Senate Standing Committee on Education

I thank you for joining us today on decision making for the Committee on Economic Development and Tourism. Today is Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 1:00pm we are in Conference Room 229. For any reason we get cut off or go down.

We will reconvene back on Thursday, February 19th at 1:05pm first stop, Senate Bill 2693 relating to capital improvement projects for aerospace infrastructure. Recommendation is to pass with a defective date for July 12050 Members. Any questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair Wakai for the vote. Chair goes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up, Senate Bill 2698 relating to transportation. We are awaiting some other information on this measure. We are deferring to Thursday, 02-19-2026 in room 229 at 01:05 pm. Next Bill, Senate Bill 2374 relating to a blue economy. Same issue of awaiting some information in regards to the blue economy.

So we will also be deferring decision making to Thursday, 02-19-2026 at 01:05 pm in room 229. Thank you. With that, we are adjourned.

Hi, and welcome to the Committee on Economic Development Joint hearing with Senate Committee on Economic Development, Tourism, and Education. This is our 1:01 pm agenda, and we have a 1-minute time limit for our testifiers.

Also want to recognize Education Chair, Senator Kim. This agenda has two bills. First bill up is Senate Bill 2816, relating to state enterprise zones. First up on the testifier list we have Dennis Ling from the Department of Economic Development and Tourism. Thank you. Our next up, testifying for HTDC, Trung Lam. Thank you. Next up, Department of Taxation.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written comments.

Thank you. Next up, Naoto Ueno from University of Hawaii.

Yes, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. My name is Naoto Ueno, Director of University Hawaii Cancer Center. On behalf of UH Cancer Center and JABSOM, we stand on our comments.

Thank you. Next, Department of Business Economic Development.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committees. Dane Wicker, Deputy Director of DBEDT. We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Next up, HCDA in support. Tom Yamachika testifying for Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We will stand on our written comments and be available for questions.

Thank you. Next up, Patrick Sullivan on behalf of Oceanit in support. Ryan Churchill, Pacific Rim, with comments. Elizabeth Ignacio, Hawaii Medical Association, in support. Jacce Mikulanec testifying for the Queen's Health System in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Please.

Good afternoon, Senators. For the record, my name is Russell Honma with APEC, Executive Director in Hawaii. And I'm here to testify on behalf of the enterprise zone, which is very important to our situation right now. I think we should reclassify some of the enterprise zone and increase the numbers.

And I do support with the University of Hawaii Cancer Center. I was always an advocate for the UH Cancer Center ever since from day one. And I've been putting it into my strategic business plan for the APEC region so everybody can come here to have a cancer treatment. Then we can enhance our research and development for cancer and on top of the transplant as well.

So I think increasing the enterprise zone in that area, Kaka'ako area where the UH Cancer Center. There's a Pier 7 with the Hawaii Development Corporation. That whole area can be designated as an enterprise zone and combine it with the foreign trade zone because we have a foreign trade zone right there too.

Can you wrap it up here?

So I just wanted to make sure that we do have a free trade area. If we combine the foreign trade zone and the state enterprise zone, we don't have to pay import tax on tariffs, we don't have to pay state taxes for the business people to conduct business. So we can combine it with orchestrating...

Your time is up. Thank you.

So I just wanted to support that measure.

Anyone else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Senator Kim.

When is the last time that DBEDT has done a comprehensive evaluation of the program?

Of the enterprise zone program? Can I call up Jason Ushijima from the enterprise zone?

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Jason Ushijima, DBEDT, Program Manager for Enterprise Zones. I don't believe there was a comprehensive study done, at least to my knowledge since I've begun with DBEDT, maybe two or three years ago.

So since 1986, as far as I know, there's been no comprehensive evaluation. So do you even know how much money we're getting? How much ROI we're getting for our buck?

We do. Every year we do produce an annual report, and I believe last year it was about... One second. I have that for you. Thank you. So there were... The foregone revenues to the state were 460,000. And this was in 2022. Overall revenues of the companies who are currently in it are 221 million.

And how many firms are you expected to qualify under this off census track collaboration?

Right now I'm not sure about how many are going to be in the qualify within that specific track. Yeah, I don't know what that number is.

What safeguards will prevent firms from restructuring existing activities to qualify for the benefits?

We do take a look at what the firms are doing as far as what their business activity is. As long as 51% of those business activities are one of the qualified ones, they will qualify for the program.

And so how does this bill avoid subsidizing activities that would have occurred without the EZ benefits?

So these companies who happen to be within this zone will be exempt from and do qualify for annual benefits, do qualify for GET tax waiver, as well as tax credits for income and unemployment insurance.

Yeah, but how do we avoid this thing from being a workaround?

I'm sorry.

Senator, on that, following your question, to prevent current existing businesses from receiving incentive. Is that correct?

Well, not only that, you can have others coming in. I mean, okay, so the Cancer Center and the JABSOM in is on pristine area. It really shouldn't have been there. I mean this is waterfront property. We should have used it for economic development. But we chose to put this in. Okay. And they have activity all around it.

Enterprise zones was intended for depressed areas to bring in economic activity to areas and revitalize those areas. Not to go ahead and enhance an area that already has that attraction. If we haven't attracted them by far now, what is going to bring them there other than them now you're going to have some of these existing businesses going to come in? And then you also have this, what is it called? Reach out or with others that is not in the area. Right.

That is the way the bill is written to allow companies outside of a designated area. This bill language goes back to a site visit we did with Ways and Means Committee about being more intentional. And instead of waiting for enterprise zones to utilize those incentives as a layer to attract business.

So in this case Healthcare Tech, which came up in Reed's emerging economic report, DBEDT was asked how can we, what does Healthcare Tech mean for the state and how can we be competitive. When we map out the assets and we talked about regional economic development, it includes land acquisition, facilities. Kaka'ako has those facilities in place for Healthcare Tech. What that is defined, we defer that to UH Cancer Center on what type of activities can come in.

From DBEDT standpoint with the enterprise zone in house, our plans, our plan calls for how do we layer incentives to attract business. Whether it's new business or existing business. That's a policy call, if the way the bill is written, to say, okay, are we going to allow existing businesses even outside of the district to receive those incentives? That's the prerogative and decision of this body.

But the whole purpose behind enterprise zones was to help revitalize depressed areas again. And so there's other means besides easy designation to help these businesses or help. If you want to promote healthcare, you want to promote those businesses, you want to attract it, there's other tools.

Why are we taking on an entity that meant for depressed areas and revitalizing them and trying to get away from that? Put the whole island in, get the whole island to be an enterprise zone. Or for that matter, give all the businesses a tax break if that's what you want. But why are you taking this one small area and doing this? I mean, you know, this program.

So to your point about the whole island, I mean, it could be that way if we decided certain activities in certain areas, given those geographical strengths. You have agriculture in Central Oahu. We're looking at film on the leeward side. We have to identify what the economy is for the windward side, what the economy is for the North Shore side.

Yes. So maybe you should be doing all of that evaluation and coming with us with a package instead of doing this piecemeal at this point. And that's what, that's my criticism. Because if you've been since 19, what did I say? 1960, 86, and you guys haven't even done a comprehensive review or evaluation.

And yet you're coming in wanting all these changes. Again, knee jerk reaction to areas that maybe felt that, you know, their area should get something special. But depressed areas are not getting the businesses because they can go to these other areas.

So this isn't an administrative bill. We're not coming in and asking for...

I know, but you're supporting it.

Correct.

And you're going to have to be the one to make, to administer it. So don't tell me that it's not your bill, but if you're going to support it and you got to implement it, then yeah, it is. You are standing up for it. So then you got to answer for it.

True. Yes. So if this isn't an incentive that the body decides not to utilize, that is a call of this body.

Okay, well, I think we need you as a leader or as the department that's taking charge of this to show us some evaluations, show us all of this stuff. If you haven't done that, you don't have a comprehensive plan, then, you know, don't support piecemeal bills.

Okay, Members, any other questions? See none. Moving on to Senate Bill 2900 relating to sports officials. First up, testifying, baffle, Department of Education Superintendent Hayashi. I really wish he was here today.

Sorry, I'm here in his place.

Thank you.

Chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee, Sean Tajima. Assistant Superintendent, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. The Attorney General's office is in the best position to represent the department's employees in temporary restraining order hearings.

The Department does not employ attorneys, and the Department does not have funding for private attorneys. Also, elevating intentional bodily injury of a sports official to a class B felony further promotes safety for sports officials. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions.

Thank you. Next up, Hayley Cheng testifying on behalf of the Office of Public Defender.

Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, and Members of the joint Committee. My name is Hayley Cheng. I'm the first deputy for the Office of the Public Defender.

We have submitted testimony in opposition to this measure purely because it is taking what is classified currently as misdemeanor conduct of bodily injury, which can be just physical pain without any sort of visible bodily injury. You could shove someone and they could say that hurt. That is bodily injury.

What this Bill is seeking to do is take what's already a protected class under our assault statutes. Sporting officials are already protected under the assault second offense, which is elevated for other classifications, and taking it above and putting it as a class B felony.

You can see in the measure all of the other protected classes that this would escalate beyond our education workers, doctors, correction workers, all of the other protected classes, and this would even go beyond them. So that is the basis for our opposition. I say I'm out of time. I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, David Matsushima, Deputy Attorney General on zoom. Oh, in live in person. Thank you.

Chairs DeCoite and Kim. Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Alan Akao, on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. So we just offered comments on this Bill. This Bill has essentially two sections. Sections 1 and 2 have to do with the civil action.

3 speaks to both, and then sections 4 and 5 speaks to the criminal action.

So in regards to the criminal action, we note that in order to be consistent with the already existing special classes, we'd ask that you insert substantial in front of bodily injury in Section 4 and delete section five that allows for some consistency between the special classes.

As to the civil action section, you know, the Department of the Attorney General is the body that represents the state and the state employees. But this would effectually make us plaintiffs attorneys, at least when it comes to the type of offenses that this Bill would ask us to do.

So we ask that that be deleted and the policy be put in place for the departments, including Education, to be able to hire private counsel. Thank you. And I'll be available for questions or comments.

Thank you. Next up, also TWI from HSTA in support. Josh Hernandez for Interscholastic League of Honolulu Pacific Buddhist Academy. Support Leolani Korpos, Maui High School Athletics in support, Kid Amal Miya, Hawaii High School Athletic Association. Support Randy Pereira, HGA in support. Christopher Chun, twice High School Athletic Association in support. Seven other people are also in support.

Anybody else wanting to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Senator Wakai.

Allan from the AG's office. So I understand your opposition to Section 1 civil action part because was never an intention for the AGs to be plaintiffs attorneys for individuals. But in the case with the Natalie Ioto punch out, she had to go hire her own attorney to go and get a TRO.

So this, this part was supposed to be focused on that so that the initial hearing, not to take this thing to civil action, but to say like, you know, bad actor, you need to stay away from whoever was the victim.

Could we skinny this down so that the ags will, at least at the outset, at the moment when the person needs to get the assailant away from themselves, the Attorney General can pick up that part of the civil action in getting a TRO.

I think, Senator Wakai, it's a great question when it comes to just declarative, declaratory, or injunctive relief. You know, the companion Bill to this, we still did recommend if that you're going to keep the civil action in which the Attorney General's office would represent. That would be kind of the most limiting factor.

But we still believe that that would still serve as kind of a plaintiff's attorney type of role and the Bill as written has to do with, you know, assaultive behavior specifically.

So even though the assaultive behavior is the basis for the petition for a temporary restraining order, the facts that are going to be gleaned from those types of hearings are still civil in nature, in which they have different definitions for what civil assault is versus the second component, which is criminal assault. They actually have different elements.

There we construe them completely differently. So our recommendation is still that because that type of civil action would be brought on behalf of the employee, whether it's a sports official or someone else that falls under that category, it kind of opens the door to us representing people beyond that.

So our recommendation is still that what's the cleanest version is to instill a policy.

And I know other bills are trying to do that same thing to give guidance to the Department of Education or any other Department who may want to protect their employees through injunctive programs by giving them a policy that says you can either hire a full time advocate that can do these types of reviews and assist the Department and the employee in filing those types of claims.

Okay, but if we put the burden on DOE to then do that, then it's going to cost the taxpayers a substantial amount of money, right. To pay a private attorney whatever their billable hours is. I mean, can you offer us language? You can just skinny this down. So that is, I mean, you say it opens a door.

Well, we don't have to open the. We can put in language here where the door is open. This much, not wide open. So can you offer us language that can make it specific that the civil action will only be for helping someone who's been assaulted get a TRO against whoever the assailant is?

That's all that we're asking for.

We can provide that type of language, that this body can create that language. So it's just our recommendation that because of the role of the Attorney General and its deputies is to take up certain actions on behalf of the state that doesn't speak to that.

That language cannot be inserted in order to meet the intent of what this body and the bills introduces are seeking to do.

Thank you. Senator Kim.

Thank you. So the Education Committee passed a Bill, two days pass it. But we had language in there that said that DOE will assist, they'll hire an attorney or anything but assist with a TRO. And also by giving them the day off or whatever time off that they need. I think that language is there in that Bill.

Now, I'm not sure if that Bill can be amended to include sports personnel, but certainly it was DOE employees. So I think we already have that measure moving forward, so we can look at that.

Yes, and that was what I was speaking to. I know the house companion was HB 1888. I'm not sure the Senate bill's companion.

But the, I think the only discussion that was happening was the term legal advocate was the employee or the position that the Department would seek to use to assist the employee in the Department to make those actions move forward.

But there was a section of caution that my colleague had put in front of that Committee that, that advocate because the work that is done, we don't want them to purposefully engage in the unlawful practice of law. So there is a fine line.

We want to be able to say, hey, there is someone out there that can help you file these things and get these petitions. Because you're right, you know, teachers and other staff members should be able to have that protection.

And I don't think that there's anything that can't encompass sports officials or broaden it to protect more than just our school officials. It can go to other departments as well.

And they can use that as a model to say, hey, if our Department, because of something happening in agriculture, whatever, there's an increased uptick in harassment type events that they can't follow the pattern that has been recommended for the DOE for sports officials and teachers.

So are these referees, coaches considered DOE employees?

So the Section 3 is quite broad because it also talks about officials that are on both public and private school lands. So they can be volunteers. But what's been encompassed as far as we've reviewed is any volunteer that falls under the precipitate of the DOE or a school, they do fall under that.

But there is like athletic associations that are nonprofits, such as HSAA or OIA. They're technically not attached to the Department of Education. So that would broaden it beyond just state employees.

Okay, so the Senate, It's Senate Bill 3179. Safety of what was that? Education workers. Yeah. So would, would this Bill cover is the question. I'm guessing this Bill cover referees and coaches defined it.

I think if they are employees of the DOE or DOE schools. This language in this Bill is much broader when it speaks about sports officials. It also speaks to like volunteer referees, timekeepers.

So if we were to amend further, because that Bill goes to Ways and Means 3179 to the definition of the referees, coaches and so forth, to fall under the safety of employees as this Bill speaks out with assistance for TROS and so forth.

I believe it would. Yes, Senator Kim. And I think another thing that the Department also, they wanted an even broader definition of sports officials, which we have no objection to, that included athletic directors, specifically that name title. But I think when you look at sports official generally, that would still fall under it.

But just for clarity, to make sure that sports officials included athletic directors. And an amendment to that Bill to add that language, I believe would strengthen and cover Senator Wakai's concerns because.

It's not the intention to elevate these sports officials above all the other categories, right?

Absolutely. So that's why we wanted to be suggested as a model, so it can be taken by other departments to use if they were dealing with that same type of crises that we've seen recently.

And then that would also help address and kind of split this Bill away from the elevation that it's seeking in the criminal components in sections four and five.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Senator Fevella.

Attorney Attorney General, maybe if you can answer. If you cannot, then we get Sean to come up. So my question is, I understand this complexity of this Bill. By my understanding, as a former DOE worker, if a student or person assaults a DOE worker, isn't that a felony?

So this Bill could make it a felony. Currently, the protected class is a C class felony, as is. So that covers a variety of different occupations. So it is already currently a C class felony.

What this Bill does is kind of the concern of Senator Kim is it pushes sports officials into an even higher category of protection, which would make it a B class felony without adding any other conditions.

That's why our office added a recommendation to add substantial in front of bodily injury to make sure that it tracks with the more seriousness of the offense while still leaving the C class bodily injury felony available. Because that's going to still go to the charging discretion of the deputies at what comes in.

As Ms. Cheng mentioned, what considers bodily injury is going to go down to the facts of each individual case.

And the prosecutor or Attorney General handling the prosecution is going to have to make that discretion to determine how serious the injury or bodily injury or pain level threshold is met in order to determine the seriousness it gets charged at.

Thank you, Chair.

I would think if you punch in, the face is pretty bodily injured right there. Yeah. I mean, whatever pressure, you're getting punched. Anyway, I got another question. Without this Bill, do sports officials have to obtain their own attorney if they are assaulted or threatened at a school?

Depending on what they're seeking. So if they're looking for criminal charges to be brought, either the Attorney General's office, Criminal Justice Division, or the Honolulu prosecutors are going to handle prosecuting the assailant.

Right, but they just are essentially witnesses or complainant to that, and they cannot even tell them, hey, even if there's proof, I want that person charged. That goes to the discretion of the state through its prosecution.

But the other question is if they want a tro or if they want an action for damages for the pain and suffering or injuries that they've taken, they would have to hire a private attorney.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

This is to add sports officials. Right. The reason why I don't think everybody can understand, you know, not everybody out there in TV land understand if we don't protect our officials on any level, we're not gonna have sports. They don't feel safe and we already got shortage of officials.

So, you know, a lot of people have comments and saying, zero, you know, but no, it's different now. It's not like when I was going school, you Know2468 or whatever. In 123 shoot the referee, you know, that was Friendly Fennel's song, you know. Was it nothing? Nowadays we're in a different category.

You know, everything is physical. So I just want to make sure that we, everybody understands if we don't take care of our officials, we're not going to have sports.

And just to clarify, Senator Favela, as. As your original question was, there is sports officials are included in the special protected classes under the C class felony of. Of a saw in the second degree. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Short recession.

Welcome back to the Joint Committee on Economic Development, Tourism, along with Education. In regards to Senate Bill 2816, relating to State enterprise zones, there are going to be several changes we're going to make, and we're going to need some time to work on this Bill.

Looking at deferring this measure to 02‑19‑2026 at 01:06 p.m. in Conference Room 229. Next up, Senate Bill 2900, relating to sports officials. Thank you, Attorney General.

A lot of good comments made, but there is a vehicle that is moving, Senate Bill 3179, and we are going to use that vehicle and make some changes, or some amendments, to that Bill to tighten up the language when it gets to Ways and Means. So, I am going to defer this Bill indefinitely. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.

Hi, welcome to the hearing with the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism. This is our 1:11 p.m. agenda. We have a 1‑minute time limit for all testifiers, as we have various agendas to get through this afternoon. This agenda has four bills up. First is Senate Bill 2716, relating to Cooperatives.

First up, Department of Business and Economic Development. Thank you. Next up, Keon DeFranco with Hawaii Co Opui.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Keoni DeFranco, Managing Director of Purple MA Foundation, and Co‑Founder of the Hawaii Co Op Hui. I stand in strong support of SB2716. Cooperatives are businesses owned and democratically governed by their Members, including workers, producers, and consumers.

They operate on a one‑Member, one‑vote principle, keeping decision‑making and profits local. SB2716 establishes a cooperative development program within DBED to provide cost‑sharing grants to support 10 to 20 local co‑ops annually, with startup conversion costs such as feasibility studies, legal services, and governance design.

I would like to address comments about funding and staffing raised by DEBED, which we appreciate and align with. When Hawaii has supported emerging industries, like aquaculture, the State invested early and assigned dedicated staff, recognizing long‑term potential. We hope cooperative development can be measured in the same way. Last way.

Last May, we convened the first INA‑wide cooperative development gathering with over 60 co‑ops, emerging farmers, and community Members. Today, we have over 80 Members meeting bimonthly for peer‑to‑peer learning on co‑op models, without any current funding. We're excited to spark renewed interest in this economic model. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Thank you. Next up, Hunter Hein, testifying for a Farmers Union, in support. Noyna Hunter. Okay, Hawaii Farmers Union in support, Kelly Timmy, and Living Cooperative on Zoom. Sorry, slotted your name.

It's okay. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelly Timmy. I'm the Director and Co‑Founder of the Enlivened Cooperative, a worker‑owned, not‑for‑profit, Eco social learning organization in Hilo. I'm testifying in strong support of SB2716.

Over the past three and a half years, I've been providing cooperative technical assistance to more than 20 Cooperatives across Hawaii, in all stages of our supply chain, in our food system and agriculture, including aquaculture, in energy, housing, and water. As Keoni mentioned, Cooperatives keep wealth, jobs, and decision‑making in local hands.

There is significant momentum currently for groups across all sectors wanting to create new Cooperatives, but currently there is no designated institution in Hawaii to offer this essential cooperative technical‑assistance support. The biggest barrier for new Cooperatives remains the high, upfront cost of organizing technical assistance, legal services, and governance design, which can cost thousands.

Putting cooperative ownership out of reach. Yes. SB2716 addresses this gap by creating a cooperative development program in DBED to fund cost‑share grants and nonprofit partners who can provide this needed support. And with this Bill, this can really help our infrastructure to grow a resilient co‑op economy. Thank you, Ma.

Thank you. Mahalo.

Next up, actually we have 21 people in support of this measure. If I missed anybody, anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? Angela, notice you.

Thank you, Chair, and aloha, Committee. Angela Melody Young, testifying in strong support of this legislation as proposed. It will foster economic resilience, and it will assist with community wealth‑building by helping with startup capital and technical support for Cooperatives.

And this will help with the targeted assistance for high‑poverty, need communities, such as Native Hawaiian communities, and also for farmers, local farmers, and encourages local ownership, improves the quality of life and job quality, while helping to grow economic development by reducing the reliance on outside corporations.

And I think this will really help with the small businesses in Hawaii, and to support agriculturally grown businesses and other businesses. Thank you.

Thank you. Then we have Gregory Misakyan in opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Divya, please. I didn't. So, with this, would the cooperative development program be a program for the Department, and who would staff—who would staff and run the program?

Good afternoon, Sheridan. Dane Wicker, Deputy Director at DBED. So, I'm looking at the Bill. It looks to establish a new program, and we don't have current capacity of current staff to transfer from.

So, the resources provided in the Bill do provide for some administrative staff, but then that reduces, if the Bill goes through, the allotment for the grant program. So, our testimony, we would have— we request additional resources, plus permanent positions, to stand up this new program.

So, I noticed the Bill also appropriates 750,000 for fiscal year 26–27 to establish and administer the program. If that's the case, do you know what type of grant you'd fund, given the 750,000 for appropriation provided in the Bill?

The Bill outlines the activity. It seems to be agriculture as one of the primary. We would have to go through the final Bill and see what that process would entail, also what that process would look like. We would need rulemaking. It'd be through, like, an RFP process.

We do have programs attached to agencies that currently do grants, but there is a process that includes the board for approval, too. So, this would be internally within DBED, the way the Bill is structured, with the Director approving.

So, help me understand, or at least maybe elaborate on it. With some of your attached agencies that do grants, how would you prioritize within the cooperative who gets the grant? You know, for one reason or another, I can see some people might not be able to qualify within the cooperative. How do you guys prioritize that?

That is a challenge. We do have bylaws or procedures in place that set parameters on the type of activity based on the program itself, whether it's in statute or was outlined through legislation. The board can set policy and parameters as well.

There's also consideration if the applicants were awarded a grant in prior years, and at what amount. So, that's all vetted through the board and the staff of the attached agency. Thank you, Senator King.

Okay, so the $750,000 to establish and administer the program, develop Chapter 91 administrative rules, design grant criteria, scoring systems, monitor compliance, review—how many people, how much staff would you require to stand this up?

It's off the top. It would be about three. You would need—you would want an odd number for vetting, but someone to administer. You would need expertise on drafting and then administrative capacity. At least 2 to 3 would be off the top, but we would have to vet and come back with the final. No more than. No more than that.

Right. How many vacancies you guys have right now?

Oh. I don't have the number off the top of my head, Senator. I'm gonna say maybe 40 or 50 vacancies department‑wide. Where I think we're at, we're about 18 percent out of 400 FTEs.

There's no guarantee that we give you these positions. You're going to fill them right away, especially if you need expertise in a certain area.

Correct, Senator. Those—and also, caveat—those vacant positions, they're not funded, they're not general‑funded vacancies. Majority of them are non‑general‑funded. So, we wouldn't be able to—we don't—we wouldn't have the funds even if we were to redescribe those vacant positions.

And do you have the space for all of this to show up a whole another program?

We office space. We would, we do have. We would have space. But I would also say, you know this process here is similar to 42F which is the grant and aid, which. Are my next question. Yeah, yeah.

How different is this from grants‑in‑aid? We already have grants‑in‑aid. So, I mean, and like you said, other agencies do grants. So, are we duplicating all this whole grant process and agency—you know, the duplicate?

And the agencies that currently do grants, we're not duplicating. Those are specific to, like, the Hawaii Technology Development Corp., which—they have the federal manufacturing assistance program in the state. So, there's no duplication there, unless the 42F awards an applicant who probably applied to that, then that would be—

We don't have any program that focuses on this type of activity. But then again the question could be are you duplicating?

They can come in for right now for grants from the ledge. Right?

And you know the amounts in here? No less than 10,000, no more than 50,000. I'm not—based off of the grant programs we've seen before. And agricultural, a lot of it comes down to infrastructure and facilities. Now, these may be using this cost for specialized equipment and things like that, which the manufacturing systems program—

Majority of those applicants are in the agricultural and value added manufacturing.

Okay. And the time it would take to stand this thing up, rulemaking, everything. Couple years.

Rulemaking takes one to two years after you have the staff established, which takes 12 to 18 months. We would have to go through the civil service process, as these positions are within the Department.

So, at the end of the day, within the money left over and the amount of grants you're going to give, what kind of ROI can we expect?

I wouldn't know that answer right now, Senator. We would have to look at what activities the grants would be awarded to. Even on that, we track, there's no talent up front.

Even when we look at some of the existing programs, we have to survey the companies at the time of the application, midway, and then exit, and then some follow‑up thereafter to see if it was the grant that sustained it, and if they were able to grow, or if it was, frankly, just a subsidy in that point in time.

Do you know whether or not the Legislature, in their grant giving every year, that we have an evaluation of the grants that we gave and what we—what was achieved?

I, I need to get back with you on how our programs do post.

Can you get back to us on that?

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to Senate Bill 2746, relating to taxation. First up, Department of Taxation. Thank you. Next up, Tom Yamachika on Zoom.

Aloha and good afternoon. Colleen Teramae for Tom Yamachika. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii stands on its written testimony. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Senator Kim.

Have you folks evaluated the potential tax losses?

No, I looked at that and we did not have any numbers because I know this bill has come up in the past. But the revenue estimates were not there but we will have them.

Okay, so this is just on medical travel expenses. So if you don't have the means to travel to go to get medical and you have to just stay here, that doesn't benefit them, right?

Correct.

People versus if you gave like, I don't know, excise tax exemptions or whatever for certain things would have a more equalizing benefit across the board in a measure like this?

I mean I don't know if I could evaluate that because if it was a general excise tax exemption. But I mean if you couldn't afford it, I'm not sure. I suppose you mean if you have a general excise test exemption over the board, then everybody would have more money in their pocket to be able to afford...

Well, general excise on medical, some medical treatments or whatever. Yeah, because... Yeah, because this is giving you tax credit on travel to the mainland, I would imagine, or the neighbor island to get medical treatment. So it would only give you tax exemption on that portion, a travel portion, but not necessarily on the treatments or the cost to actually get it.

Yes, correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Just a quick question. I guess actually looking on page nine of the bill. Says qualified expenses means travel expenses not covered by insurance incurred by a patient and one accompanied caregiver to obtain medical care, including airfare, lodging, ground transportation, medically required incidentals, parking fees incurred at, near, at or near the treatment location. So if this medically required incidentals could also fall under medical?

Yeah, it would fall under the expenses that you could get a credit for.

Is it any kind of medical treatment? Any kind of medical treatment?

Yeah, there is a definition that is referred to in the Internal Revenue Code, so it excludes some elective treatments like cosmetic surgery, but it's medically necessary treatments. So it's the same. It refers to the Internal Revenue Code definition of medical care that they use when you take a deduction for medical travel expenses in your itemized deduction. So using that same definition of medical care.

So if I wanted, if I needed to have cataract surgery, which I did. And I decided that I wanted to take a vacation, so I decide I'm going to go to Las Vegas and have... Maybe I shouldn't have picked Las Vegas. Go to Colorado or New York to get my cataract surgery. And I really need a companion because I'm not sure if I'm going to see well, and I take a care so called caregiver. That would be covered?

I don't think that would qualify under this because you would have to prove that you couldn't get that surgery here.

Okay, so you would have to prove that.

Yeah. I mean, unless you're... Yeah, yeah, you'd have to prove that because your doctor would have to write it.

So technically, I think we're looking at the more affluent people that are seeking medical treatment elsewhere. I mean. Yeah. Got to be able to afford not only the treatment, but the traveling.

Right, right. Not sure.

Can you come back real quick? Is it efficient to have both DBEDT audit these medical expenses as well as DOTAX?

Well, on our other tax credits that we have other agencies certifying, we also, I mean, have the right to audit it, which is... Yeah. Which is good because we're more of the tax specialty and then they are more of the subject matter specialty.

I wouldn't think DBEDT to fall under medical. I would think maybe like Department of Health.

Yeah. I mean. Right. I don't know who should certify it.

I'll just ask Senator Kim. Thank you. Next up, Senate Bill 2906, relating to tourism. First up, Hawaii Tourism Authority, Caroline Anderson.

Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. HTA stands on its written testimony offering comments.

Thank you. Next up, Nalani Brun on Zoom testifying for County of Kauai, opposition.

Aloha, Honorable Chair DeCoite, Vice Chair Wakai, and Members of the Committee. I respectfully oppose SB 2906. Tourism, marketing, and destination management, they're operationally inseparable functions. You can't take them apart. And in typical government practice, when you structurally separate things, it often results in operational disconnection.

And when marketing and management are not tightly aligned, the burden always ends up falling locally to be handled. So with that, I just, I had some suggestions in my testimony that if it goes forward that just there are items you could do to make sure that that doesn't happen. But tourism governance really should move towards stronger integration and not structural division. So mahalo for letting me testify.

Thank you. Next up, Antoinette Davis testifying for Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii in support. Scott Turner in support. Tapani Vuori, Maui Ocean Center, in support. Late Mufi Hannemann in support. Bill Caldwell in support. And Gregory Misakian in opposition. Jim, I'm not sure. Do you want to testify on this? Yes.

Thank you, Chair DeCoite, Members. As a member of the prior governing board and a member of the current advisory board, I support Caroline's testimony. However, I'd like to bring into focus something that was just mentioned, which has to do with integration.

With destination management, we know that maybe the Achilles heel that's recognized is cross agency integration and how do we obtain that or attain that. So the activities of cross agency could theoretically be managed by whatever entity we identify.

But the authority for cross agency integration or cooperation is more difficult to envision without something like a liaison at the cabinet level. So while I'm not specifically providing testimony in support of this, I'm registering the comment that this is an active debate when the members of the HTA board discuss governance. Thank you.

Thank you, Jim. Anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Senator Wakai.

Caroline, I talked to so many people in the industry and they feel like HTA is almost bipolar in how its responsibilities are almost opposite. Some of the pain points for tourism from a local perspective, it's like our traffic and parking. Is HTA the best suited entity to delve into how we're gonna improve traffic flow and reduce congestion in parking lots?

Thank you, Senator Wakai. You know, with the passing of Act 132 this past Legislature session and Governor signed it, the CEO, President and CEO reports directly to Governor. And so we believe that with the CEO reporting to Governor... Right now, that authority is delegated to DBEDT Director. So I'm reporting to Director Tokioka.

But when the new CEO comes, they'll have a direct relationship with Governor. So we see that it's a little bit of an overlap. And we're hoping that with the CEO reporting to Governor, that will help bridge all of the other state agencies. And we're also actually doing that right now with our DMAPs.

You know, we went out to community, we started talking to community, industry, and you know, we're trying to work with the various state agencies and county agencies. But I understand what you're saying.

I'm assuming the industry are crying that they need more emphasis on the marketing side. And I mean, issues like trespassing, crimes against tourists, you know, how to manage Airbnbs and short term vacation rentals, expertise in climate change, expertise in cultural preservation, those are all important, but probably beyond the expertise of tourism marketers, wouldn't you agree?

So currently the Hawaii Tourism Authority in our statute puts in destination management. So our team, part of our team are the destination managers that are looking at these types of issues. So right now our team is looking at both.

Right. So this bill cuts it up so that your team who does destination management can really focus on that through the Office of Tourism Liaison. And then your HTA team can go back to what it does very well, which is branding and marketing the state to people around the globe.

Wouldn't that be a better, in terms of transparency, accountability? Like, if I have a problem with climate change issues, is it right for me to kind of voice my concerns to you or to someone who really has understanding about climate change and what mitigation measures need to be be put into place to address that?

So I believe with our current team, you know, our community, our industry can look towards HTA to, you know, to sound, give that voice and we're here to listen and see what we can do to help. And I understand what you're saying. You know, there was a tourism liaison, you know, a couple of decades, a decade ago or decades ago, and it did work.

But right now, how the Legislature has structured us with the President and CEO reporting to the Governor, we feel that that right now is, we want to continue the momentum and we want to work that, work in that manner with Governor and governors, directors in addressing mitigating visitor impacts.

Okay. All I have to say say is that the people in the tourism industry are crying for more emphasis on the marketing side. And I understand we legislatively put that responsibility on you. And I think sometimes maybe it's something we should take another look at whether you and HTA can be, you know, the repository for all of these responsibilities and do it and have the expectation that you're going to do it well. At a certain point, there's too many responsibilities.

You don't have the expertise to do all of these other destination management, stewardship issues. And maybe we should peel that off to have other entities. I mean, if it's about like traffic, you have to work at the Department Transportation, not... HTA is not going to change the outcome of traffic and parking, but you can work with DOT to get all of those things done.

So I just see that there's just too much on, on your plate and this bill is trying to address and focus you on what you do well. So sorry, it's not a question, it's just a commentary. Thank you, Chair.

How many, how many in your team that do destination marketing right now?

Destination marketing? Currently we have three, but in total there are, there are four positions. Currently there's four.

One is vacant.

Yeah. One is that the chief brand officer.

Okay. And I'm not sure when you refer to the tourism liaison before that it worked. Because if it worked, I don't know why we don't still have it. So in what manner did it work?

So the tourism liaison was under Governor Lingle's administration. Marsha Wienert was the tourism liaison. And we know that, you know, working with her. I mean, from what my recollection, you know, she did help to coordinate different state agencies, and she did, you know, we had our strategic plan back then.

And it didn't require a bill. Right? The Governor's Office have, can just do a liaison, right? Yeah. I don't believe we did a bill on that. I guess I have a differing point of view, having been Tourism Chair years and years ago and so forth. But from my understanding is that even if we didn't do a dollar of marketing, would we still have visitors?

We would still have visitors, correct. Yes. Maybe. Oh, sorry. Maybe it might not be the right type of visitor that we want to Hawaii and... Sorry.

No. Okay. Because I hear this all the time from people is that, you know, if we didn't spend a dime, the hotels are spending it, the airlines are spending it, they are marketing. They're not going to let, they're not going to let their planes go empty, they're not going to let their hotel rooms go empty.

So the marketing dollars that we do give supplements, and many times the entities have cut their marketing budgets because the state is supplementing the marketing budget. But what I hear is that doesn't matter how much money we spend on marketing if our trails are not pristine, our beaches are not pristine, if our environment is not taken care of, if crime is not maintained, they're not going to come. They're not going to come.

And that's one of the things that we try to push for HTA to do. Not just marketing, but to take care of the environment or take care of the visitor experience, which is the environment and our pristine beaches and our mountain trails and so forth, all of those things.

So in that sense, I think that, you know, it is the role of HTA. And if all we're going to do is have, and there's nobody here from the Governor's Office. But one liaison sitting in the Governor's Office then dictating to these three positions, I don't see the difference. If the CEO is reporting to the Governor, isn't that the liaison? That the CEO would be direct lying to the Governor to prepare all of this or to be able to get the information?

Because I don't see the Governor putting in staff within his department to actually do this because they're just going to farm it out to DOT, farm it out to Ag, depending on what the complaints are or what the problems are. Right? Okay, thank you.

So just as a follow up, where are we on the CEO?

So the... Actually, would you like to comment on it? Or I know the board is meeting. The Permitted Interaction Group has their next meeting.

What process are we in with getting the CEO on board?

I defer to our Chair.

You told us that the last time we were at the convention center. Right? You gave us a timeline, which is quite a ways away from what I remember.

Thank you, Senator. I'm the Chair of the CEO Search Permitted Interaction Group and the Chair of the Administrative Committee that oversees that. So we do have a calendar that was established in December.

As you know, the advisory board had to ramp up and we had to better understand the statutory language, how it's changed in terms of identifying the CEO. We then had to get a clarification from HR and from the AG regarding the classification of this CEO.

They are now going to be an employee of the state of Hawaii, not an employee of the authority. That requires a different characterization. We identified to the search group that we were going to pay a certain amount and have a certain classification and reporting. All that's changed.

So the result of that original search, 23 some names, they applied for a different job than the one that they might potentially be hired to. So the question is, do we have the best pool of candidates given the existing or the current conditions rather than the previous conditions.

So we're in consultation with DBEDT Director and we're trying to get to the quickest result we can. I think we have able administrator in Caroline at this point, but we know we need to get to a permanent CEO and get that name to the Governor to forward to the Senate.

We are working on the fastest schedule we can, but we are an advisory board of volunteers and we do have limited understanding, up to this point we had limited understanding of who we were actually hiring.

The 23 names that you folks got, was any vetting done at all?

The names have, their resumes have been reviewed by myself, for instance, and some other members of the PIG, the Permitted Interaction Group. I don't see an immediate savior. So if what we're looking for is a CEO that can resolve all the issues that the new CEO will have to do, which I would argue are primarily communications with the Legislature now that HTA relies solely on A funds.

I think the interaction with the Legislature about the responsibilities of HTA, as Senator Wakai was alluding to, the complexity of destination management. This person has to have a different skill set than the ones that I've reviewed.

Okay, but the position is ever changing, right? I mean we have this bill in front of us. If the bill passes, that changes. If the bill doesn't pass, it stays the same. But I guess when you, if you vetted the the names, isn't there anyone in there that has the potential?

Because I don't know that you're going to be able to get somebody specific if now you're saying they're concentrating on working with the Legislature. Because they still have to have tourism background so forth. So isn't there anybody that you folks can approach as far as a highly potential candidate that we don't have to go through a whole another round of candidates and redefining what it is and so forth?

Senator Kim, the answer is yes, there are names. There are people that have applied that could be potentially a very good CEO. However, as you described the existential threats that hang over HTA right now, how do we in good faith ask people to come forward and apply for this job in public?

Because it will be such a sunshine when we get down to the last few names to go to the board. How do we in good faith ask somebody to put themselves in the public's eye and perhaps with their current position in jeopardy for applying for this job in good faith?

You ask them. You ask them like any other position that we're recruiting people. You ask them, you know what's going on. Are you still interested? You know that this might be the... Would you still be willing to put your name forward? I mean, you ask them and see what they say, and if they're interested, then, yeah.

We did that. We asked them in January, are you still interested in this position? They've said so. So our March Permitted Interaction Group agenda is for deeper vetting to occur on some of the applicants, and we will move forward with the pool at hand, but mindful of a change in circumstance that is, we need to be fair to both the public and to these individuals.

Right. Okay. So it sounds different from what you said a little bit earlier to what you're saying now. It sounded like you were going to go through this whole other process, and now you're saying you're just going to. You've already vetted some of them and you want to vet them further.

Both are true, Senator.

What do you mean both are true?

We are going to do our work, and we will, if nothing else, learn how to, as a group, advisory group, come through the process, the vetting process, with the candidates on hand. And one of them might rise to the surface or two or three.

But we also have to be mindful of the change in circumstance, and we're seeking advice from HR and the AG as to whether we need to do an open search. And we have to be in consult with the Governor through his DBEDT Director. That's the way the advisory board works nowadays.

Yes, but you don't have to necessarily... Or DBEDT does not necessarily have to have an open process again. I mean, you could literally pick from this group if somebody's willing and you folks feel that that person is qualified.

It's within our capacity to do that and recommend that name to the Governor.

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to take a short recess and switch over to our triple. Short recess.

Good afternoon. We're convening the joint committees on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts, Economic Development and Tourism, and Education on our 1:05pm agenda here in State Capitol Conference Room 229. We have one measure on the agenda, SB 2807, relating to destination management, which transfers functions related to destination management from HTA to DLNR, appropriates funds to DOE.

We'll just note there's a number of testifiers on this, folks. I know we're short on time, so folks are open to making sure that they have their written testimony submitted. We appreciate that. And in that case, for those who are open to standing on their testimony, we appreciate that as well. So up first on SB 2807 is DLNR. Thank you very much. Up next is Department of Education. Oh, good afternoon. Thank you very much. Up next is the Kauai County Office of Economic Development on zoom. We are. I'm sorry, we're unable to hear you. No. You know, why don't we come back to you, see if, see if you can fix that. Up Next is the McKinley Community School for Adults.

Good afternoon. Thank you. And finally, James McCully. Thank you. And then IT is Kauai still on. Nope, still can't hear you. Okay, we'll assume you're going to stand your testimony then. Thank you very much. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB 2807? Please come forward. I believe we do. Okay, thank you. Anyone else?

Aloha, Angela Melody Young, testifying in strong support of this legislation. So, the legislation anticipates that the funding will request that DLNR and DOE to work together to get to common goals. And so if the office, as I was, you know, reading the testimony from my analysis, it seems like the office is not ready. And so perhaps I could ask the committees to consider a work group. So, Waikiki is - the district is much like Aloha Stadium district. And in my opinion, Aloha Stadium will be much more complicated to plan for.

So it could consider in the work group the county's offices, such as DPP with zoning regulations to accommodate affordable housing projects and Transit Oriented Development districts and mixed use commercial development to support housing infrastructure and as well as perhaps invite the University of Hawaii because the train anticipates the school and the students to be built to accommodate the HART Corridor.

Wrap up. Your time is up.

Yeah, so if you could consider my amendments to help with improving the quality of life for families in Hawaii and to improve communications within the departments. Thank you.

So anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Are there any questions? All right, thank you, everyone. Seeing none. We're going to go into decision making on this measure. Appreciate everybody's time and testimony on this. Looking at the testimony, we recognize there are some issues to be resolved. So for the moment I recommend deferring this measure.

Economic Development, Tourism agreeing with the lead Chair.

Education, same recommendation.

Thanks, everybody. We're adjourned.

We are reconvening back on our agenda, 111 agenda. Up next is Senate Bill 2353. I will ask you if you have submitted testimony, if you please stand on your testimony as we are coming to a close of this-- our time block. So first up, Mike Yadao, Aloha Stadium, Stadium Authority, in support. Next up, Jillian Anderson, Waikiki, in opposition. Next up, Trevor Abarzua, Waikiki Business Improvement District.

Yeah, thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Trevor Abarzua, president, executive director of the Waikiki Business Improvement District. I stand on my written testimony. I'm very happy to answer questions, but yeah, in short of time-- thanks.

Thank you. Next up, Winston Welch, testifying for Outdoor Circle on Zoom. Go ahead.

Yes. Aloha, Chair and committee members. The Outdoor Circle stands on its written testimony just very briefly to say, you know, this bill is contrary in a very negative direction for 100 years of history, prohibiting billboards and off-premises advertising, which are designed to protect our scenic integrity, roadway safety, economy, and character.

Mostly this-- you know, these signs are designed to distract drivers. They're designed to distract pedestrians in an area that's very dangerous to drive in, to walk in. Well, we'll just say it increases complexity. The Waikiki Neighborhood Board, representing the residents most directly affected by this, has also testified against it.

Visitors come here in part because of our protected environment, because it's not Las Vegas or Tokyo. Our laws are very carefully crafted here in Honolulu, and we don't need additional signage for kiosks. They are already allowed under this bill. So for this and many other reasons, we strongly oppose this and urge you to hold this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Just for correction, I believe that the Waikiki Business Improvement District is in support and he just testified in support. No, no, no. I just wanted to correct that.

It's the Neighborhood Board.

Yeah. Oh, it's-- okay.

Yeah, the Neighborhood Board.

Next up, Stanford Carr, Stanford Carr Development, in support, Diane Harding, president, Outer Circle, in opposition, Scenic America, in opposition, Gia Hutchinson, in opposition, Jack O'Neill, in opposition, as well as three others in opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? See--

Thirty seconds.

Go ahead.

No discrimination?

No, no discrimination here.

Just kidding. Aloha. Angela Melody Young. Actually, I was reading my testimony for this legislation--

If you can sum it up, it would be super helpful, Angela.

--when the other legislation was going on. So, okay. There's a little confusion. Okay. So I just want to say that I am in strong favor of this legislation because the businesses to be supported by outdoor signage helps to develop the economic development in our communities and the Aloha Stadium District for it to be anticipated that it will bring a lot of visitors, tourists, and gather people for the University of Hawaii games if there can be more supportive policies to help with flexibility for economic development in these zones. It would be really helpful to-- supporting the middle-class families. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Quick question, Chair.

Senator Wakai.

Just want to point out some factual inaccuracies by the Outdoor Circle. This digital signage is not for drivers, right? It's for pedestrians, right? So in terms of-- there's not going to be distracted drivers.

No, and I think that even the way the bill is, it kind of leads with advertising. I think that's sort of a misconception as well, and what we're doing at Waikiki is we're studying other downtowns, really metropolitan areas around the country, and what are we lacking in Waikiki?

And we specifically did that during the tsunami scare we had a few months back where pedestrians didn't know where to go. There was a lot of misinformation on whether to act here, whether to not.

And we've studied that other cities like Miami, like Berkeley, California, that has some of the strictest signage laws, they have these digital kiosks to be able to communicate with the public. So these-- you know, these companies, they'll put them in, it's free of charge, and you're able to have security cameras on them.

So, you know, Mike Lambert with Department of Law Enforcement is adding cameras to Waikiki. This would, you know, add dozens more. You'll be able to communicate to community members on emergency preparedness and on a number of different things, but, yeah.

This is kind of bringing us into our Waikiki Special District, and then the Stadium District, again, a very commercial area, into the 21st century in terms of communicating with the public, so--

And does the Waikiki Neighborhood Board support this?

So I know-- yeah, Jillian Anderson, I know who's on the board, put in testimony, but I've talked to members of the Neighborhood Board, Bob Finley being the chair, and you know, they've been supportive of these measures.

And what I'm going to do is I'm going to reach out and formally go over this bill with them because this is going to improve public safety, this is going to improve communication with visitors, but also residents, and again, it's going to add another dimension to our commercial area of Waikiki and the Stadium District. So this is going to be great for not only the economy, but for the residents of Waikiki.

Okay. Thank you, Trevor.

Yeah, thank you.

Oh, just a follow-up.

Yes, sir.

So this is not going to be like a Las Vegas sign, smoking hamburgers?

No, no. And we don't want that, right? We want this for, again, for public safety reasons, and you know, we don't support that. We don't want a billboard on Diamond Head but we do want some sort of digital kiosks to bring us--

Don't want no corporate tone?

None of that. No, sir. Yeah. Thank you.

Senator Kim.

So where's the guarantees that it's not going to go that way at some point?

I'm not sure whether it's in the bill or not, but I know that the bill, the way that it's written, is for these specific digital kiosks that are on the public rights-of-way. So I know this--and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this has to do with on private property of hotels, right?

So you're not going to be able to put a huge Sheridan sign or you're not going to be able to put-- so this is for the public rights-of-way, and I believe also the city and county has to pass an ordinance to allow this. So this just allows within state law for the cities to do this. Here in Hawaii, we have a state law that kind of prohibits this signage, but-- and I think it's--

We have strong laws against signage, but you go all over the place and you see all these violations, right?

Right, right, right.

It's awful, so.

I agree. And the main point of this bill is, again, for the specific kiosks that a lot of cities do have and a lot of metropolitan high-traffic foot traffic areas, and you need this certain law to be able to do that. And I could send around to your teams as well kind of what it looks like, but it is going to be for the benefit of not only, again, visitors, but residents. Yeah. Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none, short recess.

Thank you and welcome back for decision making on our 111 agenda. First up, Senate Bill 2716. After conferring with Committee as well as the introducer of the Bill, we do know that we need to put a little more work into this and finalize some language.

I'm going to defer decision making to February 19, 2026 in Conference Room 2 to 9 at 1:05pm Next up, Senate Bill 2746 relating to taxation. This Bill needs a lot of work and more conversation. I'm going to defer this Bill indefinitely. Next up, Senate Bill 2906.

I'm going to be passing with an SD1 by taking out the language, establishing a tourism and establishing a tourism liaison, making necessary technical and non substantive amendments and blanking out the appropriation amounts and defecting the effective date to July 12050. Any discussion.

Can you also delete out what this tourism liaison person will be doing at this point until we can hear from the Governor's office?

And also deleting out what the tourism position will be doing until we hear back from the Governor's office.

But hear back could be in the Committee report. But just blanking out.

Yeah, what she said.

Yeah. So blanking out. oh, you know to shall do all of this stuff.

We're going to blank that out. We're just going to create the tourism liaison for now and then adding in. The Committee report until we hear back from the Governor's office Members. Any discussion Seeing None. Vice Chair. OK for the vote. Chair goes aye.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga. Excuse Senator Kim. Aye. Senator. Senator Favela, I chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up, Senate Bill 2353. We are going to pass this with an SD1 by making necessary technical and non substantive amendments and defecting the effective date to July 12050. Members. Any discussion See None. Vice Chair Makai for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members and thank you for joining us with that. We are adjoruned