House Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning. I'd like to call to order our House Housing Committee hearing for Wednesday, February 4th. We are on our 9am agenda and it's currently 9:04am and we're in the conference room. For. Before we dive into the agenda, a couple housekeeping notes we will to ensure that as many people as possible can testify.

We'll have a two minute time limit per testifier and because morning Committee hearings must adjourn prior to the noon floor session, it's possible that not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify in that event. Please know that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee.

We've got 11 bails today and I'm pretty confident that we're going to be able to get through all the testimony. If you are on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. After your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with technical staff only.

Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making in that case and an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. And lastly, just want to encourage everybody to Members of the Committee and Members of the public. I know that housing, we are all very passionate about housing. Sometimes we can be talking about contentious issues when we're talking about housing.

So I just encourage everybody on all sides to remain, you know, communicate your enthusiasm and your passion for the issue while remaining respectful on all sides. And then that said, I'm really excited for our first Housing Committee of the year.

I am Luke Evslin, we have Vice Chair Tyson Miyake, we have Representative Chris Muraoka here and I'm sure we'll have many other Members of the Committee showing up here as the morning progresses. Thank you all for being here and engaging in the process.

With that all said, we will jump into the very first item on our agenda, which is HB 1721 relating to housing. This book clarifies insurance identification and certain certificate of occupancy requirements for purposes of expedited permits. Vice Chair for the testimony.

First up, we got American Council of Engineering Companies in support Zoom.

She's there. If not, I'm here.

Oh, Sandy, do you want to testify on their behalf?

Pressing onto the link. So, Sandy Wong, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies, as you all know, this body or the Legislature passed Act 295 last session, which we fully support. However, in reviewing the Bill, we saw that there were some issues in regards to insurance for design professionals.

So this Bill addresses those issues and by correcting those insurance issues, it will encourage design professionals to participate more in the program and hopefully make the program a success. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we got Grassroot Institute, Ted Kefalas in support.

Aloha Ted Kefalas Grassroots Institute. We stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. We got individual Janice Marsters in support on Zoom.

Yes, hello. Thank you. I also represent the American Council of Engineering Companies. You have our testimony and my personal testimony I wrote.

As a small business in this area and many of or the majority of ACEC Member firms are small businesses and so taking on projects that aren't protected by our insurance is a significant concern and worry for us.

So this Bill, I support this Bill and ACEC supports this Bill to help protect our small business firms and to encourage them to participate in this program. Thank you.

Thank you. We also got two individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1721. Seeing none.

Members, any questions for the testifiers? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 1714 related to housing. This Bill does a number of things including increasing the salary cap of the Executive Director of the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to an amount that does not exceed the governor's salary.

And renames the Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director and increases that position salary cap to 95% of the Executive Director salary. Vice Chair for the testimony.

First up, we got Department of Human Resources Development with comments.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Brenna Hashimoto. I'm the Director of the Department of Human Resources Development. We offered comments on this measure. We do have several concerns with the areas that touch upon human resources. Human Resources is not delegated outside of DHRD.

So to give this agency autonomy in personnel matters would be problematic. We'd also like to point out for the committee's consideration that state employees do not have employment contracts. We have appointments and especially for exempt hires, they're considered at will.

So it would be problematic for these two agencies to enter into employment contracts that would possibly conflict with our human resources policies and those benefits that are provided for in other statutes as well. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we got HHFDC, Dean Minakami in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice chair, Committee Members. Good to be here at the first housing Committee meeting. We are in strong support of this measure. We appreciate that the Bill increases salaries for the ED and EA. Just in case you're wondering though, our salaries are not close to the maximum.

That is right now because an operating budget increase would have to be implemented for our first to be paid the current ceiling. But what's very important to us is having more autonomy in personnel matters.

Current state regulations that restrict, for example, merit increases in salary makes it very hard for us to retain employees and that really restricts our ability for succession planning. So that is very important to us. So thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Next up we got Hawaii Public Housing Authority Ben park with comments.

Morning Chair Evslin, Vice Chair Miyake, Members. My name is Ben Park. I'm with the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. You have a written testimony in front of you. Just wanted to bring up a short point. Hopefully having the same language as in HHFDC section about autonomy and personnel matters. Thank you for your support.

Thank you. We also got Robert Hall from HPHA Board in opposition and one individual in opposition. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1714. Seeing none Chair.

Members have questions. Vice Chair Miyake.

For Brenna, please. Thank you for being here. Brenna, in your testimony you stated that no Department or agency should be permitted to exercise autonomous personnel authority. How does HPHA get by that portion of that?

Well, it's somewhat unclear in the measure itself to what extent they're allowed to be autonomous. We obviously have personnel policies that cover most every condition of employment related to state employees. We also obviously operate under the framework of collective bargaining. So there is not a lot of autonomy. We do have delegation.

I think the Executive Director mentioned about having flexibility and compensation. We have a number of policies which allow departments and agencies to provide, for example, performance incentives. They have not availed themselves of that opportunity to set up a performance incentive structure which I think would probably be beneficial in their case.

I did have a chance to look at their salaries and they're very competitive. They're actually in the middle of the range in terms of comparability with civil service salaries. So I don't believe that they're under compensated, but a performance bonus would be something that's already available to them.

We have a number of other pay programs, but I'd like to point out their employees are largely exempt from civil service. So there's already within our policy framework a lot of flexibility in terms of compensation for that. But once a salary is set by statute only the Governor has authority to negotiate pay adjustments for collective bargaining.

And only the Governor has authority to issue Executive orders which adjust pay for excluded and acceptable. So they need to operate within that framework. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I have one follow up question. You mentioned in your oral testimony, but I don't think I see it in written. The concerns around the employment contract, the two-year employment contract. And as I believe you said, there are no employment contracts currently in the state and exempt personnel are at will.

Yes.

So currently if we're trying to recruit for an exempt position, there isn't even like any like informal employment. Like there's no duration of their term essentially, typically.

So we refer to it as an appointment. So we, we hire you, we give you an appointment with a not to exceed date. And typically for exempt employees. Employees, they all have to have a temporary date. If you're a cabinet member, it's typically for up to four years. Right. The duration of the governor's appointment. Appointment.

But if it's not, then it's usually one year. We do allow programs to do two years. As long as that position is funded, it's in the budget. They can do a two year appointment. But all exempt appointments have to have an end date or a not to exceed date.

That doesn't mean that they can't be terminated earlier because like I said, they're at will. So they. We are policy, we try to humanely provide them at least 10 days notice if for some Un percene reason they need to be discharged. But technically there's no requirement for notice. They're at will. Strictly.

Okay, thank you. And you. So you did mention in the written testimony the Bill authorizes HHFDC to employee exempt personnel and to an intern to employment contracts up to two years. And then you stated your concerns around giving them broader authority. And then at the end you said you respectfully request that the amendments discussed above be stricken.

When you say that, are you referring also to the two year contract amendment?

Yes, to the issues around the contract and the reference to employment contracts. Because we don't do that. And then just the General personnel autonomy is problematic. Those two areas.

I appreciate that, thank you.

I have a follow up question.

Oh, Representative Muraoka

Just for clarification, you said. That current Director and Executive are on the middle of the pay scale.

No, I was actually referring to the staff.

The staff. Okay. Okay. And you said there are already bonus incentives in there. Does that also apply to the Director?

So we have a policy, a DHRD policy which allows any state agency to set up a performance incentive plan so they could set up, you know, provide some kind of metrics whether they, how are they going to assess what good or exceptional performance looks like and then incentivize that monetarily.

So it's up to any agency to use that policy if they think that would be a good recruitment and retention tool for their employees.

Would you agree that that might be a good idea for the Director and the Executive Director as well? Instead of just giving them salary cap increases, performance based bonus type of.

They could. So our the Executive order which Governor Green issues periodically when we contract negotiations does have some flexibility for certain positions to be given additional increases.

Usually for most exempt employees, their pay adjustments fall in line with what we give collective bargaining and but there is a little bit of flexibility there that that could be employed as well.

Okay, thank you Members. Further, Rep Muraoka.

For no for HHFDC. Hey Dean, how's it going? Dean, help me understand why we would want to cap employment contracts at two years. In the spirit of continuity and to keep things rolling. Why would we want to limit it to two years?

I'll just state that right now I don't have an employment contract. I am hired at will.

So I can see first for the intent of this legislation was to promote some continuity in the position so that there wouldn't be a sudden change in leadership that the board would be comfortable that they're appointing someone who will be in the position for longer term.

Dean, just if you don't mind, how long have you been in your current position?

About three years.

And Dean, as somebody who's grilled you before in my office, I really appreciate you and I like what you're doing and I think that you've been there because of performance based.

So maybe somebody's language can possibly be changed to performance based instead of putting a limit on it. Because you're obviously doing a pretty good job, you know, with the struggles that we currently have. And you're still there and you're still working through it.

Like I said, you and I have had our little back and forth, but I really like your answers to a lot of the things. And so I support performance based. Instead of something like a cap, we.

Would also support performance based increases. But again the issue is that we don't have the operating budget to pay a performance based increase.

So maybe we should think about putting money to the program instead of the directors. That way we could keep good people on.

If I can explain about the staff level, about how we recruit staff and compensate them. You know, we take more of a private sector approach where we'll bring someone in at a lower salary, have them prove themselves and then adjust their salary based on the performance.

In the past couple of years we've been blocked for we bring someone at a lower salary, they're great employees, but for one reason or another, increase is denied. That creates a real problem for us where we're losing good employees because we can't compensate them for ourselves. Again, this is why we're asking for autonomy in personnel matters.

Thank you Dean. Members, any further questions? Seeing next item on the agenda is HB 1718 related to housing.

This repeals the sunset date of Act 45, thereby making permanent the authority of the counties to share and facilitate the development, construction, financing, refinancing or other provision of mixed use developments, including low and moderate income housing projects and issue county bonds for this purpose. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Appreciate it. First up we got OPSD Mary Alice Evans in support.

OPSD stands on its written testimony in support.

HHFDC Dean Minakami in support.

We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Department of Housing and Land Management, City And County of Honolulu.

We stand on our testimony in support. Happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Housing Hawaii's future in support.

We stand on our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1718.

Members, any questions? Gavin, I have a quick question for you. Good morning. It is in your testimony and it's pretty clear you got folks testimony. But could you just like in a quick nutshell, explain to the Committee why this is so important for you folks to secure bond financing?

Sure, yeah. For the record, Gavin Thornton, Housing Policy Director at the City and County of Honolulu within the Department of Housing and Land Management, Department of Housing and Land Management was just officially launched July 1st of last year. It revives the ability for the city and county to be able to do intensive housing development.

And it's important that we do mixed use development. We don't want to be building just public housing projects. We want to be building vibrant projects that include both retail other uses along with residential. Without this Bill, without this statute and the continuation of it, we just won't be able to do that.

So right now we have a big push around transit oriented development, particularly around Evolet and the station there and looking to just make the best use of those city properties around those stations as we can.

Thanks, Gavin. And so my understanding was when we passed Act 45 in 2024, we clarified the Legislature clarified that the counties could pursue mixed-use developments, but by putting the sunset on there, that would essentially make it very difficult to impossible to finance those developments, as nobody's going to vote on for a temporary authority to a county. Is that understandable?

That's accurate. That's accurate. It takes a long time to do development and bring in more time.

Thank you very much Members for the questions. Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 1732 related to housing. This establishes the compliant homes program within the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to provide funding to the counties to purchase voluntary deed restrictions from eligible buyers. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Department of Taxation with comments.

Department of Taxation stands on our testimony and comments.

Thank you HHFDC Dean Minakami in support.

We stand our testimony and support but upon closer reading of the Bill we think that our comment number 1 would lean to properties holding revocable living trust may not be applicable.

Thank you AARP Hawaii Keali'i Lopez in support.

Hello and good morning everyone. I'm Keali'i Lopez, State Director for AARP Hawaii. You have our testimony. I just wanted to reinforce the importance of the legislation. If you don't know, Hawaii is one of the fastest aging states in the country.

But important to that really is many of our kupuna want to be able to age in place meaning in their own homes. And the best way and the way that most frequently occurs is family members who care for them.

If more and more of our young workforce families leave Hawaii, it diminishes the ability for families to stay together care for one another. And we believe that Kamaina Homes is a step in the right direction to get to enable more of our family residents to be able to stay in Hawaii and care for one another. Thank you.

Thank you Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Tom Yamachika with comments on zoom.

Aloha, this is Colleen with Tax Foundation of Hawaii, on behalf of our President Tom Yamachika, in another hearing, the Tax foundation of Hawaii stands on its comments. Mahalo.

Thank you, Hawaii Realtors, Lindsay Garcia with comments.

Aloha Chair or Vice Chair we stand our comments.

Thank you. Holomua Collaborative Map in support.

Aloha Mai Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Matt Prellberg on behalf of Holomua Collaborative a local nonprofit founded with the purpose of advocating for policies that will help keep local families in Hawaii by making sure that they can afford to stay here.

Every year Holomua does a affordability survey to understand what the financial realities are facing our local working. And this year our survey of 3,200 local working families found that 75% are either planning to or are seriously considering moving.

The largest reason we are finding through our survey that folks are wanting to leave is and the largest factor on their cost of living is the cost of housing right now. And we need to be looking at ways to make sure that local families can stay here.

Hawaii is not going to be a place where people not from here want to stop buying housing. They are going to keep coming here. It's too wonderful of a place. People are going to keep coming.

We constantly are hearing stories of folks in Mililani that are finding that their neighbors are someone using a house as a short term rental or as a vacation home. It's not necessarily in the communities that everyone assumes that folks from out of state are buying homes.

And we need to start making sure we preserve these homes for our local working families. House Bill 1732 is an opportunity to do that by using deed restrictions in a voluntary way to incentivize families to lock up housing for workforce developer for workforce housing. The rest of my testimony explains kind of what the Bill does.

You can see it yourself. But we think that this is an important step to keeping local working families here. And I am available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you Matt. Next we got Locals in my Backyard LIMBY Hawaii in opposition on zoom.

Not present Kapolei Chamber of Commerce in support, Hawaii YIMBY in support, Housing Hawaii's future in support, Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support, Title Guarantee of Hawaii in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1732. Seeing none, Chair. Members, any questions?

Oh Rep Grandinetti.

I don't know quite who to direct it to. Maybe all of them. I think I'm sort of going off of HHFDC's testimony. The third point they make or not the second where they suggest specifying the cost of the deed restriction. What I could see in the Bill is an a cap at 8% of the home's appraised value.

Do you have any idea on like further specifics of what that might look like?

I do not have an idea on further specifics, Representative. Particularly because when we have spoken with folks in other jurisdictions who have implemented similar programs, one of the things that they find as a very beneficial aspect of the program and what makes it work is the fact that there isn't set amounts.

Because the whole point of this is that the counties will enter into a negotiation with the potential home buyers and in that negotiation state may be able to save and the counties may be able to save some money and the actual valuation of what's happening at each property is going to be a little bit different.

So that's why we like a cap on it rather than having a specified number.

Can I ask, can you share a little bit about why the deed restriction is sort of limited to residency? And I'm asking because, like, I work a lot with community land trusts who buy deed restrictions, and part of that is residency and also resale restrictions, like an appreciation cap on further resale.

And I'm curious about why this program doesn't include something like that.

So I can say that this program the primary focus because there are constitutional concerns depending on how you are looking at residency and looping residency into this.

So the main focus and what we've seen in other jurisdictions and what this Bill does is rather a focus on workforce and it's workforce preservation when it comes to resale restrictions, appreciation restrictions. That's just something that the. A lot of the other jurisdictions that have similar programs have not incorporated.

I recognize that it is an important component of the landing or the land trust model. But then that just becomes, I guess, a little bit of a philosophical question of using homes for generational wealth and what the intent would be on that.

Okay.

Did that answer your question?

It did answer it. It did. I guess I just am curious about sort of balancing public benefit and private benefit when we're investing so much in these homes. But I understand the reasoning. Thank you.

Thank you, Members, further questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 1740 related to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation.

This Bill removes the prohibition against qualified residents for Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation approved projects holding a majority interest in land and removes the requirement that qualified residents demonstrate financial viability or ability to pay rent.

It amends exemptions from statutes, ordinances, charter provisions and rules for certain housing projects developed by the corporation that satisfy certain conditions, including requirements related to employment, owner occupancy and deed restrictions.

And I'll actually just give a quick explainer for this because it's a little confusing, right, that currently 201H has one traditional pathway for development where you can be exempt from zoning regulations if 50% plus one of the units are affordable.

Two years ago, the Legislature created a second an alternative pathway where 100% of the units had to go to qualified residents for the life of the project, meaning essentially owner occupied for the life of the project with no income restrictions.

This is modifying that second pathway to just be 80% of the units would have to be qualified residents but it would give more flexibility to those qualified residents to long term rent unit instead of owner occupancy again for the lifetime of the project. For Vice Chair for the testimony.

HHFDC Dean Minakami in support

We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you Hawaii Appleseed Arjuna Heim in support Holomua Collaborative in support.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Matt Prellberg Holomua Collaborative I already told you what I do and where we exist so I won't say it again to save some time. Holomua Collaborative stands in strong support of this Bill. You have our written testimony and there isn't too much more I'll add to it.

Just really want to focus on the fact that in conjunction with the previous Bill this Bill is how we can help build deed restricted housing for local families at scale by incentivizing developers to for the life of the project be building these in perpetuity for local occupancy. We're going to really keep homes in our local family's hands.

One thing I want to bring up that I don't think we addressed in my testimony so I apologize apologize for that is part of the reason our understanding is why it is important that we do change this and why the we need to step away from the current 100% is that the program passed two years ago.

There have been zero developments and I believe even zero applicants in that program. We have spoken with a variety of developers who do suggest that they can make projects pencil for 80% of the homes being part of this program and that's why this is going to be important. Available for other questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you Matt Hawaii YIMBY in support Housing Hawaii's future in support Kashi Group in support AIO Family of Companies in support AARP Hawaii in support. Tia Pearson in support.

Not present and four other individuals in support. Anyone else wishing to testify online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1740. Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Rep Grandinetti.

I think for HHFDC. I'm trying to organize my thoughts. Okay, why 20, 20%? It seems like a high allowance because according to the 2024 Housing Planning Study, like here in Honolulu, 17.4% of new home purchases were out of state. So that's less than 20%.

And then on other islands it's higher, but the sales price differential is also much higher. So is it, I mean, are we setting a threshold that's already what the market is doing? Is it just impossible to build, sort of like more for local people than what the market naturally already does?

I think that this measure tries to address, you know, tries to promote development of workforce housing. There is the alternate pathway now which requires 100% of units basically to be to qualified residents, owner occupied. It's been on the books for about two years now. No one's using it.

And that's because we're hearing feedback from developers that for most workforce housing projects they rely on a portion to be sold to investors to meet their sales requirements. And so allowing 20% seemed like a reasonable amount where 80% still have to be owner occupied, but 20% can be purchased by investors.

Okay. It's frustrating. Yeah, I guess that's my own.

I have a follow up question. So we talked a bit about the alternative path on the 80%.

Could you elaborate a little bit on the current restrictions right now in the definition of qualified resident and how that restricts somebody from say, you know, maybe they purchase a studio as a single person and they have a family and they want to move into a one or two bedroom unit and how the current definition would, would restrict that and also maybe restrict moving up the housing ladder and building equity.

Right now, a qualified resident is someone who does not own real property, basically. So if you purchased a studio in an HHFDC project, basically you couldn't move up into another HHFDC, say a two bedroom unit, after you got married, had kids, and had to needed a larger unit size.

There are exemptions to that where if you sell your unit and you're moving because of the change in household size, then you can do so, but you must sell your unit first. So in practical terms that's very hard to do to sell your unit while simultaneously move into a new one. So it rarely happens.

So the intent also is to allow people to move up the housing ladder so the people's needs change over their lifetime. So if they are in a studio unit, this Bill would allow them to purchase a larger unit, you know, when their needs change.

Thank you, Rep. Muraoka.

Just to follow up with that, Dean, because you kind of talked, you kind of touched a little bit on a big heartburn I have out there in Waianae with Uluve. So, how would this protect a situation like the Ulu Vehi?

When you and I are working on if they're trying to sell their property and the property is in for sale pending and then they move into the new one, what guarantees are there that you still have to hold them to force the sale rather than them changing their mind and saying, okay, we got into the new one, we're still gonna hang on to the old one.

Obviously, you know, that's what's happening in Wainai.

Basically we would, we could foreclose on the old property. That's how we enforce our current restrictions and that is effective.

All right, thank you, Dean.

Members, further questions, thank you, seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 1777 related to housing.

This requires developers developing a housing project under the HHFDC to assist certain tenants who are subject to displacement or eviction by the proposed project by granting those tenants the right of first offer of unit in the housing project and providing replacement housing payments, providing information either directly or through a contracted service on how to obtain assistance and exercise the right of first offer and establishing procedures to track and maintain communication with those tenants and establishes consequences for developers non compliance. Vice Chair for the testimony.

HHFDC in support.

We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Parents and Children Together in support here.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee, My name is Tricia Kajimura. With Parents and Children Together or PACT. PACT is a social services agency that serves about 18,000 people a year statewide. But we were founded in public housing by residents of public housing at Kuhio Park Terrace.

And we're still there operating Head Start, Early Head Start, a youth drop in center and a family and Economic Opportunity center. So we've worked with current residents who have struggled through the first phase of low rise redevelopment here.

And this Bill we're in support of because we know that it can help residents in future phases as well as those in other public housing developments that are going to come up for redevelopment. So we ask for your support on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Maui Housing Hui in support. Hawaii Apple Seed in support. Hawaii Workers Center in support. Adult Friends for Youth in support. Medical Legal Partnership for children in Hawaii in support.

Good morning. My Name is Dina Shek. I'm with the Medical Legal Partnership for Children in Hawaii. We provide free direct legal services on site at Kukua Kalihi Valley Health center, which is located just a couple blocks up from KPT housing, a few blocks down from Campore Housing.

So we've witnessed a lot of the challenges that happen without enforcement and accountability during redevelopment. I did submit written testimony, so I stand by that testimony and I want to just thank the Committee for hearing this.

And I just also want to note that there are a few people from Members from the Kalihi community, including two people who are impacted by the KPT Low Rise Phase 2 redevelopment. So I just wanted to make note of that. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hawaii YIMBY in support. LIMBY Hawaii in support. AARP Hawaii in support.

Aloha again. Keali'i Lopez with AARP. AARP stands in strong support of this of HB7 177. One of the things that I think is especially really great about the piece of legislation is really the first right for residents to be able to come back to a project after it's been completed.

And again, ideally because they've been, you know, previously were there be able to maintain the community that they developed over the years. So being able to have that opportunity, I think is critical to retain.

The thing that's important there, I think is that preserving these community ties support people aging in place and that's again, what a lot of older adults want. I include in my testimony some data related to a study that we had done. Again, this Bill deals with both, right, the redevelopment of existing projects.

But I also want to make sure we focus on the fact that there are projects that, that have affordability expirations that occur and should those not be adjust or changed, all the folks who live in those, those, those units, if they can't afford the new rent, are going to have to be relocated.

And this program definitely helps address that. In my testimony I talk about the fact that by 2040 to 45, we'll lose at least 5,000 of those affordable units. If again, nothing, nothing changes. At least over half of that will occur by 2030 and 2035. Thank you.

Thank you. We also got three individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1777. And just please state your name for the record.

Yes, thank you. My name is Rona Mangayayam. For the past six years and counting, I have the joy of working with Kalihi Youth and Families as the Youth Services Director of Kokua Kalihi Valley.

I have witnessed and participated in many of their joys and challenges, including holding spaces for those who were displaced in the first phase of the KPT redevelopment. About a month ago, a former participant in one of our youth program reached out to us. If he can come back and volunteer in our program.

He just graduated in high school last May at Farrington and he and his family are one of those who were displaced in the first phase of redevelopment. They now live in Ewa Beach.

When I asked why he would like to come back, he said because I would also like to give back to younger youth what I had when I was in the program and while I was trying to figure out my path moving forward. This is my community and this is where I have my connection here in Kalihi.

I have no connection in Ewebeach. And he's now in his third week volunteering three times a week. Recently I had a conversation with him and asked what are those that you are looking forward to? And his first answer was returning back home here in Kalihi. I was born and raised at Low Rise KPT.

We respect each other, have beautiful memories and we help each other. That is why I came here to volunteer, to give me a sense of who I am as of now. My older sister work here in Kalihi.

My younger sister goes to Farrington and we all must ride together and go back together because we only have one car if we live in Kalihi. I could just walk here. My sister could just go walk to their work too. My younger sister decided to stay at Farrington because she is one.

She is in one of the academies and she does not want to give that up. Her friends are all here too. He further shared that his cousin who was also displaced to Ewa Beach decided to transfer at Camp Bell and is now struggling to make connections and build a support group for herself.

This is just one youth among the many who are displaced. One middle school student whose family was moved to Halawa choose also to continue to come back and go to one of the middle school in Kalihi because he said this is where his relationship relationships are and he has a program after school to come.

He said, when other people now ask me at school where I come from and where I live, I'm not sure what to answer because my heart is still in Kalihi but I now sleep in Halawa.

I felt like I had lost my identity and I'm not sure now I would ask you to please pass this Bill and yes, to give the tenants the right to return. But to many youth and families. It is about returning home, reclaiming their lost identity and to give them a future with hope. So thank you.

Thank you, Rona. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1777?

Aloha. I said I wasn't gonna testify, but I couldn't keep it to myself. Good morning. My name is Auntie June. There's nothing that I can't tell you that you don't know already about our situation. All I want to say is as an encouragement, please remember what shall separate you from the love of your people.

Remember us because we have a lot of developers coming on our island and I heard the news last night about this young wahinee that I guess it's St. Louis that is selling the property and she tried to look for a place to live and even a one or two bedroom was 2000 and she just can't afford it.

And so they gave her the option that they'll give her 4,000 and maybe moving to Vegas. But we don't want to do that. As Kelly said, we need our people to stay here to help take care of our grandma. I'm almost at the age of passing 70 already. I need my kids for helping me.

I want to help them and they move off land. Hello. Care homes are good, but they're not as good as if your own ohana take care of you. Maybe for in some cases, but in my cases I like my own grandkids. My own kids take care of me. So all I'm asking you is to please stay encouraged.

What shall separate you from the love for your people on the island? That's all. Love you all. Pray for you. Pray for me. Thank you. Thank you everybody.

Anyone else online? Evan? Oh I'm sorry.

Age before beauty.

Hi, my name is Linda Tomadiko and I am a resident of Kuhiopak Terrace low rise. So one of my concerns is the redevelopment that has taken place there. Yeah, we want to know the timeline because we've been given two, three, two years. Three years. And now we heard five years.

Another thing I want to know is when is our site going to have, you know they're going to start to demolish it. The reason why I asked is because the housing, the. Sorry, the management property that's on the property, they already demolished the cement so we can't walk in the front to go to the housing office.

We have to go in the back by the maintenance in order to get to check our mail. We have to call them and let them know that we're coming in. I don't have anything against the redevelopment, but my.

I would rather have Oahu contractors do the contracting for housing on the island of Oahu instead of us bringing in mainland redevelopment. You know, better to give people here the job instead of, you know, inviting others from outside, giving them the priority to make money. Why not give it to our island people?

Also another thing is I have concerns for the people that they will be able to return because a lot of them right now, they're so discouraged because the time waiting period for this redevelopment. So my thing is that we fought for this law last year and we lost by one count.

So we're standing again because we're standing not only for Kuhi Bak Terrace, but all the housings throughout the island of Oahu. There's a lot of people that have a lot of concerns about the redevelopment and we just want to be treated fairly. Yeah, we want to be treated like, you know, people who live in Hawaii. Kai.

We don't want to be looked down because we live in public housing. A lot of good people come from public housing. So what we're asking is that you would consider giving us a chance, you know, and bring it to the board, bring it to the Governor.

I've been trying for all last year, six months, trying to get a meeting with him. Each time was declined because he was busy. So we're just asking to give us a chance, you know, and to give, you know, the island people a chance to make it better here on this island of Oahu.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Linda. Anyone else? Evan, thank you for your patience.

Morning, Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee. Evan Oue, on behalf of NAOIP Hawaii, you know, apologies for our late testimony on this one. We did just want to provide a few comments of note, just two main points.

I think we just want to ensure that where there is already state and federal assistance, we just don't want to have too much of an overlap because we're worried about costs that could be incurred.

And secondly, the amount of 3 months full rent for displacement, we are worried about that creating, you know, cost challenges and potentially creating headwinds for those trying to re enter into the project.

So, you know, we just wanted to note those and, you know, just, you know, if we, you know, provide a recommendation or is to provide clarifying language that does ensure that where there is state and federal assistance already, that those projects will be exempt from this and then the second would likely be if we could use rent differential as a Metric for the three months rather than.

The four months rent. You know, those are just a few recommendations but we do appreciate the intent of the Bill and we look forward to working together on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify seeing none Chair

Members, any questions. Rep Grandinetti.

For Evan.

Good morning Rep.

I just want. Good morning. I was just wondering if you could elaborate on sort of the reasoning behind the rent differential versus a payment equivalent to 3 months rent at 60% of applicable AMI.

And the reason I'm asking is because I actually think I saw the same news report as anti tenants a couple blocks down from my house are being displaced from properties by Iolani School. It's not, it wouldn't fall under this measure. It's not a 201H project. They're expanding Lolani School.

But the tenants are being paid 4,000, a payment of up to $4,000. The folks they interviewed said they're paying 1,200 month. So that's actually a little more than three months rent. And a similar story at Kapiolani Village apartments where folks were displaced and received a payment of equivalent to three months of their rent.

So if developers are already doing this, why sort of lower the bar to a rent differential which I think would be significantly less than that.

Right. Thank you so much for the question. And you know, we were looking at, you know, ways that we could find a policy middle ground of some sort. And you know, rent differential right now is a current metric utilized by HHFDC when in their displacement program.

So we feel as though to apply that across the board would be, you know, fair in that instance. You know, I think the duration could be something in order to kind of, you know, see if we could work on what the potential cost impacts could be.

But the rent differential was a metric that we pulled more from existing state displacement subsidies. So that's kind of where we were coming from.

And you know, I do acknowledge, you know, I saw the article as well this morning and I think that was, I think those are because it's not, you know, a state project and we're looking at housing, not an expansion of the school. It's maybe a slightly little bit different.

And I know that this Bill does offer, you know, re entry right of re entry and refresh refusal. So I think there's a little bit of a distinction. But that's, you know, the main difference when we are recommending rent differential is mainly based on existing dispensary programs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just want to touch real quick. Kind of on the same topic as Rep Grandinetti. You know, when it comes to the rent differentials and helping displaced people and I don't mean to categorize, but you know, I did see the Iolani one as well, but then when we're talking about public housing, it's different. Yeah.

Because the ones in near Iolani, they're already paying fair market values for rent and whatnot versus when we add the housings or the public housing, we pay one significantly different. So they take a really bigger punch.

When they have to be relocated because they don't necessarily have I grew up in that same type of situation, so I know that when you have to relocate someone that's coming from a housing situation, they don't necessarily have that first month, last month's deposit that's required in the fair market side.

And then, you know, a lot of them are paying a capped rent coming from housing. Now we got to go into the open market. That's a significant blow. So maybe with that differential we can have tiers that if just a suggestion that I really, really like everyone to consider.

You know, when we talk about displacement and we use vague terms like 60% of AMI, a lot of these people already on fixed incomes paying the subsidized rent. So we cannot use that same thing across the board.

No. Thanks so much, Rep. And you know, I think we'd definitely be open to considering other options, you know, and I do know that some of our state housing projects do receive federal assistance as well. So, you know, just trying to find a balance. Yeah. So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Members for the questions. Question for Dean, This probably isn't easy to answer in a nutshell, but could you give us like a brief overview of like what federal requirements apply to which projects and sort of where this seems to be filling maybe a gap that's falling through the cracks that don't have requirements applied to it.

So so just sort of walk us through the landscape of when there's requirements and when there's not currently.

Just generally if a project is using federal funding, such as for Kuyo Park Terrace project where they are using Federal funding, it's also a public housing project. So that triggers the federal requirements for relocation. That's a relocation plan. Whereas many other projects which are not public housing projects, they don't have, say, a HUD funding component.

They might just be using, say, tax credits and state funding. That would not trigger a federal requirement for relocation plan.

Just to clarify, projects don't have, I.

Think by itself the federal tax credits by itself do not trigger relocation.

Okay. And then I think we kind of touched on it, but I'm a little confused on the differential and how it's applied to federal projects. So currently, if there is federal funding, say for a HUD project, then it is just a differential for the rent payment or are they paying the full rent for relocation?

I'm not sure of the different types of. There are different types of assistance depending on the duration of the displacement. Basically, they do have to find comparable unit for a period of time.

Okay. And as I understand it, I think one of NAIOP's concerns is possible duplication or overlap. There is language in the Bill that says essentially, provided that for federal projects, the federal regulations that offer greater protections to tenants shall control.

Nothing in the subparagraph shall be construed to confer less protection to displace or evicted tenants than that which is currently available under federal or state law, regulations or rules. So my interpretation of that is, as you said, maybe there's a gradient in federal relief and maybe sometimes that federal relief might be more than is offered here.

So in that case, the federal protections would apply. If the federal protections are less than what applies here, then this would apply. But there wouldn't be sort of a duplication or overlap of benefits. Right. It's either one or the other. Is that the case?

That is the intent, the one or the other, not both.

Okay. Yeah. Rep Grandinetti.

To sort of complete that picture of that landscape, I think the rent differential might also be referring to admin rules around relocation or replacement housing payments. What is it under Admin Rules 17-2017. Can you explain when that is triggered?

Oh is that for the state displacement? So those rules are triggered when a state project. So if HHFDC were to undertake a project itself on that occupied by business or by tenants, then we must provide relocation payments.

So any state agency or county entity that displaces business or households must provide relocation payments pursuant to those admin roles.

And that is a differential statement?

Yes, I believe so. It is a differential.

And then. Sorry. So then in this case with this Bill. Would that change the state's relocation policy?

No, this would not affect the state because we would have. We would need to abide by the admin rule requirements which are more onerous than what is being proposed.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Members, further questions? Seeing none. Next item on our agenda is HB 1842, relating to government. This amends Act 289 session laws of Hawaii 2025 to replace the senior residents at Iwilei parcel with the Westridge parcel. Change the transfer date for the Aliʻi Tower parcel to 12-31-2026. Change the deadline for approval by the City and County of Honolulu to 12-31-2027. And changes the repeal date to January 1, 2028. Vice Chair for the testimony.

DLNR, Lauren Yasaka, in opposition.

Hi, good morning. The department stands on our testimony.

Thank you. DLNR, Barry Cheung, in opposition.

Barry's here to answer any questions you may have.

Oh, okay. Thank you. OPSD, Mary Alice Evans, in support. Or Seiji. Sorry.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Office of Planning is in support of this measure. It aligns state land assets with county transit oriented development goals. But this morning I had a chance to read DLNR's testimonies. I think it's kind of important to take that into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. And Department of Accounting and General Services in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1842? Seeing none.

Members, any questions? Question for DLNR.

Hi, good morning. Lauren Yasaka, Acting Administrator for the Land Division. And Barry Cheung is our Oahu District Land Agent. He's online.

He's online. Okay, so I'll ask the questions to you, but if you want to chime in. Could you just walk us through what this does and who owns what? I have an understanding, but I think, you know, it's not clear in the bill sort of why this is occurring. And I think you know the history of these parcels better and where they're located.

Okay, so who's familiar with Aiea, Pearlridge, across the street, the Tony Roma's, KFC. That area, that's the Westridge Parcel.

You're the second person asking that question in the last 24 hours, and I am not familiar at all.

Okay, so this is kind of like a two story strip mall that's located in what we call the Pearlridge Aiea area. It's a revenue generator for the department. We have what's called a Special Land Development Fund. And the revenues from our leases and our permits and our easements and all of that go into the SLDF.

The SLDF is very important for our department, not just the division. It sponsors or it funds a lot of our programs. It actually funds the complete operations of our division, as well as the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, the Dam Safety Branch, and the Engineering Division.

And right now what I would like to say is we're in a transitional period. I think at Land Division, we lost a lot of leadership and we're kind of turning over a new leaf. And I feel like we're trying to focus on proactive land management with all of the unencumbered lands.

And the SLDF will become increasingly important so that we can manage those lands without having to come to you folks for an ink for a General Fund request or, you know, large funds like that. We can hopefully use the money that we generate to fund our projects.

Okay. And sorry. So this though would transfer the Westridge parcel...

So this would transfer this to the account. So what happened last year was that... So I guess the one comment that the city had was that they would be, there was no revenue generation for them. So I guess somebody just decided that maybe switching these two parcels. So the Iwilei senior for our Westridge was a good idea. However, I don't think anybody realized what that meant for us.

Okay. So sorry. So the current swap with the county is giving Iwilei for Aliʻi Tower. And this would just give Westridge for Aliʻi tower.

Oh, yeah, yeah. So basically we're gonna give... So what this proposes is it gives all those parcels listed to the county in exchange for Aliʻi Tower. Yeah, but I don't believe that Aliʻi Tower would be under our jurisdiction though.

Under DLNR's jurisdiction.

Correct. So we would not be getting any revenue from this on the switch.

Okay. And so my understanding though is that the state could utilize Aliʻi Tower for a number of office for office space.

That is my understanding. Yes.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Question for Seiji. Recognizing that you added a caveat in there, that you respect the DLNR's testimony or just to listen to their testimony, you did mention TOD opportunities. So maybe just at a high level, explain to us what the TOD opportunities you see here with the transfer could be.

So it's right next to the station. So it's a great opportunity for higher density development in that area.

The Westridge parcel?

Yes. But again, it is DLNR Land and you should respect their comments.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Rep Muraoka.

So you said this current property funds a lot of your programs.

It's our fourth highest income generating property.

What's the. You guys, do you guys envision bringing in the same amount of money after the swap?

We completely would lose that. That revenue source. So we wouldn't be able to make that up with our current properties currently. I mean, we do have some projects in the works. However, we don't expect those to come online anytime soon to make up for almost a half a million dollar loss to the Fund.

So. Okay, I'm sorry, I might be mistaken. So you're in opposition of this. Correct. Okay, okay. Never mind that. I thought I heard you say you supported it, so you can see where I was confused. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Members, any further questions? All right, seeing none. Next item on the agenda, HB 1919, related to development standards. Beginning July 1, 2027, prohibits counties from imposing minimum parking mandates for certain developments. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Leah Laramee of the State Climate Change Commission. We stand on our testimony in support. Mahalo.

Thank you. OPSD in support. Thank you. Department of Planning and Permitting with comments. Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support. Hawaii Realtors in support. Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Ulupono Initiative in support. Hawaii YIMBY in support. Housing Hawaii's Future in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Perry, Perry Arrasmith. I'm the Director of Policy at Housing Hawaii's Future. I just want to build on our written testimony to emphasize that House Bill 1919, along with House Bill 1701, both of these measures are fundamentally speaking about flexibility.

Flexibility for renters, flexibility for homeowners, flexibility for home builders. This measure currently targets arbitrary parking requirements that ignore resident needs and inadvertently drive up housing costs in the process. A single unnecessary parking stall in a project can cost about $68,000 on average. That cost is borne by homeowners. It's borne by renters, and it ignores their needs.

And different people, depending on where they are in their lives, they have different needs. I'm from Waipahu. My household has 3, 4, 5 cars at any given moment. I don't really know how many cars we have. But this measure does not target households like mine. It's focused on the future, and that's why we strongly support it at Housing Hawaii's Future. We urge you to advance this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. We're in strong support of HB 1919. This bill does something very simple. It just stops the government from forcing people to build parking they don't need. Like Perry mentioned, this is all about flexibility. Minimum parking mandates, they just drive up housing costs.

So every stall costs money. Perry referenced the 68,000. And those costs don't disappear, right? They show up in higher rents, they show up in higher home prices. I'm not going to go through all the numbers, but the research clearly shows this to be true.

And when cities actually reduce or eliminate parking mandates, you have more land that's freed up for housing. You have more money that goes into housing instead of parking. And in a housing crisis, that really matters. You know, we've seen the impact of this in real life.

Just looking back at the terrible wildfires in Lahaina, we actually had the county had to eliminate parking mandates for that area because, without that, you could not rebuild Lahaina the way it was. And part of what made it so special was that it was a walkable community.

It was something that was a vibrant area for everybody to be in. So we do think that it is important to pass this bill and eliminate parking mandates. And if we're serious about addressing this issue, we have to stop mandating costs that just continue to drive up the cost of housing. So mahalo for your consideration and here for any questions.

Thank you. Holomua Collaborative in support.

Holomua Collaborative stands on its written testimony in support.

Thank you, Matt. Hawaii Bicycling League in support. And three individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1919? Seeing none.

Members, any questions? Great. Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 1701, related to parking. Prohibits minimum off street parking requirements for new developments or redevelopment projects located in Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Improvement Program areas. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission in support.

We stand on our testimonies.

Thank you. OPSD in support. Thank you. Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support. Hawaii Realtors in support. Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Hawaii YIMBY in support. Housing Hawaii's Future in support.

We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support.

We'll stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Holomua Collaborative in support.

Stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Hawaii Bicycling League in support. AARP Hawaii in support. And seven individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1701?

Members, any questions? All right, seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 1923, relating to residential housing utilities. Requires county boards of water supply to publicly disclose through its website service connection availability for residential permitting and construction. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Board of Water Supply in opposition. Board of Water Supply, Ernest Lau, in opposition.

Yeah. Okay, we waited for you.

I appreciate that, Representative Muraoka. Chair, good morning. And Members, aloha. Ernie Lau, Manager and Chief Engineer for the Honolulu Board of Water Supply. You know, I just want to acknowledge that, you know, Chair and I and a couple other water managers had the opportunity to sit down and chat about this bill.

So we're continuing that discussion with the Chair. But respectfully, House Bill 1923, we oppose it. And I know there's a mix up in terms of a couple testimonies that we submitted that's posted. Please look at the one that has six items laid out or six points we tried to make on why we oppose the bill.

I have very serious concerns about the bill. So House Bill 1923 proposes to create a new section that requires us county water boards to publish GIS maps referencing availability of water for domestic water service, including very specific, the specifics of any limitations and supporting analysis explaining any deficiency that would disallow a service connection.

Basically getting a water meter. So I'll just go through the points really quickly. You have the written testimony. Number one, water system information. Our infrastructure that provides drinking water to our community is classified as critical infrastructure. So we really don't want to make it widely available in terms of the configuration of the piping systems, water tanks, the wells, the water treatment system.

Because unfortunately there's a lot of bad actors out there that are seeking, not only in the US but across the world, to disrupt and maybe harm people through attacks on the water system. So that critical infrastructure information is very problematic. So number two, this is a concern. You know, Board of Water Supply, we support transparency.

I think, you know, you've seen it in terms of when we go out and increase water rates, we're out in the community a lot. When we update our water master plan, our 30 year plan, infrastructure plan, we're out in the community sharing our information, what we're finding and what we need to do.

We have community advisory groups that advise us, including the Board of Realtors, the Association for Retired, Arc. But my concern is that these generalized maps could mislead the public because water availability determinations are really site specific, down to the location where they're asking to request a water service.

Although supply might be available in the general water system of that area, individual parcels may still have trouble getting water service due to fire requirements at that specific location. And that includes pressure, maybe distance from the fire hydrant, the height of the parcel in relation to our water system.

If it's too high in our water system, it may not have adequate pressures. So static map is really hard to kind of capture all these variables. Number three, conversion of planning information to appealable agency decisions. This really kind of scares me because we are actively working to try to develop capacity and keep our systems able to support, at least on Oahu, the efforts toward building affordable housing. to transit oriented development.

But we have a lot of challenges in developing new water sources, ensuring that our system is adequate to keep pace with the development that's going to occur. But really, if it becomes an agency, if these maps be viewed as an agency decision and subject to the contested case procedures under Chapter 91, I kind of envision we're going to be wrapped up in multiple contested cases, perhaps even going into litigation.

So that really kind of scares me because I have limited staff resources that are out there trying to figure out how much water is available when an inquiry comes in, have them involved and wrapped up in contested case hearings and litigation. Number four, administrative burden and fiscal impact. Really, you know, we're being responsive to our community.

Anybody can ask, anybody on this island can even write a handwritten note, piece of paper, handwritten piece of paper, asking, is water available for my parcel, give the address, tell, maybe give us a little information about, oh, they want to build a second house. And I'll task at no cost to the customer.

We have engineers that will take that request and review it from an engineering standpoint to evaluate the ability of the water system to provide service. And we'll send a letter back to the customer if that's requested. I've seen multiple handwritten notes. We also get formal letters written by design consultants hired by developers doing major developments.

Mr. Lau, real quick. Just to let you know, you exceeded the two minutes. But we want to give you more time because this is important. So please, you know, continue.

I'll try to keep it brief. So we welcome anybody to ask if water is available. They just need to kind of give us an idea how much, what they plan to do with their property. And we'll let them know free of cost water availability. But really we...

Because system conditions can change from the time they ask the question. It could be years before they actually come in and apply for the water meter. In the meantime we can have system conditions that change. And I'll just give an example that was kind of this nightmare that doesn't end right now.

In November of 2021, just after Thanksgiving, we get word that the Navy's water system is contaminated because of the jet fuel from Red Hill fuel tanks, underground fuel tanks. Then we shut down pretty quickly three large wells supplying our system. That changed the conditions within those systems. Things like that can happen even with very little notice.

Liability risk from statutory reliance. Subsection D allows permanent applicants and agencies to rely on the maps. Water system conditions change due to drought, contamination events, equipment failures, updated water system standards, and reliance could expose us, like I said earlier, to potential lawsuits, litigation. Existing processes provide more accurate information.

Again, the free service that we provide to all of our customers. Just got even a handwrite on a piece of paper and send that to me and we'll give you a formal letter letting you know if water is available. We'll always reserve though because conditions in the water system can change that.

You come in for the building permit, that's when the final determination be made. And hopefully nothing has happened in the system to change conditions. I'll just use so that existing process actually provides more accurate planning information to our customers, to developers.

And I'll just say as an example, just today I signed this letter, and I won't say which project. This just came in for a development involving I would say seven different parcels, 5,750 high rise residential units. And this inquiry just came in, and their projected water demand when they're fully built out, 1.15 million gallons a day.

So we really can't depict on a map things like this. And this is kind of transit oriented development on Oahu. The 20 mile alignment of the rail is going to develop out. TOD is going to become a reality. We're seeing that already happen.

So it's really difficult to try to portray on a map this is the water availability for residential development because it's really site and project specific. And I'll just end there to say that I appreciate what you're trying to do. We just, I think this approach gives us a lot of potential problems. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lau. Next up we got County of Hawaii Department of Water Supply in opposition. Hawaii Realtors in support. Thank you. Hawaii YIMBY in support. Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1923?

Members, any questions? Mr. Lau, I'll have a question for you. I appreciate your testimony. I appreciate the detail you gave in your testimony on your six concerns. I appreciate the time that you've spent with me and with the other water managers because I do think that we can probably try and address all of your concerns.

But I didn't see any mention of public trust in here. So I just want to see, do you have any concerns that a mandatory mapping requirement could have public trust implications?

You know, the commission has recognized a certain public trust uses like in stream flow needs for the environment, also traditional customer uses. So that needs to be taken into consideration. For us, we make water available because our customers include Kānaka Maoli that are practicing tradition customer uses, but they also live in our water system across the island, and we serve all of our customers.

I would say a community consists of not only the domestic users of water, the residences, multifamily or single family homes, but also businesses, schools, churches. They all add to the community. So for BWS, we make water available on a first come, first serve to all.

But should we do these maps, could there arise some concerns about are we prioritizing public trust uses in these maps? We work well with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. And for all their projects on Oahu, I don't think we've ever denied them water. We work with them. We also take over their infrastructure. Once they build it, we maintain it and we'll replace it when it needs to get replaced. So we try to really address public trust uses.

And so is that generally then on kind of on a case by case basis you're having to make?

We have to look at, again, going back to where is the development proposed. What are they thinking about doing? Do we have enough capacity? On what timeline are they actually trying to develop? Yeah.

Appreciate it. Thanks. Members, further questions? Rep Muraoka.

Ernie, help me just so I have clarity because I understand DLNR issues, well permits. Right. So would that, would this allow private wells to tap into the aquifers? Because I know without private well, if they're not tracking it or reporting it properly, the totals don't add up in the end. Right. So How would that relate to this bill, the private wells and the DLNR issued wells?

So this bill does identify, I think, source, transmission or pipeline systems, and storage water tanks. So the Board of Water Supply, we have wells. And on Oahu, everywhere on Oahu, the development of a new well or diverting water in a stream is under the regulation of the Commission of Water Resource Management, except for the Waianae Coast. And we, by the way, you probably know that Board of Water Supply, we're petitioning the commission to also designate the Waianae Coast.

All of Oahu would be under one uniform management system. So when a private guy wants to drill a well, they have to go to the water commission just like we do. And also when they finish testing that well, they want to put into production, make it a pumping well. They also have to get a water use permit from the commission.

They're also competing with what we need for the community. So the commission will look and see can the resource sustain both the private users and the public needs for water. And then they also take into consideration the public trust needs for the appropriate uses of water. So this actually bill affects Board of Water Supply, but private developers still got to go to the commission just like we do.

All right, thank you.

Further questions? All right, thank you. Seeing none.

Next item on the agenda, HB 1741, related to housing. Esteems the County Affordable Housing Mandate as a form of development exaction and treats the mandate as a housing affordability impact fee with certain exemptions. Prohibits a county from adopting, amending, or enforcing an affordable housing mandate or inclusionary requirements for residential or mixed use developments under certain circumstances.

It establishes additional requirements for needs assessment study for a county imposed affordable housing mandate, and it establishes a criterion that allows luxury residential projects or projects that receive discretionary value add approvals to be subject to inclusionary requirements. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Hawaii YIMBY in support. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We are in strong support of HB 1741. Practically speaking, this bill requires the counties to do their homework. Before you impose affordable housing mandates, the counties have to look at the costs.

And you know, I can see why on the surface, these sorts of affordability mandates were enticing to the Legislature and to the counties. But the fact is they don't work and they're actually reducing the supply of housing. The research backs this up. So Carl Bonham from UHERO had a report that warned about inclusionary zoning.

It reduces incentives to build housing, it shrinks overall supply, and it actually ends up increasing prices. So think of it like this. If you own a business and you had to sell three out of every 10 products at a loss, well, you'd have to raise the price on the other seven products that you're selling.

And so that's exactly what we're seeing here in Hawaii's housing market. HB 1741 recognizes this is a basic reality and you can't mandate affordability by making housing more expensive. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify, and here for any questions.

Thank you, Ted. Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support. Democratic Party of Hawaii in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1741? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? All right, next item on the agenda is HB 1734, related to zoning. Prohibits the counties from imposing certain lot requirements and dwelling specifications for parcels of land located within the urban district for purposes of subdivision development or the issuance of the building permit with certain exemptions.

It allows the counties to establish a petition process for neighborhood subdivisions or other geographically contiguous areas to establish or retain certain requirements or specifications. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Attorney General's Office with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Alison Kato, Deputy Attorney General. We submitted written comments on just two things. First, because the restrictions apply to the state urban district, it may be more appropriate to place those restrictions within Chapter 205.

And second, the bill appears to be aimed at residential uses, but doesn't actually expressly limit it to residential uses. So we just want to note that it may have unintended effects on nonresidential districts. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii YIMBY In support. Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support.

Aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We're in support. Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. We're in support of HB 1734. This bill tackles one of the biggest costs in housing, and that's land. You know, it limits minimum lot sizes to 1200 square feet in urban areas and it puts reasonable limits elsewhere.

As someone who's been looking to buy a house, you know, you can see that the land is 75-80% of the total cost of a home in Hawaii. And so when the government mandates large lots, it mandates higher prices. Just think of this example. So a 6,000 square foot lot in Honolulu that costs a million dollars.

Current rule is you can put one house on that lot. If you're able to, let's say, split this lot into four different 1500 square foot lots. That land cost drops from a million dollars to $250,000 per lot. That's the difference between somebody being able to own a home or never getting their foot in the door.

This approach really works. So Houston reduced minimum lot sizes and the homes and smaller lots were actually nearly 40% cheaper. You can't lower housing costs while requiring luxury sized lots. And so this bill looks to address that, so we urge you all to pass it today. Mahalo for your consideration on all these bills today. Aloha.

Thank you, Ted. Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support. Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1734?

Members, any questions? I have a question for the Attorney General. Thanks for your testimony. It's appreciated. The component calling out the lack of specificity for residential use was an oversight on my part and we'll be addressing that. But the other recommendation to move it to Chapter 205. So you say in here...

Restrictions on uses within the state urban district that are intended to apply statewide may be more appropriately made through amendments to section 205 rather than Chapter 46. The bill isn't necessarily restricting uses within the urban district.

It's restricting the county's ability to restrict uses within the urban district. And there's language in the bill. Page six, paragraph two says nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or impair the classification of lands pursuant to Section 205-2 or the permissible uses within each land use district.

I guess it's my read as a non-attorney that this should is better put in Chapter 46 as the area where we are generally telling the counties what they can and cannot do. Are you comfortable with it remaining in Chapter 46 given that that language is in the bill that this shouldn't be construed to alter impair nine classifications?

We felt it was more appropriate to put it in Chapter 205 because it was applicable specifically to the urban district under Chapter, set out in Chapter 205. But I do not believe it will be a legal issue if you left in Chapter 46.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Members, further questions? All right. One second. I lost my agenda. Okay.

Final bill on the agenda is HB 1739, related to transit oriented development. Prohibits the counties from enacting an ordinance, rule, regulation, development standard, zoning provision, or other land use control that restricts the development of transit supportive densities in county designated transit oriented development zones and Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Improvement Program areas. Vice Chair of the testimony.

OPSD with comments.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. OPSD stands on its testimony comments with concerns.

Thank you. Department of Planning and Permitting with comments. Hawaii YIMBY in support. Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support. Thank you. Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support. Angela Young, CARES. Thank you. And five individuals in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1739? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Seeing none. That is the last item on our agenda. We will recess for quorum here. We are waiting for a few Members, which hopefully we can get in the next few minutes here. Short recess.

Reconvening for decision making for our 9am hearing for February 4th. Housing Committee. The first item on our agenda is HB 1721 relating to housing. I recommend that we move this out with an HD one simply with a defective date and for the benefit of the public here.

We will be defecting the date on every single Bill coming before us in this Committee. And defecting the date simply means that we will be changing the date to July 13000 and that ensures that the Bill will have continued dialogue as it moves through the process and we'll go to conference for continued dialogue.

So if you hear me saying defect the date, that's what we're doing. So for this Bill, that's my only recommendation. Members, any questions or comments? Signal and Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1721. The chair's recommendation is to pass with amendment. Chair and Vice Chair votes aye. Representative Cochran, Aye. Representative Grandinetti, Aye. Representative Keela, Aye. Representative Kitagawa. Excused. Representative Lachica. Representative Morocco, aye. Representative Pyrrhick, aye. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair Miyake. Next is HB 1714, related to housing. I recommend that we move this out with an HD 1. Also just with some technical amendments for consistency, clarity, and style, and with a defected date.

But I also want to mention in the committee report the concerns that were brought up by DHRD in their testimony regarding the potential issues with broad autonomy and the potential issues with contract terms. And ask the next committee, the Labor Committee, to consider addressing those concerns, as that will be more under their purview than the Housing Committee. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Yes, Representative Cochran.

Yeah, I was watching the testimonies and agree that it needs further discussion and... Because, you know, in Lahaina we have a lot of HHFDC projects that have come up since the fire and other lands for HPHA in particular that have sitting there idle.

So I'm questioning if increasing in salary and money towards these departments or divisions will help get some work moving for our Lahaina town, then great, I'm in support. But as of yet, with their existing salaries and things, which I guarantee are higher than mine, I have seen no movement. So that's just my thoughts and concerns about this. So thank you.

Thank you, Representative. Members, further questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1714. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair votes aye. [Roll Call] Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is HB 1718, related to housing. I recommend we move this out with an HD 1 with technical amendments and a defective date. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1718. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Rep. Kitagawa for the remaining of this hearing. Any Members voting aye? Sorry. Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting no? Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. I got worried there when there was silence.

Sorry. First one. First one.

Next item, HB 1732, related to housing. I recommend that we move out in HD 1. For this we will... I recommend adding language that allows the funds to be used by an existing homeowner wanting to build an ADU, provided that both the main house and the ADU would be deed restricted.

And just for clarity, this bill, the funds in this bill in the current version are restricted to to only potential homeowners looking for down payment assistance. So this, by adding this language, this would open it up to an existing homeowner who wants to add an additional unit. Also recommend making technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

And we will be defecting the date. And then we'll be adding in the committee report that the Finance Committee should consider capping administrative costs at 10%. Administrative cost of the bill are currently blanked out. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Yeah, Rep Grandinetti.

Thank you. I'm a yes on this because I'm really excited about this conversation. But I really hope that we can have further conversation about an appreciation cap or some kind of other, like reaping some other benefit from the purchase of these deed restrictions. And hopefully looking to models like community land trusts who are doing that and are actually getting a lot of buy in from communities that might point us in that same direction.

Thanks, Rep Grandinetti. And I think... Oh sorry. Rep Cochran.

Thank you, Chair. And yeah so Lahaina Land Trust and there's other, Na Hale O Maui. We've had a land cultural, there's already programs in place and they have been... Na Hale O Maui in particular has been very successful in deed restricting and keeping affordable affordable.

So yeah, I'm just, you know, I guess it with reservations here just because there's already program for... I'm speaking on behalf of Maui I guess in particular. And you know, another program on top of programs already existing. So just that's just my thing, so I'm moving cautiously forward with this and I have a little reservations there, Vice Chair Miyake. Thank you.

Thanks, Rep Cochran. Members, further questions or comments? Yeah, I appreciate the comments you both made. I think there is value in trying to continue to workshop this to ensure that this could be an available financing tool for the community land trust on the purchase of property or people buying into a land trust and that there's certainly a lot of overlap with the goes there. That said, there's no further comments. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1732. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting Rep. Cochran's reservations. Any other Members voting with reservations or no? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Next item is HB 1740, relating to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. I, again, I explained it a little bit earlier. The bill is a little bit confusing. We're just trying to clarify that second alternative pathway so that there'd be one pathway where 50% plus one of the units are affordable. That affordability restriction ends after 10 years. The second pathway, 80% of the units would be de restricted for the life of the project, ensuring that they are essentially always occupied by owner occupant or affordable renter.

To ensure that we are meeting the intentions of the bill, I recommend that we clarify that the second 201H pathway must meet the conditions of paragraph 1 except for any imposed income requirements. So ensuring that they still go through council approval etc etc, meeting all the conditions that are already imposed on 201H projects except they won't have income requirements.

Number two, clarify that the deed restriction applies on the initial subject sale of the units. Clarify that the unit must always be occupied by someone domiciled in the state with an allowance for hardship as provided in 201H-49, notwithstanding the tenure language that's in 201H-49 currently. And then tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and defective date. Members, questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1740. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations?

Yes, reservations for me.

Rep. Cochran. Any Members voting no? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is HB 1777, related to housing. I recommend that we move out an HD 1 and just clarify that the language around the lesser of three months rent... Sorry. There's language in the bill that says the lesser of either three months rent or the 60% AMI figure, but it's not clear on what that three months rent refers to, whether it's the current rent or the new rent. And so we'll clarify that it's the rent that the tenant was paying before being displaced.

Delete on page nine the language that says, quote, if that option is chosen by the developer under Clause I. I think that might have been a typo. And then tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and we'll defect the date. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns?

Chair, I'm just in Lahaina with these temporary homes. Ka La'i Ola is one and the other is the FEMA Kilohana housing, which I know is up in the air as to what's going to happen with these units. So I'm wondering if this bill will affect those two projects in particular.

So I mean I just have a ton of questions in relation to that specific specifically. So, you know, I just really, nothing's addressing that in my mind because there's an HHFDC and DHS and people just have no answers at this time. So I'm just, yeah, I'd like people to stay in them, but then again the they're temporary units that I don't think have longevity and the quality of what they are. So I just have questions and concerns at this time. So thank you.

Thank you, Rep. Cochran. Members?

You know, just based on my comments about the tiered system and when they move out of housing and then try to find fair market value, that 60% may not be, you know, and then we'll get into that. So for that, I'm with reservations.

Same note, Chair.

Okay. With reservations also. And Rep Cochran, I'd appreciate maybe me and you and the introducer could sit down and talk through some of your concerns, see if this applies and maybe if there's gaps that you can... All right. Members, if there's no further questions or comments. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1777, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the reservations from Representative Kila and Representative Muraoka. Any other Members? And Rep. Cochran, thank you. Any other reservations? Any no?

The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is HB 1842, relating to government. I recommend that we move out an HD 1 with a defected date. And there's potentially a lot going on here in terms of financial implications for the state in that, as DLNR expressed in their testimony, they'd be losing a significant revenue source. There could be potential upside for the state if we are able to move other state offices into the swapped buildings.

And so we will be asking the Finance Committee to consider DLNR's testimony and the need to cover the financial shortfall to the agency to DLNR if this swap occurs and just to ensure that at the end of the day this is revenue positive for the state and not a drain on state resources. Members, questions, comments, or concerns?

Just based on DLNR testimony and the fact that currently they're self sufficient with this building paying a lot of their programs, and with this swap that goes away. For those reasons, I'm a no.

Thank you. Other Members? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1842. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations? Noting Representative Muraoka's no vote. Any Members voting with reservations or no? The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is HB 1919, relating to development standards. I recommend that we move out on HD 1 with a defected date. And also the preamble actually understated the cost of parking in Hawaii. So I want to clarify in the preamble that the cost of an average parking stall is $68,000. Members, questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1919. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations or no? Reservations? No. Any other reservations or no vote? The recommendation is adopted.

Next item is HB 1701, related to parking. I recommend that we move on HD 1 with defected date. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Rep Cochran.

So I had to look up what the TODs are in Maui in particular and saw there's quite a bit of designated areas in West Maui, in particular Lahaina, Kaanapali down into Lahaina area. Some of these lands have been newly purchased by a new ownership and things. A lot of things are up in there.

As we know Lahaina, went through a wildfire. So at this time I'm not in support of this just because there's so many unanswered and a lot of things up in the air for, in particular, my district that I represent. So that's kind of the brunt of it. Thank you.

Thanks, Rep Cochran. Members, further comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HD 1701. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the no vote from Representative Cochran. Any Members voting with reservations or no? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is HB 1923, relating to resident... No, we did 1919. HB 1923, relating to residential housing utilities. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with water managers on this. We spent some time together. We have another upcoming meeting to try and figure this out.

I'm pretty confident that we will get to a draft of this bill that resolves all six of Mr. Lau's concerns here, yet still providing a significant benefit to the public as far as consistent understanding where water is and water might not be. That said, we'll need some more time to work on this.

So we'll be deferring decision making on this item to the February 6, 9:30am agenda. Next item is HB 1741, related to housing. I want to explain this bill a little bit because it's doing a lot and it's hard to understand. So what this bill is doing is it's considering any inclusionary requirement or affordable mandate as an impact fee.

So as was discussed in the testimony, often these things are just shifting costs. If you have a 30% affordable set aside, that's an impact fee on the whole project. For the attacks on the market rate units, they're charging more for the market units to cover the below market unit price.

So all it's saying is just consider this like any other impact fee, do an excess analysis on these requirements across the board. And then for certain types of development that are non-luxury and, you know, meet a density threshold, it essentially just says that the counties cannot impose this requirement if it's going to increase the market price of the units, meaning that they can impose it if they're doing offsets.

Like if you're going to impose affordability requirement, then the county should be offsetting the cost of this requirement. Property tax waivers, infrastructure, you know, other impact fee waivers, et cetera, et cetera.

But don't essentially tax the market price homes to achieve this because the current policies that we have across the state are totally failing at producing any housing. Separately, it says that for luxury housing and lower density housing, the counties can continue to impose these because there is value in imposing these for that type of development.

But it has to still conform to the nexus analysis that we did for the impact fee study. And it exempts luxury housing from that. That's in a nutshell what the bill is doing. I recommend that we move out in HD 1 on this with a number of amendments. On page four, lines 14 through 15, we'll delete, quote, and conform to subsection C.

We'll change all references to references of affordable housing mandate and inclusionary requirement to inclusionary mandate. These terms were used synonymously spread throughout the bill. We just want to have consistency in what we're calling it. Page six, line eight, clarify that the county incentives can include, among others, but it can include off site infrastructure, property tax, and fee waivers.

Delete subsection e on page 7. In the definition of luxury residential project on page 11, change paragraphs 1 and 2 to require that a majority of the units in the development have to exceed the thresholds established in each paragraph. And then technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and a defective date. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1741. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none, Chair.

The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is HB 1734, relating to zoning. I recommend that we run HD 1. And based on the comments from the Attorney General, clarify that the bill only applies to land zoned for residential use within the urban state land use district.

And then further clarify that nothing in the bill prevents counties from imposing wildfire mitigation measures, such as additional exterior fire resistant material requirements, ember protection, and defensible space requirements. Technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and we'll be defecting the date. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Rep Cochran.

So, Chair, with your statements about the AG's testimonies, are you addressing their concern about the unintended consequences on non-residential districts? Okay, I just wanted to clarify that that's what. Because that was one of my reasons for not being able to support it. But okay.

And yeah, that was an oversight on my part as a drafter, and it was always intended just to apply to residential. As they called out, there is non-residential uses in the urban district, which we don't necessarily want this to apply to.

Okay, got it. Thank you so much.

Members, further questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1734. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Last item on the agenda is HB 7039, related to Transit Oriented Development. I recommend that we move out an HD 1. That we change the word zone to area on page one, as that's the consistent use of the term is area.

Clarify that the definitions of county designated Transit Oriented Development area and transit supportive density is the same as existing law. Change subsection B to state that anything inconsistent with this new section shall be preempted. Delete section two in its entirety. Tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and a defective date. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Yes, Rep Cochran.

The comments from Mary Alice and Curtis Lum, were those taken into consideration?

Yes. Yeah, for the most part. And I've met with them to walk through some of this. But that was the inconsistency in the use of the terms, the fact that we weren't sort of tying these two existing state definitions. So the amendments that I'm making here are attempts to address those concerns. Yeah. Thank you. Members, further questions, comments, or concerns?

Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1739. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Awesome. Before you all walk away, one thank you this amazing committee. Thank you, members to the public and stakeholders and agencies who are here. Just a quick note on testimony.

Rep. Kila addressed this yesterday in the Transportation Committee that both the Housing and Transportation Committees have come up with a testimony policy as far as releasing testimony to the public. So our goal will always be to release testimony to the public and to Members by the end of the day, the day before a hearing.

So 5 o'clock, 4:30-ish, we'll be releasing that testimony. It'll be available online and available to Members of the Committee, and then we'll be updating that in the morning before the hearing. And thank you to Rep. Kila. And thank you to Vice Chair Miyake's office, who's doing double duty as a Vice Chair to ensure that they're getting all this testimony out. Thank you all. Seeing no further business, this hearing is now adjourned.