Senate Standing Committee on Ways and Means

Okay. Calling to order the 10:00 a.m. agenda, House Bill 2240. This meeting, including the audio and video of remote participants, is being streamed live on YouTube. You will find links to viewing options for all Senate meetings on the live and on-demand video page of our website.

In the unlikely event we have to abruptly end this hearing due to major technical difficulties, the committee will reconvene on Tuesday, March 3rd, 10:18 in this room. A public notice will be posted on our website. For those participating remotely, all testifier audio will be muted and video disabled until it's your turn to testify.

In an effort to accommodate all the testifiers, we are enforcing the one-minute testimony. A timer will be visible. If there are any temporary glitches during your turn, we may move on to the next person due to time constraints. We appreciate your understanding. Okay, I'll be reading a list of testifiers.

We apologize if the closed captioning doesn't accurately transcribe your name. If you're interested in reviewing the written testimony, please go to our website. Okay. First, Hawaii State Ethics Commission.

We're giving testimony in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ombudsman.

We'll stand on our-- in support.

Thank you. LRB.

Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee, we stand on our testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And Auditor.

Good morning. I'm Les Kondo. I'm the State Auditor. Thank you for hearing our bill. We support the parts of our bill that relate to my office. I just wanted to give a real quick plug for my office. My office is a very valuable resource for the Legislature.

We provide you with transparency and about programs that you establish and that you fund every year. We provide assessments as to how those programs are performing, how they're performing, whether they're doing effective, efficient, ethical performance to meet their program mission. We have issued a number of really interesting reports in the last few weeks.

We did one of the Department of Ocean Boating--sorry--Division of Ocean Boating and Ocean Recreation. Sorry, that's DOBOR. How's that? We will be issuing a report about the Department of Education's Farm-to-School meals efforts within no later than next week.

And we have two audits that are ongoing right now, one about DAB, Department of Agriculture and Business-- Biosecurity, about their efforts once invasive pests have reached our islands, their efforts to identify, control, eradicate those pests. We also have another ongoing audit of the Act 309 from last session of the Kauhale Initiative that is ongoing right now.

I think that's our value to do performance audits, providing you that kind of assessment and transparency into programs, and my thought is that I see many bills that are having my office or tasking my office with doing other types of work.

I would strongly suggest our value is in performance audits, and I think you should limit our responsibilities outside of doing performance audits. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Next item, SB 2598, HCDA. Okay, ADC.

We'll stand on our testimony with comments.

Thank you. ADC.

Stand on our testimony with comments.

Thank you. Tax Foundation.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika for Tax Foundation. We basically stand on our comments. We just wanted to make sure the Committee was aware that there's already an essential administrative service charge and a departmental administrative charge already levied on the funds. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Okay, next item, SB 2600 tax on the issue.

Thank you. Tom Yamachika for Tax Foundation. We are just concerned with the blanks in the bill as it's currently drafted. Thank you very much.

DOTAX.

Department stands on it's--

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Next item, SB 2879. Isaac Choi. Oh, sorry. Let's go back. SB 2808 budget and finance. Members, any questions? Attorney General.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General. We've submitted testimony expressing concerns over the scope of the fence that would be necessary to affect this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Next item, SB 2879. Isaac Choi.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Gary Suganuma for Department of Taxation. The department has in our written comments noted some of our concerns with this bill.

So first of all, section 2314.5, which describes the Administrative Rules Office personnel, the exempt positions, the Rules Officer and Administrative Rules Specialists, contains some of the duties that they do, but it's not an exhaustive list of what of everything that they do.

So currently what the statute says is basically that they're authorized to adopt administrative rules and issue written guidance such as tax information releases, tax announcements, and that sort of thing. It also gives the Director the authority to assign them other duties. And certainly they do a lot of other duties.

So from time to time, you folks have questions about tax law changes and you direct them to me. Those go to the Rules Office first for analysis. And we rely on, the Director's Office heavily relies on them regarding tax law, tax policy issues.

This is the office that also assists every other part of the department understand tax law changes or how to interpret tax laws. So whether it's compliance, collections, taxpayer services, these are the professionals within my department that provides that support. In addition, they're not just sitting around doing administrative rules and written guidance.

These guys are on the front lines helping with taxpayer education, which is super important to voluntary compliance. We cannot expect the public to comply if they don't know how to do it. These are the ones that run, among other things, our annual tax workshops. So we actually go...

We have it here in Honolulu, but we go to neighbor islands, too. Very well received by tax professionals. They expect this every year. The Rules Office is the one that basically takes charge and sets up the agenda. And they actually do presentations as well. Another, you know, another thing they do is they're heavily involved with...

Every year you guys make amendment amendments to tax laws. The programmers don't know how to put that into the system. So we need attorneys and tax professionals within the department that can assist them understand what the changes are, come up with definitions, and figure out and tell the developers how to input it into the system.

These are just some of the other things that they do. By taking away the ability for me or whoever the Director is next to direct these persons to do things other than just drafting rules and tax guidance, it severely hinders the ability of the department to get its mission done, basically.

Okay, thank you. Members, questions. Senator Kim.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Certainly understand exactly what you're saying. However, you've used these positions to do other duties that is not even related. You've put like a person there temporary, so then you can move it to your secretary. You've misused some of these positions. That is why we have this measure.

I've utilized the positions to do things other than what's stated in the statute. But in every case, the work that they do is tied to what the Rules Office actually does. If it's helping us with legislative coordination work, if it's someone that I brought on with 20 years of experience, having previously worked in the department to help us with direct file, when we were exploring that.

And that's what I did. The previous administration understood the importance of these exempt positions within the department to handle things that I cannot direct a civil service employee to do. So, for example, when I came on board...

I know we have a time limitation here. So basically we're talking about how you put people in from those positions, used those positions to put in other departments to do other things in which they had... Like for in your... I'm not going to go over it, and we've had a long discussion on this, but that's the problem that we've had.

Can I just explain? Okay, so when I came on board, the rules administrative rule positions, the exempt positions were all over the department. Okay, so we have a business analyst person that is not physically in the Rules Office, but the prior administration created that position from an exempt position.

We're trying to pull that back into the Rules Office. That's why we asked you guys last year for the TSM Program Office officer position. That is what that position is going to do. That'll free up one more administrative rules position that we can put back in the Rules Office.

There was another position when I came on board, the prior administration was using one of the positions to assist Administrative Appeals Officer in the department. That position was pulled back and put into the Rules Office. There was another position that was a staff member in HR that was temporarily assigned to my office before I had permanent secretaries.

That person was sitting. That was a clerical position sitting in my office that got pulled back and we put that back into the Rules Office. So we're trying our best. But all I'm saying is that I'm not criticizing what the prior administrations have done. I think it was their prerogative.

The director at that time, if they needed the positions to get the job of the tax department done, they needed that flexibility. And I think you guys should recognize that and allow the department to still continue to have that flexibility.

Do they do receivables?

I'm sorry?

Do you have them do receivables?

Do I have...

Do you have these positions do receivables?

I don't know if I understand the question.

Okay. Your tax collections, how low are they?

The tax collector?

Tax collections.

What about it?

Why are the tax collections so low?

Tax collections are actually doing pretty well as compared to last year.

Okay, so your receivables, what is your receivables right now?

The receivables come in... I think when we did our information briefing, I think the disconnect was I think you're looking at...

Tell me what your receivables are, your current receivables.

In what context? What report are you looking at?

How many tax receivables do you have?

We do... Every month...

I told you, it's 1.5 billion. It used to be 1.2 in receivables.

Are you looking at the preliminary statement?

What are you folks doing to... Why aren't you putting these people in to collect them?

I don't understand your question.

Okay. It's okay. Thank you.

How much vacancies you guys have in department?

I think our vacancy rate is about 20 to 23%.

Vacancies what positions?

All over the place.

No, no, but... Okay, so if it's all over the place, you can give me a few? For the vacancies you have, is it in the audit area or is it...

We got vacancies all over the place.

Okay, understand that. But how much would it be in the question that Senator Kim was just asking you on the receivables. How much vacancies you have in that department or the enforcement to be collecting the taxes?

We collect taxes various ways. Right. So...

How you collect taxes? How much vacancy?

I'm trying to answer your question though. You're asking me about personnel involved directly in the collection of taxes. So taxes come in voluntarily, like most people. Like you, I'm sure...

She asking personal. I asking how much vacancies within the department, of any of your department areas that you have, how much vacancies? Whatever department, how your department is broken up.

We have roughly 430 positions and 90 vacancies.

Okay. In what department?

All over. It's compliance... Compliance. It's in collections.

What's in compliance?

I don't know off the top of my head. It might be... It might be 20. It might be... Auditors. Right. We have field audit, office audit positions. We have clerical and staff positions available.

What vacancies is just a name of all of how much vacancies in there. Because what she's worrying about is the enforcement.

I provided you guys with a vacancy list for my information briefing if you look at that. If you want an updated one, I can provide one. But it lists all of our vacancies.

Updated one. Yeah. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, anyone else wishing to testify? Okay, next item, SB 2921. Oh, excuse me. 2881. Tax Foundation.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. As the Department of Taxation's testimony also points out, there are some technical issues in doing this. We think a better approach may be to adopt something like what's now in Section 3405 of the Internal Revenue Code. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Members, any questions? Thank you. DOTAX.

Department stands on its written comments.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else wishing to testify? If not, next item. SB 2921. Office of Planning. Department of Labor.

We stand on our testimony in opposition.

State 911 Board. Foreign Trade Zone. Procurement Office.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Bonnie Kahakui, Administrator State Procurement Office. We stand on our written testimony in opposition of including the surplus federal property revolving fund in this bill. Thank you. Available for questions.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Okay. DCCA.

Good morning, Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Nadine Ando here as Director of DCCA, we stand on our written testimony in opposition to this bill and are available for questioning.

Okay, so why are you guys opposed?

As in our written testimony in particular, we believe that the lingual decision issued by the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that it would be an unconstitutional use of our special funds in order to anything that would go to Fund anything as far as over our reserves.

Because there is a definite need to keep reserves in place beyond what's needed for the operational support of our Department, since we are entirely special funded and do not rely on General Fund monies.

Yeah, but this is excess above your reserves.

Right. And even in that decision, it made clear that there is a need for reserves in a special funded situation. Because you don't know what will happen in the future in terms of this

is money's above the reserve?

Yes, well, above the reserves. I think the problem is we need to have some mechanism to continue to ensure that we'll have those special funds available because those come from the licensees, the industries, the- the businesses we regulate. And so there has to be a nexus between any of the- any of the funds that are swept into general funds.

And that's what that decision talks about. So in our view, that decision stands as what is current precedent by the Hawaii Supreme Court over the effort that was made to do this back in 2002.

Okay, Members, any questions? If not, thank you. UH.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the Department will stand on its testimony in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, corrections.

The Department of Corrections stands on it's testimony in opposition and is available to answer any questions regarding or for special funds.

Thank you. State foundation on Culture and Arts. HTA. Public Housing Authority. DEGs.

Chair, Vice Chair. Keith Regan, Comptroller, former Accounting and General Services. Stand on our written testimony providing comments.

Chairman.

Thank you. DBID.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. [inaudible]. Standby written testimony and comments.

Okay. Michael Arakaki. Judiciary.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee- [inaudible].

Thank you. HHFTC.

Chair, Vice Chair, we stand on our testimony. Offering comments.

Thank you. HCDA.

[inaudible].

DHHL.

Thank you. DLNR. Green Infrastructure Authority. Attorney General.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General. We've submitted testimony suggesting respectfully couple of edits, one at page two, line five, one at page seven, line four. And we've also identified a few funds listed in the table. It starts at page two that we respectfully suggest omitting from the table. Thank you.

Okay. DHS.

Morning. Lea Dias, here for Director Ryan Yamane, we stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Health.

Good morning. Chair, Members of the Committee, Lauren Kim for DOH. The Department stands on this testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we got ADC, Creative Industries, Public Libraries, Prosecuting Attorney, Hawaii Healthcare Association.

Morning Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you so much for letting us speak a little bit to the special funds for the hospital and nursing facility sustainability funds. These special funds are comprised of provider fees paid by the participating hospitals and nursing facilities. They are used exclusively to draw down federal Medicaid matching dollars.

So for any funds that are taken out of this particular account, it means that we will lose out on that drawdown, that federal matching the sustainability program is working as intended. We do respectfully request that these particular special funds be removed from this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Volunteer Legal Services, Justice- Hawaii Justice Foundation, HTDC.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee- [inaudible].

Tax Foundation.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We have been writing for years about the proliferation of special funds and the- and the excess monies that are in there. We do think the state auditor has done some fine work in identifying a number of excess balances.

And we- we support this committee's effort to get some of those monies back and- and have them do good instead of sitting around. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. American Beverage Association. Sex Abuse Treatment Center, Consumer Tech Association.

Stands on it's testimony.

Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii State Center for Nursing, Trust for Public Land, Coalition Against Domestic Violence, NEHA, Crime Victim Compensation Commission.

Chair, Members, Pam Ferguson-Bray, Executive Director of the Crime Victim Compensation Commission, in strong opposition to the two provisions that eliminate funding for the victim notification system and funding to pay crime victim compensation to victims of violent crime. We would lose matching federal funds without this money.

And also we have a limited ability to replace it because year by year, the judiciary's collection of the fee that funds compensation, it's been reduced from over $500,000 in 2021. It's less than $300,000, it looks like this year. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Department of Education.

Chair, the department stands on written testimony.

I don't know what you said. DOTAX.

Department stands on it's written comments.

Okay, let's go to Zoom. Who is that?

Aloha, Chair, Vice chair, Committee Members. I'm Angelina Mercado, Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And we respectfully oppose this measure. I know that this is- this is in response to many of the challenges that the state is experiencing in the wake of funding changes at the national level.

Unfortunately, what we're also seeing at the federal level as it affects domestic violence and sexual assault service providers is that not only are they changing funding, but they're also changing what and how they're funding and causing many delays in the release of their funding opportunities.

And what we foresee is that many of our programs that actually rely on state funds through these special accounts won't be able to serve the needs of the survivors of domestic violence and their families. Again, we respectfully request that you withdraw this measure and are available for any questions that you had.

Thank you. Dennis Dunn. Fred Arreli.

Good morning, Chair. I'm here. I'm Dennis Dunn. I'm testimony- testifying in strong opposition to Senate Bill 2921 as is currently drafted. I'm raising serious concerns regarding what would be extremely detrimental to crime victims and their families as well as to the statewide victim notification system. The notification system

this proposes to take the entire balance and put it in the General Fund. This would eliminate critical and dedicated funding for Savin which would replace- place the system's long term viability in serious jeopardy. Secondly, they're concerned about the elimination of funds for the Child Abuse and Spouse Abuse Special Fund.

Many domestic violence and sexual assault programs depend on this. Sexual assault victims would be extremely affected by this. And finally, there's a proposal to remove funds from the Crime Victim Special Fund. Crime Victim Compensation Commission has already made clear what some of the consequences might be.

We'd be unable to provide the necessary financial assistance to innocent victims of crime. Finally, I just wanted to in summary, say these sections I think are essential to crime victims in the state of Hawaii. And to take these funds away would be a severe rejection of the basic purpose of these funds.

And we strongly, I strongly recommend that you amend the bill to remove these- these transfers. Thank you.

Thank you. David Ricardio, Joseph Cardoza and Mark Wachtenwal. Okay. Okay. That measure was really for excess funds. So there's no sweeping of funds. It's just the excess balances. Okay, next item. SB2999 Climate change mitigation and Adaptation Commission Island Energy Services, Low Carbon Fuel Coalition PAR Hawaii. Nesty clean energy. JohnnyMay Perry, Pump Cleaner Fuels Hawaii. Veronica Moore,

Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee Pump Cleaner Fuels Hawaii will stand on its written testimony in strong support and are available for any questions if they come up.

Thank you. Abigail Ramsden. Anyone else wishing to testify? Okay, next item. SB3334, Department of Education.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony providing comments on this measure. The Department offers comments and appreciates the committee's considered consideration of the voices of school leaders and other stakeholders who express concerns about the original version of the Bill.

In particular, maintaining complex area structure and removing provisions of the role of the School Community Council. The Department has concerns on the following provisions in proposed SD2. Limiting the authority of the board and the superintendent to establish positions removes the superintendent's flexibility to address situations that arise in the future as well as being responsive to those situations.

Some of the required annual reports of various information about the about the superintendent supported Superintendents are redundant with current reporting requirements, but we do oppose the following provisions in the in the proposed SD2 the complex era, superintendents are currently evaluated on an annual basis by their district supervisor who is most appropriately positioned to assess their performance as did they direct their work and have insights on the performance on a routine basis.

The Board does not have direct supervision over complex area superintendents and we are requiring evaluation of CASAs to be done annually. Also, providing complex area superintendents performance evaluation upon request is also of extreme concern.

Performance evaluations are a personnel matter between the employee and the supervisor Is the responsibility of the Department to manage individual individual complex super performance. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. Please stand by for any questions.

Chair, I have a question at the appropriate time.

Yeah, go ahead.

Superintendent. Are the Deputy Superintendents evaluated by the Board of Education currently now or is it just a superintendent role?

The Deputy Superintendents are evaluated by the Superintendent by me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we see we have Jeanette Snelling, Leila Maeda Kobayashi. Jeanette, go ahead.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Ways and Means Committee. My name is Janette Snelling. I serve as the Complex Area Superintendent for Honuka, Kealakehe, Kohala, and Konoina, the HKKK complex area. I want to express my sincere appreciation for the Committee's proposed amendments for SB33334 in the draft in Senate Draft 2.

Specifically, I want to thank you for deleting the sections that would have changed the school community council's role in principal selection and evaluation, and they eliminated the position of the complex area superintendent from our leadership structure. I'm advocating in my comments for flexibility in the proposed statutory cap on superintendent-level positions.

For this reason, when I transitioned into this role, I served in a temporary position as Deputy CAS for six months. Moving from a single school to supervising and supporting 19 schools required a massive shift in Professional mindset and practice. The transition period was vital. Regarding the proposal for the Hawaii Board of Education evaluation every two years.

I ask that this be not a replacement of our current annual evaluations. My annual evaluation review provides the critical opportunity for me to reflect on my practice and decision making with my direct supervisor to ensure I am best serving the 9,000 students and families in my complex area.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Leila Maeda Kobayashi. Good morning.

Aloha. Good morning. I'm Leila Maeda-Kobayashi, complex area superintendent from Kauai. I stand on my written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Susan Pcola Davis. Morning.

Good morning. I do want to say that I applaud the time it took for you to revisit this Bill and rewrite it. I'm still strongly opposed and I still believe the Bill should be deferred. Establishing a cap to 27 varieties of superintendents may appear to be prudent fiscal management, but is it? How do you know?

Does this cap satisfy the goal you want to achieve? Administrative efficiency was proven by SD3334's numerous testimonies at the Education Committee meeting. There was evidence that the structural change would cause chaos, but so does applying an absolute number to a field of expertise that has grown as much as the school system has grown.

This is called spreading the pain. It is impossible to retain employees if their duties and responsibilities are increased with the same accountability and no additional resources. What data is available to show that the cap will prove to be efficient?

Instead of setting a limit on all these superintendents, have you gauged this against school growth, increased expectations, or being called failures? The Bill is not part being part of the solution. It is hand tying. And I just want to express that the leeward CAS has been extremely helpful in a number of situations that I needed input from.

Also, Heidi has. And there's different things that the. The casus and the superintendents at the administrator on the administrative side, there's different things that they do, and every complex is different.

Your testimony instead of just speaking.

Oh, you really want. Oh.

Because we have. We have a time limit.

Okay, well, I think that's. That'll be enough. But I just really want you to defer the Bill, but consider everybody else's testimonies also. Thank you.

I have a question. So do you know the difference between a special project position and a legislatively approved position?

Special project position. Created by the Department of Education?

Created by the superintendent.

Yes.

So the special project position does not need legislative approval. The superintendent can create any positions. And there's quite a bit. There's probably over 100 special project positions. And those monies to pay for those positions come out of other programs versus a legislatively approved position, which we just gave one to the superintendent last year.

Means this body approved the position. No other Department can just create deputy directors out of thin air. No other Department.

Are you saying that that's what the Department of Education does?

Yes.

Okay, well, I agree to disagree. I don't think that that's what actually occurs.

Two deputy positions, superintendent positions now are special project positions right now. So that does occur.

What I'm saying, though, is I'm not looking at too specific. I'm looking at the overall. So if you're addressing two specific special funds, superintendents, then maybe that's what we should be addressing instead of all 27.

No. So that it keeps the legislatively approved positions intact. That's what the Bill does.

Okay, but how do you know you're not going to need 28?

Yeah. So if he does, then he comes to the legend. We can provide that position. That's what we did last year.

Okay. I understand.

Yeah. It just needs to be checks and balances. We can't have the superintendent, the, UH President, and the Governor creating positions out of thin air, taking money out from other programs.

So in the middle of the year, if they need to start or have a new superintendent, they wait till the next legislative session.

Yeah. So, but he could create special project positions for managers, for special ed teachers, for counselors, for principals, if that's what's needed. We haven't had a situation where there's an emergency that you have to create a new superintendent.

I'm not saying that we have had.

This would be the only reason why you would need that.

Maybe.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify? Okay. There's quite a bit of testimony, but I'm just. There's six in support, 32 opposed, and 46 comments. Okay, we can just go into decision making. First item, SB22. Wait, I know. I cannot find the page. Oh, there it is. SB 2240. Recommendation. Oh, sorry. HB is to pass unamended. Any discussion. If not Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2598 recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Not sure. If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2600. Recommendation is to pass with amendments, defecting the date to 2050. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

Bill 2600, to pass with amendments. All Members present. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Next item, SB 2808. Recommendation is we're going to defer this to Wednesday, 10:32am in this room. Next item, SB 2879. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2879, pass unamended. All Members present. Anyone voting no? With reservation? No for Inouye and Kidani. Anyone else voting no? Anyone with reservations? Measure adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2881. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. We're going to adopt DOTAX's suggested amendments to require a taxpayer to provide written notice of their election to withhold and requiring the administrator of the account to withhold and remit the tax to DOTAX upon receiving written notice from the taxpayer.

Chair, can I ask a question of the department?

Yeah. DOTAX.

So do they require this notice in other states?

I'm not aware of that. I don't know.

Okay. So why are we doing it? That was your recommendation.

Well, the recommendation is... Our only recommendation is that even if a taxpayer elects the withholding, there's nothing requiring the employer to do it unless you guys put it in statute. So if you guys put it in a statute, if an employee elects to have the withholding done, then at least it would require the employer to do it. And that's how I say.

So when you're doing like your required minimum RMD or any other kind of where you can elect, Hawaii is one of the few states that do not allow you to do it ahead of time. But you can't, all the other a lot of other, majority of the other states allow that.

And you can do it for certain situations. And you don't, you know, I mean that the, say the entity, say a stockbroker will then submit the, for the Tax Department. So I'm not sure what is going to be required in situations like that by your amendment.

I mean my understanding is all we're trying to do is give employees... Or not employees. Give taxpayers who receive pension income basically the opportunity to have withholdings done on it by the account manager or the plan manager.

It would only be for retirement?

I think the way the bill is drafted.

I'm trying to make it, make it easier for the taxpayer to pay it up front, and it would be beneficial for the Tax Department to get the money up front.

And we agree with how the bill would achieve that. The one puka in the bill, so to speak, is that if the employee elects it, there's nothing requiring the plan manager to actually do the withholding. And so we just put that out as a comment so that if you guys wanted to, you guys can put that in the statute so at least it's required.

Okay, so on the part of the person asking for it to be withheld, what then would be their... What would they have to do?

Give a written election to the plan manager. We can come up with the form and stuff so that they.

Or a check box or something simple.

But the amendment would allow you to do that?

Yeah.

Maybe we can put something in the committee report.

Yeah, we can do that. But then that's the exact amendment you guys are requesting anyway, right?

I don't know that we give you exact language to put into the statute. If you need that, we can work on that and give something to you or to the committee. Would you like that?

Well, yeah, you can do that. I mean, as long as it follows within the spirit of the amendment you provided. Yeah, because that's what we're going to recommend.

We'll get that to you.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If not, recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

SB 2881 to pass with amendments. All Members present. Anyone voting no? Reservations? Reservations for Richards. Okay. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item. SB 2921 will defer to Wednesday, 10:32 in this room. Next item. SB 2999. Recommendation is to pass with amendments defecting the date to 2050. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Next item. Recess.

No, no. Okay, I'm going to use my SD2. Wait. Okay, wait. Recess.

Calling meeting back to order. Okay, so now we're on SB3334. Okay. So what the recommendation will be is to adopt the proposed SD2, but blank the number of the cap. So instead of 27, we'll just leave it blank so that we can figure it out. There's currently 27 legislatively approved superintendent positions and two special project positions.

So that I don't think people understand the difference between a special project position and a legislatively approved one.

Chair, the 27. You're seeing the CAS, not superintendents, the CAS group.

They're all within the 27. Yeah. So the current legislatively approved would be preserved. That doesn't mean it's always limited to 27, because the superintendent can always come in to ask for more legislatively approved.

With a legislative approval.

The point is it just has to be legislatively approved. It's not a CAP forever.

So right now that two special projects, they use their own money, but now they're asking.

Yeah. I'm not sure where they take the money from. So it's either from vacancy savings or other programs that we have in the Department. I'm not sure where they take the money.

Now they're asking us for the monies. Yeah. We have to approve it.

Yeah. Yeah.

I just want to say a couple things. Thank you for that.

And then the last amendment would be to defect the date to 2050. So the proposed SD2 blank the Superintendent positions and defect the date.

I just wanted to say, because the flexibility for them come back and ask for more. And I put him in CAP is my district is the most growing district. We had another high school, three more elementaries, another middle school, adding to the district. And right now we already. We have a good cast there.

We had a previous good cast there. But later on those positions, he not going to be able to handle the district on the leeward side we have right now, I think it was 26,000 students on the leeward side and growing. So thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Yeah. I mean, and we just did that last year. So it's not like we don't do it. Last year, we provided another assistant superintendent specifically so they could break up facilities from auxiliary services, transportation security. And so it's not. We've just done it. As long as it's justified, then we can proceed. But there should be some review.

Yeah. Thank you. If you're. You're taking on. You're blanking the 27 positions?

No.

Is that correct?

No, I'll blank it. That way, the superintendent and the two Committee chairs, both House and Senate, can negotiate. If it should be 27, 28

What happens if it's 24 or 21? I'm just concerned.

No, in the Committee report. In the Committee report, we're going to include that the current legislative positions 27, and that there are two. So that way it's clear that we still got to figure out if it should be 27, 28, 29.

As long as. Yeah, as long as it doesn't diminish the number.

Well, that's where there's a defective date.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your proposed SD2. I think it's a big improvement to the original Bill, and I think it. We had some lively conversation on this, but the concern that I have that was raised in testimony specifically has to do with the CAS evaluation to the Board of Education. I know annually.

Now they're evaluated by the superintendent, so I know there's some time to work to the process, but that would be some of the concerns that I would still have. So with that, I'll be voting with reservations. Thank you.

Okay. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you.

Recalling to order the 10:01 agenda, starting with SB 2101. You ready? Recommendation is to pass, unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB2146. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2319. Recommendation is to pass, unamended. Any discussion? If not Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB2356. Recommendation is to pass, unamended. Any discussion? If not Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Next item, SB 2376. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. We're going to adopt OIP's amendment to delete language on page five that prohibits the reporting of location identifying information.

And we'll adopt DOTAX's recommendation to add language requiring HSEO to issue a certificate to a taxpayer stating the amount of the credit to be claimed in the subsequent year, should the total amount of credits applied in a taxable year exceed the aggregate amount. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2376 to pass with amendments. All Members present. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2391. Recommendation is pass with amendments. We'll adopt amendments from the Attorney General to amend so that the step increases are pursuant to collective bargaining and legislative appropriations. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2391 to pass with with amendments. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2543 Recommendation is to pass with amendments, blank the appropriation. Adopting an amendment from the Disability and Communications Access board amending Section 1 to ensure compliance with hrs. 103 to 50. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item. SB2545. Recommendation is to pass as is. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2549 recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2595 recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB2596. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Bank the appropriation and include language that state agencies are exempt if the lease is part of a core Department responsibilities pursuant to HRS 26-5 through 26-21. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Next item. SB2599 recommendation is to pass with amendments. We're going to blank the appropriation and we're going to insert language to amend to remove part two and freeze the release of project funds until the Legislature officially approves both the stadium Authority's readiness report and HCDA's infrastructure financing plan.

Streamline the process by shifting the legal duty of district infrastructure financing directly to HCDA and remove and removing outdated reporting steps and four required the state to hire an independent stadium construction expert with proven on site stadium construction experience to oversee the stadium project and mandate a clear structure for the project. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2602. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2602. Anyone... Pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2603. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2603, pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2687. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2687, pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2800. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2800, pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2802. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2802, pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2877. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2877, to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 3096. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 3096, to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 3097. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 3109. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 3109, pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 3136. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 3137. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 3138. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

SB 3138, to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 3139. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 3215. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Wait, recess.

Back to SB 3302. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 3302, to pass unamended. All Members present. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, 3320. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

SB 3320 to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Adjourn.

Okay. Calling to order the 10:02 agenda. Starting with SB 2055. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

SB 2055, pass unamended Anyone voting no? With reservation? Oh, what was that? Fevella, no. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2247. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

SB 2247 pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? What? What? No?

Yes. No.

Yes. No. Maybe. Yes. No. No. Okay.

Next item, SB 2248. Now, recommendation is to pass with amendments. We are going to amend to apply this provision to all positions that require Senate confirmation and the Governor's nomination in all branches of government. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2248, pass with amendments. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Reservation for Kidani. Measure adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2271. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Adopt DHS amendments to clarify language on page 2 and defect the date to 2050. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB2272. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Adopt DOH's suggested amendment to clarify language on page 2 and defect the date to 2050. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB2313 recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2350 recommendations passed with amendments.

Amend and clarify the language to retain the regulatory aspects of Aquaculture and Livestock Support Services Branch within Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and only transfer the enterprise aspects of Aquaculture and Livestock Support Services Branch from Department of Ag and Biosecurity to ADC and remove all references to the transfer of the Agricultural Development Division. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2360 recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB2362 Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item, SB 2528 recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

SB 2528 to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2530. Okay, we're going to recommend passing with amendments. Adopting Campaign Spending Commission's request to insert a blank appropriation to establish a password protected filing system and updates, training, and administrative support. And adopting SPO's recommendations to align thresholds to statute to eliminate the need for future amendments to update the amounts. And defect the date to 2050. Is Campaign Spending here?

Doesn't look like it.

Is she outside? No.

Not an important bill.

Must not be that important.

Okay, we're going to let the committee report reflect that the commission should also focus on compliance and auditing to ensure candidates are compliant with campaign spending laws and rules. One of my concerns is the the incident that recently happened with the Lieutenant Governor.

The fact that a blog found, was went through it, and that's Campaign Spending. If Campaign Spending had been checking these things, they would have probably found it a year or two earlier, which could have been fixed. Versus letting bloggers go through and then reporting it to Campaign Spending.

So that that's a concern for me is that we're adding more things to Campaign Spending, but they're not actually doing helping with compliance. In addition to that, most of us, at least 90% of us have volunteer treasurers.

In the last 10 years, we've made so many changes to campaign spending laws that the volunteer doesn't have the experience to deal with all the technical expertise, and they're not full time. They're just trying to help. For some, it's your classmate, it's your relative. They're just trying to help. And yet people get in trouble.

So the thing about it is that Campaign Spending, knowing that that's the dynamic, should be a lot more proactive in trying to help candidates and their treasurers comply with the law versus this gotcha system which we currently have. Because most people are running for office really because they just want to make a difference.

So I was hoping that Campaign Spending would be here, but they're not. And my understanding is they've never done an audit since Bob Watada. So they've done... They've done reviews. They've done specific reviews on certain components, but they've never done an audit. So I'm not sure why she's not here.

I think also the statewide office positions are a lot more intense when it comes to reporting and so forth, so especially in those areas.

Yeah. So especially if you spend over a certain amount, like you're saying. Over 250 or 500, whatever they decide. Then you probably should because there's lots of activity. What are they doing?

In the House district, you have smaller activity going on. It's more manageable. As you get to the larger races, statewide races, then it's, yeah, not easy.

Chair. So part of complying would be that they would offer help and training for candidates as well as... Because I mean it's not as just it's us, but it's those that wanting to run for...

Yeah. Right now they have like online training and all that kind of stuff, but...

Kind of help encourage those that wanting to run for office not be deterred by what happened.

Yeah. So if you, if you end up getting a certain, let's say they... Before they fine you, they should require you and your treasurer or your campaign to take a class before they start. I mean most of it is innocent mistakes. I agree. There's some of it that's probably not. But there's most of it probably is. But they should be helping candidates and treasurers who are all volunteer. Treasures are all volunteer.

App is not yet user friendly too.

Yeah. Yeah. And especially if you're the lay person watching the video versus having the one on one interaction. And I'm not sure how much of a concierge service they actually have there either to help people make sure that the reports are done correctly and things like that. So we're going to try to put those thoughts in the, in the committee report. Okay. Recommendation pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

SB 2530 to pass with amendments. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item: SB 2532. Recommendation: pass unamended.

SB 2532: pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item: SB 2798. Recommendation: pass unamended. Chair votes aye.

SB 2798: to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 2875. Recommendation is to pass with amendments deffecting the date to 2050. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 2875 to pass with amendments. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item: SB 3076. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

SB 3076: to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 3081. Recommendation pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

SB 3081 to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item: SB 3082. Recommendation: pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

SB 3082: to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 3090, recommendation pass unamended. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next item: SB 3095. Recommendation: pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 3095: to pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next item, SB 3110 recommendation pass unamended. Any discussion? If not, Chair votes aye.

SB 3110 pass unamended. Anyone voting no? With reservation? Recommendation adopted.

Thank you.