we do so because we believe it's an important recruitment and retention tool.

As you may know, investigators within DLE are covered by Class A, but once they reach a certain level, then those positions above them are not Class A. So it becomes a deterrent to them being promoted.

And oftentimes we find that our best applicants can pull is from individuals who are current Class A Members such as police officers and investigators. So we believe that this would be helpful in filling those higher level management positions. We did find some issues with the draft and so have offered an alternate draft for the committee's consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Deputy Attorney General Lori Hanegawa from the AG's office in opposition.

Morning, Chair, Members of the Committee Lori Sigal, Deputy Attorney General. The Department submitted written testimony. Potential subject title issue. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Calber Young, Executive Director for ERS with comments.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair Members. The Board of Trustees for the Employee Retirement System hasn't taken a formal position on this Bill. And our testimony just includes a number of comments and considerations for you to keep in mind that are already in the Bill.

That would be good to keep an eye on if this Bill should continue to progress. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Ernest Rebelo, Deputy Director for DLE Department of Law Enforcement and Support. Good morning.

Church Ayama, Rep. Lee, Rep. Oda, Rep. And Rep. My name is Ernest Rebelo. I'm a Deputy Director with the Department of Law Enforcement. I'm here today to add comments to our written testimony in support of this Bill. The Employees Retirement System in the state of Hawaii provides enhanced retirement benefits for certain public safety employees and residents.

Recognition of the heightened risk, physical demands and career limitations inherent with law enforcement service. Some individuals who qualify for enhanced Class A retirement status may begin their careers in a county police Department and later continue to public service by transitioning into statewide law enforcement leadership roles filled through gubernatorial appointment.

HB 1662 represents a measured and responsible legislative solution to to the narrow but operational important issue. By clarifying retirement classification continuity for qualifying law enforcement leadership service, the Bill supports effective succession planning, uninterrupted state law enforcement operations and consistent application of the retirement law while preserving integrity of the employee's retirement system.

The overall goal of this Bill is not seeking benefit enhancement, but it's for anyone to keep their existing benefits which have already been approved when they come over as a previous law enforcement officer. So for these reasons, Department of Law Enforcement supports House Bill 1662 and respectfully urges its passage. I thank you for this opportunity to testify.

I will be available for information. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? On Zoom See Non Members. We do have written testimony. Testimony with comments from the bnf. Okay, Members, any questions on this measure? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to the final measure on the agenda.

HB 1609, relating to state facilities. First we have Michael Yadao, Interim Stadium Manager for the Stadium Authority, in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, thank you for this opportunity. Members, thank you, again. You have our written testimony in support, but what I just want to add verbally is that we deeply appreciate the Legislature's suggestion, and advice, and consent at maximizing revenue generation on site.

The naming rights for sports arenas is a particularly common practice in our industry. If you think about it, the Rams and Chargers play at SoFi, the Raiders play at Allegiant, the Lakers play at Crypto.

Generally speaking, these arrangements go from about $7.4 to $8.2 million a year, with Crypto making a particularly lucrative deal with the Lakers for $20 million a year for an extended period of time. We deeply appreciate your support in being able to do this.

We believe that the HRS already gives us some authority to operate in this manner, but this bill provides clarification on state-owned facilities and allows us to make sure that the money is specifically earmarked for operations and maintenance of the stadium itself. And so, thank you again. If you have any questions, I'm happy to stay.

Thank you. Next we have Winston Welch, Executive Director for the Outdoor Circle, in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, committee members. Yes, I would like just to say that we have submitted written testimony. We stand on that, but to briefly summarize, you know, HB 1609 is not just about fundraising or recognition.

As it's drafted, it authorizes complete, basically a takeover and imprint tour of our state facilities, allows exterior displays of those names, and exempts related concessions from public procurement requirements. This represents a drastic policy shift and conflicts with Hawaii's longstanding laws that are anti-billboard and anti-off-site signage enacted by this Legislature 99 years ago.

So if we were to look at this and say that Hawaii's residents have consistently, overwhelmingly rejected this type of corporate intrusion onto our visual space, we already see 4 to 10,000 ads per day. We don't need another branding to show us about something.

If there's other ways that the Stadium Authority or the conventions that could make money, they could sell individual seats with advertising on it. They can have sponsorships on the inside of the arena but something that doesn't affect our visual plane.

I've given you many good reasons why, as well as other testifiers, but this has been re-litigated for the last three years now in front of this committee and others. We've had over a hundred individual humans, non-corporations testifying against this type of bill.

The only ones that are testifying for it are corporate entities or state entities and maybe one or two individuals. So what we want to do is just keep what's special about Hawaii and ask that you reject this bill in its entirety and allow it to go to rest, as, you know, we've done for over 100 years. So thank you so much for your support of not advancing this measure.

Thank you. Next, we have Dave Erdman, interim president and CEO from Retail Merchants of Hawaii, in support. Not here? Okay. We have Angela Young from Cares, in support on Zoom. Not here. Okay, any other persons here to testify on this measure?

Seeing none, members, we do have written testimony from HTA with comments, DBEDT, in support, B&F with comments, Stanford Carr, in support--Stanford Carr Development LLC, in support--Scenic America, in opposition, and two individuals in opposition. Members, are there any questions for this measure? Rep. Garrett.

Mr. Yadao, please. First of all, congratulations on your new role.

Oh, thank you. Our condolences, right?

Your words, not mine. I did take a look at your testimony. You referenced SoFi, Crypto. I mean, obviously that's a huge media market in Los Angeles, 20 to 30 million a year. What's a reasonable number we can expect that the Stadium Authority may be able to generate through such a naming rights deal?

You know, we've taken a look at what would be comparable stadium sites, whether they were Colorado State, I believe we looked at San Diego, and we looked in Arizona for colleges of a comparable size in stadium districts of what we think would be a comparable size, and we believe that low end of that window of 7.4 to 8.2 is reasonable.

So in that 7.4, maybe 7.6 range, is what you should expect. But obviously, I don't want to give you numbers before we would enter into conversations. I would hate for anybody listening to think that we would settle for those numbers if they were willing to offer more.

And that's an annual number?

Yes, that would be an annual number.

Do you have any idea what UH gets for something like-- you know, I think Bankoh has a naming rights agreement with Stan Sheriff's Arena. Did you use that as part of your analysis to kind of benchmark what you might expect?

Sure, and, you know, University of Hawaii has a position on the Stadium Authority. I believe Matt Elliott, the athletic director, serves as the designee for the President, Lyndon Phelps, and we'll be happy to get those numbers for you.

Okay. Just, what's your understanding regarding any limitations on some external signage that this bill would allow?

So, I deeply appreciate the testimony given previously by our friends at the Outdoor Circle, and we have reached out. I think they can tell you that we've reached out on issues related to trees on site and many others. My understanding is that there is legislation that could potentially move this session that would allow for greater capacity on signage, that would allow for signage that faces inward into the district of a taller height.

My understanding of this legislation, and please correct me, is that this is specifically towards naming rights itself and then how to display that specific stadium name. What I would like to say, not in rebuttal, but in conjunction with our friends from the Outdoor Circle, is that the Stadium Authority Board ultimately enacts or decides that policy for the district itself within the parameters set by the Legislature. And the Stadium Authority Board is made up of community members, specifically from that Aiea, Halawa, and Proceed community.

There is no way that the Stadium-- I can say with confidence that there's no way that the Stadium Authority Board would approve signage or anything else in the district that would disrupt or disturb that community. We would absolutely be in keeping with the aesthetics of the community at large and the beauty of our state.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

If you could still stay-- I do have a--

Oh. Absolutely, Chair.

--follow-up question. This is not so much related to-- well, actually, let's start with this. You did mention that, under current HRS, that the Stadium Authority already has some leeway in terms of naming rights. Can you elaborate on that?

My understanding is that it's--off the top of my head--it's 109, 2-- I want to say it's subsection either 2 or C, off the top of my head, that allows for some naming rights.

What this bill does that helps us clarify and which we deeply appreciate is that we're entering into contracts with the public-private partner that make it so that stadium ownership remains with the state. It goes to private-partner to develop and then to operate and maintain, but then in that 30-year period, the state can take it back.

And those contracts are fairly new for the state, and they're cheaper at this point. The nature of this public-private partnership is brand-spanking-new for us. And so a bill like this clarifies that those naming rights and that that revenue goes specifically to a state facility, and so that clarifies that HRS. So we think we have the rights to do it, but clarifying legislation absolutely helps.

Thank you. And you might not have the answer to my next question as it pertains to B&F's written testimony. B&F had concerns relating to the the use of or the income generated from projects financed by tax exempt bonds as it pertains to federal law that imposes restrictions on these kind of uses. Are you familiar with this concern or have you heard of it?

I haven't specifically spoken to B&F, but I'd be happy to speak to them and get clarification on what their concern specifically is.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Members, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none, we'll be taking a short recess.

All right, calling this company back to. Order for decision making. First, we have HB 1660 relating to county labor standards. My recommendation is that we defect the date to July 13,000 Members. Any comments seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote. Thank you, Chair. Voting on HB 1660. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Representative Garrett. Aye. Representative Capella.

Aye.

Representative Kong. Aye. Representative Rezorda. Aye. Thank you, Chair. Your recommendation recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 2028 relating to. Labor Day, my recommendation, while I still. Do have some concerns about this measure, is to adopt DOE taxes amendments that were offered in their testimony. First, the tax credit will be made non refundable. And we will also add language to read as follows.

No taxpayer that claims a credit under this section shall claim a deduction or any other credit for the same qualified under this chapter. I believe this will ensure that this will provide some guardrails for this measure. We'll also be providing a cap for this tax credit of $2 million per taxable year.

And we will also make some technical amendments for clery consistency and style there. We note that there are two mentions of roofers in the definition of types of labor that qualify for this tax credit. So we'll clean that up in the Committee report.

I will note for the next Committee chair to perhaps broaden the definitions of qualified laborers in this measure to stay true to the intent of the Bill that honors and supports all labor, not just the construction industry. So I'll be putting that in the Committee report as well. We'll be defecting the date to July 13,000 Members.

Any comments seeing. None. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on HB2028. Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Are there any. No votes. Any reservations? Thank you, Chair. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we'll be moving on to HB 1859 relating to workforce development. Yes, workforce development. My recommendation is that we move language on page 10 of this Bill from hrs202.5 to 2022 creating a new subsection C under 202. 2. We'll be making technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. Defecting the date to 7-1-3000.

I'd just like to note, you know, given the amount of support we've gotten from this Bill during this hearing, it's clear that the WDC needs to do more in terms of coordinating the statewide efforts around workforce development.

While we do appreciate the WDC's work with complying with WIOA, I think this falls well within the scope and mission of the wdc. So we encourage the WDC to follow through with this. Members, any comments? Seeing None.

Vice Chair for the vote. Thank you. Chair voting on HB 1859. Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes. Reservations? Thank you.

Chair, your recommendation has been adopted. Thank you. Next we have HB 1851 relating to taxation. My recommendation is that instead of using, instead of calculating the tax credit as a percentage of qualified expense, the credit will be $4,800 or 50% of the wages paid to an apprentice in a taxable year.

We also have language to include that the sponsor, the employer, can apply the credit for the same apprentice for up to two consecutive years. We'll be creating a $1.5 million ceiling per taxable year. We'll also insert language to sunset the tax credit in 2036 and we'll be defecting the date to July 13000.

So the language about the sunset for the 2036, we'll just blank that out and insert that into the Committee report as well as the 1.5 million ceiling. We'll just note that in the Committee report as well. Specifically, just the 1.5 million Members. Any comments on this measure? zero, I'm sorry. We also have a few more things.

Technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. We'll be also noting the Committee report that the taxable year will begin after December 312026. Okay, that's all the amendments. So, Members, any comments?

Seeing None. Vice Chair for the vote. Thank you. Chair voting on HB 1851. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. No votes. Reservations. Thank you. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Next we'll be moving on to HB 1545 relating to healthcare plan for workers. The intent here, you know, while I do recognize the concern for the uninsured population growing, especially after the several legislations passed by the Trump Administration, there are outstanding concerns, as was mentioned in DCC and Dir's testimony.

So we will be deferring this measure. Okay. Moving on to HB 1662 relating to allowance on service retirements due to the AG's testimony noting the constitutional concerns in the title of this measure. We'll also be deferring this Bill, maybe exploring a different vehicle for the language in this particular Bill. Moving on finally to HB 1609 relating.

To state facilities due to BNF's concerns. Relating to conflicts with the complying with the federal Irs. We're going to be deferring this measure, though we would like to continue to encourage the stadium authority to explore different avenues of revenue and funding. With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

Sa. Sam.