Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is our joint hearing. Thank you to the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs. This is also the Committee on Labor and Technology. This is our 3:00pm joint agenda. Today is Tuesday, February 3, 2026. This is our 3:00pm hearing. Just a few housekeeping announcements for today's joint hearing. We're in Conference Room 224.

This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. In the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in conference room 2244. But for us, for labor and technology will reconvene in two to five on February 4, 2026 at 3pm and probably the same if there's a technical catastrophe. To be determined.

Yeah, to be determined. For all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony. If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute. The content, including the hearing notice and copies of the measures and testimony can be found on the Legislature's website.

If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from those offering testimony. With that, we just have two items on our agenda today. Our first item is Senate Bill 2120. This is relating to the transfer of employee benefits.

Requires the state Legislature and counties to amend rules and policies to ensure that certain employees can transfer accrued vacation and sick leaves if rehired by state or a county within one calendar year of separation.

Extends the allowable break in service for purposes of determining certain state and county contributions in the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits trust Fund from 90 calendar days to one full year. First up on our list of testifiers from the Department of Human Resources, Director Hashimoto. Okay. Offering comments. Thank you, Chief Negotiator, Office of collective bargaining, Mr. Musto.

Aloha and welcome.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is J.N. Musto. We have submitted written testimony in opposition to measure and for the reasons that is covered by Chapter 89, collect party. Okay, stand ready for.

Thank you, Mr. Westo. We also have Christian Fern from the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support, Mike Gulach senior in support, and Kamakana Kamiloa offering comments on this measure. Anyone else that wish to testify on Senate Bill 2120, if not Members. Questions, Senator.

Decoy D. Heard, please. Hi. So how so how would an employee know if they will return to state service within one year?

Good question. I don't know. How so right now, if by contract, the collective bargaining agreements allow them to transfer their leaves and things if they move between different jurisdictions within seven days. So that's a pretty short time frame. Any longer than that, Most folks who separate want to be paid out their vacation pretty quickly.

We get a lot of requests for vacation leave. So to hold it for a year in the event that they might transfer seems like an awfully long time.

So if an employee chose to save their crew vacation and sick leave, where would you put that money?

Well, right now, when an employee separates from any jurisdiction, we pay out their vacation leave, that gets paid to them as cash. And then their sick leave, if they have more than 60 days of accrued, it gets reported to ERS and they can augment their pension benefit with that sick leave.

So for every 20 days of sick leave equals another month of service. So ers, it gets reported and they maintain that information for when they eventually retire.

And that's based on if they retire, not if they return back to state work.

Right. It just gets reported there and then they keep track of it. So when the employee then eventually at some point in time files for their pension, then they'll. Yeah, then it gets it. They don't cash out, they get it gets added to their service.

So if they had 30 years of service plus, you know, another six months of sick leave, they get 30 and a half years of credit towards ERS. It becomes service credit. Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any further questions? If not. Thank you, Director Hashimoto. We'll move on to our next item on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 2523. This is making an appropriation to the Department of Information Technology of the State and County of Honolulu.

Appropriates money as a granting aid to the City and County of Honolulu's Department of Information Technology to upgrade the driver's license and motor vehicle application systems. First up is Director Sniffin from HDOT. In support, Megan Johnson, Deputy Director for Department of Customer Services and support, Brian McKee, DIT Director. Yes. Please come forward.

This way.

Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Brian McKee, I'm the DIT Director. This is basically an ask for $10 million over two years to replace the 40 more than 40 year old system that we have. It's a cobalt system, it's an IMSCICS. It's basically produced in the early 80s and we still use it.

We're just looking for funding to do that. I think we've got a window now where we've got the talent, we've got the energy, and this candidate has been kicked down the road for at least 35 years. And if we can find the funding, I'd like to take care of this and get it in.

So we've handed in testimony. I'll answer any questions anybody has.

Okay, thank you so much, Director. And then our last list of registered testifiers is Jonah May L. Perry in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 25 Members. Any questions? Senator Richards, followed by Senator Decoy.

Cobalt. Cobalt. Cobalt. I have not heard that in forever. Yeah, it was all I could do to not go screaming out in the parking lot when I got this job. Yeah, it's what I started working on in 1984 when I got out of school. Yeah.

So again, the green screen, no mouse support people over in customer service have to perform for Senator Elefante's time. Yeah, he's too young. Yeah, no, I mean way too young. But that is true. It's, it's. If you guys could go over and see what those people put up with.

But the serious question is, is this even supported anymore? Are you? Well, okay, that's, that's one of the end of life situations that we have is I used to have up to 20 Cobol programmers before my time. I have two left and one has worked for over 40 years.

And you know, they both started working during the like Reagan Administration. So we don't even let them go in the same car when they go off to lunch. They're the only people that can change the system every year. AMBA comes in with new federal requirements that we have to comply with.

So we have two guys that can do the work. And you know, they're not training any new Cobalt programmers, so. Yeah, it's, it's pretty desperate. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dacoit.

So. So how long would it take you guys to do the upgrades? I'm sorry? How long would it take to do the upgrades? And then is the 10 million enough to do those upgrades?

Well, okay, I'll give you the short version. I know time is of the essence, so when I first got in, I called all the dots from all of the other states in the country. And most of them were very nice about what they've done.

And almost all the states have spent between 60 and 67 million getting a package called the fast system from Tyler Software. That was a little too much for State of Hawaii to bear, certainly the city and county. And so I got into a code share agreement with Arizona Department of Transportation.

So they're going to give me their system for free. I just need to configure it and Put in all of the things that make Hawaii unique and all our statutes and everything. And that's going to take about 10 million. The conversion, the configuration charges, you know, the.

We've got to roll it out to all the different islands, all the change management. So I think I can do it.

For 10 and then for how long? Two years. Two years.

Take me two years. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Any further questions, Members?

Chair Wakai. I mean, I see the necessity to upgrade. I just don't understand why the state has to pay for this. Why can't you just adjust the registration fees and city pay for it?

That's an excellent question. So when I first put $10 million into my budget and the city, county has taken that, it's not going to be possible this year. I've talked to Ed Sniffin and the DOT and they recognize the need for this. So we're looking for the money everywhere we can.

I also talked to several different vendors, one of whom did the Arizona job themselves. Kyndryl used to be IBM Global Services. They'd be willing to cover the costs and get it on the back end in a transaction fee that you would add when you get your vehicle registered.

So that's another thing that I've been trying to pursue, but there hasn't been any traction for that. So we're here because I don't know where else to turn. We've tried bake sales and car washes, but that would be, you know, a long time coming.

The state is over there on the hook paying for your rail, not your railroad system, but the city's rail system. I don't see the state going over to the city, say, hey, pay for these state services. But in this particular case, why is the city continuously asking the state to go subsidize services that it's responsible for?

Well, no. We are the only state in the nation that has a city and county maintaining a state system for vehicle registration. That was my first question when I got here is why this is a state function.

Why is the city and county hosting the mainframe, paying $3 million a year for the iron, renting it, supporting it with all of our, our FTEs modifying it.

I mean, it's a, it's a huge drain and, and it, it is a state function, but apparently we were doing it before we were a state and it's just been grandfathered in and so we've always done it. So. But yeah, I believe that this is a state thing.

Vehicle registration, certainly the HDOT are the ones that maintain the fees, the fee structure, they decide what everybody's going to charge. We register by weight instead of blue book value. We're the only ones who do that. They're the ones who manage all that.

So they're responsible for the system, but we do all the maintaining and keep it running.

So have you gone out to an RFI request for information on the cost? Because $10 million seems extraordinarily high. I mean, on the tourism front, we have go Hawaii. That is expensive at $3 million. And I guarantee you that website is far more sophisticated than your just input a bunch of data, right?

So how did you come up with 10 million bucks? Have you even gone out to the private sector to see how much this thing would cost?

I have, I have. I've taken a look at several different vendors, what they'd estimate. In fact, I was told that my 10 million is shy by about 6 million. Again, what the majority of cities in the United States have done was 67 million about.

And you know, you would call some state with a lot of people and they'd be able to just pay $60 million, just do that. But yeah, I think $10 million in this case is a shoestring. I think it is enormously cheap to get this thing in and in production and two years is also pretty short.

And part of that is because we have our own applications group that can do a lot of the work. And the other part of it is we're getting the actual application given to us and we're agreeing to code share with Arizona and four other states that have gone live now with that system.

So we're kind of building a community of people that are using the new Mac system that grew up in Arizona. So I think I can do it for 10 million, but it's not a lot for what we're talking about.

Thank you.

Okay, Members, any further questions for Director? Director, I have a few questions for you. So when was the last time that this system was upgraded?

Well, I got. The hardware upgrades have come, so we started, you know, 3090 mainframe and over the years we've gotten the latest version of that mainframe. But we essentially are maintaining the code that was written decades ago. So certainly in the 80s is when the COBOL system became, you know, standard.

And then in your testimony you mentioned that you pay contract costs of 2.9 and you have a $900,000 per year application development staff. So it's a 2.9 out of DIT's budget or that's a cost at the state.

The 900 is the cost that the state pays for some of our FTEs to maintain the system. The 2.9 comes from the city and county to rent the mainframes. And we have two. We have one in our building FMB and then we have a failover in Kapoli. Okay.

And I know the city's going through its budget process so you were denied on the Initial Department to mayor's request will dit attempt through its budget process as the city is annual to ask for funds from the council.

Well, in this case, yeah. I mean I'm done asking. You know, apparently every year we are told that this is a really horrible year to ask for money.

But apparently this year it really is a horrible year to ask for money because we got everything cut out of my budget that I wanted to do and I've been able to claw back a couple of things.

But yeah, can I say this? And Members for public situation and for awareness is for our enterprise Technology division. They also have a request to upgrade for 5 million for our own mainframe for our state mainframe as applications come off. So my last question to you, Director is you mentioned in your testimony about cloud native.

So will you push off this application off the mainframe to a cloud secure cloud? And what does cloud native mean?

This is going to be a cloud application and we're going to use the Azure platform. Most likely it's going to be written in Net. At least it comes over in net. We may change that. But yeah, we're going to move to the cloud, which is kind of the direction that the industry is going right now.

And we certainly are looking at that as a couple of different options for some of the things that we currently maintain.

Okay, thank you Members. Any other questions? Okay, if not, we'll recess. Short recess. Is there anyone else I wish to testify on this? Senate Bill 2523. If not, we'll do a short recess.

Short recession.

Okay, we're reconvening our 3:00 PM joint agenda. This is the Labor and Technology Committee and the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs. We are now moving into decision making. We do have a quorum for Labor and Technology. So, first up is Senate Bill 2120. This is relating to transfer of employee benefits.

Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments. I'd like to still continue the discussion on this. So, on page two, lines four to six, we're going to consider amending—actually, we're going to amend, for the purpose of this part, employee has the same meeting as a definition in section HRS 78-1.5, Hawaii Revised Statute, Chapter 78, pertains to all public employees, whereas Chapter 88 focuses on public employees eligible for ERS benefits.

On page 3, line 18, under subsection 2, we're going to change one full year to 180 calendar days, provided that the leave begins on or after July 1st, 2026.

We're going to clarify that the transfer of accrued vacation and sick leave and the extension of the break in service period to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund is voluntary and set a 90 day deadline for employees to make a decision and provide notice to their former employer after their break in service. Any technical amendments?

And then, we're also going to put a—we're going to change the effective date to January 1st, 2077. With those amendments, any further discussion? Okay. If not, for the Committee on Labor and Technology, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang. I vote yes.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you so much. For our last item on our agenda, Senate Bill 2523, this is making an appropriation to the Department of Information Technology of the City and County of Honolulu. Chairs having conferred, the recommendation is to defer.

Yes, great decision. I concur. We will defer for EIG as well.

We are powerful.

Welcome back. We are now at the 3:01 agenda for the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs in room 224 on this February 3rd, 2026. This video or this this hearing is being streamed live via YouTube. If there's any kind of technical difficulties, we will post a notice as to when we will reconvene.

And we are going to limit testimony to one minute for each of those who wish to testify. First on our Agenda, Senate Bill 2032 relating to consumer protection. First in our testifiers list is Gwen Yamamoto Lau; the Green Infrastructure Authority for her designee.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Jenna Siegel and I am here on behalf of the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority. We stand on our written testimony and support and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Jenna. Kerrie Shahan from DCCA.

Good afternoon, Chair Wakai, members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Kerrie Shahan. I'm the Executive Officer for the Contractor's License Board. The board has not had the opportunity to review this bill, but will at their regularly scheduled meeting in February.

We stand on the testimony provided and I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Kerrie. Melissa Enright from DCCA.

Good afternoon, Chair. Melissa Enright from the Office of Consumer Protection. We stand on our written testimony in support and I am available for any questions.

Thank you, Melissa. Rocky Mould from the Solar Association.

Aloha. Chair Wakai, Vice Chair Chang, I'm Rocky Mould with the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. I'll stand on my testimony in strong support of this measure, and just add a little context. You know, the solar industry, we faced a lot of ups and downs.

And when there's a disruption, sometimes, you know, solar folks from other jurisdictions come to Hawaii. And what we found this past year was that there was disruption in California and a bunch of sales folks descended on Hawaii from there looking for business. And that's when an uptick in some unscrupulous or unfair practices occurred.

So, we look at those issues internally at the Hawaii Solar Energy association and we will take action on those things. We have looked at it, but we are in strong support of this bill. And I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here, Rocky. On Zoom, we have someone from Carbon Cashback. Oh, it's Paul. Hi, Paul.

Aloha Senator Wakai, Vice Chair, Senator Chang and other members of the Committee. Yes, Paul Bernstein from Carbon Cashback. We just submitted comments.

We are in support of the intention of the bill, but we have one concern, and this has to do with the definition of solar energy device in section two on page five, lines 15 through 19.

We are very firm supporters of balcony solar and we just want to make sure that the term solar energy device excludes balcony solar. So, we suggested saying that solar energy devices excludes plug in portable solar generation devices that have maximum aggregate rated power outputs of 1,200 watts or less. Mahalo for the opportunity.

Thank you, Paul. Also via Zoom, Beth Amaro from Kauai KIUC.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. We stand in strong support of this bill. We thank you very much for taking it up. We think it's very important; Rocky mentioned some activity last year that ramped up. We had a bit of that here on Kauai. It was very disturbing.

We actually filed a complaint with the DCCA in September on behalf of some of our members. And I have to give them kudos for following up on that complaint diligently. But we do feel this is a very important issue. We thank you for taking it up, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Beth. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2032, if not members, any questions? Question first with Kerrie: in your testimony, you say that the term contractual affiliation needs to be clearly defined.

Yes.

Could you give us a definition?

No, I cannot give you a definition at this time. The board has not met to flush that out. They just mentioned that they had a little bit of concern. It might be unclear to some people.

Okay. Would you be willing, if this bill moves on at the next committee, provide a clearer definition?

Yes, I'll ask the board for that.

Okay. Thank you. Rocky Mould: you heard Paul Bernstein's commentary about how he wants to put balcony solar in this. Are you comfortable with that?

Absolutely. Balcony solar does not need to be part of this. This is really targeted to solar companies selling installation services and then selling the product and then installing it on a roof. Portable solar is not that. Portable solar is sold at retail generally. And so we think regular consumer protection laws cover that already. So we're - I'm very comfortable with Paul Bernstein's recommendation.

And then DCCA also recommends that in this bill, we pass amendments mandating the disclosure of the cash price and the financed price. Are you comfortable with that?

Yes, I think that's very important. We're going to see more financed solar products coming because of what's happened at the federal level. So, we think it's key to get ahead of that ahead of time.

Great. Thank you. Members, any further discussion?

Quick question for DCCA.

Senator Decoite.

Thank you for being here. Have you received complaints from the public regarding unlicensed or unscrupulous solar contractors?

The board has not. However, the board is not the entity which complaints would be directed to. That would be RICO: Regulated Industries Complaints Office. And unless the complaint goes through the whole process and there is a settlement agreement or a disciplinary action, we don't know that the complaint has been filed.

So, do you think the amendment made to the bill would help protect the public and reduce complaints?

I do not wish to speak on behalf of the board because they have not met, but yes. Personally having read the bill and seeing what the bill is intending to do, I think it would help with consumer safety and protection.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Melissa, did you have any comments on Senator Decoite's commentary? Because you're the consumer advocate, right?. Consumer protection...maybe she was a more appropriate person to ask a question about complaints?

Oh, So have you guys received complaints from the public regarding unlicensed or unscrupulous solar contractors?

We have not received complaints about unlicensed solar contractors, as the Director had stated. That might go to RICO. As far as complaints to our office about unscrupulous solar door knockers, as they've been called, we feel this is an area that's very underreported. We've talked to different stakeholders in the field. We've talked to HICO, we've talked to HGIA.

We've been in contact with different companies who have made complaints on behalf of their consumers about people making misrepresentations during door to door sales. But as far as consumer complaints, to us, those are very underreported.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Any further questions? If not, we're going to move on to the next measure. That is Senate Bill 2079 relating to vehicle titles. And we have, members have two pieces of testimony. No one has indicated they want to testify in person or online. The testimony is one in support, one in opposition.

Since there's no one to ask questions of, we will move on to the next measure. That is Senate Bill 2241. This is regarding zero emission vehicles. On our testifiers list, we have Mark Glick or someone from the Energy Office.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, Nicole Cernohorsky on behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our written testimony and are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Nicole. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2241? Members? Any questions of Nicole? Okay, we will move on then to the next measure. That is Senate Bill 2579 relating to water. On our testifiers list we have Anne Lopez. AG's office might be joining us via Zoom. Oh, nope, I'm sorry.

I'm Deputy AG John Cole.

Hi John.

Just quickly, you have my written testimony. But pointing out that the Constitution requires standards in law for grant programs. So we make some recommendations for inserting standards into the bill and also cite a few different statutes that have appropriate standards that may fit.

But if you would like help in crafting more specific things, I'd be happy to help.

Look forward to that. Thank you, John. Ryan Kanakaole from DLNR.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Manu tucker with the office of the Chairman in the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We stand on our written testimony and. You are available for answering any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for showing up. Mark Glick or perhaps Nicole or...Yay. Sorry.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Monique Zanfes with Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our testimony providing written comments. I just want to note, we think a feasibility study would be kind of the first phase of this before implementing a full program.

And then I also really want to commend the young lady who's been working on this. And her hard work today is exactly what we want to see in youth reaching out to our office. So what she put together was pretty incredible in the short amount of time. So commend that. Thank you. I am available for questions.

You should hire her. Thank you, Monique. Chelsey Miguel might be joining us via Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Members, any? Excuse me, anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2579? Members, questions? Senator DeCoite.

Yeah, sorry. Office of Energy. First of all, you know, I just wanted to commend the young woman, Chelsey. She's done an amazing job reaching out to all of you guys offices. But if this bill is feasible, what would it cost to fund on grant programs such as this? Because I know it's huge.

Yeah, it would be quite a bit more than, I mean, I really can't answer with any certainty without doing that sort of preliminary cost analysis, feasibility study. It depends on the size of the water systems.

If you're gonna do land, is there even enough land in the area to sort of site it adjacent to, you know, with irrigation systems, water systems, there's pressure, you know, sort of you have to maintain that pressure. So it's a lot more complex than putting some batteries next to some pumps and some solar panels next to some pumps.

Especially since the system has been deteriorating just as a matter of size, i's the biggest open reservoir at 1.2 billion gallons.

Yeah, the Molokai one, that I believe she was really wanting to focus on. So, you know, the question too is like, is it a grant program is that the best way to fund something like this, or is it really a capital improvement project? What is the best mechanism for funding?

But I think there is general recognition, like water pumping, irrigation is a huge energy consumer in the state. So if you can sort of reduce some of that load on site, of course, for resiliency of the systems if we are facing, you know, long term power outages. That's also very important.

And I think there's some work that has been done. We still need to do, again, more outreach to multiple agencies.

Yeah, so kind of hoping that, like, even with your guys department. Your Department and the Department of Agriculture, in this case, DAP, I hate that name, DAP. Anyway, because, you know, the factoring in was trying to figure out, you know, when that system was first built, it had to drill through a huge mountain.

Yeah.

Eight miles, something long. They miss shoot the rainfall on the other side, which means they pump it from the back of Waikolo.

That probably requires a lot of energy.

Yeah, so I was trying to figure out because, you know, the biggest charge they're dealing with is the pumping of electric, probably the second highest right now in the nation. But, yeah, you guys can work together. I'm hoping that can come up with something better. But she has done a lot of outreach.

It's incredible.

Got to commend Chelsey. She's done great work.

Yeah.

Hopefully, I can retain her here at the office.

No, we want her. I agree.

Stay there for, any other questions. So, Monique, your testimony talks about putting in a phased approach to this bill. Can you help us with like, language of what does that mean? Like, year one, you want to do a feasibility study, year two, you want to do what? And year three, you want to do what?

Yeah, I would give it probably more than a year for even a feasibility study. Unless you want to focus on one specific water system, then you can kind of cut that timeline down. The way that we read the bill, it's like, okay, all of Maui County.

That's a lot different than, say, focusing on a feasibility for a single irrigation system. So that is multiple options there. I would say after that you would want to do, okay, what's your cost analysis, feasibility analysis? We'd probably need to go out.

You know, again, I'd want to work with the appropriate agencies, DAP, DLNR, even the County Water Departments to know what they have. And I think that's, you know, first step in that, that phased approach. And then if an RFI or an RFP for doing a technical study is appropriate, that would be sort of the next step.

And then we have costs. And then if you have costs, you can kind of figure out, okay, is a grant program appropriate or is it, you know, a capital infrastructure project? What are sort of the other options available and that can all be included if we contract it out through an RFP.

Okay.

First step, getting an understanding of the water system.

Okay, that's the first phase. So let me try to recap what I just heard. So understanding the water system. Next would be a feasibility. Next would be a cost analysis, and then next would be an RFI

Yeah, feasibility, cost analysis. I think you may actually need to do an RFI to get some of that. I don't know without doing that first step of, you know, what information do we already have?

Thank you. Members, any further questions? Okay, thank you, Monique. We're going to move on to the next measure, which is SB 2835, relating to liquor. And on our testifiers list, we have, we have nobody, but we have testimony that's been submitted, all in support.

Members, you can see that there's one to seven individuals and organizations that have all submitted testimony in support. So, we will move on to the last bill on this agenda. That is Senate Bill 2892, relating to feral chickens. On our testifiers list, we have the Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Senator, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Kurano. I represent the Department of Health, Environmental Health Service Services Division. We submitted written comments and stand on the written comments just really supporting the idea, maybe broadening perhaps to more than just feral chickens. Available for com—or questions—if you have any.

Okay, thank you. That's all I have on our testifiers list, list. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2892? If not, Members, any questions?

Thank you.

Oh, wait, nobody from the county here.

Yeah, only the, only Matt. Poor thing, you can feel it all.

Oh, but we get Farm Bureau. Maybe Farm Bureau can answer this question.

Oh yeah, because I heard Brian's not chicken.

Yeah.

That's a pigeon.

So, so, if the Bill did pass, just for sake, you know, would maybe Farm Bureau consider collecting the feral chickens?

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brian Miyamoto, here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. We did submit testimony. We obviously support this measure. Sorry, Chair, I think we weren't sure if we're going to show up at several other hearings. To answer your question, Senator—thank you for the question, Senter.

In fact, in Kunia, we worked with HARC, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, and did a little bounty for chicks and hens and those went over to a neighboring farm, hopefully to, to utilize for their farm needs. It would be conversations that we would have.

Again, it does impact not just our agriculture community, but like our farmers market at KCC, the chickens, you know, their nature of digging and so, the grounds are a little bit unstable. So, it's also a public safety issue. It could be. But, again, we, we have been dealing with feral chickens for a while.

We agree with Department of Health, we'd love to see other invasives be addressed but we know there's only so much money to go around and I think feral chickens have been, especially here in City and County, Honolulu, kind of a top of mind concern, as far as the, the rampant nature of chickens.

But we would be open to any discussions again to assist not just the counties but the state.

You think if we was to put a five dollar bounty on them, you guys could run the program or?

I wouldn't want to commit right now, Senator, but again, it's something that we would look at that we would see what our capacity is. I don't want to oversell and over promise, but we do have farmview chapters across the state also.

So, it is something that I think maybe we'd consider so we could maybe be part of the solution also.

Fertilizer. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any?

Thanks for showing up. Right?

Yeah. Okay, I get one question. So, this Bill only talks about how to dispose of chickens. It doesn't really get to like catching them and getting them off the streets or backyards or whatever. Should we expand this so that this money can be used for just catching collection as well as the disposal of chickens?

Thank you, Senator. If funding's available. I know there have been Legislature, or funding mechanisms in the past, for traps, for renting traps and different activities to reduce the population of feral chickens. We're not the introducers of the Bill, but we would be open to any mechanism to help reduce.

And it's, again, I think the Bill is collecting and figuring out what to do with them once they're collected. So, sure. I mean maybe add zeros, couple more zeros to the 1234. Yes, we do need to capture them, collect them, and then, ideally, that's what we're doing in Kunea, was taking it to neighboring farms.

I think Pacific Gateway Farms may have been one of the recipients. There's farmers out there, small farmers, that wanted the chickens so that's where they were going. But we did stop the program.

Thank you. Any further questions? If not, we will take a brief recess prior to calling the vote.

Welcome back.

We are reconvening our 301 agenda for the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs. The on the first measure, Senate Bill 2032 relating to consumer protection. Really applaud the solar industry. For deciding to police themselves, not waiting for government to tell them what to do. They're taking an active role in protecting our residents out there.

Would like to pass their Bill with a few amendments and note first in the Committee reports that the contractors Licensing board says we better we have to have a better definition of contractual affiliation and hopefully by the next hearing that they will have that definition for the Next Committee, which is the CPN Committee going to take the DCCA's Office of Consumer Protection recommendations that there should be mandated disclosure of cash price and finance price and also take into account the suggestion by Carbon Cash Tech to define solar devices as they have designated or described in their testimony.

So those are the three actually two suggested amendments and Committee insertion. Any discussion Members? If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2032 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes yes. Vice Chair votes yes. Senator Du Coy Aye. Senator Richards? Aye. Senator Favela is excused. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. On Senate Bill 2079 relating to vehicle titles, there was unfortunate situation on the Big island where there was just a flurry of of confusion on who had title and the car got into an accident. And this Bill will help clean up those unfortunate situations. So I'd like to pass this measure out as is any discussions?

If not send it to Chang. I vote yes.

For Senate Bill 2079. Chair's recommendation is to pass amended noting the excusable Senator Fella of numbers present. Are there any objections or reservations? See none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. On Senate Bill 2241 relating to zero emission vehicles like to pass this measure out with amendments. Those amendments are technical, non substantive and we're going to make the defective date on this measure 07-01-2050.

And note in the Committee report that the measure contains a blank appropriation and request web to consider inserting $5 million for SEO HSEO to analyze zero emission vehicles infrastructure throughout the state. Those are the recommended amendments. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang?

I vote yes for Senate Bill 2241. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? None. The recommendation is adopted on the next.

Measure 25, SB 2579, relating to water. I really love the young lady from I think Molokai, right? Maui. That has taken it upon herself to really dive into understanding the water system and how energy affects the water system there. Would like to move this measure out with a few amendments.

The Attorney General had suggested that we need to have certain statutory standards for the issuance of grants. We'd like to put in that language. There's also technical, non-substantive amendments. And we're going to make the defective date July 1, 2050 and also say that this will be done in a phased approach by the Hawaii State Energy Office. With those amendments, any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Of Members present, are there any objections or reservations for Senate Bill 2579 passing with amendments?

Thank you.

On the next measure, that being Senate Bill 2835 relating to liquor Members, our friends in Maui have difficulty because of their liquor commission having different rules than the rest of the state and would like to help clarify things so that they can do fundraisers at certain venues for, you know, non profits having opportunity to serve liquor at their fundraisers.

So we'd like. I'd like to pass this measure out as is. Any discussion if not Senator Chang, vote yes.

Recommendation for Senate Bill 2835 is to pass and amended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

And cockle doodle doo, we're on our last measure, SB2892 relating to feral chickens. Like to pass this measure out with a few amendments, we're going to blank out the appropriation, have Wham determine what those figures should be and effective date to July 1, 2050 and yes, allow Wham to put in the figures. Any discussion if not Senator Chang? Yes.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2892 is to pass with amendments of the numbers present. Are the objections or reservations sitting down the recommendations.

Okay, cluck, cluck, cluck. We're out.