House Standing Committee on Transportation

Morning. Convening our House to be on transportation today, Thursday, 02/19/2026 for our 9am posted agenda here today at the Hawaii State Capitol with several different measures before us.

So if we could begin. Please, I'd like to start with our first agenda item HB 1588, related Department of Transportation establishes a noise detection program and the Department of Transportation for the installation of noise detection cameras for the enforcement of noise control laws. Vice chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation and support.

Hi. Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Robin Shishido with HDOT and we stand by our written testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Health with comments.

Chair, vice chair, Matt Cronin, Department of Health. Department of Health Services, standing on our written comments. Just wanted to we're happy to work with Department of Transportation. We just have some suggestions about the other stuff. Thank you.

Thank you. Honolulu City Council member, Radiant Cordero in support. Springboard Hospitality in support, Citizens Against Noise in support, HMSA in support.

And 11 individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1580.

Thank you. Deputy Shishido.

Yes.

Did you have a chance to look at the permanent health proposed additions to the statutes that there that would be potentially monitored under this proposed law?

No. I haven't had I didn't look at it.

If you can look at it before the end of the evening, please, and let me know. And then I have a I know you folks introduced this bill. But is there any, I'm just going to finance next. So what is the fiscal impact or fiscal appropriation that we needed to stand up the program? I know you folks are piloting it right now.

Yeah. In the pilot, we're putting up 10 locations and installation and the you know, software consultant cost. I believe for that 10 locations, it was about $2,000,000. $2,000,000 or $2,500,000.

And we'll double check and, you know, see how much comes up per camera and I'm sure there'll be some inflation and so forth.

Right. Okay. If you can, let me know about DOH's proposed additions before the end of hearing.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Some question for me.

Rep. Muroaka

Good morning. Do you folks have a anticipated decibel level you guys are shooting for on these alert devices?

Yeah. So it'd be in accordance with the I think Department of Health has some decibel standards, you know, if it's in residential, commercial, and so forth. So it would be in alignment with that.

Okay. And with those decibels, are they are these devices, will they be when they're tracking the noise, is there a way that these devices can pinpoint, pinpoint exactly where the noise is coming from?

Yeah. So far in the pilot, we have I believe we have eight cameras. Two of them have been up for several months now. And from there, yep, the you know, they it takes a picture and they can pinpoint, you know, like, if it's the motorcycle that's making a loud noise. So it's pretty accurate.

We can find it, find the vehicle.

Okay. Thank you.

To wrap more with this point too, like, if Department of Health, you folks, you would have comment on what's the decibel. Would you know at the top of your head?

Yes. Would you like me to

Can you come forward? Sure.

Chair, vice chair. Matt Cronin, again, Department of Health, Environment, Health Services. If we can't give you a strict number, our regulations are actually not built for vehicular sources that way, which is why we're really happy to work with DOT in coming up with a number or approach. But I think if it points directly to our statutes right now and for enforceability,

it is gonna create a little bit of difficulty for Department of Transportation because I can't tell you it's, like 85 or you know, 62 decibels.

Because there's a 95 for purpose of a police officer or site for excessive noise on a audio system?

Yeah. I can't speak exactly what it is. But but there is right. So those types of vehicular source to or, you know, amplified noise like on a sidewalk or especially performer. There's a little bit different Department of Health.

Regulations are pointed at stationary mechanical sources, construction sources. So we do have kind of background, but we're kind of in the process to have right now really reviewing how we look at sound and noise pollution.

So it's background plus some, so I think if this does move forward, we will be working with, you know, Robin and others at DOT to come up with a workable solution. But as it our comment really was as it points directly right now, it's not a clean number that probably makes it really enforceable.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Do you know, do you guys know what the the number you guys are striving for? Because one of the a couple of concerns that my office took was urban areas where they got deliveries. Now the deliveries with the towable forklifts, they got these reverse beepers. Are they gonna be cited? So I would just like to see a number included in I think it's a good bill.

I really do. I would just like to see more definitive guidelines on it because leaving it so vague would be, you know, not good.

Thank you.

No. I agree.

Hi, Mr. Cronin. You folks have the 10 locations picked out.

Are they all, here on this island, or are you gonna

Sorry, that would be for DOT. Deputy Shishido.

Okay. I thought sorry.

You're good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Deputy? Are you able to, are you able to tell us the potential, I'm sorry. The locations you folks are piloting now?

Yeah. We have it. I don't I know we did one on H3 because it you know, there was reporting of a lot of drag racing. That's one location. And I don't know exact locations we have, but we can get it.

Yeah. If you're able to and I can give it to the committee.

Okay.

Chair, Do you know if anything on Maui, though?

No. Right now, the pilot's on Oahu.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any further questions?

Thank you, Deputy. Okay. Members, we went through next agenda item before us, HB 1696 relating to commercial driver's licenses.

Lowers the age of who may drive commercially within the state from 19 to 18. Approved the requirement that only operates category three vehicles to qualify the drive commercially in the state requires Department of Transportation commendous rules to lower minimum age for a commercial driver's license by Shepherd testimony, please.

Department of Transportation in support.

Yeah, we send by your submitted testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you. City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services in support. Hawaii Transportation Association in support.

Oh, I didn't know this time.

Good morning. I'm Tina Yamaki with the Hawaii Transportation Association, and we're in strong support, and we do stand on our testimony with the suggestion that added language be for those who are between the ages of 18 and 20 year olds have the companies that are that the companies are employing them have an additional minimum of 320 hours training time as well as keeping a record.

Thank you. Hawaii Teamsters Local 996 in support, Hawaiian Council in support, Hawaii Logistics Services in support, Island Topsoil in support, and five individuals also in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1696?

Seeing none.

Thank you. Deputy Shishiro?

Robin?

Yep.

Do you so right now, the proposed I mean, the proposed bill rate is what we're trying to it would allow only for interstate. Right? Not interstate. The licensing that we would be adopting.

Or interstate within Hawaii.

Yes. Okay. Just so make that clear. Members, any further questions?

I do wanna thank several of the testifiers and testimony that came in through the bill and I acknowledge and grateful that the different support and we can talk more decision making.

So for the next measure before us, Oh, sorry. Any further questions?

Seeing none. Next agenda item HB 2333, related to transportation authorizes Department of Transportation to designate Airport Special Districts owns the airport statewide at some new HRS section to prevent unauthorized access and enhanced security effective 07/01/2026 by Chair Nakamura.

Department of Transportation in support.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Kirk Maduro, Department of Transportation for Airports. We stand on our written testimony in strong support of this. As you know, we have 15 airports statewide, 19,400,000 in claimants—passing in claimants a year. Majority of them obviously come from the five commercial airports. The intent of this bill is really to establish boundaries around our property lines.

And with that, it'll enable the law enforcement agencies to do the proper enforcement to ensure not only the safety of passengers and employees, but it's really the parameters around it for unauthorized individuals that may cause the airfields to be disrupted, causing another operational damage. We appreciate the support of the state, as well as our city counterparts to ensure that we maintain aviation that is most efficient. Happy to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Airlines for America in support. Blind Vendors Ohana, Inc., in support. Airlines Committee of Hawaii in support.

We'll stand on our testimonies.

Thank you. City and County of Honolulu, Department of Community Service, in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Anton Crockett, Director of Community Services. We stand on our written testimonies in full support. Interagency cooperation that we have between the city and state is very important, so we strongly support this. Thank you.

And then, members, that's the physical testimony, and one individual in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2333?

Yeah. Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Jake Pockley on behalf of my Anasco Airlines. We stand in strong support.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person? Seeing none.

Thank you. Deputy Maduro, for the committee's understanding and background and knowledge, can you let us know what happens every time somebody enters the perimeter of the airport and what happens to the states?

Depends. It depends by circumstance. Right? So, let's, let's focus on the terminal. If there's any altercation within the terminal, depending on where it's at, if it's a security checkpoint, to say will stop depending on what, what that situation is.

And if it stops, and that means some passengers can get through the checkpoint. That, that just can cause us to make major delays. That's one aspect of it. We've had examples on the neighbor islands where unauthorized individuals around the airport closer to the airfield have created—started fires inadvertently. I'm not sure.

Those fires create smoke. Those smoke have a tendency if, if it's thick, to then disrupt landings and, and departures. And so, those, again, those cause delays, which, in an airport, it's a very refined and efficient operation. So, any delays caused can, can create a lot of havoc.

Within, within the airport itself, just to give you an example of two years, 2023 to 2024, we had approx—sheriffs had about 180 responses to different aspects of homeless activity. In 2025 alone, that number jumped up 198, so it doubled in one year. And these vary from public nuisance, condition exposures, defecations. It can result in theft and shoplifting, automobile access.

In some cases, as I mentioned, arson; absolutely employee harassment. That's, that's probably one of the more visible things that when employees work at night and we don't authorize individuals lurking or around the property and should not be there. It does end in some kind of assault, which is very concerning for our employees in the airport network, not just employees. So, these are, these are things and, and in in some cases, homicides. Very few, but there's still that aspect.

So, defining of and then, of course, that's right, smart cards. You see them all around things of that nature that we want to be able to have a defined perimeter in a special district so that law enforcement aid officers can have more authority to—clear and concise objectives to arrest if, if needed. Obviously, we're not gonna arrest in the first offense unless it's very blatant, but it does allow penalties to be associated with that and, and the action taken.

So, that that's really an object.

And anytime there's unauthorized entry into air—airfield—we get fined. Correct?

That's correct. That's FA 139. And, and, so, that, that's, there's no question about that. Yeah. So, airfield into a secured area, there's no question. We can do that today.

So, the question is more around the perimeters where there's nothing happening, but something could happen and some things to have happened. And, of course, in the terminal, when you're checking in, things of that nature. Yeah.

Alright. So, wonderful context. Members, any other questions? Rep. Cochran.

Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Thank you. So, I'm not sure if this is still happening, but three years ago, I was at baggage claim, and a maintenance worker there told me that, actually, this is when people were saying one-way tickets.

People were sent here on one-way tickets. He said at least six per month, there are people that get off the plane, and they would hide and live in the airport. So, these weren't people from the outside coming in. They were already in it and then they get busted, you know, and then they get they leave and go into Waikiki and become homeless on the streets there. So, how many of these 198 were that type of, you know, individuals?

Or is this true, act—I guess is my first question because this is what one of the workers had told me. I never was able to verify.

I, I can get you a specific number. We, we get reports from both our allied university, our port security, as well as sheriffs. I can give you a specific number. But I'm glad you raised that, representative. We've been having some discussions more recently with our city counterparts.

We are aware of that very issue of one-way tickets. And while it's paradise, while it's great to be in Hawaii, if they have no address to, to go to, those are flags. And so, we need to work with our city counterparts and Office of Community Services to find ways so we can detect the turf or return them. But more importantly, just find them help.

The objective is to, to—people that need, need assistance, we should provide them with that. But in the end, if they don't wanna have assistance, then they should go back to where they were.

Okay. And, sir, a follow-up. And so, this designated boundary that you're talking about, are you saying lands that are not state lands then?

No. This—what we're requesting is within the airport property lines today, Right? And we do have them designated. Most are contiguous. Some, like in Honolulu, there are some parcels that are outside of that, like on Lagoon Drive as an example, not specifically attached to the airport, but in that facility. So, that's what we're asking. That is an airport problem.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you. And then, deputy, one other—one more question. So, if we keep the effective date, obviously, we're gonna defect it, should mean the committee move it, but you folks already have a proposed idea of what the boundaries would be and be, like, willing—ready to move it out?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Members, any further questions? Rep. Muraoka.

So, just following on what chair said, if this thing goes—this is a great bill. If it goes, are you folks already manned, security wise, to enact it for Honolulu Airport?

Yes. For the outside airports that are more general aviation, we'd have to work on that. There's no assigned sheriff to say billing have a...

For all the commercial airports, we are—we're ready to.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you. Member, any further questions? Seeing none, let's move on to our next agenda item before us. HB 213 HD one relating to economic development establishes a Kilo Kona Transportation pilot program within the Department of Business, Economic Development and tourism to study plan, evaluate, implement and trial transportation routes and services connecting Kilo and Kona. Please share your testamony.

Department of business, economic development, and tourism with comments. City sorry. County of Hawaii Department of Research and Development, in support. Hawaii Transportation Association, in support. Thank you.

And two individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 213 HD 1?

Thank you, members. There's not really anybody to ask questions, though. So we'll move on to our next agenda item today, which is HB 2332 relating to Commercial Port Administration. Renames the Harbors Division of Department of Transportation to the Commercial Ports Division and distinguishes between the terms harbor and commercial port throughout the statutes. Vice chair for testimony.

Okay. Department of Transportation in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair. Dre Kalili, Deputy Director of Transportation for HDOT. I think, you know, in 1993 when small boat harbors were separated from DOT, you know, it's been thirty years since then, and there's still a lot of confusion as to what is a DOT facility compared to a small boat and recreational facility. And so I think this bill is a long time coming in helping the public as well as, you know, other other folks across our state government to clearly distinguish between the two facilities.

We often get inquiries about activities happening at a facility of those that is not ours. And so, it's really, I think a good way in figuring out, you know, what is a commercial port where we are discharging cargo and we are supporting cruise passenger operations as compared to a facility that is intended for recreational use and for smaller vessels. Available for any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. DLNR with comments. The maritime group in support.

No. Not present.

Not present.

Oh, present. I'm sorry.

Oh, go ahead.

Chair, vice chair, and members of the committee, Aloha Kaka Kaka. My name is William Anonsen, the managing partner of the Maritime Group, and I stand by my submitted written testimony in support of HB 2332, I would like to just share some comments, and this would be sort of a in addition to what the the deputy director just shared with the the committee.

On the bill, we view that, it modernizes and clarifies Hawaii statutes governing commercial ports by consistently defining and consolidating authority under DOT. The measure we feel better aligns with the terminology across state law to eliminate outdated references, reduces ambiguity, and strengthens administrative accountability. This my understanding, the legislative intent is to improve governance clarity, enhance operational efficiency, and support long term planning for Hawaii's commercial harbor system.

Although technical in nature, the bill we feel strengthens the statutory foundation of a port system that is critical to the state's economic stability and supply chain resilience. Appreciate the opportunity to testify. Mahalo for your consideration.

Thank you. And we also received testimony and support from Hawaii Harbor's users group. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2332?

Seeing none, chair.

Thank you. Deputy director Kalili.

Yes. Aloha, chair.

Morning. I so I I know that I was reading justification sheet, but I think from other conversations you folks have had, this could potentially allow you folks to stay more competitive for federal grants.

I don't I don't know the extent to which we we know this name change is going to secure additional federal funding for us. But I do think that that the distinction and the clarification on what what it is that we manage is certainly just gonna be helpful in general in in all accounts. And and if so, then with federal funding also.

And then I know there was early discussion of repealing the act that transferred small boat harbors to deal in our to move them back to the oversight of DOT. I know that's not happening this year, but should it happen in the future? Those would still be then codified as small boat harbors? Or will we have two definitions?

No. So I think what we're what we are proposing is is a distinction between the term harbor, which is really a geographical feature. Right? It's a bay. It is a protected water area.

And then a port is developed and improved for the purpose of commercial activity, specifically the movement of cargo and, you know, much supporting much larger ships. And so should there be a future where all harbors and ports are under the jurisdiction of DOT, I think this distinction would be even more helpful to separate the responsibilities and authorities between the two facilities.

Okay. Thank you, deputy, for clarifying. Members, any questions?

Yeah. Sure.

Rep Cochran?

Thank you. So I'm trying to think out loud Lahaina Boat Harbor, Malaya Harbor, and Mala Boat Ramp. They all do commercial in the sense of snorkel trips, sunset cruises, things of that nature. So is are those uses out of these, small boat harbors and ramps considered, this commercial this commercial word you're trying to delineate?

I don't think our concern terribly is the the term commercial. It is a term port. Right? A facility that is specifically purpose built and developed for commercial cargo and and cruise ship passengers.

The other facilities that you've described, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Land and Natural Resources are not purpose built ports. So it's it's really the term port that we are concerned by. And commercial port, I think, is a term used across the industry globally, which is why we've chosen to adopt it in this bill.

Yes, of course Rep Cochran.

Okay. Thanks for that clarification. And, chair, another follow-up.

And you mentioned cruise ships. So Lahaina Small Boat harbor has been receiving cruise ships also.

So Sure. However, what actually comes into the Lahaina small boat harbor is a tender. It is not the actual ship.

Oh, okay. Gotcha. Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. Yep. K. Thank you for the clarifications. Mahalo adjourned.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, We'll go on to our next agenda item, HB 2283 relating to port pilot clarifies the consulting role responsibilities of Department of Transportation in the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs development implementation of pilot licensure standards, requirements and criteria. Vice chair for testimony.

Thank you.

Department of Transportation, in support.

Aloha chair, vice chair, and members. Dreana Khalili, deputy director for transportation for harbors again. We are in strong support. We understand that this is a DCCA requested bill. They are responsible for the licensure of our port pilots.

However, I think there is great value in having this consultative relationship between DOT, which oversees the facilities, the port facilities, and then DCCA that oversees the licensure for pilots to operate in a facility. So I think this is, a very good way to advance port safety, and we're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. DCCA port pilot program in support.

Couple nature, pleasure, Danny Chow, program specialist for TCCA. The department stands on its word to testimony in support of this bill.

Thank you. Matson Navigation Company, in support. Hawaii Harbor's users group, in support. Hawaii Gas, in support. Hawaii Pilots Association, in support.

Do you mind if I share chair?

Sinclair Brown with the White Pilots Association. We stand on stand on our submitted testimony in support of this Bill. Here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2283?

Yes. Again, this is William Manison, the managing partner of the Maritime Group.

Please proceed.

Yes. I stand on my submitted written testimony in support of the bill. And, again, I would like to just share some comments. And this is more on a personal nature for me since my father back in 1979 actually established what is now the Hawaii Pilots Association. He was one of the three founders.

And this bill, we feel further strengthens Hawaii's port pilotage framework by formally incorporating the operational expertise that DOT Harbors has, into the Department of Commerce and Commercial Affairs Development and implementation of the port pilot licensing standards and requirements. The bill further, we feel, also promotes improved interagency coordination, ensures that pilots' license standards and examination service levels and related decisions are informed by HDOT's firsthand working knowledge of our harbor operations, vessel traffic, and safety conditions.

And by that, by aligning these regulatory oversights with operational realities, the bill enhances maritime safety, supports efficient vessel movement, and reinforces the reliability of Hawaii's supply chain without imposing additional fiscal burdens. Again, mahalo for your consideration and respectfully urge the Committee's passage of the bill.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2283? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you, members, any questions? Rep Cochran?

Maybe for I'm just wondering if this is gonna add more cost.

DOT or DCCA? This DCCA's bill.

Yeah. Yes, please. Support. Sorry. Excuse me.

Hi. Good morning. Thanks for being here. So is this gonna add more cost to my

Please. That's to my understanding, I don't believe so, but I can get back to you on that.

Okay.

I don't think we have any cost in in this bill. Yeah. Okay.

I mean, to the to the harbor people. To the

To my understanding, I don't think so. Yeah.

Alright. I just saw the word fees and thought they'd be.

I think that's the I think I think current the fee support replacement share. Okay. Yeah.

Alright. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you. Members, any further questions? Seeing none, let's take a brief recess, please.

Thank you. Reconvening our committee on transportation with our continued business before us.

HB 2217 related identification allows applicants for driver's permit, driver's licenses, or civil identification cards to request a non-apparent disability notion under permit, license or identification card by Sherpa testimony.

Disability and Communication Access Board in support. Not present. Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities, in opposition.

Aloha Chairs, committee members. My name is Jay Silver.

I'm with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities here for Davinci Bartoldus, our executive administrator. We'll stand on our written testimony in opposition. We just wanted to highlight, you know, we, were not opposing the intent of this measure, which is to keep people with IDD safe, especially in emergency situations. We simply just wanted to highlight there's other avenues to do this. We have more data-driven private ways of doing it like Smart911, which you it's also voluntary.

It gives actually much more information. It's also voluntary as because I already mentioned, but it can also provide specific disability information. And a lot of times when you have just identification card, I mean, I could send I could send here for an hour telling you all the different types of disabilities, the hidden disabilities, what they are, how they're different from each other. So it's very broad, and that's just what we wanna highlight.

And we're here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Attorney general's office with comments on Zoom.

Oh, sorry.

Present.

Good morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Miyake, members of the committee. The purpose of this bill is to provide enforcement law enforcement officers and first responders with notice that an individual has a non-apparent disability as indicated on the individual's driver's license or identification code. The goal is to provide law enforcement and first responders with information that will facilitate communication and avoid unnecessary escalation in encounters with high-functioning individuals who have hidden conditions that are not readily apparent.

So the Department of the Attorney General supports the intent of the bill, but we have some concerns regarding what specific non-apparent disabilities will be allowed to be noted on a driver's license or identification card. The department recommends that, the non-apparent disabilities be limited to medically recognized conditions to prevent people from requesting that any self-identified condition be noted on their driver's license or identification card.

Without limiting the non apparent disabilities to medically recognized disabilities, government agencies will be unable to train their personnel to respond appropriately to every self identified condition, whether medically recognized or not. In addition, given the wide range of medically recognized nonapparent disabilities, like I think was testified to earlier, that could potentially be requested to be disclosed. The department also recognize recommends that limiting the allowable nonapparent disabilities to specific medically recognized conditions.

For example, Virginia identified specific non apparent disabilities that could be noted on licenses and identification cards and defined non apparent disability. Without identifying specific disclosable non apparent disabilities or defining non impairing disability, it could be difficult for agencies to train personnel to be able to respond appropriately in encounters with the public, and that would also potentially lead to impaired communication and unnecessary escalation.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services with comments. Responsive Caregivers of Hawaii in opposition. Indivisible Disabilities Association in support. Individual Joell Edwards in support on Zoom.

Good morning, chair. Good morning, committee members. My name is Joell Edwards. I'm a community advocate, also the community engagement coordinator here on Kauai for HCAN. I number one, stand by my written testimony, but I wanna say I deeply appreciate the work and passion behind the creation of this bill by a local Kauai parent advocating not only for her child, but for others living with invisible disabilities.

I'm equally grateful for the heartfelt testimony submitted by fellow parents and patient advocates. I do wanna say that the concerns raised by the attorney general regarding medical certification are thoughtful and compelling. And I think that, it kind of ensures that the program is structured in a way that is both protective and workable. So, those amendments, I think, are, something that you can take into consideration. And I just wanna thank you for your time.

Mahalo.

Thank you, Joell. Individual, Christy Arias, in support on Zoom.

Not present.

Not present. We received 38 testimonies in support from individuals and one with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2217? Seeing none.

Thank you. Department of the Attorney General, please. So I understand your folks' testimony, but I was hoping, if you were able, if you were did you have a chance to potentially look over what the department, the disability communication access board, submitted to the client? Okay. So they're kinda similar in nature to yours, but I think is it to your point, are you are we trying to not put the burden, or do we open ourselves up to liability going down to potential slippery slope?

Yeah. You know, this is a tricky situation, right, because I think we all agree that the intent of the bill is a good one.

I I think one thing that we try to keep in mind is that this bill only addresses what's to be disclosed, and it doesn't address sort of the other half of the equation, which is what are first responders supposed to do once they get this information. So the way we tried to think about it was, is there anything that we can put in the bill that would help first responders be able to, respond appropriately so things don't escalate unnecessarily?

So we thought that, you know, looking at what some other states did that maybe, you know, Kinda limiting and defining exactly which, non apparent disabilities were gonna allow would allow agencies to then train their personnel to be able to appropriate, appropriately respond, which then would, you know, hopefully prevent, you know, escalation and, you know, even injury to the public. So that was sort of where we were coming from.

Yeah. I appreciate that. Members, any questions?

Sorry. No. I, I appreciate your comments and amendments.

Okay.

But I think for the other gentleman, he mentioned nine, Daintree Bart Bart. I just wanted to hear a little more. You mentioned something about Smart911.

Okay. So, so Smart911 is a voluntary system where you can include additional information into the smart nine like into 911 essentially. So when you if I'm Joe Blow and I call 911 and I've created this Smart account and I'm reported as, you know, being an x or anything like that, the whole report will pull up of information that I've inputted.

So medical conditions, disabilities, it's hard to get through my back gate. Here's the code if I'm unconscious, you know, things like that. Right now, Oahu has it, and Maui County is implementing it.

And then there is another bill going through the legislature to try to address statewide and what the best system is going forward.

So then when a law enforcement pulls them, they can retrieve information from this. Does that?

They should be able to, as long as they have the name. And that was kind of one of our other concerns, which is that if the only way a law enforcement agent is gonna look at the ID card, well, what most likely if the person, for example, people with autism are nonverbal a lot of the time, they're gonna be noncompliant because they don't really know how to be compliant.

And so if a situation is gonna escalate, it's gonna escalate before they even see the ID card that tells the officer that they have a disability.

Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for that.

You're welcome. Members for other questions? Seeing none to move on to our next agenda item before us. 2059 relating to emergency services, exempts emergency medical service professional personnel from commercial driver's license requirements.

Amends the definition of authorized emergency vehicle under state traffic code to replace ambulances with emergencies. Medicals, sorry, emergency medicals service vehicles. I share for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Yep. DOT stands by submitting testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Health with comments. City and County of Honolulu Department of Human Services in support. City and County of Honolulu Emergency Services Department in support.

Chairman, chair, Ian Santee, Deputy Director of Emergency Services. Stand by our testimony and the bill.

Thank you. UPW in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2059?

So regarding HB 2059, did you have a chance to potentially see the offered amendments from Department of Health?

Thank you. City and County Honolulu.

Yes.

And your folks position?

Okay. Members, further question, comments? I'm sorry. Sorry. We're not voting.

Yeah.

Questions? Thank you.

You're welcome.

Members, next measure before us, HB 2057, making an appropriation to Department of Information Technology of the City and County of Honolulu, appropriates money as granted need to the City County of Honolulu's Department transpo. Department of Information Technology upgrade driver's license and motor vehicle application system. Vice chair for testamony.

Department of Transportation in Support.

Yeah. Okay We stand by our written testamony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. City and County of Honolulu, Department of Information Technology in support.

Thank you, chairman, vice chair, member of the committee. My name is Brian McKee. I'm the director of IT and CIO of the City and county in Honolulu. We're here basically asking for your support for funding. When I got into this chair, I found out that the customer service division has COBOL system.

I don't know if anybody knows what COBOL is, but it's the same technology stack that I started working with in 1984 when I got into this business. Because of the antiquated system that they have that we're still supporting, it dictates lots of manual processes and lots of inefficiencies that the people in customer service have to perpetrate. I wish you could go over there to Kapalama and take a look at what they have to deal with. It's it's horrific.

And we're talking about a technology stack that hasn't changed since the early eighties.

You know, it's a green screen. There's no mouse support. The system went in before people invented mice. You know, this is a wind of opportunity that I see because we have we have a very talented DIT that has been supporting the system. We've got the the political will under the Blangiardi administration.

We've got the talent to do it. It's a very risky, very high risk system to implement, but we've got people that have managed projects like this and we're willing to do the work. We just need the money. I've exhausted every avenue. You guys are kind of my last hope.

I've tried a transaction fee on the back end. I've tried to do it in my own budget. Flat revenues dictate that it's not gonna be in the city and county, budget this this year. And I'm just telling you guys that we are in an end of life situation for it. I have two COBOL programmers left on my staff.

They're 150 years old, a little less than that, but they've been working for almost sixty years, and they're about to retire. We don't even let them drive in the same car when they go to lunch. And so when those guys leave and AMBA comes up with new federal requirements, there's nothing we can do. I I don't know what's gonna happen. It will just be a default, I guess.

So it's something that really needs to get done. The can has been kicked down the road for thirty five years, and, you know, we're willing to do the work. We just need the funding. DOT is in support. Like I said, I've exhausted every possibility of funding, and this is kind of my last hope.

But I'm here for questions, and and I'll I'll answer any that you might have.

Thank you. City and county of Honolulu Department of Customer Services in support and one individual in opposition. Any anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2057? Thank you.

Thank you. So nobody's here from City and County Department Com Customer Services?

No.

K. Director, please. IT.

Yeah.

So I I understand your plea. The Senate bill is dead citing the appropriation. I understand what you're trying to accomplish. But to your point, so were you directed by the city to for this or the city is asking in support with you to do this?

Well, yeah. I'm I mean, I'm working with Kim Oshiro. She's in violent support of this as well. This is kind of our first priority. When I came in, I've been in the seat for a year now.

And I saw, you know, that this is been something that has been needed to take care of a long time. We're the only state that supports we're only the state that's has a city and county supporting what is clearly a state system. When I first came in, I did a call around and I found out what other states are doing. Almost all the states in The United States have bought a Tyler software system that costs $67,000,000 and takes about five years to implement.

That was too much for us.

I did a bunch of research, called a bunch of people, and, got hooked up with Arizona Department of Transportation. And they have created their own system. By all accounts, it's a really great system. They're willing to give it to me for free. I've already got an agreement with them.

The $10,000,000 in two installments of 5,000,000, one sort of soon in the next the next year, would be for the implementation services. Configuring the system, taking all the data out, cleaning it, doing everything we have to do. I think it's a really a deal. Five other states have now gone with that. It's called the MAC system from Arizona.

The state of Wyoming just went live with it last month, and that's a good model for us because we only have about 1,200,000 people in the state. If you were to ask California, they'd go, no, just spend the 67,000,000. But there's actually fewer people in Wyoming than there are in the state of Hawaii and they made it work. So the director of customer service and myself are gonna go out to Phoenix in April and kick the tires and make sure it's something that we really like.

But all intents and purposes, the customer service experience by the citizens has improved dramatically as have the lives of the people that actually have to use the system.

The average wait time in a DMV in Arizona is three to five minutes. They even took out all their chairs. Obviously, here, it's it's much, much different. And then, you know, the people that have worked in customer service, their lives have not improved in in thirty five years. So, you know, it's again, for us, it's it's a matter of the software stack, you know, being expensive, being hard to support, and being obsolete.

We pay $3,000,000 a year just to rent the the mainframe, and that's something that city takes on. So there is a return on investment in there over time.

And I don't wanna blame you, right, but I you're obviously inheriting the system, but I do have to make a joke. Thirty five years, can kicking. I'm only 30. So before my existence, you're the can down.

So Yeah.

There's people in this room like COBOL. I have no idea what he's talking about. I no idea what you're talking about. Okay. Well, it's, yes.

It's horrific.

I eventually have a question for DOT, but Brett Moore will come.

Yeah. So I'm really glad you brought up the eight, Arizona DOT system because my parents live there, two of my daughters live there. It's amazing. If that system was brought here, would it also include the satellite locations?

Oh, yeah.

Because DOT in Arizona, what makes them so great in their minimal time is you don't have to go to the DMV and wait. You can go to your local gas station where you get your safety check and do your reg right there with your safety.

You can do it.

It takes so many things so good for the people out here in that room.

Yeah. They have mobile labs.

Great thing.

Yeah. Yeah. We would get all of that. Again, the system itself is provided for free. We would join the community with the other states and then when we develop something, we would share it with them.

We'd have a user group meeting every year,

You know, coordinate implementation down here. Yeah. Alright.

Yeah. And again, versus 67,000,000 five year, you know, implementation, I think this is a a super deal. And again, you have you have the talent available to do it right now, you know, at least for the next three years.

Even those 150 year olds can do it. Right?

Well, Aye, you know, I encourage people to go over to Kapalama and take a look at what those poor people have to do. I mean, literally, you know, wooden stamps that go in special cubbies and reentering data into different systems and scanning documents. It's it's it's crazy. It's crazy.

Before I go to DOT, Kapolei offers sorry. Kapolei operates as the main terminal for all the satellite DMVs. They do. Yes. Ok.

That would be one of the the things we would have to contend with. This is a statewide system. So we're a city and county, but we're maintaining what is clearly a state system. So we'd have to roll it out to all the different islands, all the different satellite city halls in Oahu, and there is a lot of change management that goes along with that. We taled to Arizona about how they were able to do the State in one day.

They did a big bang, throw the switch, hope for the best implementation, and there's a lot of training and a lot of there's a lot that goes into that.

So we you folks have we'd upfront the cost county of Honolulu, and then in turn every other county modernizes. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. We would we would turn it on everywhere.

They have buy in to that concept or they

Yeah. We we I mean, we support everybody's system. They all use the same system.

You folks operate as the main hub for all the counties is what you're saying?

Yes. We do. Interesting. We also do a lot of the communications for everybody. So city and county Honolulu takes care of a lot of services for the other islands.

Okay. Members? Cochran.

And thank you and so following up on this, information, could we split the costs through all the other counties too? They all put you in since they all utilize the service?

Yeah. We, had a meeting with DOT, just a few days ago, and they're like, hey. Look. This is this should be cost shared

Yeah.

Around the other islands. And I, you know, yeah, I I would think it would probably be proportional. So we have a million people here. We have 200,000 in the other islands, so you'd probably, you know, try to do it that way.

And sorry. And that's being discussed? Is that are you looking to that rather than just come here and ask for the whole lump sum from the GIA? Is that this is one pronged approach, I guess? Yeah.

We have yeah. I mean, okay. Yeah. First, I put it in my budget and then that was that was an accident. I I asked the DOT if they could fund it and they said, you know, we can do it.

And they they suggested that we look at all the different elements. But knowing that, you know, 80%, maybe more will probably come from Oahu anyway just based on population. I contracted with a couple of different vendors who promised to do the upfront technology and wait and get paid on the back end through a transaction fee. I mean, I've looked at a lot of different ways to try and fund this.

Okay.

You know? And, you know, here I am.

Thanks for your efforts.

Sure. I thank you. DOT?

Yes?

Right. Deputy, why why couldn't you folks fund it in budget or as a not have to why why are they going to this instead of to to their point if they're operating a DOT system and DOT was not able to help us this cost?

So, I mean, even though the system is operated by city and county, as, you know, director McKee mentioned, it's a statewide, so it supports all the counties. And so when we discussed, that's why we suggested that, you know, each partner in this, because the county use the system collect their registration fees. And so it seemed like it would

be a shared cost amongst everybody, JT and the counties. And and the so the the ask is for general obligation funds.

No. General revenue. Right? We don't General revenue. Yeah.

Because I don't see any reference to cost sharing. I mean, to to the line of questioning that's been happening. There's nothing in here that talks about that. So thank you for clarifying. Members, any further questions?

Okay. Member, seeing none, let's move on to our next agenda item before us. HB 22, sorry, HB 2589 relating to driving without a license. Makes a second conviction for operating a motor vehicle without a license within a five year period in class A felony.

The defendant's actions result in the death of another perfect person as forfeiture of a vehicle as a penalty on a second conviction for operating a motor vehicle, without a license within a five year period. Vice chair for the testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Yep, stand by. Just submitted testimony in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu with comments.

Morning, Chair Kila, vice chair Miyake, and representative Muraoka, representative Cochran. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, and we're offering comment on this bill. I wanna start by saying that we wholeheartedly sympathize with families whose loved ones have been killed by motorists who are unlicensed and had no business being on the road in the first place. Our written testimony commented on the abolition of the felony murder rule in Hawaii.

The Hawaiian Kingdom adopted the felony murder rule as one of its first borrowings from English common law.

The felony murder rule patterns the logic of this bill, which is that if you embark on a crime and someone dies as a result, you should be held responsible as a murderer. That makes a certain kind of sense, though it leads to some counterintuitive results and scholars have debated this. 47 states retained the rule, but Hawaii does not, so the bill would create an anomaly in our law.

We would suggest taking another route, which is to provide by statute that prosecutors can use prior convictions for unlicensed driving as evidence of recklessness in all vehicular and homicide cases. If you knew you weren't licensed, got caught for it, got behind the wheel anyway, a jury can hear that.

A jury can weigh it. And if the facts support manslaughter, prosecutors will have the tools to prove it. Hopability will do the work, not a prior record acting as an unthinking sentencing lever. The outcome that we're after is accountability proportion by guilt. That's what the criminal law is for. Safer roads will follow from that.

Thank you.

Thank you. That individual Sunny in support.

He wants to be here for this testimony. Ready? This is my son Koali-Denning Ring and he was 21. He was Sani's caretaker before he became a mechanic. And they had a bond, a very strong bond. So he wanted to do this for his brother.

You ready? You ready? Okay. Point. Dear?

Yeah. My name is Sani and we were in a car crash.

Yes. Go.

And, like, in jail for a long time. Thank you. Yeah. I love you.

Thank you. And we have Sani's written testimony as well submitted members. But thank you.

Thank you, Sani. Let individual, Charmaine Grilho in support.

Aloha, my name is Charmaine Chillingworth-Grilho, and we are the family of Koali. I'm proud of that boy.

I wanna cry. He doesn't usually get up in a front of people. But I just wanna say that, of course, he was on his way to work when he passed away. He was trying to provide for his family. He's trying to provide for his family when he was run over and murdered by a licensed driver with multiple traffic violations.

Thank you. There are multiple traffic violations. So we are losing our young, talented, educated. My grandson had two years of college. He just finished a apprenticeship program for local union three for being a mechanical a diesel mechanic. He just started his job. He wasn't even there three weeks when he was run over and murdered. We need to stop people from driving without license with prior violations because this man had a law. He still was driving without license. I wanna stop the killing of innocent people on the road. We need your help. I'm in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We have individual Shannon Denning in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. I'm here today in strong support of House bill 2589, which would elevate the offenses for driving without a license resulting to another person's death to a class A felony and increase the jail sentence for those who choose to drive illegally and cause a traffic fatality. 2025, in Hawaii, hit a twenty year high with 129 traffic fatalities. That's above a 20% increase over the previous year.

To address this crisis, house bill 2589 targets the one percenters.

Those are chronic offenders whose reckless choices lead to preventable deaths. And seventy five percent of those one percenters drive without a license. Traffic violence is a public health crisis. It's a major safety concern in Hawaii. This alarming spike shows that traffic violence in Hawaii is not improving.

It's worsening. It's sniffing in the reported in the civil beat that more than ninety percent of traffic deaths can be attributed to behavior, like being on the cell phone or speed. It is not an accident. It is preventable. And one of the leading causes of death for our young people ages 15 to 24, which is the reason why I'm here.

My son didn't finish mechanic school, but he did have two years under his belt. He was he said, mom, I quit school. I already know how to fix a car. So he applied to, you know, Pearl Harbor and the local three. My son, Saint Louis graduate, he he tested number two out of over 800 applicants on his apprenticeship test.

He had he didn't finish school. No previous experience, but his knowledge and skill proved that he had what it take to be a union heavy equipment diesel operator mechanic. So right off the bat, 21 years old, he proved himself. He accomplished much. One month and a half into his apprenticeship program, and he was taken, taken from me.

He was a caring son. He had a two year old daughter. He was a loving father. And that brings me the most distress because in a fatherless society, he was he was a teenage father, and he was ready to be responsible and take care of his family. And he was set.

That kid, right off the bat, he made more money than me, and I'm a mass I have a master's in special education. By the end of his thirty year career, he would have made $6,000,000. That's a lot of tax money. He was a commit a community contributor. He was neighborly.

The his neighbor, every time I go to visit my granddaughter now comes out and he said, I miss your son. Because he wouldn't hesitate. He would give the shirt off his back. Somebody was stuck on the side of the road. He's out there helping them because he he can.

And that's why we're here today because we don't want this to happen to any other family. And the sad part is unlicensed drivers, they're the they they cause a lot of accidents. And when they get into the accident, most likely, they're the ones that flee. We're from Nanakuli and, Corey Kamaka's family. They don't have closure because he the his killer is still on the loose.

One day after, my son died, our good family friend's daughter died in Nanakuli, and that's why I'm here today. These were young people, and they represented their generation well. So this house bill is essential for reclassifying the crime. The bill elevates driving unlicensed and cause and causing debt to a class A felony. It it it's for accountability, and it has nothing about it has nothing to do with being poor.

This status is defined by a history of dangerous behavior and behavioral debt, not financial hardship, and it serves as a deterrent. Current penalties do not reflect the magnitude of a loss of life. Stronger consequences are necessary to stop repeat offenders and hit and run incidents. So, my core message is driving unlicensed is a choice. When that choice kills, the law must value the victim's life more than the offender's convene convenience.

Nationally, seventeen thousand one hundred forty vehicle deaths occurred in the first half of 2025 alone. Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that there's a slight decline in traffic deaths. National research search also shows that approximately eighteen percent of fatal crashes involve unlicensed drivers. Now here's the part where I hope to drive it home. Unlicensed drivers is a dish proportionate danger.

In Hawaii, it's higher. Twenty percent of traffic deaths involve an unlicensed driver. That's higher than the national rate. That means one in five deadly crashes in Hawaii involve someone who was not legally permitted to be driving. And as the national rate decline, Hawaii's rate increase.

So we're not following the national trends. It's just getting worse. The current penalty is unacceptable. It creates a perception that if you wanna get away with murder, get behind a car, drive without a license, and kill somebody because they're getting off with just a slap on their

wrist. No family should have to feel the way that I feel and that the law minimizes efficient no that the law minimizes their family member's debt. Elevating the offense to a class a felony appropriately recognizes that a preventable and unlawful act resulted in the ultimate harm, which is death.

wrist. No family should have to feel the way that I feel and that the law minimizes efficient no that the law minimizes their family member's debt. Elevating the offense to a class A felony appropriately recognizes that a preventable and unlawful act resulted in the ultimate harm, which is death.

K. One more thing.

We know that we know the data. We know the statistics. You know that my son my son, you know that my son died in a senseless car crash due to a small group of high risk drivers defined by the extreme pattern of reckless behavior rather than socioeconomic status. And I'm poor and I have a license. So that's not that's not the case.

The law must reflect the seriousness of the seriousness of harm. When that choice results in death, the consequence must reflect the gravity of taking a human life. Anything less diminishes the value of the life loss. And this I say, in Jesus mighty name, and thank you guys for listening to my testimony. This is hard for me to do because I hate public speaking.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

And, Members, I just want I did suspend the two minute testimony limit for this, so thank you folks for allowing that.

We also received, 12 individual testimonies in support and one with comments. Is there anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2589?

Leilani Sawatzi, individual, may I approach? Yes. Aloha a, honorable Darius Keeler, committee chair, Representative District 44, fellow representatives and chairs. Thank you for your time. My name is missus Leilani.

I am submitting my support. I stand in full support of HB 2589. The action of taking another person's life with a motor vehicle due to negligent or cavalier as demonstrated by a lack of licensure requires a penalty higher than what is currently there. Driving without a license immediately indicates a lack of both skill and responsibility. Until the potential driver can demonstrate the ability to safely operate the motor vehicle legally, he or she is expected not to do so.

The idea that drivers who have not earned their this privilege or even worse have had it removed from them currently have minimal consequences in the event of another person's death is no longer acceptable. The heart wrenching traffic fatalities and violent actions perpetrated by irresponsible individuals who should not be driving in the year 2025 demonstrate a need for immediate action. I urge you to bring HB 2589 to complete fruition.

Please do not allow another family to be devastated by lawbreakers who are currently getting away with taking lives. I humbly ask you on behalf of Sarah, all of my irreplaceable students who have lost their own lives, their friends or their family members, to personally end this preventable cycle of tragedy.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2589?

And I just wanna preface for folks. Right? When folks are providing testimony, it is not personal. And I just wanna preface the Office of the Public Defender is often charged with having to defend or oppose these measures, and it's nothing personal nature. It's the nature of the office.

So I just wanna preface that.

Thank you. And thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I apologize for our late submission, and I do thank you for saying that. And I do want to before I say anything about the law, understand and very deeply know that this committee is wanting to address what is an obvious issue. The reason that the office of the public defender fellow is necessary to submit testimony in opposition of this measure was not because we don't want strong penalties for egregious behavior.

If you review our testimony, we make very clear that the nature of our opposition is that because we already do have laws on the books. I myself in my capacity as a defense attorney have represented clients charged with manslaughter, a class a felony, related to vehicular accidents. I have seen and have actually handled a case where someone was charged with attempted murder for a vehicular accident.

We also have negligent homicide in the first degree, negligent homicide in the second degree, and negligent homicide in the third degree. All of these measures are there to address exactly the behavior that we are concerned about.

Finally, I know the last thing that this committee wants to do is to pass a law that would actually not provide the justice that these family members so desperately want. The bill as it is written has a lot of concerning language, legal language that we believe will cause problems down the road. And I just wanna highlight, the language that says the person actions result in the death of another person. We've articulated why that we believe that may be problematic in our testimony.

We do not believe that would withstand judicial scrutiny and constitutional scrutiny.

The nexus is not strong enough. It doesn't carefully articulate the behavior that you're attempting to criminalize. Any action by an unlicensed driver is not, I believe, the behavior the committee and these family members are concerned with. So thank you so much for the opportunity to comment, and I will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2589?

Thank you. On the prosecutor on question. Thank you for the comments you folks provided. When you folks have pursued statutes that have allowed forfeiture, how how are they held up in court?

So property forfeiture right now that goes under the civil forfeiture, asset forfeiture laws. With the civil forfeiture law, at least as the law stands now, we do not have to prove the conviction. We just have to show nexus to the crime. So that means that even criminals who die in the course of committing their crimes, we can so forth.

Judiciary has been supportive in those positions.

In general, the the judges will follow the the order. Well, the the process that's set out into civil forfeiture statute.

Okay. Thank you. Members any further questions? Okay, seeing none.

Thank you all. We want to our next agenda item 2417 relating to administrative like. Relating too administrative license revocation clarifies administrative driver's license revocation procedures. Requiring timely disclosure of documents, aligning review timelines, and standardizing administrative review and hearing processes. Vice chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation, in support.

HDOT stands by it's submited testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. State of Hawaii judiciary in opposition.

Hi. Good morning, chair Keelan, vice chair Miyake, and members of the committee. I'm Carrie Harada, chief adjudicator at the administrative driver's license revocation office. We would stand on our proposal on our testimony in opposition to HB 2417, but we are in support of the proposed HD1.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Attorney general's office with comments.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the city. Michael Shambrella, deputy attorney general with the department of attorney general. The department supports the proposed HD1 of the prosecutor's office. Available for questions if you have any.

Thank you. Thank you.

County of Hawaii, office of the prosecuting attorney with comments. City and county of Honolulu, department of the prosecuting attorney in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu prosecutor's office, and we stand in strong support of the proposed HD1. The proposed HD1, we believe, first, addresses some of the concerns about administrative burden that the judiciary raised.

But second and importantly, by placing the onus on by placing a presumption that the person's license has been revoked, what that does is it eliminates a common shell game that we see in courts where people pretend that they didn't know that their license was suspended. It means that the enforcement penalty, oftentimes the only substantive enforcement that we get on these crimes, the revocation of the person's driver's license is enforced and that we can prove it in court. Thank you.

Thank you. We also received one testimony from an individual in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2417. Thank

Department of Transportation and support.

Thank you, members, any questions? Seeing none of them going through next agenda item HB 2020 relating to renewal of a driver's license requires applicants for driver's license renewal to complete educational course that includes a road safety video developed by Department of Transportation and a written examination. Vice Chair for testimony.

Stands by its submitted testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Attorney General's office with comments.

Morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Miyake, members of the committee. Michael Moriyama, Deputy Attorney's Office. This bill will require applicants who are renewing their driver's license to pass a written road safety exam that tests the applicant's knowledge of state traffic laws and county traffic ordinances. Department of the Attorney General recommends that on page two, lines three through four, the language including any changes in state traffic laws be deleted as unnecessary.

The bill would already require an applicant to pass an exam that tests the applicant's knowledge of state traffic laws and the traffic ordinances in the county where the applicant resides or intends to operate a motor vehicle.

That makes the additional caveat that the exam include changes in state traffic laws as unnecessary. In addition, there's no similar requirement that the applicant be tested on changes in county ordinances. Therefore, the department recommends that the language that says that the test should include changes in state traffic laws be deleted. Thank you.

Thank you. Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Hi. Good morning again. Haley Chang, the first deputy of the office of the public defender. We have submitted opposition to this measure and really just wanna frame the issue. As the agency responsible for providing indigent defense for the state of Hawaii.

I can confidently state that more burdensome renewal requirements will not help people comply. It will actually reduce compliance, and it will increase unlicensed driving. That is just the unfortunate reality of the system that we're dealing with, which is why I appreciate some of the other things that this committee is trying to do to try to streamline or make more efficient the process. Driving in Hawaii is not optional for a lot of people, and we understand the very controversial conversation around all of that.

But I can tell you firsthand as somebody who's probably represented thousands of people throughout my career, charged with driving without a license. Many of these individuals are not people who are being flagrantly, you know, in disregard of the law.

Sometimes they have a citation that they couldn't pay. It went to collections. There's a stopper, and there's a snowball effect that goes from there. Some people just forgot to renew their license. They get a driving without license, and then when they go, there's additional barriers because of the lapse in time.

So it asks us the committee not to make it more difficult to renew licenses or or to become licensed. We want people to be in compliance. Additional barriers, we believe, is not going to reduce the harm on the roads or reduce the amount of people driving. It will just make people noncompliant. We're also concerned about the disproportionate impact it will have on indigent communities and certain marginalized members of our community as well.

And we believe that the committee is interested in passing something that it should be focused on people who have demonstrated poor driving history. That perhaps might be a good medium. So thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. Honolulu, Honolulu City Council member, Radiant Cordero, in support. City and County of Honolulu, Department of Customer Services, with comments. And we received two individual testimonies in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2020?

Thank, thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing that I can move to our next agenda item HB 2026 related transportation restricts motor vehicles that tow a motor vehicle or trailer from the far left lane on roads of three or more lanes going in the same direction to exemptions. Specifies penalties for restricted motor vehicles who drive in the far left lane on roads with three or more lanes moving in the same direction.

Applies restrictions and penalties to count you with the population of 500,000 or more. Vice chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation, in support.

Yep. HDOT stands by its submitred testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Transportation Association with comments.

Hi. With the Hawaii Transportation Association. We do stand on our comments and would like to respectfully suggest a few amendments. One of them is to change the word and to or. A lot of our larger trucks now are not manual.

They're automatic, so they can't actually keep up with traffic. And the other one is to include all buses. They all have CDL license. They all do defensive driving. They are no different than the city transportation buses.

Thank you. And Polynesian adventure tours with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2026? Seeing none, chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Vice chair.

For Hawaii Transportation. Good morning. Thank you. In your testimony, you stated that, one of the recommendation amendments is to include all buses. Why would we include that in the in the fast lane?

So right now. So tour buses are just like city buses. Right? They move people from place a to place b, And they do it in a timely manner because they wanna catch, a show or they wanna catch other things. These buses can drive just as fast as the city buses. They do the same type of CDL license.

They have the same training. So it's not like just putting anybody in the lanes. And it also looks look at it this way too. Anytime a bus is full, you're taking about 34 to 35 cars off the road. So we feel that it's also better for traffic flow as well.

Can I just clarify? Drive just as fast and drive as safe. Right?

Yes. I mean, they can I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. They can keep up with the speed limit of, like, the rest of the cars. It's not like they're slowing traffic down.

Thank you.

Okay.

Just wanted to clarify.

No. We drive safely.

But there's a feeling that I hope to God we just

speak safe. Yes. Those who don't. I don't think they're my members.

Thank you. Thank you members any quick further questions? Seeing none like we want to next agenda item HB 2378 relating to transportation exempts persons operating wing and ground craft from the application of the Hawaii Water Curios Act defines wing and ground craft by share for testimony.

Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and members of the House Committee on Transportation. My name is Andrew Okabe. I'm utility analyst at Public Utilities Commission. I'm here on behalf of chair Itamura and the commission. I stand the commission's written testimony, offering comment and supporting the intent of HB sorry.

HB 2378 and a bell for any questions the committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Technology Development Corporation with comments.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. David Molinaro with Hawaii Technology Development Corporation. Stand on our testimony in support of HB 2378 as written. I'll be available for any questions if, needed.

Thank you. Thank you. Regent Craft in support on Zoom.

Yes. Aloha, chair and vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Michael Prew, regional director for North America at Regent Craft. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in strong support of HB 2378, and I stand on my written testimony in support.

Just real quickly, as a brief introduction for understanding, Regent Craft manufactures the all electric wing and ground effect vehicles called sea gliders, and these will float and foil on the water as well as fly 40 to 50 feet above the water surface.

The way these operate represents a fundamental shift in maritime travel, so combining the speed of an aircraft with the low operating cost of a vessel to move people and cargo between coastal communities. And HB 2378 is a critical piece really of that puzzle.

This bill is vital because it recognizes that sea gliders are a unique class of innovative vessels and subjecting them to the same PUC regulations as heavy water carriers would create red tape that could hurt innovation and we want to ensure that this remains affordable and competitive for service for all of Hawaii. So I urge the committee to pass HB 2378, to help Hawaii lead, in sustainable maritime tech. Thank you again, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Kauai Climate Action Coalition in support. HMSA in support. Energy Justice Network in support.

Are you on Zoom?

Yes. Aloha. Yes. I'm on the Zoom. Good timing.

I just had to jump over from another committee meeting on so called clean fuels and sustainable aviation fuels. And, my name is Mike Ewell. I'm with Energy Justice Network, and I'm in strong support of this bill, that would enable sea gliders, especially because it is a clean alternative to what was just being promoted in three other bills in the Environmental Committee and the house side.

Fact that it doesn't have to burn things to get people from one island to another is really the long term solution to getting to a clean energy economy and meeting the state's legal requirements, including the Navaquina settlement by 2045 to switch to transportation fuels that do not involve climate change impacts. So please support this bill.

It's a great solution and definitely thank you so much.

Yep. Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support. HCDA in support. Not present.

And we also received, testimony from seven individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2378? Seeing none, chair.

Thank you. Regent, aircraft. I have a question.

Yes. Go ahead.

Where are you folks at with operation of a potential wing glider or sea glider?

Yes. So right now we're in the testing phase, so we have the the full size 12 passenger, prototype on the water in Rhode Island, and that's going through float and foiling test with the expectation of, we'll start our flight test this summer. And then, you know, we move through the certification process with The US Coast Guard because we are a maritime vessel. I do wanna be clear that we're not, an aircraft.

And so once we get through that, we're building a manufacturing facility now for production delivery to customers at the end of twenty twenty seven.

Where is manufacturing?

It's in Rhode Island.

Okay. So I obviously, we have different how do you say it? They don't have humpback whales in Rhode Island. They don't have there's marine life nor maybe I take the interaction. So what is the procedures or how does a potential sea glider avoid collision?

I know you're saying you're going above forty, fifty feet off the ocean.

Sure. So, you know, just to start, marine safety is a non negotiable for us. And because of that, we're using a combination of different sensor technologies. So that's infrared computer vision, that's underwater acoustics, that's, whole born sensors to detect wildlife and mammals far in advance, while we're operating the vessel.

And more importantly because sea gliders are maneuverable and don't require deep water channels we can proactively avoid like you said mapped whale sanctuaries entirely and we're designing this technology specifically to be safer than the heavy propellers and displacement holes currently in those in those waters, so that is all something that we're testing throughout this process because we understand the concern that you had just brought up about us operating in in densely populated or wildlife mammal populated areas like that.

And then what type of license would somebody have to carry to operate this?

So this would be a commercial a 25 ton commercial boat captain's license near shore. That would be the base license, and then they would be taken through the regent training program similar to an add on that you would get if you have your private pilot's license. So this would be a winging ground effect sea glider add on to that base license.

And that that testing is already available or are they building out that testing that license?

So that that is that is under development and a lot of that is informed by our our our testing that's ongoing in Rhode Island. And so, you know, that will all be resolved as soon as we get through the the prototyping process that we're in now.

So no hiccups. You folks are saying that your first delivery is summer twenty twenty seven.

So so yes. So we are on track for that delivery at the end of twenty twenty seven. You know, there's obviously that distinction between the final product and the developmental process. You know, developing frontier technology is is hard especially when you're building a new mode of transportation that essentially has never existed in this way before. So, you know, really bumps in the road are not just possible.

They should be expected because we are testing the limits and we're going through a rigorous testing program. So but as I stand here and sit here today, we are we are on track.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any further questions? Right. Yeah.

Maybe I'll ask David or O'Connor.

For Michael, Regent, thank you again for being here. It seems that the sea glider is an all electric passenger carrying vehicle, I guess. But what about the infrastructure for that? How was that?

Yeah. So I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. No. No.

No. That's a that's a great question. And really our approach is to leverage existing harbor in dock dock infrastructure as much as possible. So, you know, really the idea behind sea glides and the design of them is to operate with current facilities. So now of course we need shore side charging infrastructure, that's true, but I'd encourage the the committee to think that not as a cost unique to sea gliders but really as an investment in the future of Hawaii's harbors.

I said this in the in the Senate hearing as well maritime electrification is happening. It's not a question of if it's it's when and so you know these charging infrastructures will help bring online that that we would help bring online, doesn't just serve sea glides, it would serve the entire maritime ecosystem. So other other electric vessels, other harbor equipment, shore side operations, things like that.

So I don't really see, you know, the the electrification side or I don't want you to see the electrification side as a burden, but more as an opportunity to have Hawaii be ahead of the curve on on that side.

Thank you. For Muraoka

Rep Miyake because that's a that was the first part of my question is is infrastructure, and this bill is asking you folks to be exempted as a, water carrier. You know? So the water carriers currently, they pay for the infrastructure and the harbors, and you heard some of the bills earlier talking about harbors and all of that.

How does that in what way would it. In what ways do you folks wanna be exempted but still use the same facilities as the harbors or as other water carriers?

You know, I think the, you know, really the the key distinction is that seaglides are fundamentally different than traditional water carriers. So, you know, they're not necessarily these very large ferries. They're not these large, heavy water cargo ships, you know, they're this new class, of vessels. So all electric high speed craft that that lift above the water and operate more like a a regional, air transit than a conventional maritime transport.

And I think, you know, really the PUC framework itself for water carriage was designed to regulate those heavy slow moving vessels operating as a central services but outside from the perspective of a monopolistic approach.

So, you know, I think that's the the right framework for context that in terms of that we will be competing in the inner island travel space. So, you know, we'll be competing directly with airlines. We'll be competing with other transportation options. And I think the competitive pressure that the PUC was created to to simulate already exists naturally in our space, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.

Okay. And and the second part, I'm sure you guys done a lot of research. Explain to me, because I've never seen an operation like this happen, with Hawaii's distinct unique features, our waves, our winds, you know, how how much space, for lack of better terms, would you folks need to go from loading to airborne? And is it even possible with our waves and our situations out here, especially if you're competing in a inner island market?

A lot of the cliffs, a lot of the areas out there are bigger than 50 feet.

So what what routes would you take? And is it feasible to land in the waters of the islands as well as out here?

Yeah. So if I'm just to sort of try to clarify your question, I do want to say that we will always operate over the water because we are in fact a maritime vessel. So in terms of the the cliffs or or things like that, we would not be operating over the land and, you know, we would we would require, you know, a necessary separation from, obstacles such as, you know, land based masses, like that.

And, you know, we've, you know, we've had a coalition, the Hawaii Seaguard Initiative, that's about 38 members, all, you know, from private industry to community members, all, from the brink where they

could potentially operate. And we've conducted, you know, a very base level feasibility study that's evaluating a a number of harbors in that area trying to see where an operation would be feasible. And so, you know, really, you know, you can conduct the entire mission on hydrofoils if you really wanted to, but, you know, like you said, with the certain wave tolerances around those certain areas, you know, it'd make a lot of sense to take off and actually utilize the platform as it was designed.

So you know when you're in flight of course you know you're always maintaining a certain altitude above the water that 40 to 50 feet, and you know when you're on the hydrofoil and you want transition to flight, you're really looking at that thousand you only really need about a thousand feet, for takeoff, in that sense. So you would actually be on the hydrofoil for a minimal amount of time.

Does that help answer the question?

Yes. And no. But no worries. I I get it. It's new. I it could just be my ignorance of the whole operation. And I'll do more research on my end as well to see what it's actually like.

If I can dump to offer at Muraoka, I I I've this is obviously, I think, the first time the committee has considered this. So I I think the line of questioning is actually appropriate. So I think to what Muraoka was really trying to get to, though, what is regent's intent on the purpose of testing in Hawaii and licensing in Hawaii? Because I think largely the committee could concur Rhode Island compared to Hawaii waters are total different things.

So, again, to clarify, so Regent functions strictly as the manufacturer of the vessel. So we're not the ones that are operating the vessel, so we would deliver to the customers. You know, what I can tell you is that there is significant interest from operators to utilize this vessel in Hawaii, both here in Hawaii but also globally. You know, and, you know, passing the the the bill, you know, makes Hawaii a more attractive market for those operators because, you know, we have sold to, aviation operators.

We've sold to maritime operators.

And, you know, when a operator is evaluating where to launch service, regulatory, clarity is one of the first things they look at. So a clear, you know, sensible regulatory framework that tells an operator that this state is ready, for this technology and wants it here.

So, you know, we don't necessarily want the red paper uncertainty to tell them to look somewhere else, because we have came here with our coalition, you know almost over two years ago and have really identified you know that there is a potential avenues for sea gliders to run a viable operation and actually help whether that be from equity and access to, resiliency to help into the decarbonization goal.

So from that perspective, we we we plan to deliver these to operators, but we are utilizing our coalition and what we've learned down here to set up the necessary environment to to attract operators to this location.

But are you not are you not saying that Regit would not want to support potential clients in Hawaii by providing either test and or running demonstrations for Hawaii waters?

Oh, I think I think, you know, if if the opportunity presented itself and we wanted to test down there not committing to anything, I think, you know, it would be something that we would investigate. You know, we do have operators telling us that, you know, they want to operate in that space, so we're gonna do everything we can to bring the gliders, to Hawaii.

Okay. Members, any further questions? Thank you, Regent. Alright. Rep Cochran.

Aloha. And so you folks, the NOAA do you know the NOAA organization or military? Would you folks, also be participating with those types of entities?

Yes. I can't speak directly to our NOAA relationship. I know we we do have one, but I'm happy to follow-up directly with you about that. We do have a defense aspect, to regent and sea glider. So, we do have relationships with the defense department.

We have grant funding from the Marine Corps warfighting lab to develop these, as a defense platform or mechanism. We also have a smaller, smaller drone version drone version, if you will, that the DOD is looking at as well. So it's definitely a dual use platform, which, you know, obviously connects well into the Hawaii ecosystem as well.

And, chair, follow-up. Yes. And for medical type services, right, it's notated that'd probably be some general some of the main uses as a 12 passenger aircraft craft?

Yes. That's correct. So not only would it be used for you know, to to provide greater medical access because of the the low cost nature of it, there's also a the inside cabin could be redesigned to have stretchers, if you will, inside very similar to a medevac helicopter.

Alright. Thank you for your time and information.

Thank you. Thank you, Regent. I appreciate it. Members, let's move on to our next agenda item. Sorry.

Forgive me. HB 1742 HD 1 relates to housing authorizes construction and occupation. That'll contain really relocatable housing unit to certain restrictions. Effective one seven one three thousand. Vice chair for testimony.

Department of Health with comments.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. John Negato, Department of Health. The department stands on its written testimony, providing comments and may be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Weigh Realtors in support. CAI in opposition. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support. Housing Hawaii's future in support.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Thank you for hearing this measure today. We strongly support House Bill 1742, but we just wanna add on to the written comments we submitted. As we took a more careful dive into this measure, we were also examining another measure, House Bill 1719. That measure would authorize manufactured homes by right.

We believe that some of the language in that measure needs to be factored in considering this measure as well. And the reason for that, simply put, is because as this measure is currently framed, or at least how we currently see it being framed, this form of housing would still be treated as personal property. And across the country, as this form of housing is authorized at the state level, that issue still lingers.

And when folks wanna eventually sell this form of housing or if they eventually wanna purchase this form of housing, they're often gonna need to find a way to finance it, and they need to get a home loan to finance this type of purchase. Right now, as we're reading this measure, we believe that the measure still continues to treat, self contained relocated both property as personal property.

We believe it should be treated as real property. And so for that, reason, again, we strongly support House Bill 1742. But we ask that you look at the language in House Bill 1719 and consider adding some of that language, which again recognizes manufactured housing as, real property. We believe this form of housing should also be recognized as real property. Thank you.

Thank you. We received 15 testimonies from individuals in opposition and one with comment. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1742 HD 1?

Thank you. Chair vice chair members of the House committee. My name is Jaden Tuttle. I'm the owner and founder of Hawaii Tiny Homes where we specialize in building affordable housing solutions. And we stand in strong support of Bill HB 1742.

We build affordable relocatable homes for individuals and organizations across the state. The price of our homes average between 100 to 130,000.

Typically, they don't exceed that. So they're on a a lower price point for for people.

But one of the one of

the biggest hurdles that we face is just the communication and distinguishing what is allowed on private property with the cities and counties across the state. There's very vague, written guidelines for relocatable housing. There's no clear regulations or process pertaining to this matter, which makes it very difficult for anyone to do it, in the correct way that's recognized by by the individual counties and and the the zoning departments.

And so having this bill in place will create a dialogue and the correct way to do it recognized by each county. But we feel strongly with this new bill in place with clear rules and regulations across the board.

And more locals will be able to have, affordable housing options as as they need. And, yeah, very great opportunity. So we're we're excited for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1742 HD 1?

Thank you. Members, any questions?

Yeah. Chair. Rep Cochran? For depart I I think it's DHS is here. Is that right?

Department of Human Services or

Oh. Sorry. Who who is your firm

Oh, Department of Health.