House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Hey. Good morning, everybody. This is the committee on water and land. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the chair.

My left is Dee Morikawa, the vice chair. Today is Thursday, 02/19/2026. It's 9AM. We're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. Before we start, I need to give you some ground rules.

We have a we have session at 12:00 today, so we need to get through all these bills. And if we don't get through them, all the bills are dead. So please understand that we do have a time limit.

We will put a two minute test two minutes for each person to testify. It's not a hard rule, but when you get to about two minutes, I'll ask you to sum up your testimony. As as always, we know how to read, so please don't stand there and read your testimony. We already have your testimony in front of us. Please sum it up.

And, of course, give us the key points in your own words. For those of you on Zoom, please keep your camera off and muted while you are waiting. The chat function will only work with tech support over here. We don't you can't text or the chat function none of us has access to the chat function. If you're disconnected on Zoom, we will try to get you back, but this but the house is not responsible for any technical difficulties on your end.

If there's a network failure on our side, the we will reschedule the hearing and decision making in that case, and proper notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademark trademark or copyright material on your Zoom background. And also please refrain from using profanity and uncivil behavior. And with that said Oh. And before I start, all our bills will be defected to seven one three thousand, and all the bills will have technical substantive amendments, just in case I forget to say that.

So with that said, we're gonna start with HB 1739 HD1. First up, we have Department of Planning in support. Right here. Okay. Thank you.

Next, we have we have two okay. Next, we have Local Five with in opposition. Okay. Please stand up.

Okay. My name is Ivan Ho. I'm with Unite Here Local five, the hotel, healthcare, and food service workers union. Good morning, chair Hashem, vice chair Morikawa, members of the committee. Thank you for this chance to testify.

We stand on our written testimony in opposition to HB 1739 HD 1, but I wanna briefly emphasize three main points. We are opposed to taking away the county powers to regulate building and development in the counties. These are powers granted to county residents and their elected county lawmakers. We object to taking away that right to self determination.

HB 1739 is only 112 words long, but would upend years of established policy collaboration between the state and the county and create uncertainty within the existing framework.

Lastly, HB 1739 will remove an institutional check and balance against unrestrained development, which is great for developers, but not necessarily good for public policy or even good for local home buyers and renters. Thank you.

K. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Hawaii Housing Futures in support. Right here. Next, we have grass Grassroots Initiative of Hawaii in support.

Appleseed. Hawaii Appleseed, are they here? Nope. We have to go on here. And we don't have anybody on Zoom.

That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably about 10 people, 20 people in testimonies that we received. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions?

Question chair. United Five.

Okay. Go ahead.

I'm disappointed no one from city is here because this greatly affects city as you mentioned.

I'm interested in how you are speaking out almost on their behalf. How did you get how did you come to your position of of understanding that?

Well, it's I understand the bill is focused on TOD areas and I understand the emphasis our policy makers have on affordable housing, particularly in TOD areas. But the

Oh, yeah. Please come up

Sorry. Sorry. So, yeah. We understand the importance of affordable housing and the role that, TOD areas have in public planning.

But this very short bill just literally just takes away all powers for the counties to regulate density, which is just counter to what the the powers of state grants to counties. Right? And and what is left to challenge, regulate, or fine tune development in those very important TOD areas, if not the county? Like, what institution would regulate development that you know, and how. I don't know what under what rules.

Right? So it just it's just doesn't make sense to us that you would take away all that power of regulation and governance in those important areas.

Thank thank you. Thank you. That's very, insightful of you. Thank you, chair.

Any

Yea thank you, chair for, OPSD. Office of Planning? Yes. Office of Planning. So I noticed that you support this, yet you also work I mean, imagine you work a lot with the counties.

Yes. Absolutely.

Were you, did you have a chance to read the the county's, testimony?

Yes. The city and county's testimony.

Yes. Given that you work so closely with them

Yes. And we and and and hello, Hi. Members and vice chair, chair, everyone, OPSD. Yes. So we did speak with the city and county prior to drafting this.

We did feel that so we understand their concern and are also willing to work with them. However, we we didn't talk to the other counties, and the rural counties are a little more or the other counties have a different little different makeup. We do believe though, as defined in let's see here.

In 22663, the definition of County designated transit oriented development areas that we believe, that it could strongly support, moving forward with state, let's see here, state funding and state infrastructure development that this, this change would, help promote that. But we are also willing to work with the city and county on this to kind of, you know, make it work for everyone.

Meaning you're open to amendments that

Potentially. I I would have to talk back with my office, the OPSD. But but as it is, we do support it. We do understand the city and county's concerns. Yeah.

And so you I'm I'm sorry. Just because you're about sustainability as well

You don't see how this kind of blanket taking of their, you know, home rule local authority could potentially become lead to unsustainable development.

Right.

I, you know, we'd have to look into that a little further, about unsustainable development because TOD development, you know, is, you know, is the idea of it is to be sustainable. But definitely open for more conversation as well. But, you know, we we did feel that it could help with sustainable TOD development.

Because your experience I mean, just to clarify, your experience is that the the counties have been an obstacle?

No. That's not what we're saying. Just that in moving forward, we we believe in, you know, promoting our the TOD within OPSD is you know, the idea is promoting transit oriented development. And so yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Representative may I speak for just a second.

Yeah. Okay.

You mean more density. Right? Right.

So Yeah. K.

Go ahead.

So this bill is still you know, there's still the underlying zoning, right, that everybody follows. But this bill just allows for a higher density. If we wanna go beyond that in TOD areas to promote higher density development to, to get more ridership in rail.

That's not what it says though. You're, you're, you're narrowing, the wording on it. And it, it, it's not saying that It's saying that the state is taking control over the counties versus, introducing the concept of allowing them to and promoting this higher density to with their discretion, you know, you're you're that's why I find the the the conversation with, rep you more very interesting that where they're an obstacle, you've had conversation with them. We just passed Act 159 last year.

So it's like all of a sudden something is wrong.

Why why are we, like, muscling in and and taking control over this? And as you as you clarified just so you cannot get it.

Really, Act 159 was geared more for affordable housing and those that used the rental housing revolving fund tier two funds to get higher density for developers. And this

I'm sorry. So the question is why why do you think it's necessary at this point when we just passed 159 last year?

Oh, I think because Act 159 is just for affordable housing development. This is for overall. You can build market rate at a higher density, and it just promotes higher density around transit stations.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I got excited about that.

Represent Thank you. Representative Iwamoto. Go ahead.

Thank you, chair. So just to I just wanna read this one line that I'm most concerned with. It says, any county ordinance rule regulation development standard, zoning provision, or other land use control that is inconsistent with this section shall be preempted, void, and of no force or effect to the extent of this inconsistency. So we have a 400 foot limit. Right?

And so you're saying you guys can go up to 600 feet? I mean, do you see why it sounds so overly broad and how it can make people nervous? I mean, I know, like, for my district, will there be many transit oriented development stops? I'm concerned because yeah.

Right. But, again, it's not forcing them to go higher. It's just an option. Right? And they still have to build within reason.

Like, to get a building permit, they still have to go through the building permit process, and there are regulations with height restrictions.

Oh, so that's not a zoning provision?

Zoning I mean, they can go if they are it can be wider. Right? Wider and

There's a so there's a lot of concerns. So, like, the foot 50 foot setback from the sidewalk. I mean, there's all of these things that make urban dwelling more livable. So I'm just concerned about that. Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none.

We're moving on. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have HB1714. 1741HD1. First up, we have White Housing Futures. Wait. Is this Yeah.

Hawaii Housing Futures. Not here last week, not here a couple of oh. Last week, sir. Yeah. Okay.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, committee members. Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. We're in support of HB 1741. I'll try to keep my comments brief, but I can see why on the surface, affordability mandates sound enticing to the legislature. But the fact is they don't quite work, and they actually reduce the total supply of housing.

Numerous research reports back this up. I mean, it shows that they reduce incentives to build housing, they shrink overall supply, and it increases prices. Just think of it like this. If you owned a business and you had to sell three out of every 10 products at a loss, You would then have to raise prices on the other seven products. That is exactly what's happening here in Hawaii, and we're seeing that these inclusionary mandates are actually driving up the cost of market rate homes.

So this bill seventeen forty one recognizes this basic reality, and we urge you all to pass this today. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

K. Thank you. Next up, we have Yapalsy. Okay. Matthew, individual in support on Zoom.

Will you speak? Yep. Hi.

Chair, vice chair, and members of the committee, my name is Matthew Frisbee, and I am in support of HB 1741 h d one. Hawaii is facing a serious housing shortage. Families in Kupuna are struggling to find homes they can afford. Stable housing is one of the most important foundations for health, safety, and opportunity. When people cannot afford housing, we see increases in stress, homelessness, family instability, and poor health outcomes.

But this law would help. It would increase housing supply by making it easier to build more homes, create a fair and legal sound system so housing rules follow recent court decisions, and it would lead to community stability, especially for working families, Kupuna, and young residents trying to stay in Hawaii. The reason why I support bill HB 1741 is because housing stability is directly connected to health, education, overall well-being, which are core concerns in social work and community services.

With many residents already spending more than 30% of income on housing, we need to take action to keep local families in Hawaii. For the for these reasons, I respectfully urge the community to pass HB 1741 HD one.

Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Okay. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

I'll stay here. Representative Shimizu, go ahead.

Scratched root, please. I'm not sure I'm not sure if you're the person to ask the question, but you seem like you know a lot. So it's my question.

Question. Okay. That's your one.

I really needed a a good laugh, you know, to recap. So okay. Okay. My question was the needs assessment study. Do you know who who would be reviewing this and and approving it?

I don't have that off the top of my head. I believe in the bill, my understanding is that the counties would be required to contract that, but I'm not sure that there are requirements stated as to who would have to carry that out.

K. Thank thank you. Thank you, Joe.

Great. Anybody else? Any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 2606 HD1 relating to off-site construction.

First up, we have office of planning. And So office spend on its existing testimony operating on this. K. Next, we have DHHL. Next, we have Farmers.

That's all the people that we have registered. Hawaii Housing Futures right here. K. That's all the people that we have registered to testify, or that's all the testimony that we've received. Is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Seeing n1. Members, are there any questions? Seeing n1, we're moving on. Next up, we have HB 2362, HB 1 relating to housing. First up, we have individual.

Wait. Do we have anybody out there? Nobody. So we don't have anybody in Is there anybody We don't have anybody registered to testify on this bill, but we did receive one, two, three, four testimonies. Five testimonies in support.

Members, are there any questions to nobody? Seeing none, we're moving on. Just a Sec. We have HB 2608 HD 1 relating to water heating systems. 3608.

First up, we have office Hawaii State Energy Office.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Gail Suzuki-Jones with the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our written testimony with comments. Here to answer any questions.

Okay. Next, we have Hawaii Realtors. Are you here? Nope. We have anybody on Zoom.

Okay. William on Zoom with comments. Inner Island Solar.

Hello. This is Will Giese with, Inner Island Solar solar supply Solar Ray. Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Great. Good morning. I'll make this pretty short. Just as background, Solar Ray owns Inter Island solar supply and several other companies. We're a fifty year old renewable energy company based here in Hawaii, 100% employee owned small business.

We sell heat pumps and solar water heaters. I have been involved in some form or fashion with the variance process for the better part of a decade. Most recently, I worked with the HSCO on updating their life cycle cost analysis tool from the perspective of the industry. I do we don't oppose this bill at all. I'll note that about more than half of the variances that already are applied and, received by the HSCO and then approved are for heat pumps already.

So it's good to see that this getting put into there. Yeah. I mean, heat pumps are very efficient, water heating technology. My comments are more about asking the committee to consider a couple of other amendments. One is that, as far as I know, this is the only technology in the state of Hawaii that has a statutory year life limit.

So the the statute as it's written imposes a fifteen year, technology limit on only solar water heaters, which comes into play when you're doing a life cycle cost analysis. What this functionally means is that you assume that an entire solar water heater system gets replaced at year fifteen whether or not that system actually is replaced. In reality, it typically is not in this state. So water collected for twenty years or longer.

Typically, at year 15, you're only replacing a tank, which is a fraction of the total cost.

This affects the cost analysis of the system. So we one of my the first one of two amendments is that we ask that you either remove entirely that statutory limit on just solar water heaters and let it play on even footing with any other water heating technology, or extend it, to the thirty year life of a house. So it's it's one of the other. Really just eliminating it, I think, is the most efficient way to do it.

The second is that, when this law was originally passed, it directed the Public Utilities Commission to create standards for solar water heating back in, I believe it was 2009 or 2010, in a separate statute.

Those regulations have never been reopened since it was originally created. And I can tell you as, a a company that owns and operates two manufacturers of solar water heaters in The United States, The technology has changed significantly since 2009. This also means that they set a very high efficiency level for solar water heaters. So they set a 90% or greater solar fraction, which means that you have to design a system for new homes to be 90% solar and 10% whatever other energy.

This means that no other energy efficiency technology can meet solar thermal, but it also means that a solar thermal system can't be downsized to be cheaper or less expensive for construction.

Right? So you're you're building a very large, highly efficient, but potentially very expensive system on homes that are potentially very small and maybe not needed. Now this doesn't matter for track homes. Right? Because you're buying things in bulk, but what often happens and as you can see on the variance process in places like Big Island where individual homeowners are are applying for variances, they're doing so on very small square footage sized homes.

So updating these regulations and allowing more variance in solar thermal system design will also reduce the cost of solar thermal systems while allowing them to play on even footing other energy efficiency technology. So, again, we don't oppose, including heat pumps with PV. We think that's great. But for ten years, I've been working on this and, it this bill comes up often, this this statute. The legislature, for whatever reason, doesn't change it.

But we think that these two discrete changes, at least for solar water heating, would make the statute itself and the process that the HSCO administers it, much more efficient and it would reflect reality and potentially make solar thermal systems, even more affordable than they already are for for new home build.

So thank you. I know that was a little bit long, but I really appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you, Will. Next up, we have Steve Parsons on Zoom.

Yeah. Aloha, chair and vice chair. My name is Steve Parsons. I live in Hana Pepe. I'm testifying as a lead with Kauai Climate Action Coalition.

I also happen to be a member of a lot of other green and sustainable committees nationally with the Association of Realtors and kind of general a green energy nerd and affordable housing provider and proponent. It's a shame, but Hawaii's solar water heating industry seems like a monopoly. Just like our state and other states like Michigan are currently suing big oil for hiding facts that aren't public, we should question misleading testimony around heat. This monopoly hurts Hawaii families. I know firsthand.

I provided an affordable housing rental unit for years and a loss permit. I was forced to install $11,000 solar system for a one bedroom Ohana. I could have put in a heat pump hot water heater. I'm sorry. It's for me asking a question.

I'm hearing background. No?

Oh, continue on. Can you can you sum it up? 11

Yeah. $11,000 solar system for a a one bedroom Ohana. I could have put a heat pump water heater in for 1,500, and that's a $9,000 savings. And this isn't the first time we've tried to, you know, fix this. Last year, h s d seven four eight pass crossover with better language, heat pump, hot water heaters, or solar.

That's what we need. Yet the solar industry wants, you know, this thirty year piece, and I'm not sure that's I think, honestly, it's probably better for a fifteen year. But just, hey, when you're walking in the store, anyone backing gas ignores the climate crisis, we must decarbonize fast, heat pumps align with state mandates. Other states get it. Maine and Tennessee Valley Authority have point of sale rebates so that you walk into a store, heat pump hot water heater is the cheapest option.

And in Hawaii, we have warmer air, so they're even more, efficient now. And, this is just good. It replaces bad fluid and gas units. And if you are gonna pass so I I I think we don't need a variance. Just let let the premarket choose.

Right? Let contractors, let homeowners choose which one they want. Make gas a variance. Make it more restricted and sunset it in five years. Let's break the monopoly.

Let's give people contractors, government, nonprofits, freedom of choice, EPOP or solar. That's fear. That's progress. Thank you so much.

Hey. Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions?

Representative Chaney? State Energy Office, please.

In reading your testimony, it it almost, appeared to me that this bill is not necessary because, people are able to choose the heat pump by requesting a variance.

They are, under impractical for poor solar resource or not life cycle cost, beneficial. So there are two options for them.

I'm sorry. Can you repeat yourself? Dorf kind of like Okay.

So there are two areas under the life cycle cost calculator and under the law that they can, already apply. Impracticable due to poor solar resources, one, and the other is, not life cycle cost, comparative. And so when you compare solar to heat pumps and the gentleman that was from Kauai, perhaps that's what problem he had. However, with only one person living there, I don't know how that could have happened in the calculator, but stranger things have happened.

So, so there is something that we have offered up, on our testimony, page two, which is putting, and adding high efficiency heat pump water heaters, to the variance, exemption.

So, it would be if you install solar hot water or high efficiency heat pump water heaters, you do not have to, apply for a variance. That does create some other problems though. And so it's quite complicated. I mean, we were even chatting in house about it and it's not a real clear pathway to this.

Like Will mentioned, we've been trying to fix this law for some time now, and we also offered up a change in, wording for 01/1996 dash 6.5 on demand water heater device that used to be approved, or it currently is approved by United Underwriters Laboratories, UL, but UL does not approve gas appliances.

And this is one housekeeping phrase we want to replace with Energy Star or some other third party certified.

Follow-up question, chair. Go ahead. So in, in reading Will's testimony about changing the fifteen to thirty years, are you okay with that?

I don't know if it's exactly thirty. We should go to, however, I think that's something that should be discussed and his recommendation to update the solar water heater standard that the PUC oversees under 02/1944. It's probably about time it's been over ten years since it's been updated.

So 30 is too long, but 15 is too short. You'd have a better number.

We have found different references, but nothing definitive. The closest one we found was 18. And that was, from Hawaii Energy's technical resource manual, but that should be up for discussion.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up, we have HB 2294 HD 1 relating to other school land transfers. First up, we have department DOE.

The department stands on its testimony in support.

Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii libraries.

Library system stands on our written comments. Okay.

That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, chair, for the DOE. So originally, this bill was written or submitted to us because it was part of the governor's package. Is that correct? Yes. And it made us believe that the the county owned it, and now we're transferring it into the state.

But in actuality, the state owns it. So this is you're seeking an amendment. Now, so the state, in actuality, owns it and yours and the county or you, the deal who's seeking the transfer to the county?

So the lands are were already identified for transfer back in 2022. That's right. So we're actually there's some of the TMKs need to be corrected.

So that and it's just from DLNR to the Department of Education. There's just one parcel that we're transferring to Kauai, back to the county. So that's only that one parcel that's being identified.

So the rest are going from the county to the state? No. No.

From DLNR to the Department of Education.

Oh, okay. So it's within the state. It's only one. Okay. So can I ask about Wilcox Elementary?

Is has enrollment gone down? What's going on with the enrollment there?

At Wilcox Elementary, I would have to check. I don't know exactly on the but the the parcel in question is just returning the the tennis court back to the the county. It's not it's not about the the school itself.

Oh. Okay. Great. Thank you. That's very helpful. K. Thank you.

Any other questions?

And then well, for the library system, they asked for us library system. I think your testimony kind of asked us to look into the history of, kind of recognizing the library resources in the land under the library and acknowledging the separation of the autonomy of libraries.

Is there are you asking for us to put something into this bill?

Mallory Fujitani for the Hawaii State Public Library System. At this point, we don't have specific language for the committee to offer the committee. We just happen to see this, bill come through as it's moving through hearing the hearing process. So the history is back in 1981, the Public Library System was removed from the DOE and is separately reporting to the Board of Education. So all the operations went, but the land control did not go.

So in many of the public and school libraries, which are there are 12 statewide, I think it's nine of them are identified on that list of that's in the bill. There is a public and school library, which is under the operation and management of the board of education at the state librarian.

So what we're asking for is, right now we've had situations with, a specific public and school, various issues with the Pacific where the public and school library is located and we have had some issues with the DOE. And more recently they have been telling us that it's their land, even though and they treat the public library like it's their building.

So in the last forty five years, the public library system has spent all the, you know, we've been managing and operating, spent all the money to make improvements and to manage the building.

DOE does not help us support any of the public, public and school libraries. So we're just we're just raising the issue to the legislature. This has been a long standing issue. We understand that. And we're not sure that we have the right language and how to approach it.

But more recently as well, an issue came up on Maui County with the Kahului Public Library, which we thought was ours. We there's a EO that says Kahului Public Library. But back when the EO was granted to us, it also said Department of Education.

So the county of Maui has taken the position that we need the DOE to sign off on a permit to install streetlights, adjacent to the public library that they're not recognizing that HSPLS has oversight over the public library parcels and that's separate from the public and school libraries. So something needs to be cleaned up because it's, it's causing a lot of inefficiency, bureaucracy.

It's been very difficult for us to navigate.

Good question. Thank you. Any follow-up question? Because I have

It sounds like we need a new bill.

Well, I think now.

This but something

No. The title the title where is it? DOE? I oh, Mallory, you can stay there. You said there's how many?

Seven parcels? Because I looked through the TMKs and it didn't have any libraries. But you're saying the libraries are sitting on the school property. Okay.

So the, when we reviewed the bill, I think it was like, I counted nine, nine school properties that are listed that have a public and school library. So just for a little history, back when most of these public and school libraries were built, the school and the library were built, the superintendent of the DOE, this Department of Education, he was oversaw the public library system. So I think for efficiency, they built one library to serve the public and the school.

In 1981, there was a separation, but there was no, you know, there weren't two libraries, you know, additional library was built. So we've been, operating.

And of those 12, there's only one library, public and school library in Kahuku where there's still a school librarian. Over time, the, Department of Education, when the school librarian retired or transferred out or whatever, they did not fill those positions. So the public librarian branch manager has provided management and oversight over all of the library functions for the community and for the school.

K. I gotta, so the libraries, do you hold title to land or is it under DLNR?

So, my understanding is we as a separate entity cannot hold land, but we do it through DLNR. So we have about 40 EOs for the rest of the public library statewide. And I haven't gone through each of them, but we do have we can go through the files. Some of them do say Department of Education. I mean, some some say Department of Education, some say State of Hawaii.

So it would be DLNR.

Okay.

Department of Ed? Are you okay giving are are you okay carving out the libraries from the parcel?

Yeah. So I we'd have to check others because there is a lot of because as as libraries attend some of our libraries actually have school librarians working in the library, so it's it's I don't know if it's a clean it can make that clean-cut depending on the library.

And so it would be something we can further discuss. I know we already are in discussion with libraries on a number of different issues around that.

So if I put an amendment in saying the land, provided that the land that the libraries, Land with the libraries, the library shall be carved out. Are you okay with that?

I would be a little hesitant just depending on because I know there are some principals who have because some of the library structures were also used as emergency libraries

too. Right?

Yeah. They're used as emergency structures at times, and the principals need access to those libraries because they're called on to open the library or and that has been some of the the contention that the at times when is the librarians open or is the principal who the library sits on that, property, are they gonna be responsible to open it? That has been something that is, awesome.

Alright. Okay. If I put that amendment in, right, that the library's the property for library shall be carved out, are you okay with that? I mean, just for discussion's sakes, for the next committee to discuss that. Sure. Yeah.

Sure, yea. I'll let them discuss it.

Okay. Good. Alright. Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank you. Any questions, members? Seeing none.

Hold on. Let me make can we recess for a minute? Yep. I wanna put my Okay.

We sorry.

We're reconvening our Committee on Water and Land. Next up, we have HB 2431 relating to real estate transactions. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Good morning, chair, committee members. Michael Cain on behalf of DLNR. We stand on our testimony in support, and we just wanted to note that we're not asking for any new types of disclosures. We're just moving existing disclosures earlier into the process.

So that my own office's perspective, we don't get panicked calls from people in escrow on the plane wanting to know what violations they have or permitted structures they have. So, we support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have any realtors. Are you here?

Yep. Mihoko Ito on behalf of the Hawaii Association of Realtors. We'll stand on our written comments.

Thank you. Next. Anybody on Zoom?

On Zoom. Hannah from Surf Rider Foundation.

Okay. Hannah for Surf Rider Foundation on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Hannah Lilly. I'm the Hawaii Regional Manager for Surfrider Foundation, testifying in strong support of this measure. Under current law, sellers are already required to disclose material facts about a home, including shoreline setbacks, erosion exposure, unpermitted shoreline structures, notices of violation, and related permits. The issue is not whether this information must be disclosed.

It is when, like Michael referenced. So today, disclosure is required no later than ten days after a purchase contract is accepted. This is after buyers have already invested significant time, money, and emotional commitment. And at that stage, walking away becomes much more difficult. So as they buy the property, erosion intensifies.

This dynamic can really create pressure to do something to protect the investment, sometimes leading to further shoreline hardening, environmental harm and strain on public agencies. And while many agents are diligent and transparent, that practice is not uniform. So that inconsistency really puts buyers and ultimately our beaches at risk. And concerns have been raised about feasibility of this measure, but this is information that already exists, and it's central to a property's value.

Providing access could be as straightforward as directing potential buyers to publicly available records through a link or a QR code or a reference in the listing.

2431 does not expand what must be disclosed. It simply ensures transparency earlier in the process. And shoreline erosion is not a private matter. It affects public beaches and public trust resources. So early transparency is the responsible approach.

Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have Kai Nishiki in support. Maui Nui Resiliency.

Aloha. Kai Aloha. Kai Nishiki, calling in from Maui. And I just want to, of course, call your attention to the testimony that I've already submitted, and really want to encourage you guys to look at the real estate listings of Shoreline Properties that are literally falling in the ocean, and they will have lots of descriptions about serene beach settings and the ocean, is right there, and it's a secluded white Sandy Beach.

And these are on properties. Here on Maui, there is a property, Kahana Sunset Vacation Rental Condominium right on the shoreline, and the waves are literally breaking over the top of the building. The videos are all over social media and there are realtors who are at this moment, trying to sell units in a building that their own structural assessment professionals, have deemed the building unlivable and the building is in essence condemned.

And there are ads right now on social media and on all of the realtor pages that are trying to sell units on this property and with zero disclosure at all.

And so this is really deceptive and a lot of folks reach out to me saying that they just moved here, they bought something sight on unseen from an online ad. And now they're being assessed special assessments of like, 50 or $100,000 to repair a seawall that one, they don't even support seawalls and two, the Board of Directors just assesses them these huge prices and now, you know, they're crying for help, you know, and they and I say, like, well, didn't you know about this?

And they say, no. They didn't realize how serious the issue was. There wasn't, any real disclosure and that it really was downplayed by the real estate professional because, you know, let's be real. The real estate professionals wanna sell for as high a price as they can because they are making a percentage off of that sale. So, you know, we this really-

Can you sum up your testimony? Sorry.

Yes. Absolutely.

Call mine. So just please, please support this. This is just providing information that you should know upfront. And at the at the first time that you see that listing online, you should also see what the real investment and hazards that you are looking at as a consumer. So, Mahalo, please support this.

Okay. Thank you very much. That

Thank you.

That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for the realtors. Hi.

Good morning.

Good morning. So I, so you're I think you submitted testimony. Was it an opposition or just comments?

It was comments with some concerns because of the existing processes that we have in transactions.

But why would it be additional costs? What would, how would it affect realtors to put it upfront in the advertisement?

So our concern is really that, you know, several years ago, we worked with the legislature to create an oceanfront, a specific oceanfront disclosure form. It's a two page disclosure, goes into all of the, you know, details relating to erosion, flood plain, you know, all of the things, right, that and I think, I didn't bring a copy of my the form, but I do have it on my phone if anybody is interested in seeing it.

The disclosure form.

Yeah. It but it's a specific one for oceanfront properties that has to be filled out for any oceanfront properties.

But as was mentioned, it's after all this time is spent

Not necessarily. So depending on the transaction, sometimes the those disclosure forms are released early to prospective buyers. I think our concern is that form is very specific and requires the seller to provide all this information relating to oceanfront issues and shoreline issues. But, you know, advertisements these days for real estate can be, you know, a social media post, for example.

And so if you're requiring all of this information that's on a two page form to be disclosed, you know, on a character limited social media post.

That's our concern is that it could confuse because it's not accurate with respect to you.

Is there a requirement that, a property be identified as leasehold versus fee simple in the advertisement?

I don't understand.

Property that's leasehold, and you make the consumer think that it's fee simple. Because when you sell a property, I think most the assumption is it's fee simple, And then you have to say, no, no, no, this is leasehold.

That's why it's so cheap or whatever. Right?

Well, if it's a social media post, I don't know. But if it's a listing, right, which is a different. Where all the official information is posted, you would know because it would disclose one or the other. Whether that's required or not, I don't know offhand. I'd have to get back to you on that.

But I think on a listing, you would always see if it's a fee simple or leasehold property being listed.

It's upfront. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you.

Representative Shimizu.

Can I ask you a follow-up?

Sure.

So I can see your concern about the two page, being problematic as far as advertising that in your various methods of advertising. What if you were to just have a statement to refer to them to see disclosure or something to that effect where it's almost like a link and or a statement that, that alerts the buyer that they need to look at this disclosure.

Well, I mean, I think the concern is that disclosure, you know, may I don't know at what point in the transaction that disclosure is prepared. Right? So I would have to get back to you on that whether or not that would be something that would or could work because I think it's the timing factor.

Yeah. That's absolutely what this bill is about. It's the timing of it.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

DLNR.

This might be realtors. What kind of information? I'm just thinking about the practicality of putting all this information on there. I mean, if you have a little post like this, how are you gonna how in the world are you gonna put it?

Can I grab the bill?

Yeah or if you do a flyer, right? A lot of times realtors will market a property by sending out little small flyers like this to the area people in the community. Is it possible to put all that information?

I well, I agree that it's not possible to do the full two page disclosure, but I don't think that's in the bill. The bill is actually limited. Permitted and non permitted erosion control structures, expiration dates, notices of alleged violation, and any fines. So that's just four items, and that's a few words. That's how's the Seawall nonconforming?

Has an erosion control structure expired? Has pending fines of DLNR $900,000. You know, it's a line or two. It is not two pages as the bill is written now. So and I think that can and should be done early on, especially if they have pending fines.

Alright. Representative Poepoe.

DLNR, what happens if a property is sold to a new person, they were unaware of the fines and the old owner didn't pay the fines? What happens?

I so, we had a situation

Does the new owner get assessed the old fines? Because the

That'd be a realtor's question?

That's a legal question. It has happened.

Yeah. With DLNR.

Yeah. With DLNR, the most recent case, the seller rather than end up in court just paid all the fines. And then we used the fines, as per the court decision to go in and actually remove the wall, which the illegal wall, which shocked the new owner. Whether the new owner knew all this or not, we're not sure. Because you always say, oh, I never knew.

But I also know that

Yeah. They signed the documents. Right?

Yeah. So what, is yeah. In writing, I know they knew.

So like, it sounds like the words you read out, the few lines that would be required are similar to like, when you see a property posted that says, this is a foreclosed property and is for short sale or something. Like, there are some limited disclosures already on listing

Correct.

So it'd just be a few extra lines in addition to those.

And what we're finding with coastal properties, in discussion with like, you know, our Sea Level HUI groups is that, residents of Hawaii are familiar with their coastal issues, know to ask, know to look for seawalls. We're seeing more and more coastal properties, being bought from people who are not living in Hawaii. So and wouldn't necessarily know to look for that or ask for that. But same with pretty simple and you sold. If I were from Arkansas, I wouldn't even know what we're talking about.

Everybody who lives here knows what we're talking about, hopefully.

Mihoko, are you able to stop talk to care housing and the disclosure requirements along with that?

Sorry. For fair housing?

Yes. Because you have buyer's protections, right, that you have to disclose under the fair housing law for residential properties.

Yes.

Not so much commercial. Are you able to speak to that?

If if there's a specific question about what is required to be closed now.

Disclosures. Right? They

So there's like you said, I've seen the disclosure statement. You have a extensive, I can give it to the members of the committee if you really want.

Yeah.

Yeah. It is extensive. So the shoreline disclosure the oceanfront property disclosure statement is very extensive. And our concern is that on advertisements, I get that it's a narrower subset of what's required to in this bill is proposed, to be disclosed.

However, you know, the concern we have is that ad and the disclosure would be inconsistent, right? or that, you know, you might be only able to fit so much information on an ad, whether it's a flyer or a social media post.

But the disclosure is complete, and it's very detailed. I mean, it includes, you know, a lot of it.

Oh, yeah. There's I see what you're saying.

Yeah. So they could you could end up with

Waiting to happen is really what you're saying.

That's right. Because it does include, you know, shoreline certification, the setback, the boundaries, erosion control, issues relating to sea level rise, encroachments. Right? It addresses all these things in way more detail. And so the problem is you could end up with

In other words, you're forcing another disclosure at the advertisement level, and we don't have the proper criteria.

That's correct. And what if they clicked?

Yes. Laid out similar to the I get where you're coming from there. Do you guys understand?

And I don't agree.

No. I think there is a just maybe? I mean, you asked the question.

Remember. Representative Iwamoto

Go ahead and question? Not to me. You gotta ask it.

I'm sorry.

So if I understand you correctly, please, do I understand what you're saying is there is a disclosure form for Shoreline Properties.

Yes.

Right. But this bill, what it's asking is I think, DLNR and I just said there's four items. If any of these are true, it must be included. So if you have a seawall that's illegal or not legally put in, you must disclose that as a unpermitted what would be the first. But only if, so it's not like all four things, only when there's a fine that's outstanding, you have to put that.

I mean, this is all consumer protection. Isn't it? Are we just protecting our consumers, and doesn't your profession wanna protect their clients?

Absolutely. And that is why there is right. We worked with the legislature several years ago to develop a specific shoreline form that discloses it. But we're concerned that the disclosure of this information on the form could end up being inconsistent. Right?

Because in a in the form, you can go into detail about if the let's say there is a fine or the circumstances around a wall, whether it's legal or illegal or if it's being challenged. Right? There's room to disclose that. The form, on an advertisement, you may be limited to whatever can fit on a social media post or a flyer. And that's the concern, is that you're you might create an inconsistency, and that's why

So I know HUD does have requirements. I think we heard that fair housing, that little logo with, you know, equal something. There's some equality situation. But that's required on advertisements currently. So I'm just saying there is a precedent for requiring a statement of something to protect consumers on every advertisement already.

So we're just adding when there's an issue, which would be an incentive. Wouldn't it be an incentive for the seller to resolve the conflict before putting it on the market?

Sure. And that is the purpose of the form, the form the seller disclosure form that exists. So but I hear you, and I don't know. You know, I'd have to look into the HUD disclosure required disclosure and figure out, you know, how that works just quickly.

On this. This is it. This is not every for disclosure. So Okay. Thanks.

Sure. Yeah. Thank you.

Alright. Representative Shimizu.

Does the two page disclosure, is it comprehensive? Does it include everything that DLNR has flagged? You have

You just got it.

I just got it.

So it does.

I believe so.

Can I ask DLNR one last question, Chair?

So if we move from advertising to saying that the two page disclosure will be given to the prospective buyer upfront, you know, whether it's a meeting, a open house, whatever would that satisfy notification and disclosure?

I, that sounds like it's more than what we're actually asking for. I

It sounds like more

Maybe, didn't understand.

It sounds like more.

Right. We're just saying these four elements, if they exist, should be disclosed. And I don't know if I would call a social media post an advertisement. Usually, friends who are realtors say, hey, I have this great apartment. Here's the link.

And then you follow the link to Redfin or wherever and then I think there is room to disclose. Like, I would treat that as the proper advertisement, not a Facebook or Instagram picture.

Where the lawsuit starts though. Right? That's where the lawsuit starts to then they argue. I'm sorry. We're now we're openly discussing, but that's what that's where the lawsuit starts.

But are there currently lawsuits over disclosure regarding fee simple or the HUD requirements?

No. Because it's all disclosed in the contract.

Okay.

So

Go ahead. Okay. Representative Iwamoto go ahead.

Sure. But, DLNR, would I mean, the point is that we should would you urge this committee to pass this through to consumer protection and commerce so that they can also do further analysis on this issue?

Thank you. That would be my preference.

Then we do pass this for further discussion.

Okay.

Okay. Representative Poepoe Yeah. We have time to go on.

Okay. Maybe for DLNR, but maybe for Mihoko. So it sounds like a concern is the inconsistency between the language that DLNR might be proposed or would propose and that the disclosure form. Why don't we just make the form consistent with what you are proposing? If we were to include language in the form that were more consistent with the language DLNR would propose, then they would be perhaps consistent.

And you would just be pulling language out of the form and putting it on a real team.

My understanding is that the language is consistent.

So you don't feel like there is a conflict?

There's only a conflict if the seller is changing their story somewhere along the road. Like, I believe the bill is crafted to match what is required already and just taking an element and moving it up.

This is a whole lot of words.

And if I were to see 20 words on advertisement, I might pay attention a little bit more than reading all the fine print.

I think what our intent not I think. Like, our intent in working on this legislation was that in the advertisement, it's just flagged. Like, there are fines at the DLNR. There are permitted structures. There are not.

And then it would be up for the potential buyer to do their what's it called?

Due diligence.

Due diligence. I was thinking due process, but that's not due diligence. So it's just flagging as opposed to right now.

It's a blank, do your due diligence without any hints over what that due diligence might be. And I didn't wanna talk about specific properties, but I know in testimony, there are people who have product specific examples that I think are relevant.

Thank you.

Chair.

Representative Shimizu

Mihoko, I had asked the question earlier. Does this form include the information that DLNR is flagging? And I was told the form was passed out. So on this form, it would be clearly put on paragraph case special, special terms or to Rep. Poepoe, it's not like buried in the fine print, but it's prominently stated somewhere on this form as far as any kind of liability or, issue that that DLNR is flagging. Is I mean, do you understand the question?

I think so. I mean, you're asking if the same if it's the same information, it's a subset of the same information that is being proposed in the bill.

The question is as clearly as I try to ask it is the information that DLNR is asking for, is it gonna be prominently stated on this form so that the buyer can see it and it's flagged and you don't have to go through every little word.

I can answer that. Yes. It's already in the law.

It's already in the law. And there is also a

So that answer is yes then?

Yes.

Okay. That's all I want. Yes

Okay.

Yes.

Sorry. Just to clarify. So it will say there the owner, currently has $200,000 worth of fines that have not been paid on a shoreline, like, you know, property or something. So it could because when I hear DLNR say it's very clear. There are nonconforming structures, illegal seawall, $200,000 worth of fines.

I've just made that up, but as an examples, but I don't see how that would actually be listed out as simply here.

Especially previously assessed fines that are unmade is, I think, what I'm concerned about. And structures that are continue kinda continually be legal or nonconforming.

I would probably have to go back to the realtors and ask them specifically how they, you know, address that on the form. But the issue, you know, there's a seller disclosure form, right? that has like 126 things right? And this is an extra form that's designed to sort of bring attention specifically to the shoreline issues. But I'm happy to take your question back and ask if those specific things that you mentioned would actually end up being disclosed on this form.

Thank you. I think that was related to my previous question of making the two things consistent.

Sure.

Thank you.

Go ahead. You wanna come up?

I would like.

I mean, we're required to ask questions. So please, what is your can you tell us what is your

Yes. I think as a consumer member of the public,

State your name.

My name is Kate Thompson. I'm actually with Surf Parking and testifying on probably the next thing. But I would, urge the committee to pass this so there could be further discussion and consumer protection. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, we had an extensive discussion, and I think it was a good one. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Seeing none.

No. We have time, so it's okay. Thank you. Alright. We're moving on.

Next up, we have HB2375 HD1, relating to Towing practices.

Aloha. Thank you.

Oh, wait.

He's 237. First up, we have PCCA.

Okay.

Next up, we have DLNR.

Hello, chair of vice chair, members of the committee. Luke Siber for DLNR. We submitted written testimony, so just a brief comment. We manage parking facilities across the state. And so anything that might come out of this working group will directly affect us.

As such, we would request to be added into it because right now we're not.

Okay. Thank you.

This morning. I'm sorry

You have a good morning

Thank you very much.

Okay. Next up, we have surf parking. Now you can come up. Kate, go ahead.

Thank you so much. Sorry for my inexperience. Aloha, Chair Hashim and Vice Chair. Thank you. My name is Kate Thompson.

I'm the Director of Surf Parking and I stand by my written testimony, but I would also like to take one minute to summarize some of the key issues, especially as it relates to your committee in water and land. And that's just a very simple issue. It's actually that we need a citation stage, we need a uniform statewide authority to establish minimum standards for parking enforcement. This bill morphed a little bit from parking enforcement and towing to just towing in the HD 1.

But we were asking to reinstate the parking enforcement.

And the reason why is because there's so much variety in parking penalties throughout different state properties. For instance, the Diamond Head State Memorial has no top no towing. If if somebody is still there after hours, they lock them in. And that's very rare. Maybe one or two cars a year.

And as we soften the tax testimony earlier that in the first committee transportation that they tow about one car a year and they have 35 parking lots of thousands of cars throughout the state. And yet at the otherwise small boat harbor in the last four years 9300 cars were towed and only 25 parking tickets were given.

This is a loophole in organization where in 2022 DLNR said that only DOCARE officers should be giving citations in the harbor and yet over many years DOCARE officers do not give tickets nor have they deputized lower level people to give standard citations which with HPD and DOCARE would be $35 ticket, not $165 tow. So over $400,000 in towing fees, 100% of those fees go to the towing company. And this is not in the arguments against the opposition from consumer affairs.

This is saying it's the isolated parking lot, but the same thing is happening at the Maui My Myelaya Harbor and also various parking lots that deal in our uses the rationalization that towing is a standard enforcement for expired meters and minor overstays.

And we're saying that and with the testimony from the public, it's a repeat that, you know, people are in our, nonprofits and public areas like our surfparking.org have asked you to make sure that there is an authority that is taking information from the various parking lots. For instance, still bore, I might give no park essentially no parking citations and do all this towing whereas that gives you know, let's say they give a thousand parking tickets or HPD and

Like some of your.

Yeah. So I would urge you to pass this. We need more discussion in the next committee, which is judiciary because these hundreds of thousands of dollars in these parking contracts and it's relevant to some other bills going on. We need to have we encourage you to pass this bill and I'm available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Good. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none.

Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 2582. Relating relating to Hawaiian affairs.

First up, we have DLNR in support.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Manu Tupper with DLNR. We stand on our written testimony in support, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Okay. Next, we have OHA in support.

Good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Lena Alalei on behalf of OHA. Our position is support with amendments.

And just to highlight, we of course, fully support the intent of this bill to advance the work of the public trust working group, which is to ensure that there is transparency and accuracy with respect to agency reporting on public land trust revenues with the ultimate goal of ensuring OHA is getting its 20%, which, there's already copious public record document showing that we are far below that, so sort of 5%. So we're appreciative of the intent of this bill to advance the work of the group.

However, there is a concern with the proposed change to the composition of the working group.

The working group has a highly technical mandate as far as identifying, ceded lands in the public lands inventory and determining accurate accounting, which is why we've previously requested or the working group as a whole has previously requested support with hiring third party professionals to be sure that we have that additional expertise. In addition to that being important, the working group needs it to be able to meet and conduct business. And the proposed amendment would expand the overall membership of the working group to 11.

It's currently six. And OHA has three seats currently, and DLNR are or the governor appoints three seats.

And this, six person membership has allowed the working group to be a cohesive unit, meet regularly under sunshine notice to advance its work. We're concerned that increasing the membership to 11 people is going to hinder the ability of the working group to convene to efficiently do its work and also would dilute OHA's voice. So our proposed amendment would be to allow for some expansion for the legislature to have seats on the working group. We certainly support that.

But rather than have two seats from the House and the Senate each, we are suggesting it be one member each from the house and Senate so that would keep the, the size a little more manageable and also allow OHA to, have, have a voice, a closer to a parody voice.

And we've also suggested, some language to put guardrails on who is a community member, who that, who would join the working group. And again, given the technical nature and the importance of the work, the scope of work of the working group, we believe the community member needs to be someone who would also bring additional expertise and background directly relevant to the mission of the working group. So the suggestion is to have someone with accounting, or financial background so that they can contribute to that core work.

But and it for it to also be someone who understands native Hawaiian rights history and has history and has demonstrated, activity in the native Hawaiian community that would make them an appropriate, additional member who could bring that expertise that we're seeking. Okay.

So I'm available to answer.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Luanne, individual in support on Zoom.

Aloha. Good morning.

Good morning. We can hear you,

Stand in strong support for this bill to account for all the ceded lands in the public land trust inventory and for the income and proceeds and for whatever is due through this. Also a member of the Hawaiian Civic Club, we stand in strong support. So thank you for this opportunity. Mahalo.

K. Thank you. Next up, we have Shelby Pikachu Billionaire in support.

Aloha, guys. Aloha, Kayaka. Pikachu, Shelby Billionaire. I'm in full support of this bill because right now, I'm currently in the OHA Board of Trustees meeting right now. Your agenda on their agenda is the same exact time.

These, how do I do two Zooms, two phones? I got a third phone so I can call you guys. Now I ran

Can we stick to the merits of the bill rather than

Yes. It is for the bill.

Board meeting.

It is for the bill. Because when they ran the numbers and I testified before, the the state when asked the governor's office, the three what is the money? The city land revenue is 394,300,000 annually. 20% of that is 78.9. OHA is currently capped at 21.5.

That means Hawaiian should be in shortchanged $57,400,000 every year. Since 1970 where does the money go. I don't know, but you should hire me as a committee member because I just ran the math and numbers for you. Put someone from the finance committee and also from the Senate Committee so we can talk the numbers, talk the math, and so we can work it out together. Please pass this bill with technical amendments with all our suggestion for clarity and consistency. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I just wanna note that's a copyrighted mask, so please be aware of that. Next up, that is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions?

Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, for OHA. Thank you for pointing out the, the makeup of and your your recommended changes. But so right now, it's three to six, three OHA Three and three. Three and three. And the proposed changes would dilute could potentially dilute.

So are you saying keep it three and three?

No. We have specific amendments in our written testimony to allow, we support having the Senate and the legis and the house each have an appointed member. But as the bill was written, it had two from the Senate and two from the house.

So it would take it up to three to six. No. What so what is the total number of your amendments? Yeah.

Yes. So with our amendments, it would be nine total.

Nine total. Okay. So you would still potentially you're so you're open to being diluted, but not as much

Yes. It would be nine total, but with OHA having four

Got it.

Those seats. And the community member with relevant background would be the ninth seat.

And as already written, which we support, the eight other eight members would elect that community member that's among the group.

Perfect.

Thank you. And so you're you're only asking for a million dollars in in appropriations to convene this group

Yeah. There's not an appropriation in this bill. Yeah. That was last year, we did have an appropriation and a related bill. Okay. This year.

So I'm sorry. But I thought you guys already were doing an inventory.

OHA does have its own ongoing inventory. It's a little bit different than looking at the public land trust information system, which is where DLNR has its inventory, and that's the audit. We'll kind of focus on the accuracy of that system. OHA's own inventory is much more historically, like, it's gonna span kind of the Mahele through the the current through now. So it's gonna be a lot it's gonna take a lot longer, basically.

And we need action on a shorter timeline.

Perfect. Thank you. That's my question. Thank you. Thank you.

Representative Shimizu.

Sorry, Lena Alalei. Getting your steps in.

Yes.

Related to, Rep Iwamoto's questioning, I guess my thought would be to maintain your fifty fifty ratio Would be ideal. So as as you had suggested, one versus two for the Senate and the rep. Maybe even one for the governor versus two so that you you maintain that four to four, ratio. I mean, that's would you be open to that?

We would have no objection. Yeah.

Second question.

Okay. Go ahead.

Just the second one. Do do you have cooperation and are you working with other departments on, this, this PLT, issue?

So the governor has discretion in his appointments, but historically, the agencies that have had representation on the working group from the administration have been Department of Land and Natural Resources, which makes sense because they operate the inventory system. And then, budget and finance, which also makes sense as a, our oversight for receipts from agencies as as far as land receipts and payments. So that has historically been the two stateside agencies represented.

So they've been working with you in cooperative?

Yes. Yes. That has been successful and that's what I was referencing in terms of the three to three membership as it currently exists has allowed the working group to be to be effective. And I also have in the audience, we have trustee Lindsey who's a member of the working group and Sherry Broder who's a member of the working group. And if you have any questions about the historical work that's gone on since 2022, they would be the most appropriate to answer those questions.

Besides DLNR and DNF, do are there other departments that maybe could be, helpful?

I think the working group has the, the authority and the ability to solicit information, and they have, the past report that was prepared did have information come in from other agencies. So the, members have those technical job duties again, but they do gather information from other agencies.

Okay. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Thank you, Aloha.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we're off. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 2585 HD 1 relating to agriculture tourism.

Thank you.

First up, we have ADC comments. Is ADC here?

Mark Takemoto for ADC. We stand on our written testimony. We're offering comments.

K. Next up, we have Department of Ag, are you here?

Thank you, chair. DAG stands on the written testimony offering comments on this.

K. Next, we have office of planning. Do you wanna say something? Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was done on its written testimony supporting the intent.

Okay. Next up, we have Shelby Pikachu in support.

Aloha, chair. Shelby Benner. I stand in support because when I was in Lahaina after the fires, I met Eddie Garcia, who does regenerative farming. So we're doing stuff like that. We also got aquaponics.

We could do this with other things as well with regenerative agriculture. I fully support this bill. Thank you very much because we live on island. Aloha.

K. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably 10 people basically in comments or support.

Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Represent Representative V. Womoto.

Thank you, Chair for the Farm Bureau. Thank you. So I I think one of your concerns is the gentleman farms, the kind of fake farms, using ag land to, not actually produce anything, food or, you know, move away from that kind of use of ag land. Is it clear to you in your reading of the bill in terms of what secondary to the principal farming operation means? Because the whole thing is saying that you can do tourism, but it's secondary to the principal farming operation.

Thank you, representative. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Everything should be secondary. The primary activity is agriculture production. And so although this bill is not necessarily addressing the gentleman farms, and that's a dwelling issue, again, that's accessory.

This is addressing ag tourism, which is accessory. Again, our position has always been those activities, as much as we support them, are secondary and accessory. Those are almost privileges to do those type of activities, but we need to ensure that the farming or the ranching, the ag activity is primary. Right. So this seeks to tighten up some of the the, I I guess, the requirements for ag tourism, and that's where our support is.

We still always every time we're looking at two zero five, along with the department, there are always concerns and also some caution. Right? We don't want to, have unintended consequences by amending two zero five with the idea of trying to tighten up regulations.

Because you wouldn't want to have, like, Polynesian Cultural Center be put on ag lands, and it's like performative farming, but nothing's actually being produced.

Again, we want tourism activities that support the actual agricultural activity, the primary activity of agriculture production.

Got it. So would you say one of the ways you can evaluate this primary status or principal farming operation status is actual annual revenue. Because that's missing from this bill is the annual revenue. So shouldn't all the tourism activity be secondary to what the revenue generated from the Ag actual Agricultural activity?

So, Representative, I believe that the bill is asking for state and federal tax returns or some income. So income is, on its surface, it looks like a reasonable ask to determine if there's agriculture. But a lot of times, what is that income? Is it a percentage? Is it an actual income?

You have different size farms, different commodities, different, amounts of ag produced per acre.

So, although that is one. So I think there are, multiple, but again, I think the Simkana Honolulu has has determined farmable acreage. There's a percentage that needs to happen in order for accessory uses to be happening. So, again, that's where our caution is. We wanna make sure, and we have the the subject matter experts sitting next to me, our our DAB planner, that there are guardrails, but there are reasonable and not overly burdensome.

Right.

I think even ADC had had suggested that we we wanna find the balance. We wanna allow ag tourism for bonafide farmers and ranchers, but we also wanna prevent those that have found a way to have tourism activities on agricultural land that's not really there needs to be some nexus. You know, one of the examples, and I think, you know, I was hoping Kamehameha Schools students stayed here because I believe Kahuku Farms is Kamehameha Schools land.

And they're doing what we believe is proper and bona fide ag tourism to include their farm cafe that serves items from their farm, utilizing the locally grown products from their farm. They do a farm tour that takes them through some of their production land to show what they're actually producing.

So that's what we're looking at. Actually,

But you've you've used the word accessories. Chair, do you mind if I'm sorry. You've used the term accessory and you've stressed that it's secondary. How do you what would be a red flag when it's no longer that balance is no longer focusing on ag? And when does it flip to being not merely accessory, but tourism has now taken over?

And that has been a caution before, and I think this bill is trying to address that. Again, trying to put in some guardrails. But we've brought up the concern also of that concern where it could work at a disadvantage to a farmer. So say a farmer is producing a certain amount and that's what they're producing. They add ag tourism.

Ag tourism is a small percentage of their business of their revenues. Their ag tourism operation increases without impacting their ag operations, but now it's a larger portion of their revenue. Do we punish the farm and say you can no longer do your ag tourism? So, again, ag tourism is a very complex issue, and that's why we are always cautious when there are new laws.

It is you know, we appreciate that the counties need to enact their ordinances because they're in charge of zoning, and they may not want certain types of activities that other counties want.

So 02/2005 is supposed to set the and this I I understand this is what it's trying to do, trying to increase the statewide uniform standards, but it shouldn't be overly broad because you're going or or or detailed because you're gonna have the counties that are gonna be able to come in. Right?

And I think that's part of DOA or DAB's testimony where two zero five dash five b is is removed, and that allows the counties or says the counties have that oversight as far as, the zoning for ag tourism. So, again, we support the intent. We want it tightened up.

We don't want overly burdensome. But again, we wanna ensure that if you're gonna be allowed to do ag tourism, you have to be doing farming first. Farming needs to be the primary activity.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Our representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I think Brian could have answered this, but I think you're the subject matter expert. The bill says establishes a process for the termination of an authorization for agriculture tourism activities upon a determination that the agricultural activity has ceased. And I think that piggybacks off off of our Rep Iwamoto's questioning. So you guys are gonna establish some kind of process or analysis that monitors and determines when it flips to an unacceptable activity?

No, we don't. Earl Yamamoto, Department of Agriculture and Beyond Security. The department does not have the responsibility and and it's not, stated so in this version of the bill. We do have a, we're sending a annual report on, I mean a report at the end of the year for on part two implement, I guess, in my implementation on part two. But with respect to, you know, that would lie that would lie with the counties.

Oh, it's a it's still a county responsibility. Yes. And do you guys have any oversight of that?

No.There's nothing provided. The department doesn't have any regulatory authority with respect to agricultural district lands. We try to convince by making some arguments on behalf of protecting and making available agricultural land for agricultural production, but we don't have any statutory.

So see. So we're relying on the counties and there's no accountability or or oversight on the county if if there's violations then?

Well, if anything at all, that would be the land use commission. The, I guess, the overseer for Chapter 205.

Okay. Alright. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Yeah. I have one question. Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't quite understand your testimony.

Can you elaborate on that? I mean, what are you trying to say is my question?

Yes. And I apologize for that second page. I believe, Brian, the Farm Bureau had mentioned that the amendments to section 205-5. You know? Well, first of all, I referenced the wrong historic measure that created the initial agricultural tourism text within 205-5.

So, I corrected it. I wrote it down andcame up with some language. Anyway, what the department wants on page two of our testimony isthe restoration of the existing language prior to 2006 when the amending agriculture tourism language was added. It doesn't create anything. It's that first sentence in Section 205-5 establishes the access guidance to the counties with respect to permissible uses within the agricultural district.

It doesn't do anything more than that. And what we thought was that the HB 2585 struck that, strikes that out and that may be going a little bit a little bit too far and we would like to have that restart. We don't have Ramser type language, but I did produce some language that may I don't know

May help. Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions? That's yeah.

I'll I will pick pick up that later. You can leave it at the desk, and and we will I'll we'll just further discussion later as we oh, that desk over there. Yeah. Thank you. Alright.

With that, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 2231, relating to the Highest Island Burial Council. Let me see. Alright. Sorry.

2231. First up, we have attorney general. The comments.

Good morning, chair Hashem, vice chair Morikawa, members of the committee, deputy attorney general, Alyssa Kau on behalf of the department. The department offers comments specifically with respect to section 2, which would allow for OVA to adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 91. So according to Article 12 section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution, coupled with section 10 /4, it's pretty explicit that OHA is not considered as a state agency.

And in order for any agency or anybody to promulgate rules under Chapter 91, they would need to explicitly be considered an agency, pursuant to Chapter 91. We have offered an amendment that basically says if OHA wants, or if this committee's intent is for OHA to provide guidance on the qualifications of its applicants and this is going to be an internal process.

OHA has the ability to enact bylaws which may be their equivalent of rules. And so that amendment can be adopted and would be acceptable. I'm available for any questions if you may have some. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have comments.

Good morning again. Lena Alalei for Oka. We are happy to accept this Kuleana if transferred by the legislature, we note in our comments that OHA's core duties more closely align with nominating and appointing the geographic Moku seats as opposed to the large landowner seats.

So we take no position on the large landowner seats, but we are able to fulfill this if transferred. And, with respect to the point the attorney general raised, we would agree that we're not a state agency and that we currently perform the nomination for the MOCU seats without the nomination for the MOCU seats without Chapter 91 rules and are able to do that with respect to those seats.

So if we were to adopt the same process for actually appointing it could carry on like we do currently without having to adopt Chapter 91. We just put in the public advertising itself what are the qualifications for the seat, so then it's very apparent for applying what are the qualifications. And they align pretty closely with the statute. So we're not creating anything new that would require rulemaking. We're just aligning our recruitment with what is in the statute.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody on Zoom? Nope. Nobody on Zoom. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative?

I have a quick question for OHA. Thank you for your comments and agreeing with attorney general. Just to clarify, you support the amendment that they offered?

To not to not have rulemaking.

Take out the rulemaking and then it would just add language that allows OHA through its bylaws to establish procedures and standards.

We'd be willing to do it through our bylaws if the committee feels that's necessary. As mentioned, I think we could just, align our recruitment with the statutory requirements.