Senate Standing Committee on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts

Good afternoon. Convening the Committee on Waterland, Culture and the arts on our 1pm agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 2 to 4 today, Wednesday, February 4th. We have a number of measures on the agenda this afternoon. So what ask folks.

I recognize there's a lot of testimony that's been submitted so for to help us make sure we can get through the entire agenda so that everybody has a chance to weigh in.

For those who took the time out to join us today and who are on Zoom, we're asking folks to limit their comments to make sure that we can get through them. If there's questions, folks in the Committee will be able to follow up and ask those questions.

And if there are others who've said basically the same thing, when it's your time, as long as we have your written testimony, if you could maybe elaborate on something that hasn't been covered, that'd be helpful as well.

So that said, let's start with Senate Bill 2603 relating to the Hawaii Symphony Orchestra, which designates the Hoy Symbol Symphony Orchestra is the State of Hawaii Symphony Orchestra. Testifying first on 2603 is the attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Ian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General. I'll just. I'll keep it brief like you requested. We just submitted some testimony suggesting some additional language. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts. Good afternoon.

Karen Ewald, Executive Director of the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts. Chair Lee and Senator Chang, we stand in support of this bill.

Thank you. Next is the Retail Merchants.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair. Congratulations on your position. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And I need your support help. My name is Dave Erdman, Interim President and CEO of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii. And we strongly support 2603. Just a couple comments.

One is the formal recognition supports the arts, education, cultural vitality and even more diverse and resilient visitor economy, which helps all of us. So I just wanted to make that comment related to the visitor economy. Thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Next is the Hawaii Youth Symphony. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Aloha, Senator Lee and Senator Chang. I'm Brandy Wong, President CEO of the Hawaii Youth Symphony. Here on behalf of over 800 students all across the state and many, many more who see great inspiration in the Hawaii Symphony Orchestra, all of its educational activities, we're very much in support and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Up next is the Hawaii Symphony Orchestra.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair. Committee thank you for having us. Dane Lam, Music and Artistic Director of the Hawaii Symphony Orchestra. We stand in very strong support of this bill that would designate the orchestra.

The State Orchestra of Hawaii will continue to allow us to deliver on our mission to bring high class, world class music, Keiki and Kupuna all around the state and continue to hold up Hawaii as an example of what a great state can be. Every state needs a great university, a great art museum and a great symphony orchestra.

And we're very proud to continue that tradition. Thank you. Thank you.

Signed up next on Zoom is the Hawaiian Steel Guard Steel Guitar Association. Mr. Williams, good afternoon.

Good afternoon. And thank you for giving me the. Opportunity to come here and just reiterate our wholehearted support. We stand behind our submitted testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have, I'm eyeballing this, but probably about, Oh, I don't know, four or five dozen additional written testimonies that were submitted on this measure. Is there anyone else here with us today wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you, everyone.

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2083 relating to state owned historic properties and inherited lands, which establishes the State Owned Historic Properties Preservation Plan working group within DLNR. Testifying first on 2803 is DLNR, State Historic Preservation Division.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair.

Senator Lee, My name is Jessica Puff. I'm the administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division. We stand on our testimony as submitted and are here for any questions in support.

Thank you. Up next is the Office of Hawaiian affairs with comments. That's all the testimony we have on SB2083. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Are there any questions?

If not, real quick for SHPD. It's. The danger of showing up as the only person who actually shows up because all the questions are to you.

You know what, that's okay, but you're.

Also the only person that can answer them. So there's that benefit. OHA's raised a couple concerns in their testimony about duplication.

One of the things that seems to be, if I'm understanding the bill right, is to take a slightly different look at things and not duplicate the existing efforts that are going on, but rather look with a specific focus on state owned properties and really everything therein. Is that how you read this?

My reading of the bill is to do something that we're not actually doing right now and to essentially, or at least I see the opportunity to create a statewide database of state owned historic properties so that we can have a better understanding of what the state is responsible for and then also how to manage those properties, which is not something that we are currently actively doing at Ship D or within any of our programs.

Yeah.

And then secondly, as far as, let's say, existing state properties, if there's a historic technically this building probably qualifies, I'm guessing among others, when there's maintenance or rehabilitation or other work that comes up. Are you guys involved in that kind of discussion currently?

Yes, but it's on like a case by case, project by project, sort of reactive basis. That kind of activity is triggered by hrs 68, where whenever there is a state project, that agency comes to us and consults on what their project is.

That's a little bit different than my understanding of this bill though, which seems to be more planning focused so that you have an understanding of what you've got, what you can do with it in advance of forming your project.

In those cases or any of those cases, whatever cases do you have in house architects or whomever it is that would be able to help guide that process?

Yes, we have an architecture branch in SHPD currently we have a historic architect and an architectural historian who reviews all the projects that come in under any of the 6810 or 42. And we're in the process of onboarding two additional architectural historians.

Okay, thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none. Thanks.

Let's move on to the next measure which is Senate Bill 2341 relating to historic preservation, which authorizes SHPD to conduct a phased review of a proposed project on private property under certain circumstances and amends the process and deadlines by which SHPD must provide written concurrence or non concurrence for a proposed project on private property or other project that requires entitlement for use, after which concurrence may be assumed and the project May proceed on 2341.

Testifying first, I'm guessing is. Oh. Office of Line affairs with comments and SHPD . Welcome back.

Very kind of you again, Jessica Puff, Administrator of SHPD. We stand on our written comments and support and are here for any questions that you have.

Thank you. Next is Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee Diana Setnas with the Office of Planning Sustainable Development OPSD stands on its written testimony and support and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Up next is Sierra Club of Hawaii on Zoom. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii we are in. We have strong concerns about the phased review provisions of this measure. We ask that if you move it forward that you, you take that, those provisions out.

It just doesn't make sense to continue to endorse this idea of doing planning halfway before you commence projects. And it creates all kinds of potential for conflict and costly project changes and delays and potentially deep harms to the Hawaiian community in terms of impacts of historic preservation of historic properties and ev.

But yeah, happy to answer any questions and thank you for stopping testifying.

Thank you. Up next, here is Hawaii Association Realtors. Thank you. Signed with. Next is Walamak Kanilua online on Zoom. It is testifier present.

Testifier is present on Zoom. Chair. It seems like they may have technical issues.

Okay, why don't we give them a second to sort that out? So if you can hear us, I'll circle back to you at the end of the testifier list. Up next is Evan Oy. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Evan Oy from NIAP Hawaii.

We stand in strong support of this measure and just want to highlight, you know, we feel as though this is, you know, that needed and you know, we've in, in conjunction with SHPD working on a policy balance for, you know, helping streamline the process for a review.

So we appreciate the Committee hearing this bill and are open for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Signed up. Next is Tara Rojas on Zoom.

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

In opposition also on Zoom. Bianca Isaki, Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Aloha Chair and everyone. And I think Malama Kakanilua Iphone Claire was able to fix her issue. I'm testifying against SB2341. I'm a local attorney. I litigate a lot of Chapter 6e historic preservation issues. I have several cases, including some where Ship D review happened, like prior to when they actually had burial rules.

So when they didn't have time to do or when they didn't have enough review. And we're still dealing with the fallout from the disturbances to historic properties, specifically burial sites. And this was like some of these are like from pre 90s.

So what I'm trying to say is just that the Bill will not have the effect of speeding up development, only prolonging conflicts. That will be the consequences of these halfway reviews. So please don't pass it. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, that was Bianca Isaki. Bianca, we also have. Oh, why don't we go back to the previous testifier from Malama Kanilua.

Aloha Chair, You can hear me?

Yes, we can hear.

Am I muted? Okay, thank you very much. Claire, upon the present.

Sorry, can you turn your video on as well?

I don't know. Hang on. Can you turn on the video? Okay. Video doesn't seem to be working. I know. I. It doesn't seem to be. The screen doesn't seem to be connecting.

All right, why don't you go ahead for the moment? We'll figure that out after the fact. Please proceed. Are you able to hear us? Okay, why don't we circle back again. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? Seeing none. Are there any questions? Yes. oh, yes. Vice Chair.

Bianca. Bianca, are you still there on Zoom?

Yes, I am. Thank you.

Question, you're in opposition, but in understanding the Kelikini suit as defined by the Hawaii State Supreme Court, it has some merit with regards to what was decided then, and it's in opposition to the bill before us, Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. Afterwards, there were some changes in law to kind of undo the really important changes or the really important holdings of Kallikhini. Correct. Thank you.

So they're saying that the phased review then.

I'm sorry, can you please ask me the question again?

Well, the Supreme Court did say that they rejected the phased review in the. In SHPD, and so. But the bill before us is contrary to the court case.

Absolutely.

All right, I guess we'll have to decide what we're going to do then. But there is a conflict.

Well, sorry. The courts were basing it on existing law, and now I guess the SPEED Group. Is trying again to phase review, and we're opposed to that.

And that's why I think Sierra Club is against it as well.

I understand that. Yes. Wayne's here if he has more questions.

Well, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp, too, has sent testimony against this measure as well. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. I see we have our other testifier online. You get your video working there. Okay. Likely testify. Go ahead.

Okay, thank you very much. Clara Panna, President Malama Kakani Lila, I actually testified for the first time. You tried to do the phase review, and it turned out to be such a mess with the rail. And with the rail.

It was a phase review for Maui Lani, the residential project district, where every single project that was phased found more evie. And there's neighborhoods with, like, three lots full of Evie. Full of Evie. This is not the way to protect and do the job better. Better planning is what is needed.

And I have to say that even in the last year the intermediate court found that DLNR SHPD is not allowing us to protect our Iwikupuna. I didn't see Jessica, you didn't invite me to even be part of this. I am so upset by that.

I mean, I went to to get an actual change that would have been helpful and that would have been to have better archaeology and better implementation by SHPD of archaeologists and their reports, which are really the problem. One of the big problems.

I think that the consultation in preparing this has skipped the people who are really affected and who could give you practical solutions for this. But you have allowed SHPD to be in charge of this. And they. The way they run things is really the problem. We are not in favor of phased review.

We are in favor of having better consultation with shpd which they can skip us anytime they want to because it is not mandated in any way known. Yes, I think you have missed the point of how to make this better and making SHPD have less time without improving the way that they are able to monitor.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Was there anyone else we missed who is wishing to testify? All right, seeing none. Back to questions. Were there any other questions? Yes.

Jessica, please. Jessica, did you have a chance to review the court case and the question I asked Bianca, with regards to. To the compatibility that has to do with the bill before us because it's contrary to what the courts decided at that time.

I think that.

And I'm sorry, this is not an Administration Bill. We need to understand that as well. So knowing that you didn't introduce the measure.

Yeah, I think that there is potential for concern. I am not a lawyer, so I would leave that up to our ags to interpret the appropriateness of phased review.

I think in the comments that we provided, I think I asked for language to be added that would allow for a programmatic kind of review, which is something that's allowed under the federal Section 106 consultation process, which allows for a project proponent to come to ship D and consult with us on their total scope of work, even if the full scope of work hasn't completely been developed.

And. And it establishes a programmatic alternative so that that entity knows when they need to come to us and to consult with us. But we're looking at the total parcel of land from the very beginning that the full development will occupy to understand where the historic resources are, where the IWI kupuna are.

So as the project develops, we can keep those resources in mind and have a plan of action for how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects to those historic properties in particular.

So that could be an alternative to trying to do a phased approach, is to proceed with a programmatic approach, which isn't getting in the realm of segmentation, which I think is the larger concern.

Right. Okay. All right. Chair, can you ask if any of the AGs around is here?

I don't believe the AG's testifiable. Were there any.

Did they testify?

I didn't. I didn't see any.

Okay, I have a question then. Not with regards to the item, but in General come because you need to be heard. And. And. Sorry.

As a former mayor, I understand what, what my cooperation, counsel and the lawyers tell me whenever there's an incident or something that happened in court, no matter what it is, and then subsequent, we have legislation by the Legislature, it seems like reversing, I guess, the court case.

And so it's always put on to us to make decisions knowing that they already have court cases. So in General, what would, you know, a recommendation be now?

Well, this one goes to judiciary anyway, so perhaps, maybe you know, Chair, if we want to move this, then it can be clear, you know, if we should create legislation contrary to what has been, you know, in a case decision in courts.

Understood. I'll make sure this question is passed on.

Yeah. But I'm kind of surprised that with this measure there was no interest in the AG's office to follow a Bill like this because, you know, we're going through a process, we're all busy people, and then we end up moving measures and then we end up dying because of a court case.

But because we already know there was a court case, where should we leave this measure? And that's just my opinion. Okay. But if you can carry this on to the AG's office and someone can follow, and if the chair, if we decide to move this because it goes to Judiciary, then it can be addressed at that time.

And I'm willing to support the chair whatever he wants to do. All right, thank you so much.

Thank you. One follow up for Shipti as well. Sure, thanks. Looking at just the testimony in general, some of the concerns raised, in addition to what the Vice Chair was talking about, looked at the distinction between public projects versus private projects. Do you have particular thoughts on that?

Like the difference in treatment between the two of those within the bill? I think the differences in treatment are reflective of the existing 68, which are projects that are being sponsored by like a governmental entity in some ways a way to summarize it.

And then 6010 refers to projects that impact historic properties that are listed in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places.

I think that there are similarities in terms of the 60 compliance process for both of those review processes in that they both require early consultation with Ship D as opposed to when you're about to get a permit or break ground, that kind of thing, which is often the case with 6042 for privately owned properties.

This is probably getting everybody in their weeds. So I apologize.

So because of those altern, like those similarities regarding when you come to Ship D, I think the language that is similar is also appropriate in terms of allowing for a programmatic approach to the management of historic resources, which I think this language, from my interpretation is trying to get at, is to be a more proactive, planning based approach to 6e as opposed to reactive, which is sort of the way that it's been up to this point.

I don't know if that makes sense.

We'll go watch the playback and. Okay.

I apologize. I'm very much in SHPD land right now with this answer.

Yeah, thanks. The other Thing that was noted here was just the timeline for approval that was raised. Do you have a sense of right now currently kind of what the typical.

Timeline is for an average review? Yeah, it depends on the completeness of the submittal and I think that's also what the language of adding. The adding the language that requires a complete submittal, which is something that ship D is very supportive of.

We will get applicants that will submit a partial submittal either because they're not sure how to do or what they need for complete submittal.

And sometimes we get applicants that will submit something just to get the proverbial clock started so that they can use that to say, well, this has been with shifty for months and in reality we've been asking for months for more information.

So the average review time for a simple project that like a normal person, one time permit, you know, individual may need is around like 56 days. I believe that was the last average. The last time we calculated it a few months ago. So the prescribed timeline in this Bill kind of matches up with it because.

And it matches up with the timeline that's already in the 6C regulations.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions in this measure?

You know. Zero, vice chair, since. Since you're on. You're on the test force, aren't you? Yeah. Did this measure about the court case ever come up with.

I don't recall there being discussion about the court case during that test.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no further questions. Thank you everybody. Let's move on to the next measure which is Senate Bill.

Excuse me. Are you still taking testimony?

We've moved on. Are you signed up to testify?

Yes.

Oh, did I. Did I miss you there?

I'm not sure.

What's your. What's your name?

Tara Rojas.

Oh, we did call you.

Yeah. So I just want to put for the record that there are a lot of things happening at the same time. And so, you know, thank you for.

Before we fully move off the bill, why don't you take just a minute here and if you'd like to weigh in on the bill, please. Yes.

Mahalo nui. So, Tara Rojas, I oppose and this is part of my testimony that I really want to make sure that you all are not coming with your own decision pre hearing that you really take a look at the testimony submitted.

Because when you look and see the two different opinions, the prophet and those who operate under pretty much opposite of those who are of this land, who are aloha, they support and then those who are of aloha who are of this land. Aloha Ina they oppose. Now we know.

And I really appreciate if that was Jessica from SHPD or not. I really appreciate her because she did speak up at the army program comment meetings. However.

However, in a nutshell, in the minute I have left to speak on this and I really hope this gets you and that you do make the point of decision in this day and age in 2026.133 years of this continuous. Those who have the money, those who are big agencies, corporations, departments and the people with pool.

And you know that they. They've had their way all this time. So if lineal descendants, if Kanaka are saying they oppose, that's what we really need to do. And this shift in this l. Legislative session and process, we need to shift in 2026 because this has been happening over and over again.

I'm just going to say it like this. You want to see this live in action. Where is the Federal Building built on Ibi Kupuna? Where is Waikiki Walmart built on In Oahu and other islands over Ib Kupuna. This has to stop. You cannot just do business as usual. It is 2026. We see what's happening in the world.

Injustice of human rights. You need to respect the rights of humans and of Evie in havine. Mahalo. So I oppose this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. All right.

With that, let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2306 relating to administrative fees, which makes permanent, rather than repealing upon the adoption of relevant administrative rules, the Department of Land and Natural Resources Authority to establish a transaction fee for certain services rendered by the Bureau of Conveyances for each recording in the Bureau of Conveyances and Land Court and makes other changes.

Testifying first on 2306 is the Hawaii Government Employees Association. Good afternoon.

Vice Chair, Kauanui Sabas for HGEA Aloha. We're in opposition to this measure and we'll stand on our testimony. But I do want to note that our opposition is to page six, line two, which authorizes the special fund to be used for qualified contractors within the Bureau of Conveyance. Thank you.

Thank you. I apologize. I'll just note we had late testimony in the last measure, 2341 from the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation in opposition and Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Okay, back to 2306. Up next, we have Mike Imanaka. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair Mikey Manaka, Bureau of Conveyances. I'm the registrar and we.

Well, I apologize we had you down as an individual. Oh, okay. Okay.

Sorry about that. Yeah, no worries. I'm the registrar Bureau of Conveyances, and we strongly support this bill. Basically what it does, it makes the two recording fees equal.36 or land court currently to 41, which is the same as regular system. So it's more of an administrative Bill that we feel that it's this correction of the fees.

So we appreciate the opportunity to equalize the fees.

This is Administration Bill. Yeah.

Correct.

Well, it came from admin bill.

Okay. That's all the testimony we had on 2306. Is there anyone else wishing to testify?

Can I ask him another question?

Seeing none. Vice Chair.

Okay. With regards to the opposition on, I think, was it. What section? What were you opposed to? Okay. Do you have a comment with regards to the opposition? HDAs comments. Knowing why don't you come up and repeat the opposition again? Sorry about that. Sorry, Chair.

No.

Okay. You're opposing HDAs? Yeah. Can you state your opposition again?

Yeah. So we're opposing page six, line two, which adds from. Which authorizes the special Fund to be used for limited use, qualified contractors.

Comment. If we had enough employees to do it or employees who didn't retire, we would absolutely hire people, recruit people. But the challenges for this type of work is very specialized. So we have to look for support outside on a very limited basis.

We strongly support the union, but there is specialized technical work that has to be done outside of the scope of what people can do currently.

So question is, you can do contracts.

We absolutely can do contracts.

Would you consider doing a contract for a certain period?

Absolutely.

And look at the situation.

Absolutely.

On top of that, I think we'd be happy. I did see the final closing is this. Upon approval, this measure. I didn't even check.

Actually. January 20th. January 1st, 2027.

January 1st 27. So Section six, you'll have. You'll have six months to do it.

Absolutely. Yeah.

It's not upon approval. Would that be enough time? Correct. Okay. All right. So will you consider then addressing the HGA's comments as well? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? See? None. Let's move on to the next measure on the agenda.

Aloha. Aloha. Can you make sure to look up on the Zoom?

Was there someone else who had signed up that we did not call?

Yes.

I didn't have you signed up, but since it's no different than you sitting in the room, why don't you go ahead?

Yeah. Mahalo nui. Okay. So, Tara Rojas. I have four concerns of this. And I recommend that you hold this bill 2306, the periodic review. It locks in an ongoing cost without a required assessment, you know, or required reassessment of like need amount or alternatives. That's the first one. Number two, you know, expanding DLNR discretion over fee use.

It's kind of really broad, this discretionary language that allows for fee revenue to be used beyond narrowly defined operational needs. And it weakens fiscal discipline and reduces legislative and public oversight over how mandatory recording fees are spent.

And number three, the concern that fees cannot be set or adjusted without formal rulemaking, reducing transparency, again, public notice and the opportunity for comment. And then four, this is really important that recording documents is not optional. It's legally required to protect. Establish your transfer property rights.

Now, the concern is here, permanent transaction fees functions as an access cost to let to the land record system and so disapprotionately affecting families handling probate, Kupuna, small landholders, and people correcting title or historical record issues. And so with this efficiency, automation can be supported without eliminating accountability mechanisms.

And this whole system and this day and age, accountability needs to be upheld. Right now, there's a Hawaii Elections Commission meeting going on.

The chair doesn't want to follow Robert's Rules of Order and doesn't want to put on the agenda what the commissioners are wanting and for the audit and for also the removal of the chair and certain board Members. So accountability is super important. The people are speaking up. We're seeing this.

And it needs to be made pono in 2026 and beyond. Mahalo.

Thank you. And not only for Ms. Rojos, but for everybody else. And if there's anyone else on Zoom, we always try to be mindful to give everybody equal time to testify. I think twice we've come back after the fact.

I don't want to make that the norm because it's not fair to everybody else who took the time to show up and everything. So at the end of each bill, as we've been doing for many years, we'll ask if there's anyone else wishing to testify in a measure.

So for those folks online, that is your moment to weigh in, if you so choose. But we can't continue to take folks out of order when we've already moved on. It's simply unfair to other testifiers. So we'll let that go. But if you're ready to go.

Can I just clarify then, just a really quick one then. So I was waiting for you to say that. I didn't hear you say that. And I thought you were just asking questions of who. Those who are testifying. So I was waiting for you to go get anybody online. I appreciate that.

Yes. That's. I'll say it for anybody, whether you're online or in the room. So that said, let's move on to the next chair.

Vice chair just found out. Bureau of Conveyance. You got to come back. Reason is in the. When we looked at the dates, if you look on page eight in Section eight, it does say that act shall take effect January 1st, except that section six shall take effect on December 31st, 2026.

So that's not going to work for the comments that HGA brought up, and that's in the bill. So we just talked about giving time for you to work it out, but it conflicts with the implementation dates. But it does say the act shall take effect January 1, except that Section 6 shall take effect December 31, 2026.

So that's not going to give you much time. Six months. It's okay.

Six. Six months would be. It might be challenging. Depends upon. It will be challenging. Absolutely.

Okay. All right. Well, December 31, 2026 and January 12027 is just a day. So. I'm sure. Do you feel like you need a lot more time? Because dates we can, you know, we can work on.

Well, I think if anything, if there's substantive concerns that you.

I, I would say, like, even January, the end of January, to me, makes more sense.

I will support your wisdom. So.

Yeah. Okay. We'll make the recommendation, see what the Chair is.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Okay. Any further questions?

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2782, relating to notaries public, which requires the Bureau of Conveyances to void any recorded instrument that was fraudulently notarized when attested to by the purported notary public, requires the Bureau of Conveyance to allow title holders to suspend additional recordings in their title unless given prior authorization, certain to some limitations.

So on 2782, testifying first is the Attorney General. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. Tina Tsuchiyama, Deputy Attorney General. We've submitted some testimony with some comments and considerations for your review. I'll be available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Up next is DCCA on Zoom. Oh. Or in the room.

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Emma Olsen, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Protection, we will stand on our written testimony in support. However, we would like to point out that there may be some drawbacks to relying on notaries to report fraud. We also struggle strongly.

Support House Bill 2615, which authorizes government agencies to record a notice when we find a document to be fraudulent. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is Bureau of Conveyances.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Afternoon, Members of the Committee. Mikey Manaka, Registrar, Bureau of Conveyances. We are offering the following comments that this bill authorizes the bureau to void docs from notaries who attest to issues that comes up. We can also suspend recordings as at the request of title holders.

Normally and traditionally the role of the Bureau of Conveyances is a ministerial role. We're not a judiciary. So that's something that would be a pivot of what we normally do and would ask for more discussion on this. If this bill does keep moving, we do ask for appropriation for the fundings of extra positions and training. Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me, can I ask a question? Sure. So where does the administrator.

Before you dive in.

It's all right.

Why don't we get through the rest of the testifiers? Cuz we're going to. Okay, I'll turn into a thing. Okay. Up next is Hawaii Association of Realtors.

Thank you. We testimony and support.

Thank you. And then we also had comments from Hawaii Financial Services Association. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else in the room or on Zoom wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? Seeing none. All right, Vice Chair, please take it away.

Hello. Okay, I had my hand up and then it keeps getting lowered. Sorry about that.

Okay, so go ahead.

Okay. So Tara Rojas, I want to say this and as a Kanaka ally, from a Kanaka Maoli perspective, this raises concern because land fraud and forced deeds historically have been tools used to dispossess native Hawaiians and a.k.a. maoli of Aina. So any measure addressing fraudulent notarization must therefore include strong due process.

Again just the due process protections to ensure that corrective actions do not create new avenues for harm or abuse. And so the authority to void recorded instruments and suspend recordings, if not carefully limited, could unintentionally affect A's properties, probate matters and long standing family lands.

I'm seeing in so many other meetings as well the fact that yeah these fraudulent and these not even following the laws in place and then just due process needs to be really adhered to. So clear procedures, time limits and safeguards are necessary to ensure that these tools protect Kanaka Maoli rather than introduce new risks.

So mahalo nui for the opportunity to testify. I'm not sure what's happening with the online. I did have my hand raised. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Vice Chair.

Yes, Mike. Again. Mike, the role that you folks have at the bureau is administratively. Doesn't it go to courts after?

Absolutely. So if there's an issue, it'll be taken upon a court and that kind of supports the OCP bill for an action would be taken by a government entity or an attorney. And that's where AG here as well.

Okay. And reason I, I bring that up is because this issue came before me when I was in this role as chair as well, but also to note that it goes to the courts. And so, you know, the courts make that decision as well.

And so if you hear the opposition, there's another layer that they could, you know, probably ask for assistance or take it on further rather than dropping the case off at the outset on administrative part.

But just to let people know that there is a two step process to the land court's decision that it goes administratively to the Bureau and then it goes to the courts. Right. Two separate entities. Correct. Okay.

Has it been working well or has the Department been put in a process where there's a lot of complaints or comments coming in from the General public?

There's been concern since there's been recent cases and the Bureau has responded by putting in security cameras and taking active measures to prevent fraud and to let the public know that we take it seriously and we're working with the Legislature to create very good legislation to prevent such actions in the future.

Okay, so in the work of the Bureau, then the process is a good one. At least you do it administratively or. And go to the courts or. What we're doing now is we're going to be eliminating the courts.

Right. We're not going to eliminate the courts per se, but I think that's where it gives more power to the Bureau that in the past we didn't have. And it's a little blurry there that, you know, within more discussions and clarification, you know, there might be an opportunity to play that role.

But really, traditionally the Bureau of Conveyances or Registrars have been purely administrative ministerial.

Okay. All right, understanding that. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

Chair, one quick follow up. I'm relatively. Oh, please. Relatively new to this issue. I think. Vice Chair's much more in depth on this than I am, but did have one question which was the title issue raised by the Attorney General, which is, I think referring to or excuse me, relating to notaries Public.

And in it they raised a question as to whether or not in section one there are a couple new lines added which basically talk about suspending the recordation of additional documents against real property if the owner requests it to have a clear nexus to notaries public. Excuse me. Yeah.

If the owner requests it if we to address that concern if we inserted. So in other words, the language would read the BOC would be required to suspend recordation of additional notarized documents against real property. Does that in practice, for your purposes, change anything?

I would like the Attorney General to clarify a little bit more on that.

Sure. AJI could come up as well.

What we're trying to do or the Bureau's trying to do is keep that process ministerial. So if right now our role is if a document is sent to us and it meets recording requirements, we're going to record it and we stay within that lane. Anything outside of that judicial, we defer to the attorneys to sort that out.

That's not our goal.

And if I may, I guess what to me that wasn't clear with the bill was whether it could be anyone could suspend recordations to their property or limited to people who, you know, got a notification that their deed or other document recorded with the Bureau was fraudulently notarized.

So this provision, the suggestion of 502B would, you know, basically let any title, any owner of any property, regardless of whether their document was affected by a fraudulent notarization, to suspend recordation.

That's why we raised this issue because that, you know, allowance to suspend any recordation of any document regardless of fraudulent notarization seems a bit broad for the subject matter. So that was our only comment.

So there could be some monetary consequences.

Or it's just prohibited in the Constitution that, you know, the title has to have a nexus to the contents of the Bill.

Well, it would affect, you know, consumers or people out there who has issues. And I tend to agree with you. Well, the reason I brought that up too is the introducer of this measure is an attorney as well. So that's why it's important for us to ask these questions.

Just to be clear and where we are, are we really protecting those that needs assistance and has issues like, you know, we've heard the opposition to make sure that, you know, people have an advantage to addressing, you know, their problems.

And if they see something that prohibits them from taking a step, that's not good policy as far as I'm concerned. Coming from legislators who wants to do something in statute, we need to protect everybody and not a particular sector. That's my belief anyway. Okay. But thanks for the comments and thanks for your involvement in addressing the issues.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thanks.

Any further questions? Seeing none. Thanks, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure on the agenda. Senate Bill 2756 relating to conservation enforcement, which appropriates funds for the purchase of equipment for the Hawaii Island Branch of the Division of Conservation and resources enforcement at DLNR. Testifying first on 2756 is Hawaii County Council Member Goro Inaba. Excuse me.

Halakagoro Inaba in support and then testifying in person. DLNR. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon, Committee Members. I'm Jason Redulla. I'm DOE Care's chief. On behalf of the Department, we'll stand on our written testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify in person. Is there anyone else? Looks like there's one testifier online. Please go ahead.

Tara Rojas. I submit testimony again with concern regarding SB2756. So adequate equipment for conservation enforcement, yes, is important. However, with happenings that we've seen that increase enforcement capacity, you know, must be accompanied by clear safeguards. So mahalo nui for the discussion you just had on the previous one.

And you have to do that for this one as well to ensure that enforcement is pono equitable and not disproportionately directed at Kanaka Moli subsistent practitioners or community Members exercising traditional customary rights. So for decades, you know, conservation enforcement in Hawaii has too often been experienced as punitive rather than protective, particularly when enforcement priorities favor development interests.

While cultural practitioners face heightened security, expanding vehicles and marine patrol assets without parallel commitments to cultural competency, community accountability and clear enforcement priorities risk repeating these patterns. So funding is advanced. It should be paired with transparency, oversight and explicit direction that enforcement serves resource protection and community well being, not continue harm. And I'm going to just.

My gosh, I got to keep saying this as well. We see what happens when the issue, it's all tied in though. It's because DOE Care what happened at Maala, the Kahu, you know, was targeted and was approached, you know, by DOE care.

And so that's why I'm really proving that what I'm saying is built not just oh, a theory, it's because out of actual action that has happened and the fact that we just had to testify against the, the weapons law because it was clear, it was Un.

It was not clear enough defined could affect like what is a tool that subsistent hunters and gatherers, you know, will use. So again, you really need to look at the unintended consequences. So make sure it's transparent oversight and explicit direction so that you resource protection and community well being is the focus, not harm, not continued Harm, Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Are there any questions?

I have a quick go, please. Oh, this is for DOE Care. Just wanted to quickly get the appropriations that you folks might be asking for these. I know it's not in your testimony, but wanted to see if we could also potentially include it in the Committee report as well. Chair. But if you can, go ahead.

If you're speaking to a dollar amount, I think when we look at what the bill provides with respect to one marine vessel and 20 vehicles, we're looking at probably several million dollars here. Off the top of my head, estimate is probably going to be at least $3 million for the vessel alone.

What is that amount going to be?

So with the vessel alone, with the kinds of vessels we've been procuring lately, we're looking at a cabin vessel, approximately 30 or so feet. That's probably at least $500,000.

And then the 20 patrol vehicles.

The 20 patrol vehicles will be very substantial. Considering what we need to buy, that's probably going to be at least $2 million.

Okay, thank you. And just to add to the discussion is that this is Hawaii island. So that vessel, and we don't have one now. And thanks for preparing and following up on Oahu's new project that we gave you folks. DOE Care doing marine surveillance, so that's appreciate.

But just to let you know that the Big Island has two sections, so the west and the east. And their DOE Care officers are in abundance doing the entire island. So that's why the vehicle numbers is much bigger than we think of an island.

Sorry, I asked those questions only because I've been on site visits on the Big Island and I see the need. So I. That's the only reason why I ask, so. Because I've been in the water with Dar DOE Care. And then also when you talk about patrolling areas, you know, it's.

I think it's pertinent to know that there could be additional, you know, patrol in areas where there aren't, especially across Hawaii Island. So. Yeah, I know it's not my area. I just wanted to know. Yeah. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Can you remain Chair? Can you call Tara? I'd like to ask Tara a question. Hello. Yes. You mentioned something that was quite disturbing to me when you. You made a comment with regards to Mana' Allah and DOE Care. I'm very familiar with both divisions. But you made a comment that.

Can you state, what did you say about DOE Care doing something against Mana' Allah.

Oh, no. Just the fact that the issue and the disagreement with the true standing and what happened with their Amana Ala and. Just being what happened at the Mauna' Ala that you're talking about.

So I just wanted to make it clear because just to understand that docare does their own responsibility for all agencies. And I don't remember any incidences that had to do with, with Mauna'. Ala. And I just wanted to make it clear what you're saying is true. Please proceed.

Oh, so this was just mainly the fact that because of the disagreements of who should be there at Mona Allah that no Care was called and that they had to respond to the incident.

And just the disagreement in cultural traditional practices by what previously has been done versus what is who and what is, you know, really ruling Mauna Allah now that there's this, this conflict, this disagreement.

And just again, I'm stating this because I know DOE Care for, for doing good, but we also see the, the, the double edged, you know, the sword of, of unintended consequences and continued.

I understand, I understand, Tara. I just wanted to make it clear that Do Care has their own responsibility. Mana Allah's administrative management of Manaala rests with another division at DLNR. And so. Okay. I just want to make it clear that DOE Care does. You know what I mean? Yeah. All right, thank you. Thanks.

Any further questions on this measure? Seeing none. Thank you everyone. Let's move on to Senate Bill 2161 relating to land use, which authorizes rodeos and rodeo activities on lands that are zoned for AG use, defines those terms. And testifying first on 2161 signed up. We have Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair.

Stephen Domingo with DLNR Land Division. We stand by our written testimony in support with comments. I'm here for questions and I believe Candice Martin is on Zoom. If I can answer those questions.

Thank you.

Are you at Land Division for AG or DLNR?

DLNR.

Okay. All right. Thanks.

And immediately next signed up is indeed Candace Martin with Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Hi, Candice Martin, the Hawaii District Land Agent. And we stand on our testimony.

Thank you. Signed up next is the Hawaii Cattleman's Council. Good afternoon.

Aloha Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye. Members of the Committee, my name is Nicole Galase. I'm testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. We are in support of this bill. Passing this bill is important because rodeo is indeed an integral part of agriculture.

Passing this bill will be beneficial for the industry the participants of rodeo and for those who are watching the rodeo, for the industry because it develops the skills, the horsemanship, the ways to manage the livestock in a responsible way for the participants, because it teaches them a way to be responsible for the animals are taking care of.

It gives them a pathway to a career in ranching. And then for the audience, it's one of those few times that we're able to connect the community with where their food comes from. So we ask you to pass this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. I apologize. I recognize Department of Agriculture biosecurity is here on this bill. Oh, please come forward.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee, Cedric Gates here on behalf of DAB. The Department stands on its written comments appreciating the author's intent of this measure. And we are working on ways we can streamline our processes with this rodeo program. Thank you.

Thank you. And then Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Thank you. Chair, Vice chair. Committee Members, please stand on your testimony and support.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Farm Bureau, Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau Rodeo Division, you have a written testimony in support. I think the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council eloquently articulated what purpose rodeos can serve. We liken it to something similar that Hoy Farmyard does.

The Hawaii State Farm Fair, an agriculture activity that will help with education, outreach, showcasing what we do in agriculture. That's what Rodos can do.

If I may list a few things that are in statute chapter 205 and I know that's been some maybe concern from some others about permissible uses right now, recreation uses include day camps, picnic grounds and farmers markets are in 205. Solar is in 205. So again, rodeos are much stronger agriculture activities.

And there are benefits to doing events that really bring our community together and showcase not just to our residents here, not just to the those interested in agriculture and in the ranching community or industry, but also tourists showing what we do in agriculture and believe this is a bonafide agriculture event and activity.

And we ask for the Committee and the legislation support. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Up next on 2161 signed up to testify is the Iron workers. Good afternoon.

Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye, Senator Lomosao, Senator Chang. On behalf of the Iron Workers Stabilization Fund, we stand on a written testimony. However, I just wanted to highlight a few few of our reasons why we're in strong support of this bill. And over the past Several years or how long it's been.

We've always talked about how we can diversify the economy. This is one good way to help diversify the economy, help to give economic, economic growth to, especially to our farmers and ranchers, which we've always talked about. How can we support our agricultural business here? So we think that's very good. It'll create some new jobs for construction.

You know, if we can have these types of recreational venues, which we desperately need, there's a few things. It helps the economy, helps grow construction. Also, like one of the previous testifiers mentioned, you know, this can be a career path. You know, we're seeing an uptick in crime. This is a.

Programs can be made to help our youth to go into new careers for strong mentorship opportunities and give us something to do on a weekend and stay off of the streets. All right, so iron workers and strong support. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Gabby Lorenzo Bodet. I'm probably butchering the name, but good.

Afternoon, good day, Aloha. Thank you so much for having me. My name is Gabby Lorenzo Bode and I'm just going to read what I wrote to make sure that I'm efficient before I'm an employee or a spouse or a volunteer. I'm a mom, and that's where I'm coming to you all from. I stand in support of SB2161.

Being a mom is the most important role I will hold in my life, the role that will shape the people in my care for the better or worse. My children, biological or hind, due to circumstances out of their control, are part of your community. How they are raised will mold the adults they become.

Up and coming generations face different challenges than our grandparents and parents faced. Those before us knew hard work, laborious work, limitations and true grit and dedication before receiving any type of reward. Our kids today face challenges that are larger, scarier, and overall, the influences in today's society make growing up in Hawaii terrifying.

Quite frankly, we have the ability to make a difference in a huge way through approving this Bill. Limitations are endless. People in the farming, ranching, agricultural fields are written with rules and laws that are set forth not to allow the gain of momentum for them, but to forestall them to thwart progress and any real success.

Farms without adequate water resources, ranchers without viable leases, with longevity to make smart financial investments and roadblocks for our agricultural workers here in our state that create more room for imported goods and less room for Hawaii grown, and restrictions on land use that Prevent the very reasons we all do what we do?

Where do you suggest we practice our profession? Where do people in our position go to raise our children and show them the way?

If we cannot utilize our lands that are zoned agricultural to practice the necessary skills to thrive in an ag based industry, do the ranchers just know how without any delegated areas to better their skills, do my children and thousands more have to rely on the permits and use of county parks?

Prohibiting the use of AG zoned land and the lands of many others for the use of Rodeos takes away from generations of children who depend on these lands to learn invaluable skills directly related to the future ability to properly lead businesses in this industry. We will be the will the reason.

Will we be the reason those after us thrive and work harder? Your time's up.

If you could please summarize.

Yes. I just want to cap this off by saying that I want to piggyback on to Nicole from cattleman's and say that this is a dignified career and our children can then do animal husbandry, which is in support of everything that we are calling on people to help us.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, it's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to test? Oh, all right. Why don't we start over? Yeah. Come on up. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair and Committee Members. My name is Dwayne Bautista. I'm employed by the iron workers stabilization fund, Local 625. We're a very strong support in Senate Bill 2161. The reason for it also is by. Passing this bill, we're going to have to start building, building construction. We're going to have to.

It's going to require skilled labor. This construction is not just being built. It's going to have to be maintained. So with that being said, local, local residents is going to have a job that is going to cover and cover all islands on constructing these rodeo venues.

Second, that by having this, we can have new monies in the rural areas which we should have farmers markets and whatever venue rodeo events that it would allow. And then the third, the venues give our youth a place, a safe haven to learn their culture, their paniola culture and stick with it and have somewhere to go.

And because I was reading the bill, it goes all the way back to 1908 with Purdy y co Opari. And then just recently in 2025, Hawaii brought him the championship with Cameron Haumea. He did the same thing what Purdy did 117 years ago.

So by passing this measure, we are supporting the local jobs, small businesses and the preservation of our heritage. Thank you for your time. Aloha.

Thank you. Please come forward. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon Vice chair and Committee Members. My name is Cliff Leboy. I'm with the Ironworkers Local 625 stabilization Fund. I'll make this real short and simple. We're 100% behind this bill. We urge you to please pass it.

And you heard the rest of the testimonies from the rest of the people in this room, which is about 100% in support. We represent over 10,000 plus members and we are all totally in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. So anyone else in the room or online wishing to testify in this measure? All right. Seeing none. Thank you everyone. Are there any questions? Just for Department of AG. Thanks.

In your guys testimony you just raised concerns that enacting the language amending 205, basically the section would open the door to other uses and activities seeking equal treatment. Recommend that approval of Rodeos and associated uses and activities follow the special permit process instead. Yes. Is there a way to amend the measure to address those concerns?

Because ultimately we'd still have to authorize a statutory fix or change to authorize any other practices, at least statutorily beyond the scope of what this measure contemplates.

Hello Chair. Thank you. Cedric Gates from dap. This is a bill that we've been in discussion with the author regarding how we can streamline these rodeo special use permits. I think the concern from the Department is, as in our testimony, is we open this up for Rodeos.

For example, does that create more precedent to put different types of events into this? 205. The gist of our sentiment is that we want our ag lands put to best ag production use. And we appreciate the educational piece and we appreciate all the great work that Rodeos do to help be good stewards in our community.

Really what we're trying to figure out is what are all the pieces that are making the application process difficult for rodeos to apply? And within Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity? We're looking internally, how do we create sort of a checklist to allow for these things to happen within the current framework that exists in under 205.

But we are again open to further discussion and we are in discussion with the author of this bill to see how DAB can be of assistance. But our subject matter expert on this bill, Earl, is unfortunately unavailable.

Okay, thank you. So sorry. To be clear, the concern isn't activities associated with a rodeo. So, for example, there's a rodeo you're gonna have obviously some people to park and maybe concessions or stuff like that. It's just.

It's the idea that there could be some other statute change that would ultimately allow for something else that's not actual, like growing egg.

Yeah. I think this is really about the DAB leases because DLNR allows for Rodeos more frequently and doesn't have really the requirement to put these ag lands into AG production. Right. And I think that's where permits approval by the board. Correct.

So, and then on top of that, the leasing pricing for DAB leases are about 89 a year. Where, for example, if you're doing commercial activities and become more of a commercial enterprise, that would change potentially the zoning as well as the lease costs for these DAB leases in particular.

Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions?

Yeah, you know, so come to mind, I think your comments also include lands controlled by DLNR as well. And so, I mean, we already know that we're changing the statute in 205. And that's a concern you're raising, which. Yeah, rightfully so, because you're in agriculture, lands and parks.

I was just wondering the impact of the Act 90, you know, when we're transferring lands from DLNR to DOA, but specifically it has to do with, once it gets to you, your control of 205 anyway.

Correct.

Okay. All right. Well, thank you. That's all I have.

Well, actually, just on that, for those lands the Vice Chair is speaking to that were transferred over if there was a carve out just for those versus all AG lands, does that resolve the department's concerns?

That could potentially be a solution if that's a part of the transfer agreement between DAB and DLNR. Because as I mentioned, DLNR allows for recreational purposes for the lands. And technically that's what we view the rodeos. And with the DAB requirements, again putting our lands to AG production, that's where we are somewhat in conflict with this legislation.

Thank you.

Okay, there's no further questions. Thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the last measure on the agenda for today, SB2477 relating to cultural recognition, which requires DLNR to place historical markers acknowledging the landform on which the Hawaii Kai Town center is cited as Mauna Lua Island. Testifying first is DLNR SHPD. Good afternoon again.

Hello again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Jessica Puff, the administrator of SHPD, and we stand on our comments as submitted and are here for any questions.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we have in this measure. Is there anyone else wishing testifying to measure in the room or online seeing? None. All right, are there any questions? If not, just real quick for SHPD, in your testimony, you had identified stuff that I think has come up in previous discussions on other things.

How do you do a narrative, who pays for that, all that sort of stuff.

If this were to be a partnership, for example, with State foundation on Culture and the Arts, which kind of does some of this stuff, or has in the past, not only for this specific case, and I haven't talked to the introducer of the bill about this, but for kind of a broader program.

Because surely there's a ton of places around the state that are culturally significant. Is that something you'd be open to?

Yeah, I'm open to partnering with another organization. I'm also open to Shipti taking on the responsibility of like, managing a marker program just for this Hawaii Kai area or state statewide. I know other states and offices like SHPD do have marker programs.

I believe my old office, the state of Michigan, used to manage the marker program until it was transferred to another division that sort of had like a standard marker for demarking these types of locations.

I think it's just our comments are just purely focused on, like, if this is going to be constructed, like, what are the parameters of this? Is this something that SHPD is responsible for doing or working with a local community organization and they take the terms of it. I think there's just a little clarity we were asking for.

Okay, thank you very much.

Yes, we did have identifying signage for each community wherever there were historical areas. And it had the signs on the highways or in a village and had the King Kamehameha sign. And it was something that was also developed by the tourism industry back then. Whatever happened to that program?

Because there were signs that were made specifically identifying, like, all of the prime cultural stuff. Whatever happened to that idea? And I noticed, well, we used to have and called out on people from the mainland taking it.

And I remember going to Orange County one day and visited a relative of mine and I found our sign in somebody's yard. So they stole the sign and because I guess they were from Hawaii. So can you check later to and share?

We did have a beautiful program and there are still some available that you rarely see anymore. But I'm not sure if it was paid by NHTA was informed then. So. And my history with being in the visitor industry dated back from 67 to 87. So, you know, 20 years. So it. It's something during that decade.

And there, there were beautiful signs and it. It is perfectly what I think.

Just a sec.

Yeah.

Unless you. Then. Yeah, I go take a quick break.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, we're in for a recess anyway. Yeah. Okay.

We're gonna take a quick recess for just three minute break.

Good afternoon. We're reconvening the Committee on Water, Land, Culture and Arts for decision making on our 1pm agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 224. We had a number of bills, beginning with Senate Bill 2603 relating to the Hawaii Symphony Orchestra.

All right.

Recommendation is to move this forward, but making a couple amendments adopting the AG's amendments, clarifying the depth of history and ties the Symphony has to the state and clarifying its public purpose.

Secondly, including as a purpose in section 3C provision for matching funds, authorizing use of that potential state support as matching funds for the provision of performances open to the public at state facilities, properties, institutions, expanding potential opportunities there, in addition to the free admission for students and assistance with educational programming currently contemplated by the bill.

And then finally, we'll blank out the funding, put it into the community report as it goes on to the Ways and Means Committee. Discussion on that. If not. Vice chair for the vote.

Yes. Chair's recommendation on SB2603 is to pass with amendments. Okay. [Roll Call] Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

All right, thank you very much.

Moving on to Senate Bill 2083 relating to State owned historic properties and inherited lands, which establishes the State Owned Historic Properties Working Group recommendations to move this forward with amendments adopting the DLNR recommendations to include the chair of the Cultural Resources Commission of each county or their designee and chair of the Hawaii Historic Places Review Board.

Secondly, addressing the OHA concerns raised in their testimony about duplication by clarifying in a new section 26 that current property is not always maintained or rehabilitated to best standards reflecting their historic nature or intent and including in the purpose the development of recommendations for how the state should accomplish this to properly maintain and preserve historic properties as well as improvements, design narrative and historic significance of current and future public facilities to better reflect the higher standards for design, maintenance and other considerations reflective of the greater narrative public purpose and importance of public infrastructure which all public facility facilities should exemplify to the people, including consideration of best practices in other states for properties, facilities and landscaping, such as establishing additional architectural positions or architect of the state to help inform project decisions and others.

Will also include a Member from DAGS in the working group, include the chairs of the committees with subject matter jurisdiction over historic preservation from both the Senate and House, and that goes on to the Ways and Means Committee for further consideration. Oh, and defect the date. Any questions on that? All right. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2083 is to pass with amendments with five Members present. Anyone voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Chair, thank you for the next three measures. Senate Bill 2341 relating to historic preservation, which is the phased review discussion we had. SB 2306 relating to administrative fees, and SB 2782 relating to notaries public.

We'd like to defer decision making to Friday, February 13th at the end of our agenda here in this room, Conference Room 224 at the State Capitol. We'd like to take some time to work with stakeholders to see if we can figure out some of the issues that were raised in testimony.

Moving on to Senate Bill 2756 relating to conservation enforcement, which appropriates funds for the purchase of equipment. We'd like to move this forward as is noting that the appropriation in the bill is currently blanked out.

So what we'll do in the Committee report is ask the agency to kind of give us a figure for what is being requested and what that's for as this goes in to the Ways and Means Committee so they can better evaluate the bill. But we'll move it on as is. Any discussion questions, if not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB2756 to pass unamended with five Members present. Anyone voting with reservations. Any no votes? Hearing none. Vice Chair measure is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 2161 relating to land use. This is the Rodeos on AG Lands bill. Again. We'd like to take some time to chat with these stakeholders to work out some of the details as well as the introducer of the bill.

So we'll defer this for decision making to Friday, February 13th at the end of the agenda with the other bills. And the last one on the list is SB 2477 relating to cultural recognition. We'd like to move this forward with amendments.

Amend the bill to have DLNR State Historic Preservation Division partner with State foundation on Culture and the Arts to standardize a design for markers most appropriate for places of historical or cultural significance throughout the state, which shall include a historical narrative explanation or anything else as might be appropriate. And in the and in the.

Sorry, I just lost my train of thought there. Oh, and we'll have SFCA Fund these initial set of markers for Mauna Lua as a first pilot project and will defect the date. Any questions?

Chair's recommendation on SB2477 to pass with amendments with five Member present. Members present. Anyone voting with reservations. And in No votes? Hearing none. Chair measure is adopted.

Thank you. As all the measures on our agenda today. And just to clarify, we're going to have for all those measures that were deferred till Friday the 13th for decision making that'll be here in this room at the end of our agenda after our 1pm hearing. Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Thanks very much, everybody. We're adjourned.