House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening the committee on consumer protection and commerce. It is Thursday, 02/12/2026 at 2PM in Conference Room 329. Vice Chair, take it away.

Okay. HB 2614 relating to deceptive practices. This bill requires merchants that sell cosmetics to accept returns of new or unopened goods within specific specified time frames and clarifies the definition of consign and expands required placement of return and refund policy signage. First up is Emma Olsen, DCCA Office of Consumer Protection and support. Good afternoon, chair and vice chair.

My name is Melissa Enright. I'm an attorney with the DCCA Office of Consumer Protection. Our office stands on our written testimony and strong support. I would just like to note, a couple of updated, statistics to our testimony. We did another check between 2020 and 2025.

There were actually a 180 cosmetic complaints that our office received, 54 of which are still under active investigation by our office. A 148 cases had been referred to the Biggerton Law Group for a class action lawsuit that is currently pending. These complaints have now totaled over $1,300,000 coming at the cost of white consumers and visitors to our islands. I'm available for

any questions. Thank you. As someone on our testifier list, is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Okay.

It must be more than 1.3. Right? Because in your testimony, it was 1.3 and that was under 20 complaints.

Yes. So that's an additional 60 complaints. We didn't run the numbers on the total amount, but I would assume it's upwards of 1.5 at least. I can get back to you, on the numbers if you'd like. I don't have those at hand.

So the, what's the status of the class action?

The class action, I believe, is set for trial later this year. I think sometime over the summer, we are trying to be as supportive to the Vickerton Law Group as we can, providing files and and anything that they would need from us.

It seems like there's already a remedy that Bickerton is exploring with these, complainants in this class, why do we need this bill on top of the remedy that they're already exercising in court or pursuing in court?

Easy answer is a civil action of that nature requires a lot of resources. We receive a high volume of complaints that consumers are not informed about the return policies. We think that forcing these companies to post clear and conspicuous signage will decrease the volume of the cocaine complaints, will increase consumer knowledge about what the return and exchange policies are for these vendors.

From the media reports, it seems like these people are using coercion, though, to sell these things. I mean, it sounds like they're blocking doors, trapping them in black back rooms in order to sell these things, these cosmetics to them. Are these bad actors really going to act differently if we pass this law?

I think there's a there's a possibility. You know, the bad actors are still gonna act like bad actors. But if we can force them to post signage post signage at the doorway, so people, before they even come into the store, are aware that there there is a refund policy or what the exchange return policy is, maybe they don't go into the store. Maybe they tell the salesperson who's trying to lure them in, no. Thank you.

We just think informing the consumers is always going to be helpful in these situations.

Like, might the signage, even make them more comfortable going into these stores? Because now they're like, oh, look, they're gonna they're offering a return policy that this store is not gonna even honor. I mean, I- I just want I want the law I understand that it that there's an issue out there. I wanna make sure our law is actually effective, though.

I think signage is the the first step. The presence of signage doesn't take away from any other remedies the consumer might have from the consumer protection side. So they could still pursue civil actions taken up by our office or, in some cases, a class action. So the signage doesn't detract from potential remedies for violations of, deceptive or misleading representations from sales people.

Okay. If the lawsuit works, do you do we need this law? If the lawsuit proves effective and shows that there's an adequate remedy for the victims, do we need the law?

I think we still do. Yes.

Would the remedies available to the, complainants of the lawsuit be different if we get past this law earlier?

I I can't say. I'm not sure. But I do know that these complaints, the lawsuit, dates back, I think complaints from 2018, so it's not a quick remedy going to a class action. And these are some people who are out tens of thousands of dollars for products that they were strong armed into buying, so while a class action lawsuit or any type of lawsuit may be appropriate remedy, it's not a quick rip.

Rep. Wouldn't you wouldn't you, your office, need to sue them too though through this through this bill's remedies?

We- we would. Yes.

So even if we pass this, it would be an equally slow process. Right?

It potentially. But we would at least have the remedy to after three warnings, we present them with the sign. They have to place up the sign

right now. I thought they had to place the sign anyway.

The sign well, we would provide the sign, a very large eye catching sign.

Okay. Thank you.

Moving on to HB 1660, hd 1, relating to county labor standards. This bill authorizes the counties to require contractors to disclose information regarding their employees' wages, benefits, hours, and and employment status and deny, revoke, or suspend a building permit application for violating laws relating to wages, benefits, hours, and employment status under certain conditions. So first up is Department of Labor and Industrial Relations in support.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, both kinsmen, deputy director, DLIR. Stand on our testimony and support and be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in support.

Hello, chair, vice chair. Mark Anthony Clemente for the Hawaii Regional

Council of Carpenters in in strong support

of this measure. I'll stand on written testimony, but I just wanna make a couple points. Contrary to some testimony I've read on this measure, county labor standards don't punish property owners, and they don't add another layer of bureaucracy if you're following the law. This simply ties compliance to the permitting process and reinforces laws already on the books. Following the law should not be a competitive disadvantage.

This levels the playing field and protects responsible owners from being tied to bad actors who continue to gain the system. For the opportunity to testify and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Chair, vice chair. Hanae Benatoma, deputy political director for property engineers level three. I believe you have our my boss's written testimony in support of this bill. Just wanted to reiterate with a Sec with my colleague. This bill would help with our compliance, especially for bad actors out there who are compliance department active investigators out there. A lot of fraud, misclassification. Basically, people who are going home without the money that they deserve as opposed to. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who likes to speak?

Thank you, vice chair chair. Andrew Pereira with Pacific Resource Partnership. PRP represents the 6,000 unionized carpenters throughout Hawaii and the 250 signatory general contractors that employ them. We stand in strong support of HB 1660 HD one. Cheating contractors are a tremendous problem here in Hawaii.

Just a few years ago, a PRP, a joint, carpenters union investigation on Hawaii found that SNA Industries, cheated their workers out of wages, and it resulted in a US Department of Labor fines totaling nearly $700,000 with additional fines because these cheating contractors, forego paying federal and state employment taxes, which are very critical to funding the services and programs that our residents depend on.

So this legislation simply enables the counties to pass county labor standards that will help us catch these cheating contractors in the future and keep these bad actors out of Hawaii to make sure that they're paying our our workers their fair wages and also collecting the taxes that we depend on to run our state.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else testifying on HB 1660?

Any questions? Yeah. I'm not sure who to ask though. Maybe Bill. But, Bonnie and Mark, if you guys wanna chime in, let me if anyone wants to chime in, let me know.

I'm I'm generally a favor of this bill. One of my colleagues recently approached me, though, and he thought the penalties were too harsh, which I kinda told him was the point of the bill to have the to hold the owner accountable, to make them watch the contractor, to make the then the contractor watch the subs to make sure that everything's above board. His complaint was more that the timing of affordable housing projects might be delayed.

And if it was delayed, then it could potentially we could potentially lose out on federal subsidies and things like that. What I mean, what what are your thoughts on that?

Should we be excluding affordable housing projects from this or any other specific types of projects that are more at risk, for losing subsidies due to timeline constraints?

No. I I'm not really the subject matter expert for affordable housing projects, but I think, like, one of the other testifiers mentioned, I mean, complying with the law doesn't seem like a high bar. And there are other laws that we have, like Chapter one zero four for building wages where at the end of the day, the general is responsible for the subs for certain aspects of laws. So but maybe somebody else would be better to ask about that timeline.

I think the point was that they thought the owner shouldn't be held responsible for what the contractor was the contractor's misdeeds, which I it's kinda like, don't hire shady contractors. But, anyway, go go ahead, Mark.

No. I agree with your point there. As a property owner, it's your responsibility to also make sure that those you do business with are following the law. Right? You don't wanna do business with bad actors.

Or later down the road, you're gonna be liable for something and maybe lose all the tax credits, like, maybe the colleague had mentioned. But the message we're gonna be sending here is it's okay to cheat here, but maybe not here. Like, deputy director for DLIR mentioned, compliance is really just the minimum. Following the law is the minimum. This doesn't raise any standards.

So when we're talking

about, revocation or denial of permits, we found that this is really the only method to deter these bad actors. So we filed complaints with the OIR in the past, and what ends what ends up happening is we'll do investigation into noncompliant contractors who've underbid and undercut, law abiding contractors. Right? And what will what will happen is, the agency responsible for the project will have the the maybe bad actor correct their mistake, but there's no other recourse.

So I asked, well, so they can just keep underbidding them and keep winning these projects? And we got a shrug. Right? And so, really, we're looking for, again, tying compliance to just, the minimum standards here for all construction here period.

Right. Rodney, do you have anything to add? Or Sure.

Yeah. So, yeah, just to add on to that, you know, this this is a two part phase. Right? What this law does is not give the counties the authority to do this. Doesn't mean they have to do it.

It's a discretionary. Right? So there would be, there would have to be, on the county level, some infrastructures and, laws and rules in regards to how they would administer this. I think that's the key. With one of your colleagues, yes, we had a a very lengthy discussion about this.

And the assumption is that the county is gonna pull the permit permit automatically. That's not what this bill does. This bill allows their discretion to say, hey. We noticed that the guy you're using has wage violations. They didn't pay their workers what they're supposed to be paying, you know. And then they can work from there.

I think, and the other underlying assumption was that the counties are against the affordable housing, which I think is ludicrous. They wanna work with developers who are definitely good in affordable housing. But at the same time, like my colleagues have said, complying with the law is not a very high quality. And to assume that the counties don't want this or

are gonna pull the permits, I think that's ludicrous. Counties, they they work with all affordable housing projects. That's one of the key things that I think everyone here in the state is looking to do.

That's a good point. So the pulling the permit is not automatic. It's discretionary about the county. The county has the opportunity to try to work with the contractor first. If the contractor or or owner and contractor are really just not complying or or it's it's irreparable, then they can't have that option.

K. Okay. That's fair. Andrew, did you wanna

Yeah.

Thank you, Jerry. Andrew Pereira for PRP again. I just wanted to point out that if you exclude affordable housing projects, there's often a nexus with county or state funding for these affordable housing projects. So these cheating contractors, not only do they cheat their workers, but oftentimes, they cheat the materials that you actually need to build safe structures.

And so I would argue that exempting affordable housing projects from HB 1660 could open up the county and the state's liability in the future if it's shown that you had the chance to weed out these cheating contractors.

And in the future, something happens where there's shoddy worksmanship or or some structure, you know, failure, that could lead to liability for the county and for the state. So as, as Ponti mentioned, this is simply allowing the county to review the records and then take action, should it be necessary.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. Moving on to HB 174 relating to the psychology interjurisdictional compact, which adopts the psychology interjurisdictional compact to regulate the practice of telepsychology and temporary in person face to face practice of psychology by psychologists across the boundaries. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Support.

Thank you.

Yes. Good afternoon, chair and vice chair. My name is doctor Erin Wilkinson. I'm the mental health branch administrator for Department of Corrections and Rehab. We stand strongly by our written testimony, but I did wanna highlight a few items. We have residents who have serious mental illness, and they require a number of evaluations. Currently, we have 23 psychology positions available.

We have four in place. So two of those are licensed and two are unlicensed. So we have opened 19 positions, allowing us to utilize this compact can allow us to have access to psychology licensed professionals, licensed psychologists to better evaluate and provide services for our population. In particular, our forensic need is critical in this state. We have inmates that are waiting up to three, four, seven months for a 704 evaluation, which require forensic psychology.

This compact could allow us to, utilize psychologists forensic psychologists to provide those evaluations and provide a disposition for those inmates in a much more efficient manner, as well as utilizing them for the jail diversion project, as well as providing critical services within this the facilities. If you have any questions, I'm available.

DCCA Board of Psychology offering comments.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Fernandez, executive officer for the board. I'm here to stand on the board's testimony and add a little, additional comments.

You know, the the testimony goes on to say, you know, that multiple states have opted to not join Compact, a lot of them on the West Side. Excuse me. Sorry. The board also is wondering if a study has been done because in the in the preamble, it states that there is a, you know, under sub underserved population, but it defines mental health practitioners, not isolating psychologists alone. Currently, right now in the state, there's 6,156 mental health practitioners.

Of that, there's 1,370 psychologists, 783 marriage and family therapists, 943 mental health counselors, and 3,060 social workers. So I was just wondering if that specific study has done on psychology. Additionally, the board would have to create a FBI background check-in order for our own licensees to practice in the compact in other states. Until that time, compact holders can practice in the state of Hawaii. We also lose authority on education level in their reading.

We also would have to accept maybe doctoral degrees, for example, like forensic psychology that our current chapter is not designed for. It's designed for psychotherapy practice. Obviously, the board, since it's in the the bill or similar bills have been introduced

since 2020, bills have been introduced since 2020, the board or sorry. I think that's the correct year. The board has been concerned about the social cultural contexts that practitioners who may or may not be entering the state ever, and how that may affect, you know, our local population. So we've always had that concern. The board also believes there'll be a loss of revenue from admin for administrative and regulatory purposes, as the fees for compacts typically are less than the licenses in the states.

And then lastly, I just want us to, note that there are certain sections of the chapter that could be maybe amended to to help the situation. For example, the temporary permit section 465-9 has not been amended since 1985. Thank you for the time to give you these comments. Thank you.

Thank you. State Health Planning and Development Agency in support.

Hi, Jack Lewin administrator of SHPDA. We fully support this. We think it's needed. We need one caveat.

We mentioned is that make sure that we're using local, psychologists when they're available. Thank you.

Hawaii State Association of Counties in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Nahelani Parsons here on behalf of the Hawaii State Association of Counties. Counties across Hawaii continue to experience limited access to mental health services, particularly in rural areas and on neighbor islands. These challenges are often reflected in increased demands on county services, so expanding our access to licensed psychological services is critically important to us.

I do recognize in some of the testimony, they do mention that in person services is best, and we do want what is best for our community and for our population, but access first is key and increasing the access is what we're focused on. Thank you.

AlohaCare in support on Zoom? No. Okay. Hawaii Association for Justice in opposition.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, committee members, Evan Oue on behalf of Hawaii's Association for Justice. I think we actually submitted those comments. You know, we've seen it, you know, this language and contacts pretty regularly throughout is, just subsection g one, which is pertains to immunity for their officers.

And it it's a small provision within the compact, but essentially, it does create kind of a loophole for where the if they're operating if their employers are their officers are operating here in the state, and they, you know, for whatever reason, hurt somebody in a negligent act, then the provision only or exempts out, well, for intentional acts within that. So, you know, we're worried our concern whenever there's that kind of immunity embedded within, compact language.

And we understand that, you know, in order to be a part of the compact, you gotta have it matched. So I think we've worked on language in the past, so, you know, are available to to do so as well. So thank you for the time.

Thank you. Hawaii Association of Health Plans in support.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Rachel Wilkinson on behalf of the Hawaii Association of Health Plans in support. As you know, Hawaii continues to face a shortage of mental health providers on the neighbor islands and in our rural communities, and so we appreciate the contact's ability to increase access to mental health services statewide.

Sean Scanlan, individual in opposition on Zoom.

Hello. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you for allowing me to join this format. I've it was a busy day. I stand on the testimony that I strongly oppose HB 1704. I'm also happy to answer the question.

I've worn many hats over the years with Hawaii Psychological Association and also the program director of the PsyD program at Shamad, which produces future psychologists. But and I've been a long time in the private practitioner. So I'm submitting testimony today based on that role, but also having a unique perspective of being, having all those other roles. My I have many concern and it's all written there.

But I think just to put it in perspective is that they this what this bill would do is be open up and cede authority to an outside company that isn't based in Hawaii and would allow, you know, free treatment of our residents, which is concerning on top of, you know, the economic loss potential of economic losses and and and such.

My main concern would be the cultural sensitivities and with the perspective that if an outside provider is, provide or says or how about this switch it? If a, local, native Hawaiian family has been having problems for years, they finally say, okay. Yes. Let's go see a psychologist. And they get this online or sorry, a telehealth person from, you know, Tennessee, and it doesn't go well.

I'm concerned, and it's no problem off of that provider because they'll just go find somebody else. But, you know, our local family might never go see a psychologist again. They might think this whole mental health services thing is a joke and never seek it again and, you know, multiply the problems, not only within an individual family, but, you know, discourage others from seeking it as well.

So I think there's a lot on the line, and it's just we're we're adding an extra risk. The other thing I want to point out is that, you know, the shortage that we're talking about, it's like Hawaii actually has a higher percentage of psychologists than the vast majority of states in the country.

And if we're seen as, like, twenty seventh on mental health providers, it could be those other, you know, you know, psychiatrists, licensed mental health counselors, managers, they're not there putting the pulling the weight so far as meeting the needs of our community. So I think there's there's just some concerns in that area so far as, you know, we're opening as wide open because of this mental health concern without really looking at, ok, why is there are there issues with that?

I'd also suggest that we can do certain things, making the the temporary license a lot easier. At that, at least there's board regulatory authority over that. We could even lower the the licensing exam scores if we want.

That'd be a good way to keep psychologists within state and maybe even attract other psychologists to to move here and stay here, versus just coming and going. So I have a lot of concerns that's always in there, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify in this measure? Any questions?

Department of Corrections. Department of Corrections.

Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Yes.

So you said that you have 19 out of 23 positions vacant for psychologists.

Yes. That's correct.

How much of this is due to the state's inability or difficulty hiring them, or do you just not have applicant applicants at all?

Both. Okay. It is very difficult to recruit for this type of population to work in a space, a facility themselves, versus a nice private practice where you choose your clientele. This is as a personal opinion, this is our duty. This is our ethical responsibility to provide mental health services to this population. It's a vulnerable population just as many in our rural, communities.

Very vulnerable. It's difficult to find providers who will provide services to those communities.

So if this contact went through, you would be hiring psychologists on psychologists on the Mainland to basically teleconference or Zoom in. Is is that correct? Or would you be hiring them to personally come in?

Well, we would have to go through the state agency or the state's hiring practices.

Yeah. But if if you did hire them, the psychologists from Tennessee, would that person be basically on video or would they be physically coming into the correctional facility?

As this stands, it would be via video. They could stay come in for one month temporary. But as it stands, it would be through video.

Mostly video. Is that fair?

Yes, Correct.

So in that case, why couldn't we hire a local person to just video conference in too if they don't want to subject themselves to a stressful situation in the correctional facilities? Not judging that at all. That sounds very stressful. But if someone doesn't want to be in the prison, and would prefer to do it by Zoom, why not just hire the local person on Maui, Oahu, wherever to teleconference center or having difficulty with that too?

We're having difficulty with that as well. We have our psychiatrists, which are very limited. They do they do telehealth as well. But our access to having an applicant pool is very difficult. Part of that is licensure within the state and within the national exam.

Those are not easy to pass. It takes quite a while. So that pool and the and then the ideally, we would like somebody with corrections background. That's not always the case, but it's a possibility that they could work from via telehealth. At the moment, our regulations, our policies, the standards require in person, whether that's physically in person or in person via telehealth is probably has some flexibility in that.

Okay, Given the state's difficulty hiring, do you think that it's practical or reasonable for us to think that's gonna be it's gonna be easier to hire someone on the Mainland that we've never met, that's never come to Hawaii rather than someone who actually lives here to go through that deeper process?

I mean, I almost feel like we're setting ourselves up for failure here because what we're doing is we're saying that we don't want I mean, we need a bigger pool, so we're gonna get these people from the Mainland to come in to apply for these positions who don't know anything about Hawaii and with a very unique culture as you know and expect them to get through the DHRD process to get into your facilities. I don't I just don't see it happening, I guess. I

It at the time this gets enacted, I can't could not say what DHRD will look like at that time. However, anything that will increase the pool and the potential, and then, of course, we would screen them for appropriateness to the to the population.

And that's another problem, though. I mean, you you like you said, you have a very vulnerable population. Yes. These are patients under a lot of stress, obviously. Do we want someone from Texas being their psychologist?

I almost feel like there might be more harm than good here if we were to allow that to happen. I mean, I would think that especially for your population, you would want someone local that could relate to them.

We'd love to have somebody local. I don't disagree with you at all. And we would prefer to have that. We just, we don't have the applicants local. Even though there are, I'm not sure how many were cited, a thousand some odd psychologists, We have four.

Right. But is that a problem with pay?

That's also an issue.

Because, you know, you you you raised the the pay enough, people are gonna apply. I think

people don't wanna do this job for that pay. I'm not sure we need more applicants. I just think we just need to pay them enough that people actually want to wanna do the job. Right?

Absolutely

Yeah. I think that the absolutely. That is one of the budgetary constraints, the ability for DCR to pull those applicants in because of pay scales that are set that don't have that flexibility, perhaps. That's that is one of the issues when you look at salaries.

So if the salary is so low, why would we get more why would people in the Mainland be interested either? You know?

I mean, I could cite reasons. They're they're remote. They don't have to move. They didn't it's

People here do it remote too. Right? They don't have to move either. I could be sitting on my I could not do it, but sitting on my couch in. I'd be doing this.

Right? So there's no difference, I don't think. I'm just I'm just kinda struggling to see. It sounds like the problem is with the pay, the, maybe, the benefits, the, the location, but they could do it remotely too, rather than the pool and

and as it were. I mean, you it's like you're trying to find more people that are gonna do the job that might do the job for probably less than people probably should be doing the job for, but that's not really addressing the problem. I mean, do do do you agree with that? Or or do you

I agree that I absolutely agree that there is a the pay scale and the budget is a distinct barrier across the board. I've worked for the Federal Government, I've worked here with DOD military, been in the military, worked with the VA. The pay scales to which we're competing against and private practice, we can't even compete with our budgets.

Okay. Thank you.

For Shipta.

Jack.

Sorry. Quick question. Thank you. In your testimony, you expressed support but highlighted the need to use for implementation to focus on using local when possible. Are there, like, guardrails within the compact that allow us to do that?

Thank you for the question, vice chair. The there are vendors out there who can provide these kind of services, but then they tend to just use their own network, and they bypass the local providers. So we wanna make sure we're building into the model a means to make sure the local providers are included. And when unavailable, we access the system.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, any questions? No? Okay. Moving on to HB 1563 relating to tobacco products, repeals the preemption on county ordinances that regulate the sale of cigarettes, tobacco products, and electronic smoking devices. And before we move on to testimony, I should have said this before, to please keep your testimony to two minutes.

Moving on to HB 1563, relating to tobacco products; repeals the preemption on county ordinances that regulate the sale of cigarettes, tobacco products, and electronic smoking devices. And before we move on to testimony, I should have said this before to please keep your testimony to two minutes. I have a timer here.

And if it goes off, it won't cut you off right away, but we'll just ask you to wrap up your remarks. So first up is Department of the Attorney General, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Chelsea Okamoto. I'm the Deputy Attorney General and Unit Supervisor for the Tobacco Enforcement Unit. Thank you for hearing this bill and for the opportunity to testify. Our department's in strong support. We support restoring counties' authority to adopt more stringent tobacco control measures and to regulate tobacco products.

In our testimony, we raised a concern that in Section 3, the bill may inadvertently limit counties' existing authority, so we suggest adopting the approach that we see in HB 1117, which only repeals the 328J-11.5 and doesn't touch Section 328J-15, and this will turn back the clock to restoring the authority that the counties had back in 2018 before this section was put in the books. So we ask the committee to pass this bill with our recommended revisions, and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. SHPDA, in support. SHPDA, in support?

Yeah.

We stand on our testimony in support, Chair and Vice Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii State Association of Counties, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Nahelani Parsons, on behalf of Hawaii State Association of Counties, in support of this measure. As local governments, counties are uniquely positioned to respond swiftly and effectively to public health challenges, and counties in Hawaii have a strong history of leading very successful public health policies like Tobacco 21, smoke-free air protection, amongst others. So, mahalo for introducing and for hearing this measure, and appreciate the committee.

Thank you. American Lung Association in Hawaii, in support on Zoom. Not present. Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks, in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks supports this bill. We have a lot of youth and keiki trying e-cigarettes, and I think Pedro would have said the American Lung Association National recently gave our state an upgrade of F for banning flavored tobacco. So we support the idea that our counties could take the lead and start restricting access to these candy flavored e-cigarettes for children. Thank you. Please pass this bill.

Thank you. Hawaii Public Health Institute, in support.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Kevin Ramirez, the program manager for Coalition Tobacco for Hawaii, a program with the Hawaii Institute. Thank you for hearing this measure, and for the opportunity to testify. I'm testifying in strong support of HB 1563 HD 1 relating to tobacco products. This is the eighth year that we are, fighting to restore county's authority to regulate, the sale of tobacco products.

It's a very important issue for us, and I'll explain why. Historically, effective tobacco prevention and control policies have come from the local level, from the county level. Two examples of this, smoke free air loss. Our local county councils in the late nineteen nineties passed smoke free air loss years before the state adopted that in 2006. More recently, in 2013, Hawaii County raised the age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21 to protect more youth from these products.

And then when it did so, it was only the fourth jurisdiction in the country to do so. Two years later, the state of Hawaii adopted the same same measure raising agency. So, counties are best positioned to swiftly and more effectively respond to the needs of their community. And Hawaii has been dealing with a youth vaping epidemic for the last several years, peaked in 2019, and continues to this day.

And despite the fact that, counties don't have the authority, to regulate tobacco sales, it didn't stop them from acting.

Right? So because of the seriousness of the issue, our coalition was able to work with Honolulu County Council to to pass a law ending the sale of flavored tobacco products in 2023. And then we followed suit with Hawaii County and Mowing County Counties passing similar laws in 2024. So the counties want the authority back. Time to restore county authority is now.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of this matter. Mahalo.

Thank you. Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council on Zoom and in support.

Yes. Hi.

Aloha, Chairman Tsuyoshi, Foster Cantonese, and members of the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. My name is Claire, and I am a student at James Campbell High School and a member from the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council. I am testifying in strong support of HB 1516. We have worked hard over the years in the city and county of Honolulu and the county of Hawaii, and the county of Maui have passed bills to end flavored tobacco sales in their communities.

This sends a clear message to the state to protect our Kiki and restore their authority to regulate tobacco sales.

These county councils stood by the youth and community to advocate in passing these bills. And we ask that you do the same by passing HB156. With term bills at the federal level, it's important to have as many tools available to fight against big tobacco. Allowing counties to respond enables quicker action against emerging threats, fuel gaps left by federal rule backs, and prevent harm before it becomes widespread.

The Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Council urges the committee to pass HB 1563 to restore county authority to regulate tobacco sales.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Claire. AlohaCare and support on Zoom. Oh, in person. AlohaCare on Zoom? in person?

Have your testimony in strong support of this measure. We did just wanna note that this puts us on the right path towards preventing or ending one of

the most preventable forms of,

preventable death in here here in Hawaii. So we just wanted to voice and echo

our strong support for this measure

and ask that, please continue through the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify? Sorry about that.

Good afternoon, Chair Montayoshi and Vice Chair Granthani and members of the committee. I'm Lola Irvin representing the Department of Health, and we are so grateful that you're hearing HB 1563. As the Department of Health, we're a public health agency. We're about the public. And so as part of what we do, we provide trainings, we provide funding for community engagement and mobilization.

We provide a lot of education. We collect data. We provide it at the county level. You can go on the Hawaii Health Data Warehouse and get it even down to the district level and the ZIP code level. We equip our counties and our communities with the data so and they live there.

Our our folks know our their counties and communities the best. However, in 2018, their ability to make change happen through policy was taken away. And so we appreciate the fact that you're hearing and that the KP caucus is supporting this so that we can enable our counties to, again, take progressive action to protect their Keiki. And so we thank you so much for hearing this out.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to testify on HB 1563?

Yeah. If there's someone on Zoom, just please identify yourself, and you can go ahead. What's the person's name?

Hello. Aloha, chair and members of the committee. My name is Emily Heintzeman, and I'm a master of public health student and student athlete at Manoa. I submitted written testimony in strong support of House Bill 1563. I just wanted to briefly reiterate that restoring county authority is an evidence based upstream prevention strategy that allows communities to respond more quickly to youth nicotine exposure and flavored product marketing.

As a public health student focused on policy and management, I strongly believe local flexibility strengthens consumer protection and protects Hawaii's Kiki. Mahalo for your time and for your leadership on this issue.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. There are also 44 individuals who submitted testimony in support and five in opposition. Any questions, members?

HVHI. Why have you guys made efforts to have Kauai County join in? What what's going on there?

We have Kauai County chair as opposed to spending the time to deliberate on a bill that wouldn't be able to take effect immediately. Yes.

So they've indicated that if we were to pass this bill, then they would Then they would consider it a bad then

they would introduce

a bill in here again.

This this is gonna pass. I mean, hearing it is one thing, but have have they indicated that they're going to pass it in a Yeah.

We are confident that we we would be able to pass the delay over.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Any other questions, Sanders?

I'm I'm kinda curious. Any of the advocates there? The AGs has weighed in saying that we don't need Section three, that striking the strict language in Section two would be enough to allow the copies to effectively bat it themselves. Does anyone else have any objection to that, though, from the advocates here? Okay.

Thanks.

Okay. Moving on to the next measure, h HB 1573 relating to health, requires electronic smoking device and e liquid manufacturers to certify to the Department of Attorney General annually that the manufacturer received a marketing granted order from the federal FDA and that the manufacturer is in compliance with federal regulations and state laws. Department of the attorney general in support.

Aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Chelsea Okamoto from the Department of Attorney General and unit supervisor for the Tobacco Enforcement Unit. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify on this measure. Our department is in strong support of this bill. This is actually the brainchild of AG Lopez.

The vaping industry has intentionally targeted our youth and saturated the market with highly attractive products, and the Tobacco Control Act granted the FDA power to regulate these e-cigarettes. As of today, the FDA has only authorized 39 e-cigarette products. The FDA has clearly stated it's only these 39 products that may be lawfully sold in the United States, yet we still see a number of these products on our store shelves.

Over the last year, our department has made an active effort to educate tobacco retailers and distributors about this list from the FDA. We've mailed out hundreds of letters to retailers and distributors, and we've updated them whenever there was a change to this list.

We've also updated our websites with these retailer resources. And so we've laid this groundwork. We've set the table, essentially. Now we're asking the legislature to please pass this bill and give the department the tools we need to enforce that list. This bill creates a directory.

It runs parallel to and in lockstep with the FDA's list. It creates a certification process that manufacturers need to abide by in order to participate in Hawaii's marketplace. It gives the department inspection powers to enforce this directory, rulemaking powers and abilities, and it creates civil penalties for the manufacturers that don't comply with the certification process. It also establishes civil penalties for parties that sell products that aren't on this directory. These fees and penalties will then go back to help fund the enforcement efforts.

So we ask you, please pass this bill, and we're available for questions.

Thank you. State Health Funding and Development Agency in support.

Chair, vice chair members, we stand in strong support.

Thank you. State of Hawaii Department of Health.

Thank you, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and members of the committee. I'm Lola Irvin with the Department of Health. The department promotes wellness, and does it through effective prevention, detection, and management of chronic disease. To do that, we work on policies and strengthening policies to protect our children's education, and we provide intervention efforts. Unfortunately, without providing the state that authority, we cannot enforce federal laws.

What's happened is, as our deputy attorney general mentioned, while there are 39 products that have marketing orders from the FDA, there are over 6,800 products out there being sold illegally. Recently at Ala Moana, yes, I do look at the ground, I found an e-cigarette and picked it up and looked it up and found out that it's one of those with 50,000 puffs. That's equal to two fifty packs of cigarettes.

And so, in terms of the amount of nicotine in that and the addictiveness, we are working on reaching young adults. Age 18 to 24, twenty three percent say they use e-cigarettes.

About twenty five percent of our young adults, 25 to 34, use e-cigarettes. With our younger children, more and more are talking about their addiction to nicotine. And so, we thank you so much for considering this bill because we need to protect our children, and we want to have the attorney general have the authority to be able to take these products off the shelves. Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Kevin Ramirez again from Coalition for a Tobacco Free Hawaii and Hawaii Public Health Institute. Thanks for hearing this measure. We are in support of HB 1573, HD1, related to health. So I've been working at the coalition now for nine years.

And part of my role at the coalition is coordinating the 808 No Vape campaign, which is a vaping prevention education campaign. We provide vaping prevention education at local schools throughout the state. So two things I can tell you. One is that vaping is still a serious problem at our high schools and middle schools. And in the last three years, unfortunately, it has become a major problem at elementary schools.

The second thing I can tell you is that the vast majority of the e-cigarette devices that are driving our youth vaping epidemic are illegal, unauthorized devices. As you've heard, the federal Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, is the agency that's in charge of regulating tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, and they've only authorized right now 39 products.

And one of the reasons why there are so few products on that authorization list is because the FDA has a rather stringent criteria for granting authorization to these products. They're looking for two things.

One, is this product going to appeal to an adult smoker, so an adult smoker could switch to electronic cigarettes and stop using combustible cigarettes? And the second thing they're looking for is, is this product going to appeal to youth? If the product appeals to youth, they're not getting on the authorization list, which is one of the reasons why the list is so small.

So HB 1573 will clear the local market of all unauthorized products, and more importantly, will give our state attorney general's office enforcement powers and authority. So thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Each can speaks in support on Zoom.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair. We stand on our written testimony in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify? Okay. Also noting that 11 individuals submitted written testimony in support and four in opposition. Members, any questions?

I have a question on my side. Thank you, Chair. For the AG's office, will this bill help, I mean, how will this bill address individuals trying to purchase these products on Amazon or through mail?

Thank you for that question. So the bill right now is geared towards retailers or brick and mortar stores. However, if there are online retailers who are selling into the state, then they are now in violation of selling into our marketplace where we have this ban. And so this might be going a little bit further than your question, but I think it will help to explain what we're doing.

Our office has signed on to a grant along with other states to enforce online sellers. And so we've worked in this enforcement space where we have a grant where we hire an investigative agency to try to bring products into Hawaii. And if they are able to bring them into certain states with flavor bans, we then get them banned from being able to do that through federal action through the PACT Act.

And so we have been doing these, like, what we call Internet sting operations, and so that would be something that we'd be able to expand into if this bill were to pass. Okay.

Thank you. Thanks for the question. Alright. So I assume you've been following the same bill in the Senate? Yes.

I have been. So I see that they amended it. Did they make any significant amendments that would make the bill less effective? The amendment, I believe, was only technical amendments and effective dates. I believe the House version, Chair Takayama, made an amendment to the fourth violation, and he also adopted the Office of Information Practices recommendation.

And those are amendments that we're fine with. So going forward, if this bill were to go to conference, hopefully we can reconcile those very small, non-substantive differences between the bills.

Department of Health. So of the 39 products that were FDA approved, or have, I don't know what it's called, permission to market or whatnot. Yes. I'm looking at them right now. It looks like, I mean, I personally think menthol is a flavor, but it looks like all of them are either menthol or tobacco flavored. Is that fair? Or are there any?

You're right. They are menthol or tobacco flavored.

Okay. So there are no other flavors that would be on, if we were to pass this, there would be no flavored?

There would be no fruit and candy flavored products.

Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, I think one more time. Yeah.

Thank you. Department of Health. Can I ask you my question? Thank you. So you know what the, the smoking cessation campaign's secondhand smoke was a big issue.

It was very helpful. Is, is secondhand, I don't know what comes out after people inhale things from these devices. What comes out into the atmosphere around them?

It would be the nicotine. Oh. And it would be, so unfortunately, what's happening is that the propylene glycol, right, the chemicals that are used to heat up the nicotine, unfortunately the coils also corrode over use, and so there are metal particulates that also enter the air, enter the user's lungs, but it can also then be exhaled back out. And so, and then the flavorants are not actually authorized for inhalation. They may be for, right.

I mean, the gut is different than the lungs. And so it is not authorized to be used for inhalation. So that will also go on. And some of them are carcinogenic. They can cause cancer.

So is this, can I just clarify? Is this why, I mean, are these e-tobacco, these e-cig things, are they prohibited from being used in state buildings?

Yes. They, thank you for the question, and that's an excellent question. So if you look at chapter 328J on smoking, electronic smoking devices have been added to the definition of what is not allowed for indoor smoking.

Okay. And is there a criminal fine or a, I mean, is there a criminal penalty or a civil fine, or?

There's an administrative penalty. And you can actually let us know, and we can send letters out and notify people and help them too if they want to quit. Thank you.

What happens if you find a violation now? What's the, do you report to FDA or do you continue?

So if we find a product that is not on that FDA list right now, because it is a federal law, we feel that it is not our jurisdiction to then enforce federal law. So that's why we're asking for this bill, so that we have a state law that we can now enforce. But right now, we've tried to partner with the FDA to let them know right now.

But with the resources being the way they are, we don't see the enforcement that we would like to see.

You're enforcing this, but what happens if you find someone that's buying, selling to underage or anything? What happens then?

So right now, and this might be a better question for the Department of Health, but right now there are contractors with the FDA who do those underage buys for products. Say they buy a product that's a flavored product that's not on the FDA list and they're under 21. So there is a whole system where there's civil money penalties applied to that retailer who allowed that sale to happen.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay. Moving on to HB 1777 HD1 relating to housing, requires developers developing a housing project under the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to assist certain tenants who are subject to displacement or eviction by the proposed project. Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation in support. HKN Speaks in support on Zoom.

Hello, hello, Nicole again from HCAN Speaks. I will stand on our written written testimony in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Medical Legal Partnership for Children in Hawaii in support.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. Dina Shek for the Medical Legal Partnership for Children in Hawaii. Through my sixteen years of running the Medical Legal Partnership, I have really seen how housing policy is health policy. Housing stability is not only about a roof over your head, but it's about educational stability, it's about access to health care. It's about connections to community.

And I saw personally each of these things broken during the redevelopment of the KPT low rise over the last two years. Broken education, broken health care, broken communities.

This leads to a broken trust in the redevelopment process, and this bill seeks to provide that stability and accountability for the relocation and return process, especially for the public housing residents who will be displaced by the governor's Kalemawi redevelopment project, which is poised to displace nearly 2,000 public housing residents to build over I think now it's 12,000 new units as the target, at I think maybe eight or 10 more public housing complexes.

To be clear, the KBT tenants that we work with, including those who came to testify at all five hearings last session, they are not against redevelopment. What they fought for is some basic accountability and enforcement.

So this measure is a significant step towards ensuring accountability by codifying and providing oversight for what displaced tenants have been asking for all along, a clear right to return, a clear process, clear communication, and accountability so that Hawaii tenants will be treated with respect throughout the relocation and return process. I'll just close by saying that I also support clarifying the meaning of comparable unit and would encourage that any definition include that displaced public housing residents have a right to return under the same rent scheme as they had before. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. NAIOP Hawaii offering comments.

I'll send out our comments.

Thank you. Parents and Children Together in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Trisha Kajimura with Parents and Children Together or PACT. PACT, as you know, was founded in public housing, particularly at QPT, and so we are also tenants of public housing. We still have programs there serving early childhood, youth, and families. And we were alongside some of our clients as they struggled through the low rise phase one redevelopment, particularly in areas of language access, finding comparable units in family size, and those that would accommodate disabilities.

We've found over the years that when we take into consideration the experience of the people that we serve, programs, and services will be better. And so we would really like to use those experiences of low rise redevelopment one phase one from QPT to improve the process going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Doneileen Willets, individual in support on Zoom. Yes. Hello.

My name is Doneileen Willets, and thank you both for allowing me to testify on this matter. So my family and I have, were affected by the redevelopment project of Kuhio Homes. We can attest to the struggle looking for a place wasn't, without any assistance was very difficult. There were no suggestions, only what was suggested to us. All the while raising a deadline.

So that was one of the hardest parts of getting through this. We fought very hard to be kept in the same community that raised us, not because of familiarity, but because of the bond and love that this place still holds, which, by the way, we were honored, with our first choice at the last resorts. And we're happy to still be within Kalihi, a place that welcomes all. The challenges without accountability and these redevelopment projects can be heard from those who moved out of the community.

You'll learn that kids are still trying to find their sense of belonging, and elders are starting to lose that.

So to maintain and preserve community, you must first learn what exactly does the community need. For starters, time and transparency, balance, and harmony. But, thank you for hearing my testimony.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify? Okay. Seeing none, members, any questions? Okay.

I have a question for NAIOP. Your, thank you. In your testimony, you advocated for instead of three months rent capped at what would be affordable to 60% AMI or three months rent at the original rent rate, the greater of the two or the lesser of the two. Which, are you instead advocated for a three month rent differential equaling the difference between a tenant's current rent at the time of displacement and the cost of a comparable unit within the same district? Have you looked into sort of any estimation of what that might be?

We didn't look into the exact numbers of what that might be per dish on a per district basis. I think we were mainly basing the rent differential recommendation based on what each of FTC does typically. And and and then, again, like, I think the base of our testimony is we don't want this, is we don't want this, you know, increased cost to be passed down to the eventual new new unit owners, right, in a time where we're trying to

keep housing cost at a at a relatively low or keep it from going up, actually. So that's where it went through. But to answer your question directly, we did not, like, kinda look at what each comparable, you know rent for their where they're displaced from to where they're gonna be relocated to, was would be, you know, just yeah. We don't have that.

Okay. And I we discussed this at a previous committee hearing, but just to have the conversation again in this committee. Given that, you know, there have been there's been a recent example of a project at Yolani School, which displaced tenants and provided actually more than three months of their current rent in relocation assistance. What is I mean, like what is the reasoning behind setting this relocation assistance payment significantly lower than what developers are currently doing.

Right. And I think, you know, of course, that Iolani project is is replacing, you know, housing units with an expansion of a school, so it's, of course, slightly different. I do think that, you know, at the end of the day, a developer will will take into their pro formas an an analysis of the call the cost that are incorporated, including what will will arise from this.

And, you know, if they can bear if if the market that they're in can bear that, then I think it's, of course, you know, to kinda provide additional assistance. But I think to make it a requirement, for how all housing projects under 201H might be a little bit onerous across the board.

So it'll again, it'll depend on, like, the market and the location of the project at that point in time.

K. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Members, any other questions?

Chef Bill and Bettina. We we talked a little bit earlier about comparable units. My fear in looking at the wording of the bill is that if we define comparable unit as the similar something of a similar rent scheme, When you go down to the how it's used in the bill, they have the right to first offer for a comparable unit available on the housing project.

I'm worried that if they don't offer them the same rent scheme, it won't be considered a comparable unit, and there will be no comparable units available in the housing project. So comparable unit, I mean, I'm assuming you mean more square footage. Is that?

I think so comparable unit, my understanding is that a general definition looking at some of the federal language includes a lot of that. Right? Includes some of the square footage. It includes the location, the access to schools and work, and it also often include definitions often include something related to financial within the financial means of the displaced person. So that could also be broadly encompassing of a similar rent.

I'm less worried about the location and everything because it'll be in the same project. So that that I think is taken care of. And it sounds like the other two aspects are the size of the unit and then the cost structure. Yes. So those are the two pieces that I think I'd like to cement in place with a comparable unit definition, but I just wanna make sure that there's no nothing else I'm missing.

Yes. I think I'm I'm just thinking about what happened at the low rise and what is being promised, for example, by Hawaii Public Housing Authority as they are looking to redevelop upwards of eight to 10, I think, major public housing complexes.

And what happened with KBT low rise is they actually HPHA did provide for 65 project based vouchers to be available to the developers so that those displaced families, which were 64 units, in reality it was actually 60 occupied units at the time that they were displaced, that they would all have potentially have the opportunity to come back using those vouchers. So in my mind, that was the same rent scheme that they had before.

So they would if you were income based rent, you're paying a third of your income.

You would be able to come back under that same rent scheme. The challenge is that it's promised. It's on the papers, but it's not I mean, HPHA can move those vouchers as they see fit. Those vouchers may or may not end up being utilized. And so for me, having something that's more in place in the definition around especially as we're looking ahead to very large public housing complexes being redeveloped, that they would have the right to come back under a similar rent income based rent.

Granted, some people, their rent may change in that interim, and we have counseled people on that concept of return. Maybe they actually would be better off not using a voucher in the future, if their situation is different. And maybe that fixed rent is perfectly fine, which a lot of these affordable housing have. However, those fixed rents even within the changes if you look at the HHFDC documents, they've been steadily going up the rent structure as we see the new updated versions.

So even that's been really difficult to have any assurance for people who are displaced thinking about that.

Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? We've seen none moving on to our last measure measure, HD seventeen forty nine, HD one relating to cesspools. Required beginning 01/01/2027, requires sellers to provide buyers with a wastewater system disclosure form before the execution of your real estate purchase contract, and requires the Department of Health and Real Estate Commission to develop a standardized wastewater system disclosure form by 11/01/2026.

Oops. Sorry. Okay. Department of Water and Natural Resources in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Charlie Taylor on behalf of DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand in support of this bill, and are available for any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. OPSD in support?

I stand on written testimoneyin support.

Thank you.

BCCA, Hawaii Real Estate Commission, offering comments.

Chair, vice chair, committee members. I'm Neil Fujitani with the Hawaii Real Estate Commission here for, Derek Yalani. We stand on our, comments.

Thanks. Hawaii Association of Realtors with comments.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members. My name is Lindsey Garcia from Hawaii Association of Realtors. So we provided comments. Just wanted to highlight. I do also want to thank the speed task force for, you know, bringing forth this measure.

It's very important. We believe in disclosure, and that education and information is very important. So because, this this this desire from the speed task force to to provide additional disclosure was brought to us kind of early.

We were able to actually work with the introducer to go about, improving our forms that we we provide standard forms from the industry, that already includes assessable disclosure, but we are in the process of, inserting basically the language of this bill that has that additional disclosure of, like, you know, by 2050, we must, assessable disclosure to be converted into a DOH approved wastewater system. So we're actually inserting that into our standard forms.

And it's in the process right now of going through comment, and all goes well. It will be approved by our membership and the board, and we're hoping to be able to launch our new updated forms in May. So we just wanted to thank everyone for this bill and stand on the rest of our comments.

Thank you. Thank you. Hawaii REAP and Ocean Coalition in support.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, committee members. Ted Noland on behalf of Hawaii REAP and Ocean Coalition in strong support. Buyers of property in Hawaii ought to have clear notice. I'm glad to hear that the real estate people are working on it, but I would still ask the bill to be passed so that they get notice. It's important that they get notice that they have a cesspool and at the time that they would have to upgrade.

But it's also important to know what kind of wastewater system they have. And here, I proposed an amendment to the committee for a small language change because the bill used to say cesspools, now it says wastewater systems. The problem with that is that in the rules of the Department of Health, a wastewater system includes a treatment plant, a sludge plant. It's a really broad term.

So what you need to have is an amendment on page three, line seven, for an individual wastewater system or connection to a sewer or large capacity cesspool.

And again, in one line 20 of page three, similar change to make clear what we're talking about, which is if you've got an individual waste water system, you've got a cesspool, you've got a large capacity cesspool, or you've got sewer connection, you ought to have information about which kind you have. So that you know what the cost consequences are gonna be, and you're not surprised after you buy a piece of property. Whoops, I gotta do a cesspool upgrade. So that's my, that's my proposed amendment.

I urge the committee to make that amendment and to pass the bill.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify?

Thank you.

Morning, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Joanna Yeh. I'm with the attorney general. I just wanted to note that this bill is entitled related to cesspools, however, section one c of HD one.

I need to speak up a little bit.

Yeah. I need

to speak up a little bit.

Oh, I'm so sorry. Can you hear me better now? Okay. Sorry about that. So HD 1 would require the seller disclosure form to include, wastewater systems.

This definitely would broaden the scope or broaden the disclosure to include other wastewater systems in addition to cesspools. So your title is entitled cesspools. However, the, body of the the bill encompasses something broader, which is wastewater systems. So this may be a potential title subject issue. So articles three of Section 14 of the holy state constitution provides in relevant part that each law shall embrace, but one subject which shall be expressed in its title.

And again, as I said, in this case, the title is is narrower than the subject. To address this concern, we recommend that this committee revert back to the language in the original bill, which is HB 1749. I think I believe it's in Section 2C, and that disclosure form specifically pertains to cesspools.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other testifiers on HB 1749 hd 1? Seeing none, members, any questions for? For the realtors

hi. I just feel a little bit of deja vu because we've had this bill for several years or, you know, maybe not last year, but prior years before, and realtors had the same testimony that they were working on updating their forms. But here we are, I forget how many years, three, four years later, and that still hasn't happened. So what's different this time? Nope.

Thank you, representative, for that question. And, you know, I've I've only been with the realtors a couple years. I can't really verify, or I I was may not have been here during the previous discussions you may have had. But all I can say is that this year we, you know, we were contacted early, by members of the Speed Task Force to to consider updating our our standard forms and we were able to convince our standard forms committee to undertake this process.

And so we, you know, we appreciate the ability to work with the legislature, in order to to do what we can to provide additional disclosure. I apologize, that that it that is taking longer than than you may have wanted, but we we do want to help educate, you know, people about this requirement.

We do believe it's important, and we do thank you also for all your wonderful work on this issue. Thank you, Ram. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I have someone on question. Possibly for the realtors. I'm sorry. The disclosure form is different than what is what you require realtors to put on a is that h m what is the list MLS? What is the listing called?

Oh, yes. Are you checking about in an ad or in a listing? The listing. Yeah. So the the what we're talking about here is the sellers real property disclosure form, the or the SRPDS.

And we we have all of this the disclosures there at that point just because there's so many disclosures. Right? Everything from, like, what type of electricity do you have, where is your your post office box, you know, like, everything. There's there's so there's so much information about a property, that is some is mandated. Some, we we also just have volunteered that we believe is important, to include that a that a buyer must know when they're purchasing a property.

So so we have all of those disclosures kind of all in one place because we don't want anything to get missed

Right.

Or to say that something is necessarily more important than something else. Everything is important, and we want the buyer to have that informed decision.

But this may also be something that you guys internally, ask your members to include in their actual listing.

I see what you mean. Yes.

So but this doesn't require that, but you guys can do it individually.

If, you know, if the seller would like to disclose that in the ad, that they're more than welcome to do so. When it comes to what's mandated by the law, we'd like to have it all kind of in one place because we don't we wanna make sure that nothing gets missed. Right? Yeah. Thank you.

And then Thank you so much, rep.

Thank you. And then

can I ask a question to the attorney general?

I'm sorry. I have one more realtor while she's out. Sure. You that's like you're the proposed change. When is it do you think it's gonna be actually implemented this time?

It's in it's in the comment and review process now, but our next scheduled release for updated forms is May 1. So all goes well and the board approves, then then that would be when the forms go live.

K. And I am considering adding a requirement to have them list the level of cesspool as well. If you added that change in there, would it restart the whole process? Okay. Unfortunately.

There's no, like, amendment that can be made at the board meeting to so I'm I'm just wondering because this bill may change as it goes to the legislature. The language that you're using is from the original Yes. Task force bill. But if that changes by the end, is there no way to conform to what the legislature wants as a body?

I understand your question, chair, and it's a good point. I I would have to take that back and and ask the standard forms committee what the process would be. It may delay the process. We'd probably have to send everything back out for comment again. But but but I can get back to you and let you know for sure, you know, what their answer would be.

Okay. And secondarily, if this bill does pass and your form also passes, are you gonna just have it in two places, which I guess is not the worst. It'll just be, like, extra disclosure.

But There is something to be said about there it being a bit duplicative to have it to have our forms and then to have a separate form created Especially if they say necessarily different things or even if the same thing, it would definitely be duplicative. But but, you know, whatever the legislature thinks is best.

Okay. So I guess what's the point where you can pull it back on your end if it looks like this bill is gonna it's it's a little weird. The timing is weird. Right? Because May 1 is kind of right before we we voted out completely.

I would be able to to inform the chair, of when our board does the final vote, for approval of the form, which would which would occur before May 1. Like, we just we just kind of do bulk releases of the form itself to our membership on May and November. So we would know ahead of time.

By the time you guys make your final vote, the bill won't have been necessarily finalized yet too. But That's also true. Hoping that there's some some thing you can do on your end to kind of sync the things. But if not, then, you know, we'll just go with it. Yeah.

Thanks.

Thank you. I can keep you informed.

Yep. Thank you. Thank

you. Sorry. Sorry. The attorney general. This is regarding your point about the title and it being limited to cesspools. Is it possible to conform with that requirement by defining all those things that are not cesspools in relationship to the word cesspool, for instance. This is the definition of cesspool, cesspool tier one, cesspool tier two. This is a definition of a noncespool septic or something, you know, like, is there a way to construct definitions within the definition section that does bring into conformity while still recognizing that there are various degrees and various, as, mister Bolen pointed out, different kinds of

Sorry. I don't think you didn't answer that at that point. There's no way we're defining a septic tank as a cess pool.

I don't know. No. I'm saying I was just throwing it out.

And Yeah. Yeah.

I I think that would cause quite a bit of confusion if we were to find other wastewater systems like sewers assessable. Okay. So yeah.

Alright. Yeah. I kinda meant it just for the record, I kinda meant it, like, it's saying that this is not considered assessable. Do you know what I mean? Like, if the thing is about the title, how do we get there by saying this is not assessable? And then

But the bill was was expanded to include all those things. So we couldn't define them back into assessment without being very misleading.

Not okay. Got it. I was just looking for a solution.

Members, any other questions? Okay. See you in the chair.

Okay. Thank you. Recess.

Okay. Thank you. Recess.

Alright. Reconvening for decision making.

First up, we have HB 2614 relating to deceptive practices. Chair's recommendation is to defect the date, and on page eight, line 15, to remove the language notwithstanding subsection P to the contrary, which does not appear to have any effect. Members, any comments? Vice chair can vote.

[Roll Call]

Keep voting on HB 2614. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye.

Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up. HB 1660 HD1 relating to county labor standards. Chance recommendations to pass this as is, members any comments? Vice chair, can vote.

Voting on HB 1660 HD1, chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting the excused absence of representative Tam, are there any reservations? Any noes? Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you, members. Looking back to HB 1704 HD1 relating to the psychology interjurisdictional compact, the board testimony is concerning. Chair's recommendation, we'll we'll be deferring this at this time. Moving on to HB 1563 HD1 relating to tobacco products. Chair's recommendation is to amend the bill per the AG's testimony to remove section three, as it might restrict the counties to just regulating the sale of these products and not further regulation of them.

I do wanna give the counties as broader regulatory power and options as possible.

So counties should be able to still regulate tobacco products without the section three in the bill. Members, any comments? Feel welcome.

Sure. Thank you. I just want to say that I support, especially because it's about home giving counties home rule authority. Thank you.

Any other comments? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1563 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting the excused absence of representative Tam for the remainder of measures on this agenda. Are there any members voting with reservations? Any noes? Okay.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to HB 1573 HD1 relating to health. Oh, we got a lot of, kinda, minor amendments on this one. Just cleaning this up a little bit. Page five, line five, we're gonna add offer to sale is also prohibited.

Page five, lines fourteen and fifteen, we're gonna delete except as provided in this subsection. Bottom of page five, we're adding language for similar intermediary or intermediaries to subsection one. Adding a provision we're gonna add a prohibition against distribution to this bill for the products we're seeking to ban here to prevent these prohibited items from being given as gifts along with the sale of other products or otherwise to get try to get around the sale prohibition.

Adding a prohibition against acquiring, possessing, transporting, or keeping any of these prohibited products for consistency throughout the bill, and adding vending machines to the bill to gosh. I can't remember the page number, but it's line three.

One of the pages, have to allow the AGs to also search the vending machines for these permitted items just to keep it consistent throughout the bill. Members, did I defect the date? No. Already defect the date.

Members, any comments? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1573 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any members voting with reservations?

I'll vote with reservations. Thank you.

Any noes? Okay. Oops. Sorry. Rep. Iwamoto votes with reservations. Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to HB 1777 HD1 relating to housing. I think we do need to work on comparable unit language. In talks with my vice chair, it sounds like the comparable unit language that I proposed or floated during the testimony portion is not going to work with the structure of the bill.

I do wanna pass this this bill as is, but I do want to note in the committee report that the next committee should look at comparable unit language, and my vice chair will be working with the relevant parties to better define comparable units that works for all of the projects encompassed by this bill.

Members, any comments? The vice chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1777 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

K. Thank you, members. Moving on to the last bill of the agenda, HB 1749 HD1 relating to cesspools. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the adopt UH's proposed amendment to add that the disclosure must also include the level of cesspool or cesspools present on the property. We're gonna be also, in consideration of the AG's testimony, rolling it back from, two cesspools from wastewater systems to address the title concern.

Although the chair of EEP will be working with the EGs to determine whether we can expand this to wastewater at the next committee or the next opportunity to amend. Members, any comments? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1749 HD1, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you, members. We're adjourned.