House Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon, everybody. This is your committee on education. Today's date is the twelfth of February, and it's about 02:05 pm in Conference Room 309 in the Capitol. 15 deals on the agenda today. First up, we have HB 1783.

This is public and, public and private partnerships with SFA. First up on my list, we have DOE offering comments. Next, we have Charter School Commission offering to somebody in support.

We stand in, on our testimony with the comments. Thank you.

And chair, vice chair, I thank you for this opportunity. We do, definitely support this. If anything piloting or innovation, charter schools are ready ready to, respond.

Thank you for being here. Next on our list we have Charter School Commission offering bits of money to support in person.

Thank you, David, for being here. As with SFA offering testimony in support in person.

Executive director. Thank you, chair and vice chair. Yeah. SFA supports this bill because Koeye needs another way. The usual way is too expensive, too slow, and the scale of what we have to build is tremendous.

I mean, what's on record right now is about 17 schools for about $3,400,000,000. So there has to be another way, and there are other ways like P3. You know, the flagship example is in Maryland where literally, 14 schools have been built in the period of time. So so please please consider it that way.

Thank you for your testimony, thank you for being here. Next we have Hawaii Technology Academy, offering testimony and support in person.

Hi chair, vice chair, board chairs. My name is Matt Sotelo. I am the executive director of the Hawaii Technology Academy, the state's largest public charter school. We operate six campuses on four islands and right now we have approximately 2,200 students, and in the past four years we've grown about 16% and, particularly that growth is centered around South And Central Oahu, and despite the growth we still have significant growth lists.

And for us, facilities remain our single greatest barrier to expanding access, high real estate costs, complex permitting process limit our ability to really serve the families as we hope to do and that are especially seeking flexible personalized public options.

So this House Bill 1783, to my mind is a game changer, because it really is going to help us meet the demonstrated community needs while leveraging smart investment strategies. I think it's a responsible path forward, in enabling a public private charter I mean, partnership. And, on behalf of HCA, our families, I, stand in support, and I want to mahalo you for your time and for your your care for our community.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Hawai'i Kids Can offering testimony and support. We have Hawaii how HLS Action Network speaks in support. HGEA offering comments in person.

EPW in opposition. Koloha Project offering testimony in support. And we have six individuals all offering testimony in support. Anyone else, HB 1783? Seeing none, members with any questions?

I'm just trying to share.

Vice chair go ahead.

HDOE, please, just briefly. Deputy. In your testimony, you had, focused on whether the bill can explicitly just cover public charter schools. Is that correct?

Yes.

And I just wanted to clarify the bill's title is relating to charter school facilities, I think. So anything that would be covered under this bill would only focus on charter schools, is what I am interpreting, but unless you have a different interpretation.

So Jesse Suki, deputy superintendent of operations, state of Hawaii, Department of Education. In response to your comment under where is it? It's under Section two of the bill, and you get to subsection 50, we're expanding their, scope of authority, to partner with public and private development agencies to develop, and they're adding other public school facilities, including public charter schools. So, you know, there's some room there for this to be interpreted with an expanded, scope of authority beyond what SFA is currently doing.

If it's just focused on public charter schools, our comment is, you know, we're not as concerned.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. So much.

SFA, please. Thank you, director. If you can kindly just share with and expound on what this model should it, translate to, how is this gonna be operationalized, and how would you, in what it's intended to do, expand on public charters for facilities, how would this work with potentially an operator, an existing operator?

Right. So the ideal model, and it doesn't apply everywhere. It applies really in instances where there's a real estate development, because you have a developer there already and they've been wanting a school for a very, very, very long time. So a charter school would partner with the developer and estimate what it would cost to build a school. And in that case, it could be using land dedicated for a school or maybe not.

What the private contribution would be by the developer because is important to have a school in their community. What the charter school could do. And then finally what the state could do. In terms of like, typically it's a state contribution or what they call availability payments, but the proposal is wide open. So just let the private side come up with different models, different ideas. In the case of Maryland, it was availability payments for a lot because it was 14 schools. But what normally would have taken fifteen years to build was then five years.

So so it's it's it's a pilot to expand what's possible and what's available and have the private side along with the schools come up with a model for you to consider the model here.

And you're currently asking for $3,000,000. What would that cover?

So the intent is and it's it's like capture money for proposals. You give award winning people, people that submit a proposal a concept award, so some of the pre development programming costs are paid by that. That way you get better proposals the following year.

So the intent would be, if it was 3,000,000, maybe we would give each awardee half 1,000,000 for capture costs for predevelopment, so you get a better proposal.

If it's more, then we could give them a million dollars. This is similar to what's happening for The Isle Of Wye Bridge. Right? The city's giving and and the federals are giving a million dollars to each prospective bidder to come with a better proposal, you know. And that's what we wanna do.

You want good, solid proposals that have been well thought out, and that's what this pilot does.

Okay. Thank you. Yep.

Thank you, vice chair. Charter School Commission, please. Thank you for being here in your testimony. I think that you stated that already you have some public private partnerships with regards to either preschools or pre kindergartens. I'm not sure which one.

Yes. So the first of this kind of model of private public partnership was with Parkway Village Preschool. So it's the state's first, pre k only charter, and so we, teamed up with PACT. PACT was the non profit, then went into this agreement and that that helped through that development and the establishment of the first preschool.

Can you kind of explain what that means a little bit?

Okay. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Members, any other questions? Okay.

Seeing none, we're going to go on to the next bill, which is HB 1778. This is regarding SFA and establishment of a CIP database. First up on our list. We have Department of Education offering comments in person.

We rest on our testimony.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have SFA in support in person.

Well, SFA supports this bill. What this bill does is create a justification and business plan on why you should fund the projects at schools. Normally, if this were a school district on the Mainland, you'd have to have an incredibly detailed plan showing the why, the how, and the when in order to justify a significant bond fund every time. Because, right, the bond the the property taxpayers pay significant property taxes to fund what we build at schools.

Because Hawaii schools are centrally funded, we don't have that discipline.

What this bill does, this modernization creates that discipline to justify the quality of our facilities, what's the condition, what has to be fixed, what type of classification code, where and when, and when it should be done. So it creates this database that allows the legislator to make more informed decisions than normally would have been done for a property tax kind of methodology. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have HSTA offering testimony and support in person.

Who's there?

Alright. Thank you so much. Next, we have HGEA offering comments in person. Right here. Right here.

Okay. We have HCAN, speaks, offering testimony and support, written testimony only. And then we have several individuals, about seven, all all offering testimony and support. Anyone else? HB 1778.

Seeing none, members are there any questions?

Question. For DOE, please.

So in your testimony, you referenced to where data is located in within various branches, and then you mentioned a Maximo database, a facilities condition index that was that was discontinued in 2023. Do you have anything similar as to what this bill is looking for already currently structured and set up and that's currently being actively used by the department?

Before I respond, if I may, I'd just like to correct, some things for the record. You know, just I think it was today, you know, we got we all made aware that the Federal Government is introducing Congress a bill to provide a $100,000,000,000 of schools across the country to modern not modernize, but address deferred maintenance issues because this is an issue across the entire country.

And that is the impetus for that bill is based on a GAO report in 2020 that surveyed a 100,000 schools across the country and found that 54% of them have these huge deferred maintenance issues. So to say that other states haven't figured out, I think is misleading. So the issue we have in the state of Hawaii is that we do have a deferred maintenance list for all of our schools.

We have that list. We know what that list says. And every year, we go

through that list of principals, CASes, in our department to prioritize what projects will be taken up for deferred maintenance across the 258 schools with six conversion charges. And that approved by the board is what we bring to the legislature when we request the funds. So when we talk about putting $4,000,000 or $3,000,000 into a new technology to do what? What what what is it gonna accomplish? I don't understand.

In in in our, project delivery, we we have systems like Maximo and,

CPT, we have a financing software that connects things, we have GIS. Those tools have in them our facilities, square footage, you know, the one that we talk about that hasn't been updated. The GAO report had that on average, schools update deferred, you know, when they this is not deferred maintenance, it's assessing the schools individually one by one. They do it about every 10 years, so, you know, we're pretty good comparatively because since it was last updated in, like, 2023.

So, and then, you know, what is that news for?

You know, all that stuff is rolled up into the deferred maintenance, issues that we have, and that that list is built upon, and these new issues are identified by schools.

Deputy, if I may, I think.

hank you for sharing the earlier comment, but this is not about current plans. I think what we're trying to capture here is we know that we have hundreds and hundreds of buildings beyond their extended life. We know from each of our districts that we all have ongoing repair and maintenance projects that have been deferred, have been delayed, that impact directly the ability of a student or an athlete or a club activity and their ability to undertake any of these types of activities.

So it's very disruptive. What's missing right now is an opportunity for us as decision makers to look comprehensively at the status of all of the CIP deferred maintenance plans as to how it's going, what the plans are, when is it gonna be completed, how's it going in other districts, so that we know how to prioritize.

Because what we're what's happening right now is we get a full a lump sum request, and then once we appropriate, there's no update.

The update sometimes is what as we've experienced in the last couple years was, oh, half $1,000,000,000 we're gonna defer or we're gonna lapse because, you know, because, you know, to our on our own fault here, we over allocated for certain projects, but at the same time, there really is legitimate facilities there that were need to be addressed and that and so I think what this really captures is creating this transparency tool, not just for lawmakers, but for the public to be able to make better decisions on how we're prioritizing our our facilities.

It's if you ask the question, what is what is the purpose of this bill? I think that's what we're asking you is if you're claiming to have all of this data, why doesn't a dashboard exist?

And so to that to that I'll respond. The department had a dashboard at one point and it wasn't providing the kind of information that folks looking in wanted needed to see. And so we are working on improving that outward facing dashboard, for lack of a better word. But, you know, we have a place to start from. We we have databases that we're looking at.

Right now, we're going through this process of evaluating whether or not the existing tools we have, one of them, Maximo, is being upgraded to the latest edition, and how the others can integrate. And, you know, we're looking at it from two perspectives. One, inward, how do we manage projects which, they're they're currently doing and outwardly, how do we present that data in more flexible types of reports that, you know, legislators may may ask for. So we're we're working on that.

Having $3,000,000 would would help, but we're not at a point where we would make a a monetary request because as you know with these kind of IT programs, they can go sideways really fast, and you end up putting a lot of money into something that doesn't work in the end.

So we're we're taking a planful approach in our updates, and I think, one of the other committees, we said that we're gonna have a framework for how we're doing that in the long run, in summer that we're gonna present to the board. But now we're doing sort of internal, things we can do to make it make it work better.

So again, going back to my question, you currently do not have an existing active dashboard that is that could be utilized as to what this what the data that was being requested?

So there's there's a couple ways to come at it. So so one is with project CIP updates. We send a a letter at least twice a year to all legislators that talk about the projects in the legislator's district and the status of that project. So that's the CIP. For, the deferred and and, for the deferred maintenance projects, those projects are also, you know, in in that letter, for the ones that move forward that get funding.

And then we have the CPT, you know, we're working on having the data in there updated more often because what happens is, you know, the staff workflow, they're not updating the outward facing one, timely enough. So we're working on improving that.

So we do have, like, an outward facing tool that folks can look at, legislators can look at, but, you know, if you wanted a really updated list for your district, that that letter we sent around has the updated, information on the projects that are being worked on.

I think what you're expressing is very different from what could be a publicly accessible site that easily captures this point in time, real data on where all projects are just transparently on where we're allocating our dollars and, like, as to the progress we're doing. Thanks. So I'll rest on my questions, sir. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, vice chair and members. Any other questions? Seeing none, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2344, independent public school realignment and closure commission. First we have on our list is the Department of Education offering comments. 2344.

Aloha, chair Woodson, vice chair LaChica, and members of the committee. I'm Elizabeth Higashi, the assistant superintendent testifying on behalf of the department. The department stands on its written testimony in comments that we propose a timeline approach and methodology to the Board of Education regarding school consolidations. We just wanna emphasize that for us in the department, it is really critical for us to be part of the process of school consolidations in order to ensure education and students remain focused throughout. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you for your testimony. Yes. We also have the Board of Education offering comments. They're not here. We have SFA operating comment in person.

Thank you. We have comments in that this bill is incredibly timely. The way it's changed, our schools have not. We can't kick the can down the road any longer given the federal climate. Significant cuts in federal programs will require three things.

You either raise taxes or you cut federal funding for key programs like SLAP, TANF, health care, shelter, or you restructure government. What this our comment for this bill is it's it's restructuring government. And what's the best way to do it with following a successful model in BRAC? For those of you who aren't familiar with BRAC, at the close of the Cold War, we had a similar kind of problem.

We had all these military bases wrapped through a series of subsequent years, close 350 military bases across the world. Even one year, arborist point. It led to the Presidio in San Francisco, an incredible national monument that was repurposing all these lands. So we have that same challenge right now. Right? We're at the same we're at this point where in Hawaii, we have the same enrollment in 1961, yet we have 43 more schools.

So we've been kicking this can down the road all this time. Now it's time for some bold ideas like this bill, which uses a successful BRAC model to pave the way and make this happen. One specific comment that we wanna add to the current bill is that it says to put this land with the SFA, and really we're not the ones who should be stewards of this land. It should be a a bigger agency.

It should be a movement where a group that has a whole land group because you're gonna have to clear title, find easements, look for other things as you redevelop this this this land. And you're gonna have other departments that has to reimagine the reuse of this land just like the Barbara Point enabled airspeed. So to me, the key is this is the timeliness of this billing power. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I saw that here in testimony. Next, we have AG's office office offering testimony, offering comments, sorry, in person.

Good afternoon, chair Woodson, vice chair LaChica of the committee. Randall Watt, deputy attorney general on behalf of the party. As described in our written testimony, the department has comments regarding section two, subsection e as a reference to administrative support that an it deems necessary to fulfill the duties of the commission. But it's unclear whether or not it is the Department of Accounting General Services or the commission itself. Regarding section two, subsection h, there is or between subsections H1 and H2.

The approval of the governor is to curb a four, it's transmitted, so we recommend that we change to and. Regarding section four, subsection b contemplates the bill, contemplates that closed schools shall be transferred to the SFA for disposition. This would appear to conflict with the HRS sections 1302 A-151 and 302 A-151.5.

So if the entire legislature is to bestow this authority upon the SFA, that we recommend that these other statutes be amended to align with that. And finally, a small technical thing on page seven, line 17. There appears to be no Section three. It's for skips over from Section two to Section three.

Thank you so much.

Glad to be of help with this.

Thank you. Next, we have DAGS. Offering comments? And a couple others. We have HGEA, operating testimony in opposition.

Similarly so, UPW, also in opposition, one individual in support. Anyone else? HB 2344. Seeing none, members are there any questions? A quick question for DOE.

Thank you for being here. Can you can you just, like, quickly explain the current consolidation process that's laid out in current statute and also in BGR?

So currently in the HAR, the process has looks at three critical areas. Looking at utilization of space, enrollment, and facilities, and looking at threshold they use is a two thirds threshold in regards to. So any of those three criterias can trigger a consolidation study.

So under the administrative rule, what happens is we would report to the board a list of schools that we feel would be studied, and that would trigger a process where the department would then have to analyze data to then determine what recommendations the superintendent would then take to the board, on whether a consolidation were to occur or perhaps the consolidation is not recommended.

So what the report and study is provided to the Board of Education, which would go through the financial the FIC, financial infrastructure committee, at that time, it triggers public hearings.

At that, we give the opportunity for the public at that time to share what their thoughts are regarding the recommendation. After the public hearing, a report is then provided to the superintendent to then provide an updated recommendation that is made at that time to back to the board for action.

That's pretty well laid out. Okay. Thank you so much. Members, any other questions? Okay.

Seeing none, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HD, what is it, two, three, four, five. This is with regards to SFA and the establishment of a geographic CRP district. First up, we have DOE in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jesse Souki, Deputy Superintendent of Operations, Department of Education. We wrote in opposition of this bill. We believe that this is a duplicative process. We're concerned about spending money wisely.

The process wouldn't be duplicated. Some of the stuff, in the bill that's being proposed are already being done. We do have district project coordinators, across the state in geographic areas who are responsible for, coordinating projects in those geographic areas. Like we spoke about before, we have a list of projects that we're working on, projects that were appropriated money. I don't know how this will help, streamline, create confusion by having two separate agencies.

Again, SFA is a separate agency doing the same thing at the same time. So we'll rest and have questions if you have them.

Thank you so much, Mr. Souki. Next we have SFA offering comments in person.

Thank you, Committee. Our comments are that the issue is localization versus centralization. Localization makes a lot of sense because, as you know, each island and county has separate requirements for permitting, a separate permitting department. It has a separate fire department, a separate fire chief. It has a separate water department, different water rules.

So you really want localized managers resident to the island that know all those facets in order to fix the schools, that live on the island, know the schools, visit with the schools constantly, work with like, on the neighbor island, it's DAGS.

So right now, on the neighbor island, it's right, repair and maintenance work orders are with DAGS. It knows that dad's personality with central services that takes all these work orders. So one person is accountable for everything, and they're local, and they're there. And so that's what would work given the way schools and projects are done in Kuwait. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have testimony from the AGs Office offering comments in person.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee. I'm Randall again for the Department. Again, as in our describing our Section 20, our next comments, section 3, subsection C of the bill provides the full appropriations, items of appropriation, and unexpected balances of funds. Including federal funds, designated for deferred bans for facilities development within the DOE are transferred to the school facilities authority. So part of facilities development appears to extend beyond the stated purpose of the bill.

Purpose, you may have on page two, lines 8 through 17 of the bill, and focusing on the extent of that. So if that is the case, then that should be amended. Additionally, the Department notes that the term deferred maintenance is not defined in HRS chapter 302K. In our written testimony, we recommend that if the committee chooses to add a definition that maybe reflect the HRS section 37-68.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks offering testimony and support. We have HGA providing comments. We have EPW in opposition, and we have one individual in support. Anyone else?

HB 2345. Seeing none, members are there any questions? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to the next bill, which is HB 1780. This is with regards to student transportation.

This is with regards to student transportation. First up, we have is DOE offering comments.

Hello, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. Sean Tajima, Assistant Superintendent, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department stands at its written testimony which provides comments on this measure. The Department has concerns about the measure because federal privacy laws prohibit automatic sharing of free reduced lunch meal data for cost eligibility.

The Department also has concerns about prioritized seating based on income as there are other factors that create a need for school bus such as distance from school and lack of safe walking paths. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have HSTA operating testimony and support in person.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Sarah Milianta, on behalf of HSTA. We love this bill. We were really supportive last session of Senate Bill of House Bill 1300, which expanded free lunch access. Here's the deal.

So we gave more kids free lunch but they don't have a way to get to school. And I will tell you, in 21 years as a public school teacher, I can teach anybody to get into my classroom, but you gotta get in there. So if we wanna cut absenteeism, this is absolutely the right measure we wanna do to get more kids into our classrooms on time so they can learn. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have Hawaii Public Health Institute offering testimony and support via Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Patti Hatzistavrakis, and I am the active transportation specialist with the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We, along with the Healthy Eating and Active Living Statewide Coalition, support this measure and stand on our comments, including respectfully requesting a few amendments. Transportation is a key driver of school attendance, and even small fares create no barriers as Hawaii's cost of living continues to rise.

Keiki makeup about 20% of our population yet have some of the most limited mobility options.

We already have proof that this can work. Maui offers free youth transit, and Hawaii County's free fare system has more than doubled its ridership. Although providing free transit for youth whose households qualify for free and reduced price lunch is a step in the right direction, universal access would remove income barriers, improve attendance, reduce traffic and emissions, and connect youth to education, health care, and jobs. We hope to see a future where all of our youth are riding public transit on a regular basis.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have h ken speaks offering testimony in support. It's all the recent testimony. And we have eight individuals all offering testimony in support. Anyone else? HB 1780. Seeing none, are there any questions? Hi, Chair.

Department of Police Assistant. Thank you for being here. So full disclosure, this is my bill. The intent of this bill is precisely what HSTA had mentioned. Because of our passage, historic passage of Senate Bill 1300 to expand pre-school meals, we're trying to capture the new group of students to fold into your current bus application process.

Because currently, presently, it's my understanding that DOE does have an, opportunity through the bus application process to provide a free bus pass to students who check or parent households that check that they qualify for free school meals. Is that correct? And does the Department currently have, as part of your, mechanism, a way to, for those students covered by that, definition to go through the consent, the parental consent process, and then do the data sharing as mentioned in your testimony?

For the students with free lunch?

Yes.

So as you said, on the bus application, they need to check a box that gives us access to their free lunch status. The issue with the build to streamline it, and it totally makes logical sense to make it easier on one application. But the free reduced lunch application is a federal application, and we cannot share info with that automatically with even within the the agency. So we can access as long as they fill out the cost application and check off their box.

So but going back to your comment, you said you do have the current mechanism. Once they check off. So they apply for school bus. Right? I mean, a bus pass.

They check the box, but that also gives parental consent to share that information if they opt into, saying that they expressly fall under. So wouldn't that same logic apply, now that we've expanded coverage to reduce and then expanded coverage next year, beginning next school year, 300%? If, again, the parent goes into the current application and say, according to, you know, current program, DOE program rules, my family qualifies for free school. Can I be considered? I give my consent.

Would the Department then be able to administer this if we just focus on that part? That's what I'm really intending to do is look at these population of students.

So you're looking at because the students with free lunch are already eligible for free bus pass. The reduced students and the added students would be eligible for free bus. Yeah. So we could, we could add that on. That would be additional funding for that. So it would just be a. It would be a funding issue.

But on the funding part, we do have separate bills. I also sit on the transportation committee that look at Keiki ride free, free, the county express bus programs. So if we fund that, will that then open up funding for what you're currently allocating for the bus passes? Because if funding does shift over to that portion, to the Department of Transportation, wouldn't that be a potential to hide the funds?

I'm not how. I'm not sure how it would check off, but that would help to provide extra funding for that.

Okay. Thank you. That's it. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much. Questions? Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to the next bill, which is HB 1785.

This is with regards to the DOE bus routes, contractors, and performance failure failures. First up, we have this DOE in person offering comments.

Chair Woodson, Vice Chair of the Chief, and members of the committee, Sean Tajima testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. Department of staff that has written testimony which provides comments on this measure. The department has concerns about the measure because fragmenting contracts by individual routes and bypassing procurement laws for thirty months could undermine established fiscal safeguards without solving the root cause of service disruptions, which is a statewide driver shortage.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have AG's office offering testimony offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, members. From Department of the Attorney General. As we noted in our testimony, the bill establishes significant consequences for nonperformance. So to promote clarity and reduce the likelihood of disputes, we're recommending that a new section be added to the bill that would require express reference to the new statute and any DOE solicitations and contracts for student transportation services, and we provide some suggested language in our testimony. Thank you.

Next, we have SPO operating comments. Then we have Aloha Project operating testimony and support, written testimony. Then we have six testifiers, all in support, individuals. Anyone else? HB 1785.

Seeing none, membership, any questions? We've seen none. Let's go to the next bill. This bill is HB 2454. This is with regards to safe school routes.

First up on our list, we have Department of Health offering comments. Here, we also have.

Oh, good morning. Sorry. We're on Zoom today.

Alright.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, and members of the committee. I'm Heidi Hansen Smith for the Department of Health, and we'll stand on our testimony providing comments to the public health impacts of this measure, as well as our experience with the Safe Routes to School Advisory Committee. I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here via Zoom. Next we have Department of Transportation offering testimony and support via Zoom as well.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. This is Robin Shishido with Hawaii Department of Transportation, and I stand by our submitted testimony and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. We also have Hawaii Bicycle League in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I do have my written testimony before you, so I just want to highlight a few additional points. As educators and as education policy makers, you know that you can't expect students to thrive if you change standards and metrics one year, implement the program the following year, and then seek to change the standards and metrics again in the subsequent year.

Because this measure would create loss of statewide coordination through the removal of the State Routes to School Program Coordinator, reduced community engagement, and diminished oversight and transparency. I respectfully urge you on behalf of our members to defer this measure for consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony.

Next, we have AARP Hawaii offering testimony in opposition via Zoom.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. I'm Audrey Suga Nakagawa of AARP. We stand on our testimony in opposition of the bill, as it's currently written.

We understand that the bill's intent is to strengthen accountability of the program. However, we are very concerned that it could affect other key elements of the program, as stated by the testifier before me. And AARP's interest in this area is really because of building safe communities, safe walkable communities. It's not just only for our children, but it's also for people of all ages, including the kupuna who walk their grandchildren to school.

And so we want to make sure that we are continuing to build efforts to really build a safe, walkable community for all. So for that, we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Ulupono Initiative offering testimony in opposition in person.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Mariah Yoshizu from the Ulupono Initiative. Ulupono respectfully opposes this measure. While we do appreciate the intent of this bill to streamline processes and improve the deployment of funds, which are goals that we also absolutely share, we have concerns on how some of the proposed changes may affect the Safe Routes to School program's framework.

We've outlined a few clarifying questions in our written testimony that we hope the committee will take into consideration, particularly around governance, transparency, and accountability, and ensuring a robust community driven program. We're grateful for the committee's work on this measure, and we hope that you will take our comments into consideration. Thank you so much.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have get that call aid offering testimony in opposition. Only written testimony. All you have will say to operate comments. And we have six individuals, four of which are in opposition.

Is that right? So we have 14 individuals, four in opposition, the rest in support. Anyone else? HB 2454. Okay. Seeing none, members are there any questions.

Chair of Transportation, please go ahead. DOT.

Yes?

Deputy, two questions. So from my end,

in reading of the bill, you folks are just asking that the funds are not expended by the county that's selected, that you folks would encumber the monies or potentially be the person to execute the project?

We're asking that we also be allowed to spend money on our roadways or even on facilities. I think originally it was not so clear, and there are some questions as the projects were being developed and the advisory committee was going through it. So this language would just make it really clear that DOT can also expend their funds on the projects.

Because from my read of the bill, we're still allowing the Safe Routes to School working group to still determine rank based projects. It just allows you folks as a mechanism to expend funds if the county does not expend the funds in the time that is allocated.

Yes. The advisory committee will still approve the project. Correct?

And a clarifying question for the Chair. We didn't have anybody from the county testify.

We did not.

Okay. Then this is my question to you, Deputy. My frustration is last year we passed a bill that dedicated Safe Routes to School funding that the county shall assess at their motor vehicle registration. From my understanding, January 1 was the effective date.

At that time, we still had no counties assessing the fee. Is that still current?

Yeah. In our last check with them, they had not assessed the fee yet, and I don't know if they had to update their system to allow that additional fee to be added on, but we can follow up with them again.

I would hope so, because they can assess every other fee. This is dedicated funding to them upwards of $6,000,000 a year that we authorized at that level for assessment. And if I could ask then to the Chair, could we request that the DOT provide follow up to the committee to figure out where the counties are at? Because that's been my whole frustrating thing: they had more than enough time to implement this. There was the effective date giving them six months to prepare.

All that money is still sitting out there, and if I could ask one question then for DOT to follow up with the Chair: how are they going to plan to recoup the funds for registrations that occurred after the date of implementation, because you cannot retroactively activate somebody's registration from January 1 of a missing fee that you put in after the fact.

So does that make sense, Deputy? If you could clarify with the Chair where we are at with the county implementation and what is their process to recoup the registrations that were not in compliance as of January 1.

Okay. Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And Chair, just to clarify, actually to correct myself, there was testimony not provided in person, but submitted by the Department of Transportation City and County services, writing comments.

It can't do. So we do have that. We have receipts for that. Making that clarification. Okay, any other questions?

Aloha. This is Renee from City and County. I had very bad service. Pulled over now. Renee.

We were just talking about you.

I'm on my way actually to an elementary school fitting for my son, ironically. Let me know if you have a question.

I do. Chair, could I ask?

Yes.

Thank you. Renee, there was a bill passed last year that mandated the assessment of a $5 registration fee assessed at the county level to be deposited into the special Safe Routes to School fund. It was estimated that in every county, when they adopt it at full functioning, it should be $6,000,000 deeded to the Safe Routes to School fund.

Deputy director Chishito confirmed that as of January 1, there were no companies implementing this fee even though the effective date was January 1, and we requested that they would give us a ninety day notice of when they would implement the fee.

So I would ask if you could please share with the committee a timeline for DTS Honolulu for adopting this fee and working to backdate the retroactive fees that are not being assessed as of January 1.

Okay. To be completely honest with you, I'm unsure of this law. I am happy to work with our Department of Customer Services who does all of our registration to get on it. We can work with Robin to find the detailed information. I apologize.

This honestly has not been on our radar and obviously has a lot of potential. So I will personally follow up on it and get back to you, Representative.

Thank you, Renee. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Quick follow up, Chair.

Quick follow up to Renee. Renee, are you currently a member of the Safe Routes to School Advisory Committee?

I am not. Yamata Sasaki is our Safe Routes School coordinator for city and county. She has been for many years. So she represents the city there. She works very closely, with a lot of us in the city who are gonna be the intended recipients of the funds.

The folks who actually do the projects. So I do not sit on that committee, but we are well represented there. Like we said in our testimony, we're very, very excited for the potential for this funding. It is desperately needed. We just don't have nearly enough money to satisfy all that we hear from the public.

And so we have submitted our projects for several years. They're all active projects that need funding. So we greatly support the committee and their efforts, and we do participate through our coordinator.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Anybody have any questions? Okay. We are gonna go on to the next bill, just HB 1781, with regards to the Department of Education and numeracy coaches for teachers. First up, we have Teri offering testimony...offering testimony in support. Okay.

Yes. Aloha, Chair Wilson and Vice Chair La Chica; members of the committee, Teri Ushijima, Assistant Superintendent, representing the Hawaii Department of Education today. The department stands on its written testimony in support of HB 1781 supporting the establishment of the numeracy coaching program. This is in line with our board approved budget request and we want to, really express our appreciation for this bill that recognizes the importance of coaching to increase student achievement. So, mahalo for letting us understand.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. Next, we have Hawaii Kids Kian, offering testimony and support. We have individuals, six, all in support, one, offering comments. Anyone else?

HB 1781: coaching. Seeing none. Any questions? Okay. Seeing that, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2297.

This is regarding... this is regarding an update for our state statutes support with federal law. First up, we have on our testifiers list, Department of Education in support, in person.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of committee. Terry Ushijima, again, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony in strong support of HB 2297. This bill updates the scope of the department's adult education program to align with the Federal Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, what we call AFFA grant requirements, and it replaces outdated language. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this measure and for your continued support of the department's adult education programs.

Thank you for your your testimony. Thank you for being here. Next, we have University of Hawaii Community Colleges offering comments and one individual in support. Anyone else? HB 2297.

Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Quick question for DOE: if I may ask, did you see UHCC's testimony is one of the to hold into?

Yeah. Yes. We did see it. And we're open to discussing, any proposed edits to the language. Our intention for this bill was to really update the existing language in the law, so that it is aligned with the actual requirements and reflective of our current programs in our adult education.

Okay. So you need more time to look at that language right now? Okay. Thank you so much. Any other questions? I'm seeing none. We're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2019. This is with regards to FCIDLs and EMBL. First up on our list, we have Office of the Mayor in support. Go ahead.

Hi, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. I'm here on behalf of Department of Community Services with the City and County of Honolulu. We stand on our written testimony in strong support of this bill and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Next we have EOEL offering testimony in support via Zoom.

Chair Woodson, apologies. We have a board meeting. EOEL stands on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. We have the Early Learning Board, importantly, offering testimony support. Not here. We have Department of Community Services, which just went, in support. We have Commit to Keiki offering testimony in support in person.

Dear Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committees. Jared Ellis on behalf of Early Childhood Action Strategy and Commit to Keiki. We are testifying in support of this measure, and we will stand on our written testimony. Thank you very much.

Next, we have Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks giving testimony in support in person. They're here. No. Early Childhood Action Network. Next, we have Early Childhood Action Strategies offering testimony in support. Thank you so much. We have Partners in Development Foundation offering testimony in support in person.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Terry Nakamura from Partners in Development Foundation in strong support of this bill. Our program, company is the largest provider for sales in the state, so we really appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Next, we have testimony from PATCH in person. Is that Fitz from Maui? I can't even tell. Is that you? Yeah. Thank you for being here, brother. Okay. Next, we have Early Childhood Action Strategy, another one, individual offering testimony in support. Sorry. We have multiple. We have several individuals from Keiki O Ka ʻĀina Family Centers offering testimony in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Melodie Vega. I'm the Chief Early Education Officer for Keiki O Ka ‘Āina Family Learning Centers. And I just wanted to share that these, programs are not new programs. They're almost 40 years old right now, best known back then as the Kamehameha Schools Traveling Preschool.

Within the last ten years, they've served over 50,000 children and their families at Keiki O Ka ‘Āina, the Family Child Interaction Learning Programs, are the center of our early learning system because families and parents and adults are the center of a young child's life. We are here to answer any questions you might have, and we thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. And we have testimony also from Chamber of Commerce Hawaii in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Chamber stands on its testimony in support.

Thank you so much. And we have testimony from nine individuals all in support. Anyone else? HB 2019. Please come up.

Aloha, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. Thank you for your time this afternoon. My name is Brittney. I'm with the Partners in Development Foundation, and I strongly support this measure. I stand on my written testimony, and every day I'm reminded how important these FCIL programs are to not only our keiki, but to support families as a whole.

And these programs are essential to the support net of Hawaii's communities, you know. And I'm sure, as you know, there's a need for family support and keiki school readiness, and these FCIL programs are here to meet that need. So I thank you for your time this afternoon, and I appreciate your support.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? HB 2019. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Vice Chair, please go ahead.

Commit to Keiki, please. Thank you for being here. In your testimony, you mentioned that there is threats on federal funding. If you can please elaborate on what you're currently tracking, and do you know how much is at risk?

Sure, Vice Chair. What I say about the threats of federal funding is that these programs have traditionally relied on federal funding to operate for the most part. This past budget cycle at the federal level, those that funding was put at risk. That was actually zeroed out in several drafts. I do believe it has been restored for the coming year through September, but it does signal a willingness from this administration to cut this traditionally pretty steady funding. As to what the effect of that cut would be, I would probably defer to one of the FCIL operators here today.

Partners in Development please. Thank you so much. So what are you hearing from all our FCIL providers on the risk of, you know, a lack of, risk of potentially losing, instability with the funding.

Yes. We're happy that it seems like the NHEP, Native Hawaiian Education Program, has been fully funded, but there's still some hurdles to be jumped over. So there's a talk about transition from the US DOE to the Department of Interior. And there's concern whether the current NHEP staff will be transferred along with that change, if there'll be a delay, and if there'll be a delay in the RFP process. If there is, our current funding ends in August, and there'll be about at least three quarters of our funding gone after.

So because there's this gap in the movement from DOE to Department of Interior, administrative change, let's say, even if with the funding kept intact, the release of funds, how many months are we talking about for you not having funding for the...

Oh, that's uncertain. Yeah. So we're preparing to do our best without that fund and trying to raise, other funds, but...

Do you have an amount? Do you have, what this could potentially impact?

So I believe for the state, for our three FCILs, Keiki O Ka ʻĀina and PID, it's about 20 million for FCILs. For PID, it's about 11.5 million.

Yeah. Just because we if we operate on this legislative and then budget cycle, and if you get affected in August and then we wait until after the next the following session, right, then that creates this potential number of months where you might be unfunded. If you can get us that information, I think that would help us, help the committee as they track it.

You you said 20 million and 11.5: is that accurate, and you believe?

I believe that's accurate.

Okay. Alright.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2127. This is with regards to a civic education grant program.

First up on our list, we have the Department of Education, offering testimony and support in person.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee: Terry Ushijima. The department stands on its written testimony and support of HD 2127 and wanna note that middle school is really a crucial time and we believe that this is a very impactful stage and the department has focused on middle level education because of that. So, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Hawaii Alliance Progressive Action offering testimony support in person, in office here. Next, we have PACE Commission in support via Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, and members of the committee. I'm Colin Moore on behalf of the PACE Commission here to testify in strong support of HB 2127. As you know, this bill makes a targeted and practical investment in civic education, a pivotal moment in civic education a pivotal moment in students' development. Middle and intermediate school is are the years where young people begin forming lasting understandings of their role in public life. I wanna draw your attention too to the PACE Commission's recent statewide civic survey of 883 educators that makes clear that teachers value civic education, but often lack the resources to deliver it at the level they believe is necessary.

We found that 71% of teachers and three quarters of administrators identified improving civics pedagogy as a top professional development priority, but only 17% of DOE teachers report receiving the civic specific training they need at least once a year. And fewer than one in three middle school teachers say they have adequate civics focused materials, which is why we're so enthusiastic about this bill that focuses on middle and intermediate schools.

And so the PACE Commission, strongly supports this bill, and we thank you for the opportunity to testify.

That 70% figure, what's the source document for that?

It is the PACE Commission's survey of HIDOE teachers, that's on the PACE website. We'd be happy to share the the full report with you and, and, Rosanna Fukuda, if she's there, can get that to you as well.

Okay. Thank you so much. Please do. Next, we have Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks offering testimony and support. We have the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus offering testimony and support. We have American Judicature Society in support.

We have Hawaii University of Hawaii Professional Assembly offering testimony and support. We have Ho'oloa Project offering testimony in support. We have AAUW Hawaii, testimony in support. Green Party of Hawaii, in support. Democratic Party of Hawaii in support.

And we have 17 individuals all offering testimony in support. Anyone else? HB 2127: civics education grant program. Okay. Seeing none, members, are there any other questions?

Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2470. This is regarding Department of Education, DOE, and financial literacy in schools. First up, we have Board of Education offering comments. They're not here.

DOE offering comments in person.

Sure, I'd love to. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Terry Ushijima. We provide written testimony offering comments on this bill, and we wanna just point out that the department has implemented a requirement for all students starting with the freshmen incoming, 2026 to 2027, to complete a financial literacy opportunity prior to graduation that's aligned with the financial literacy program standards.

The department feels that it's really important that we have different options for schools and students and what is suggested here is one of the options that we are looking into in terms of incorporating financial literacy into existing coursework. So, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, the Chamber of Commerce offering testimony in person.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chari, members of the committee. The Chamber stands in support and would like to yield this time to our expert in the field, Vice President of Education, Lord Ryan. Okay. Please come up.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. We just want to add a little bit more color to why we are supporting bill here. So, one of them is we ask from employers to support more financial literacy as foundational skill, for the workforce moving forward. In addition to that, we're hearing one of the parts of the bill is we're providing more professional development and training through appropriate funds. So, we wanna make sure our teachers are well prepared for this as well. And there's a trend of asking for more professional development externships, particularly around workforce needs and career technical education but we think because of the employer asks this supplements some of that work as well. Thank you for taking your time and we are here if you have any more questions.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have Ho'oloa Project offering testimony and support, written testimony. Next, we have the Hawaii Bankers Association in support. And we have four individuals all offering testimony and support. Anyone else?

HB 2470? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is HB 2563. This is regarding cell phone ban, the DOE schools.

First up, we have Court of Education offering comments here. We have AG's Office offering comments.

Good afternoon, Chairperson, members: Anne Peruchi from the AG's Office. As stated in our testimony, the department is concerned that the bill's exception permitting use only for instructional purposes may be too limited. Some students may need to access a phone or related device pursuant to an IEP, Section 504 plan, or as required by the ADA. So, in our testimony, we provide us some suggestive language that we think could be added to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Next, we have individual testimony from five people, all in support. Anyone else?

HB 2563? Oh, Mr. Fitzpatrick. Please come up from our end.

Aloha, Chair and members of the Education Committee. My name is John Fitzpatrick. My students call me Mr. Fitz. I teach at Kūlanihāko'i High School on Maui.

We are definitely going through some growing pains as a brand new school on Maui. Still need funding to finish building our school, but that's not what this bill is about. But, yeah, anyways, I think very strongly that cell phones should be banned from schools. The research shows that it really affects our children. Our children are highly addicted to these devices. And last year, if you walked around Kalani and Kauai, it was like this at recess and lunch, and they weren't talking to each other in classes.

It was like this until this year. Our new VP, like, really got strict about it and supports us this year. So, if a kid is on their phone, we can call security and they can come take the phone away. But until we had support from a really good administrator, it was really bad. Over the last two years, I've been pulled "f off four" times or maybe five times by now for asking a kid to put their cell phone in a bag or a pocket.

So, their addiction is real, and I think this goes a long way to helping them deal with this. I did bring this up at HSTARA last year, and it was divisive. But I think the way you guys wrote it where if a teacher wants to include a cell phone in their classroom and instruction, they can. So, I think that takes away the what was argued in the debate in the RA last year.

So, thank you guys for hearing this, and thank you guys for passing a lot of really important bills for teachers and for our students last week.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you for being here. That's all I have on my list.

Is there anyone else? HB 2563? Okay.

We're gonna go on to the next field, the last bill on the agenda, which is HB 117. This is with regards to antihistamines, administered at DOE schools. First up on our list, we have Department of Education in opposition.

Hello, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica. Nice to see you, and committee members. Kinau Gardner from Department of Education and we stand on our written testimony, which provides comments.

Comments... thank you. We have DOE, and we have stated comments on our list. That was my mistake. We have DOE in opposition, in person. That's all I have on my list.

Is there anyone else or actually, we have we have three more. We have AG's Office, offering testimony, offering comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Anne Peruchi from AG's Office. In the bill, one thing we wanted to make clear was that, we thought it should be made clear that parents or guardians would be the ones who provide medications should they be stored at the schools. So, we've suggested language that could be inserted in the bill to make that clear. We also suggested some clarifying amendments to a couple of other sections in the bill, and that's also set forth in our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony for being here. We have two individuals offering testimony to support. One, offering testimony to support via Zoom. Mister and missus Lani via Zoom in support.

Aloha. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Kimberly Lani. I'm testifying from Molokai as a parent, advocating for student health and safety. I support HB 1717.

My son has a life threatening wheat allergy and attends public school in Molokai. In school year 23-24, he was served wheat five times in the school cafeteria, despite a well documented 504 DOH emergency plan, and J1 food accommodations. And although he identified the wheat on four occasions, he adjusted the wheat through a soup on the fifth exposure. So, I responded to the school, transported my son to the ER with every pen in hand. No ambulance was called.

My son's treating allergist specifically prescribes Benadryl to be given immediately following an EpiPen injection. However, under the current DOE guidance, Benadryl is withheld due to some gray areas. On Molokai, we have one hospital and I believe just two ambulances. So emergency delays are very real and scary for everyone involved, especially my son, and I'm I believe also the supervising school health aide.

So, allowing the staff to administer antihistamines as the bill proposes could slow the allergic reaction, stabilize the child, and literally save a life before the help can arrive.

So, I urge you to pass HB 1717 for clarity, and mahalo for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. That's all I have on my list. Is there anyone else HB 1707? Please come up.

Good afternoon. Diana Felton, CEOH, Communicable Disease and Public Health Nursing Division. I apologize. I believe we submitted written testimony before the deadline, but -

We have it.

Okay. Great. Yeah. We stand on the written testimony. We're here for questions.

Thank you for offering comments. Anyone else? HB 1717? Okay.

Seeing none. Members, any questions? Vice Chair.

A question for DOE, please. Ms. Gardner, if you can kind of, respond to our the previous testifier, what is the protocol? And in this case, if there's already a plan that is provided by the parents, how is that administered? I recall there was, like, similar, like, legislation last year that we considered, but the department, I think, did support where it does give authority to administer some med some medication as long as it's part of the prior authorization that's already provided by the parents.

Right. And this one was a little bit different because it's looking for stock and that the school would stock the medicine and then make a clinical diagnosis. And so, I think our concern with the bill is that it shifts the, responsibility to nonclinical personnel. And I do have Ben Kilinski with me. So he is our Nurse 6, and I think he can elaborate a little bit more.

Hello, members of the committee. Thank you. I'll state the Office of Student Support Services, the school section. So, our provisions currently under law allow the request for medications from parents with a written consent and prescription from their provider, qualified provider, a assessment for the approval of that medication performed by a registered nurse, primarily from the Department of Health as their long standing physician. So, medications are necessary, for school attendance, under that provision. So, those that allows us to, provide emergency medications. The majority of, epinephrine is provided by our school health assistants and other trained staff.

And, in cases where we need a higher level authority or, by some professional to make a clinical decision, there's a registered nurse, either through contract or other, pathways for the department to ensure that that student has access to that medication.

So, the concerns with the bill are currently - it creates regulatory issues for the department, particularly for the medication not being prescribed explicitly in the bill, really prevents registered nurses from interacting with that process entirely, which means they can't train, they can't evaluate the medication, you know, in order to assist the schools in the ways that we do currently to make sure these things are done safely and appropriately.

And the concern with antihistamines is not necessarily preventing the epinephrine being tried, which is the consensus medical direction.

So, just to clarify, you're not in a - because we did receive your testimony that was in opposition. So, you're not in opposition to the access portion, but you're in opposition to the first part of the bill, which you may maintain supply and and then may administer over the counter.

Right. Yeah. The issue, I think, also with this is that the decision to provide a medication, in some cases can be either legislated or delegated by a registered nurse. So, the legislation that allows school staff to be trained on certain medications is really intentionally limited to where it's considered safe by public health officials and by licensed professionals as really a key sort of safety mechanism. When we talk about antihistamines, you know, these are provided in, instances of mild to moderate allergic reactions, which requires more advanced qualifications, really. That's actually, didn't in my professional opinion as a nurse, registered nurse within the state, a nursing licensed activity and is not permitted under the board's regulations to be delegated to unlicensed personnel. So, that's something the bill just doesn't address, unfortunately.

And for someone to be able to have that access to that medication, the important thing is to discriminate anaphylaxis, which epinephrine is the, is the gold standard for and shouldn't be delayed for, for something like an antihistamine. So, in school settings, public, community settings, that's the focused response, and we know we can prepare individuals to administer that mitigation under, under the law and with those provisions.

Thank you. Chair?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other questions? Okay. We're at recess.

Reconvening for decision making on several bills. First up, we have HB 1783. This is with regards to public private partnerships and SFA members. The recommendation is an HD 1. We're gonna remove the term on page seven with regards to other public school facilities. That's regarding DOE's concern. Sorry. Also blank out the amounts and incorporate it into the committee report, and we will defect the dates to July 1, 3000. Any questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Thank you, Chair. Members, voting on House Bill 1783. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Thank you, Chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Going on to the next bill, which is HB 177 SFA and CIP data releases. Recommendation is HD 1, looking out the dollar amount, adding it to the company report, and directing the date. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1778. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Noting the excuse that is for Representative Garrett through the rest of the agenda, and rest of the members present, are there any members wishing to vote with reservation? Any members wishing to vote no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Going on to the next bill, which is HB 2344. This is Independent School Realignment and Closure Commission. Recommended they issued this HD1, first for DOE testimony. We're gonna add an educational administrator to the membership of the commission.

We're also gonna clarify in on page four, subsection E, that's under Section 2, that it is referring to DAGS, so DAGS to replace the term it per AG's recommendation. Also, we're gonna accept AG's other technical recommendations, and we're gonna take out subsection b that's spelled on page 8. That's line 26. That's with regards to give it that a test SFA responsibility of taking over the land if there's compression or a transfer.

We don't wanna do that because there's exist there's existing statute that's involving DOE charter schools, DLNR is probably also field MR, so we do not want to do that.

There's many conflicts, and we'll also members blank out the amount offered in the preparation line. We're not gonna reference that in the committee report because there's a disagreement on the cost impact. You need to massage this bill more for now. We're also just gonna defect the date that is going to the morning back to Kennedy Green Conference. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 2344. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote Aye. Any members voting with reservation?

Noting reservation for Representative Amato and Representative Olds. Any other members voting with reservation? Any members voting no? Seeing none, chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Moving on to the next bill, HB 2345. This is with regards to SFA and establishing a geographic CIP district districts, I should say. Recommendation is HD1 starting off on page 4, lines 9 through 13. We're gonna take out the phrase facilities development.

We're actually gonna take out the phrase for facilities development, so we're gonna exclude that from that particular process. We're gonna add a definition for deferred maintenance per AG's recommendation, and then we'll defect the date to July 1, 3000. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2345. Chair's recommendation is pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any Members voting with reservation? Any Members voting no? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. We're gonna move HB 1780 to the end. So going on to the next bill, which is HB 1785. This is with regards to DOE bus routes, contractors, and performance failure. Members, recommendation is to pass with the HD 1 and accept AG's recommendation to add that per new RFPs, it referenced a new section of law if this fact if this, in fact, becomes law.

We think that's important. We'll also delete section 2F. That's found on page three, lines 13 through 20. That's with regards to assessing a financial penalty. We think this may be too onerous, and it's gonna discourage people from participating in the RFP process. And we'll defect the date to July 1, 3000. Comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 1785. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any Members voting with reservation? Any Members voting no? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. We're gonna move HB 2454 to the end of the agenda as well, and so we'll go on to the next bill, which is HB 1781. This is with regards to DOE and numeracy coaching. Members, gonna review the usage of, per DOE's testimony. That is a random assessment given to all students, and instead we gonna need the state assessment, which is given to everybody. And we'll defect the date July 1, 3000.

Questions, comments, concerns?

Question Chair, if I may, just thank you for this measure, for focusing on Hawaii numeracy. Really, it's important for us to take a look at how we are, both assisting our teachers in the classroom as well as our our students to gain the math proficiency they need in order to succeed and attain better outcomes in higher education.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Very good, though. Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair for the vote, please.

Members, voting on House Bill 1781. Chair's recommendations pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation? Any members voting no?

Seeing none, Chair, recommendations have been adopted.

Thank you. Going on to HB 2297, this is updating statutory framework to ensure fit all alignment for adult schools and community programming. Members, we will just simply defect the date on the address. Defect the date to 07/01/3000. Questions, comments, concerns?

Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2297, Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Any members voting with reservation? Any members voting no? Seeing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. For the next bill, HB 2019, this is DOE FCILs. The recommendation is to pass this defect in the date. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2019. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Any members voting with reservation? Any members voting no? Seeing none, chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, I'll move on to the next bill, which is HB 2127. This is regarding civics education and a grant program within DOE schools. Members, we will change the term Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support to the current office name, which is the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Design, just so it's clear, and then we'll defect the date to 07/01/3000. Questions, comments, concerns?

Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2127, chair's recommendations pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. Any members wishing to vote with reservation? Any members voting no? Seeing none, chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Any members going on to the next bill which is HB 2470, DOE financial literacy in schools. Members per the testimony, the Board of Education is doing something very similar to what this board is articulating, so, therefore, we will defer. Next is HB 2563. This is with regards to cell phone ban.

The Board of Education just passed final approval. Their policy is just going to be for elementary and intermediate school, it's going to be prohibited. And for high school, only for instructional purposes, banned during instructional time, I should say. And then there's gonna be exceptions for emergencies, also for IEP, which is stated in AG's testimony, some other exceptions.

So for now, we will defer and took care of it. Next, we have HB 1717. This is antihistamines administered in DOE schools. Members, per the testimony, you know, I do have concerns with this with regards to health and safety, scope of practice, practitioners, so we will also defer this.

Thank you, chair. We're gonna vote on two bills that we will begin with the agenda and thank you, chair, for allowing me to take on these two bills. The first one is House Bill 1780 relating to student transportation.

So currently the Department of Education allows for free bus passes to be provided to those who qualify for free school meals, but as everybody knows we passed historic landmark legislation last year to expand free school meals to students in on reduced price lunch as well as beginning next school year students on earning up to 300% of the federal poverty level. So this bill is intended to align student transportation eligibility with free school meals eligibility.

So as we expand free school meals up to 300%, it's consistent and equitable, and the bill would reflect that same income determination. So first, the recommendation is to pass an HD1. Throughout section 3, we will be adding clarifying language so that all references to free or reduced price lunch would mean students covered by Section 302-404, and that's a bill we passed last year.

We are also going to remove the word automatic on, in that section, and instead provide for a streamlined verification to be consistent with existing department parental authorization procedures. And that's it for the amendment and defective date. Thank you, chair.

Comments, questions, concerns, members?

Thank you, chair. Members voting on HB 1780. No need to excused absence of Representative Garrett. Members, are there any Noes or reservations? Seeing none, adopted.

Thank you, chair. Final bill on the agenda. Okay. House Bill 2454. Thank you.

This is relating to Safe Routes to School. So just wanted to share some comments that this bill is really intended to introduce, and address a real implementation issue that we're experiencing currently. So last year, the legislature created a dedicated funding stream for Safe Routes to School through Act 212, thanks to the leadership of Chair Keelah from the Transportation Committee. So the question now is how we ensure those funds are translating into installed crosswalks, traffic, and safety improvements for our students.

And we, of course, received testimony expressing concern because that's on the way that the bill was drafted, but that's not the intent of the bill, and it's not to weaken at all the collaborative structure or and all the work we've done through Act 244 a couple years ago.

We very much appreciate all the work that's being done there. However, we do have existing operational barriers, and we really want to make sure that there's clear collaboration between Department of Transportation, and the counties in implementing Act 212 from last year. So the recommendation is to pass an HD1 to restore the language that refers to the advisory committee coordination language, the county coordinator participation language, community engagement requirements, and then education, any education, workshop-type component.

So we're gonna remove the strikethroughs and revert back to the original language, on 291-C3. However, we will accept Hawaii Department of Transportation's amendments and add it as a new subsection to clarify and strengthen DOT's authority over infrastructure project delivery while maintaining the existing San Francisco School framework.

So really, we want to preserve the existing structure, but then also to make sure that projects don't stall and are obligated in a timely manner, we will, make sure that the DOT has, the authority and coordination needed to step in, as necessary. So, comments and amendments check. Thank you. Members, any additional comments?

Thank you. I wanna acknowledge, I think, the concerns are raised, and I don't think it is the committee's intent to try to dilute the authority that has been put forth. But I would be remiss to not share it. It was frustrating to be revealed in testimony today that a member from one Honolulu County transportation agency was not aware of the one.

That's not the most significant measure to support the counties for this mechanism, and even more so, the impetus of the bill like this that exists today. So I would ask, as we continue moving forward, my concerns have been raised, and I would hope that the counties and the different agencies would work expeditiously to implement what I would consider, if not the most dedicated funding source to the legislature that was asked upon us last year that was enacted.

So I will be voting yes because of everything that's come forward today, and I hope we can continue to dialogue.

Thank you so much, Representative. Any other comments? Okay. Seeing none, thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Chair and Members, HB 2454, noting the excused absence of Representative Garrett. Members, are there any other reservations or Noes? Seeing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you, chair. We will adjourn.