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.