Senate Standing Committee on Economic Development and Tourism

Good afternoon. We're convening the committee on Water Land, Culture and the Arts on our 01:05PM agenda here in State Capitol Conference Room 224. I'll note today we have several agendas up, beginning with this one and then a 01:15 joint agenda with our fellow committee from economic development. So we're going to be kind of bouncing back and forth between the agendas to accommodate everyone else's schedules.

So just note if you're here waiting around, there may be a little bit of pause on each agenda as we, try and accommodate our fellow committee.

So that said, we have a number of measures up on the agendas today. We've asked everyone to submit written testimony, so make sure that's in. And we'll be limiting oral testimony to one minute to make sure that we have a chance to get through everybody because there are a number of folks signed up.

So with that, we'll begin with HB six forty nine relating to small boat harbors, which establishes the small boat harbor commercial vessel special fund and increases mortgage fees for commercial vessels requiring revenue from the fee increase be used by DLNR for improvements that primarily benefit commercial vessels that utilize state small boat harbors and makes other amendments. Testifying first is DLNR.

Hello, the Chair, Vice Chair, and the department stands on its written testimony to offer. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is the Ocean Tourism Coalition on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye. Denver Coon on behalf of the Ocean Tourism Coalition. We're strongly against this bill. I have submitted written testimony, so I just wanna add a couple points. The first being, you know, a lot of my conversations, that I've had with Dilborn in the past few years, you know, it hasn't been a lack of funds for infrastructure.

A lot of it's just the process, the procurement process, and staffing. So, concerned with raising fees without addressing those other systemic issues. We'll still run into the same issues. We'll be paying more, but, still not seeing those improvements. The other thing is, you know, our industry operates on very thin margins to begin with.

Increasing the grocery fee receipts fee, you know, takes, a lot of money off the off the top here, and we are not an industry that, can increase our fees, quickly. So, again, we would just be asking you to defer this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Signed up to testify next is the Activity and Attractions Association of Hawaii on Zoom. Miss Davis, are you there? Doesn't appear to be. Okay.

Let's see if I can return. Oh, there you are.

Here. My camera wasn't coming up. I'm sorry. I didn't know you're in a rush. Can I

Can I give testimony, Chair?

Go ahead?

Yeah. Go ahead.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair, Vice c\Chair.

My name is Antoinette Davis on behalf of a three h. We support the special fund that's in this bill. The reinvestment of commercial vessels into the harbor improvements is a great thing. It's way overdue. But we respectfully oppose the and ask that you defer this because it doesn't get specific

numbers on the fees. They are vague, and they are not specific. Not only are they not specific that are gonna be charged to the boats, which is was just mentioned. These are businesses that can't change their prices very easily, and they are already in a lot of hardship due to the economy, due to harbors being in unavailable, lots of reasons. And, there's no specific piece of that, that goes to this special fund.

So two pieces are missing, the percentage and how much goes to the special fund. We like the idea of running these as individual businesses. Thank you so much. I know you're short for time. Appreciate it.

Available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Up next is Calypso Charters.

Chair, vice chair. Hi, Zach LaPratt here, Calypso Charters speaking in support of the Ocean Tourism Coalition. I think it's worth quickly noting that I think there would be a lot more people at this hearing that our particular industry is very busy with the weather and a lot of people couldn't make it. So I'd ask you to review view the massive opposition of this bill last year, a lot of the written testimony that was submitted, including only comments from DLNR and opposition by budget and finance.

And I'd also just like to quickly bring up that this will be, you know, in essence, the sports special fund that's created.

Currently, we have the boating special fund. We have the ocean stewardship special fund. They contribute get the capital improvement projects, and this would be the small boat harbor commercial special fund. So just like budget and finance says in the testimony last year, do not support the special fund and stand on written testimony, Want to be available for any questions specific to our industry. Thank you.

Thank you. Testifying next is also on Zoom, Clayton Kubo.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. That's everybody who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 649? Oh, please come forward.

Yes. I too should I just stand here?

Come pull up a Chair if you could identify yourself. Yeah.

My name is Aaron Anderson. I'm a local commercial owner and operator for Hawaii Dive Center. And we too would like to oppose and defer this bill. Like everyone else has also testified, it represents a great hardship to a local businesses. And if even though the small businesses don't represent the grandiose or the most use of the harbors, we see that they would then be carrying the majority of those costs and fees incurred.

Of course.

It really impacts not just local businesses on a grander scheme, but it affects the employees on a down to dollar basis. There's these jokes that all of us in the industry understand. The joke is that a large pizza is different from an instructor because it can actually feed a family of four.

It's a laughable joke, but those in the industry understand that this will infect in it will be impacting and affecting every single individual who is an employee and employed here, and it's gonna affect the bottom dollar for all businesses. So we strongly oppose, and I'd be happy to take any other questions and stand on record to say that.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else on 649? Seeing none. Other questions? I just want for a DLNR. Thanks in your testimony.

You guys had mentioned there was a separate bill that you had looked at or are looking at and recommended making a whole bunch of amendments. Is that right?

Meghan Statts, the voting administrator. Yes. That was House Bill 2477. The intent of what we were trying to do with House bill 2477 was kind of expand the scope for all commercial use permits, surf schools, snorkeling tours, things that come from the shoreline rather than, vessels.

Because as of right now, the only people that pay gross receipts is anybody coming from a small boat harbor. So what we were trying to do with this other bill was to ensure that all ocean operators are addressed equally, and that was what our suggestion was.

And not necessarily to increase the percentage, but just to apply it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Statewide.

Where is HB 2477?

This was from last year. I believe it it made it through the House, but never crossed over to the Senate. That's my understanding.

So we've never heard that that measure then in the Senate at all?

I'm not sure.

Is it a companion?

I'm not sure if there's a companion or not.

or not.

Okay. No. Thanks. Thanks, Megan. Yep.

Thank you. Okay, thanks everybody. Let's move on to the next measure HB 2,599 relating to aquatic protection, which has DLNR managing the aquatic life and resources of the state giving priority to protecting, restoring, maintaining ecosystem integrity using the best scientific data available and setting goals to increase coral reef resilience. And testifying first is DLNR. Thank you.

Also, I have testimony on Zoom from Kaimi Kaupiko. Good afternoon.

Report of HB 2599. I submitted testimony earlier in regards to that bill, and I also supported testimony as well for sorry.

2218. I just wanted to stand on the the need to continue to recognize highest priority protecting every soil and maintain ecosystem integrity and the use of best available science in managing aquatic resources, and hoping that depart department of aquatic resources to set core to doing goals, for Oahu and build a framework that includes water quality, herbivore, biomass fishery management enforcement, and coral restoration. So for these reasons, I, myself, Kalani Hale, strongly support 2599. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify in HB 2599. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none, are there any questions? Seeing none.

Alright. Thanks, everybody. Okay. Here's what we're gonna do. We have a number of the measures still left on our 01:05pm Waterland agenda.

So we're gonna take a quick recess out of that because we do have our 1:15, joint agenda. So we'll move into that 1:15. We'll run through that, and then we'll come back and pick up where we left off on our, 1:05PM Waterland agenda. So, with that, we'll recess our 1:05 agenda. Alright.

Good afternoon. We're convening the joint committees on Economic Development and Tourism and Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts on our 01:15PM joint agenda, Vienna State Capitol Conference Room 224. We've got a number of bills up, so we'll ask everyone to limit your testimony to one minute so that we have enough time to make sure that all the testifiers can have their moment.

And with that, we'll start with HB 2,118 relating to the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, which transfers the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and the King Kamehameha celebration commission from DAGS to DBEDT. And signed up to testify first on that measure is the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. We also have, the King Kamehameha Celebration Commission on Zoom. Good afternoon. No. You're you're muted there.

You can unmute yourself.

Hello. I'm sorry. I'm not sure if you can hear me. This is Amy Hammond. I'm the Executive Director for the Kamehameha Celebration Commission, and I stand on my written testimony in support of the transfer, from DAGS to DBEDT of my department, along with the position funds as well.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. That's everybody who had signed up on HB 2118. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Hearing none.

Are there any questions?

I have a quick question.

Sure.

For King Kamehameha celebration commission. Aloha. Hi. So although, you know, we have broad support for this measure to transfer to DBEDT. Why not another agency like OHA or Hawaiian Homes Commission?

This is a proposal that was just brought to us. We are not sure I'm not sure personally actually even how it got started other than that perhaps they're thinking that it might align us more closely with a visitor industry and hopefully maintaining the cultural significance as well.

But would you entertain the idea if it was to go to OHA or Hawaii Homes Commission?

I would have to discuss it with our commission because I speak primarily on behalf of them. But that the my understanding is that it was primarily just to help us facilitate some of the administrative services and to help us also align with some of that the elements that may be able to make the activities more successful statewide.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Vice Chair.

Question?

Yes. We had heard from one of the GMs or a new commissioner onto the commission. And, we were at the interview stage in Waterland. And the subject with regards to OHA contributing or not contributing in the event it happens in your discussions going forward, we'd appreciate that, the discussions continue because, you know, OHA is that's one of the responsibilities to help cultural programs as well as supporting the ethnic culture. And so just a reminder that make sure that there's pressure on OHA participating.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, moving on to HB 2,474 relating to international relations. Cool.

Yeah. Thanks very much. This authorizes the governor and legislature to enter into non binding international cooperative agreements, foreign national governments, and sub national governments. Testifying first is DBEDT.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, committee Members, Dennis Ling from DBEDT. DBEDT stands in strong support of this measure.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify in this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none, are there any questions?

Question for DBEDT. Dennis, are there any international cooperative agreements that you would like to pursue with this bill passed?

Well, there are probably two that are very important to us. I think one is New Zealand, and the other one might be Singapore.

Yeah.

Those are countries. That's why we and they don't have provinces or states, so it's very hard to enter into sister relationships.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

K. Any further questions? Seeing oh, Senator Chang. Sure.

Just talk a little bit more about the nature of the relationship with Singapore.

I think Singapore has been very helpful with the innovation sector, especially in the food and product innovation sector. They have a they have a facility as well as organizations that can help promote the, well, help encourage the growth of the innovation in food. They're very well advanced in that area, so it's something that we could learn from. So that would be a very strong area to go towards. Also, housing, I believe, is another area.

Do they have these types of agreements with other jurisdictions?

Singapore, that is. Yeah. That, I don't know.

Thank you. Chair? Mister Chair? Dennis?

Yes. What about Vietnam? Vietnam is a country.

Oh, okay.

So, there are provinces that at once we have tried to get into a relationship with.

And reason I asked the question is because we have so many Vietnamese people arriving into Hawaii, and no different that Big Island. And, you know, the relationship there has been wonderful, you know, with their food as well as the relationship. So I was just curious because there's a big population in our state.

Yes. And I think the Vietnamese culture has been sort of, becoming mainstream within Hawaii.

Oh, yes. Okay. Okay. Alright. That's to be considered, I think, as well. Thank you.

K. Chair Wakai?

You know, Dennis, I mean, I think we see the value of the sister city relations, but at a certain point, like, we just pile more and more on with and a lot of these sister city relationships are based on one individual from that community that pushes it. And then they retire, they pass on or whatever. And there's nothing that's vibrant anymore.

As we look at adding more sister city relations on, can we also look at, like, if this thing has been dormant for ten years, I mean, we need to get rid of some of these as well. Correct?

That's very correct. I think we will be establishing a sister state commission and international commission because the previous sister state committee was done away with, was repealed. And we will be establishing a new commission, and that will be part of the agenda to review the sister states that we have existing now, which are pretty much dormant.

So what would happen then to Jeju Island? Because Jeju is a sister state.

Yes. But Jeju is quite active.

Yes. Okay. So

Yeah. So they would

It's not stopping the program in its entirety then? No. Just look at the country with us.

Yeah. The areas that have not had much activities.

Because they're active?

They are.

Thank you.

K. Further questions? Seeing none, let me turn it over to my co-Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Next up, HB 1863 HD1 relating to an honorary ambassador to Canada. It establishes an honorary ambassador to Canada position within business development support division of the Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism. First up, Dennis Link for DBEDT.

Yeah. DBEDT stands in support of this initiative.

Thank you. K. We have no one else for this measure. Any questions?

Seeing none. Okay. Moving on to HB 1943, HD1, relating to economic development, which expands the purposes of the establishment and operation of out of state offices to include collaboration with tourism agencies and stakeholders to execute tourism strategies, requires and appropriate funds for the Department of Business, Econ Development, Tourism to establish the out of state office in Seoul, Public Korea, appropriate funds to DBEDT and tourism's Beijing, Philippines, and Taipei offices to promote made in Hawaii branded products and increase the export of Hawaii products.

First up, h Dennis Ling for DBEDT.

Yes. DBEDT offers this hybrid service.

Thank you. Next up, Dave Erdman, interim President and CEO for Retail Merchants of Hawaii.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you and aloha. Chairs, ViceM Chairs, members of the committee, My name is Dave Erdman. I'm the Interim President and CEO of Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Retail Merchants of Hawaii supports HB 1943 HD1. The measure strengthens Hawaii's international economic development efforts by supporting out of state offices, including now a potential new Seoul office, Beijing, Taipei, and The Philippines to promote made in Hawaii products and expand exports.

For retailers, local manufacturers, and our logistics partners, export growth creates opportunities to scale beyond Hawaii's limited local market, diversify revenue, and support jobs across the retail supply chain. Aligning trade promotion with tourism strategies also helps convert visitors into long term customers in their home markets. For those reasons, retail merchants respectfully supports this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up, Sherry Manor for Chamber of Commerce in support. William Annonson for, Maritime Group also in support and Pam Tupac from all the Chamber of Commerce in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none members, any questions? Deepen, please.

So, Dennis, you guys have testified that the office would need an appropriation of 233,500 to operate. How do you determine the state's return on investment if you were to establish the office?

Well, Korea is a thriving market, and, you know, they are purchasers of several of our goods as well as services. And we think with an office there that there might be opportunities to promote Hawaii's goods and services, as well as working in conjunction with the tourism office. It might it's synergistic. So it wouldn't be two separate offices. It would be one synergistic office promoting tourism products and services, as well as investment attraction into the state.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, moving on to hb 2604 h d two relating to performing arts, establishes a performing arts ticket surcharge on the primary ticket sale price for certain performing arts events held in the state.

First up, Karen Ewald, testifying for state foundation on culture and the arts.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. Next up, department of taxation. Thank you. Next up, Tom Yamachika with Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the committees. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We have some concerns about this bill because it we already have a comprehensive tax applied to the industry, namely the GET. And we don't see the justification for singling tickets out and subjecting them to higher tax. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, William Coron as an individual opposition and Lynn Morakami Akakatsuka also in opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none members, any questions? Tax foundation, please.

Tom, would you consider this surcharge a tax increase? And can you recommend a non tax method that could generate these revenues?

If you if you want to generate revenues, it depends on what they're for. I mean, if they're if they're for general government, then it's gonna be a tax. If it's a user fee for they're using the arena or whatever assets there are, then I think that's probably taken care of at the city level

Okay.

Or whichever venue Okay.

Thank you.

Is is running the place.

Thank you. Members, any other questions?

I see.

Just oh, okay. Nope. Just one. While you're here, Tom, thanks. For well, my understanding for this is the money would theoretically go into funding all additional performing arts for local venues and stuff like that.

Is there enough of a nexus there in your mind then that basically, if you had, like, a fee rather than a tax, that sort of thing, that that would make sense?

It it has currently drafted the measure of the tax.

Right. Right. So I'm saying if it's a fee because of the nexus rather than a tax.

Well, as currently drafted, because the the revenues go to support not only the place that you're performing in, but every other productions everywhere, that wouldn't be considered a fee. It'd be considered a tax.

Right. But I'm saying we're we're we'd amend it such that there's the clear nexus, so it could be a fee. Would that still make sense in your mind is what I'm getting at?

I mean, you could amend it so that it becomes a fee as that's possible. I mean, if it were to support the venues at which the the concerts or whatever are being performed.

Okay. Thanks, Chair. Is that the last one? Yeah. Let's see.

Okay.

Yeah. Short recess. Short recess. Recess?

Good afternoon. We're reconvening the joint committees on Economic Development and Tourism and Water, Land, and Culture and the Arts on our 1:15 p. M. Joint agenda for decision making, beginning with House Bill 2118 relating to the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. I'd like to recommend moving this measure forward, Chair Sevin deferred, but blanking out the appropriation, putting that into the committee report and changing the effective date to 01/01/3000.

Any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

For the committee on Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts, Chair's recommendation on HB 2118 House Draft 2 to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Committee on Economic Development and Tourism, same recommendation. Any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure HB 274 relating to international relations. I'd like to recommend moving this forward with amendments. But those amendments would include fixing the definition of sister state relationships such that we're also able, I think, to the testifier's point, have relationships with national governments, especially because some countries don't have subnational governments.

So clarifying that and then adding a separate definition for international cooperative agreement, which shall mean a formal recognition of a joint agreement with a focus on an issue of mutual interest or concern between the state of Hawaii and another subnational government, such as a state province prefecture or other jurisdiction, as may be appropriate or that national government.

Secondly, we'll address some of the testimony, the written testimony on relationships with other jurisdictions that may be politically concerning or compromising.

So just to ensure public transparency, we'll amend the measure also such that the governor, legislature, and sister state commission may propose sister state partnerships and international cooperative agreements through their respective channels which then shall be approved by the legislature where we have public hearings and transparency in the same way we do now passing resolutions to establish sister state relationships to clarify that for example, in the current case, we don't have to pass a resolution to ask the sister state commission to then set something up and then come back and pass another resolution.

So it streamlines the whole process while ensuring transparency all around, and then making, non substantive tech amendments. Any discussion there? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on the committee of Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts on HB 2474 House Draft 1 to pass with amendments. With three Members present, any with reservations, any no votes, and excused Chair, Senators Lamosao and DeCorte. Measure is adopted, Mr, Chair.

Thank you.

Committee on Economic Development and Tourism, same recommendation. Any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair Wakai for vote, Chair goes Aye.

[Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1863. We're gonna look at passing with an SD 1, making any technical and non substantive amendments, and re defecting the effective date to 07/01/3050. Any discussion? Seeing none, for the vote, Chair goes Aye.

[Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

Same recommendation for Water, Land.

Okay. For the Committee on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts Chair's recommendation to pass HB 1863 House Draft 1 with amendments, with three Members present, any voting with reservations, any no votes, with two excused, Senators Lamosao, and DeCorte. Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, HB 1943 HD 1 relating to economic development. We are looking at passing this with an SD 1. Note that on page one, line 17, and page four, line 10, reference DBEDT's Philippines out of state office. DBEDT does not have an office in The Philippines.

To correct this, insert new language requiring DBEDT to establish an out of state office in Log City in the province of Ilocos Norte in The Philippines and making any technical and non substantive amendments and redefecting the effective date to 07/01/3050. Any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes Aye.

[Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you.

Thank you. Water Lane committee, same recommendation.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on HB 1943 House Draft 1 with amendments, with three Members present. Any voting with reservations, any no votes with two excused. Mr. Chair, measure is adopted.

Thank you.

Next up, HB 2604. Based on a testimony from DOTAX and Tax Foundation and others, my recommendation is to defer this bill. We don't need a tax increase. And as one test of our state, we should be encouraging participation in the arts and not making it more expensive. With that, I will defer this measure.

Thank you.

And with that, we're adjourned.

Good afternoon. We're reconvening the committee on water, land, culture, and the arts on our 1:05PM agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 224. Thanks everyone for your patience while we had another joint committee hearing. We were on HB 2395 relating to the taking of marine deposits, which authorizes the Department of Land and Natural Resources to approve permits for research, education, management, or propagation purposes that include taking of marine deposits of, stuff seaward of the shoreline under certain conditions.

Testifying first is, the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Aloha, DLNR stands on a written testimony.

Thank you. That's everyone who signed up to testify on 2395. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none, are there any questions? Seeing none.

Thank you. Let's move on to the next measure. HB 2361 relating to the Kaneohe Bay Regional Council, which requires DLNR to provide administrative support to the Kaneohe Bay Regional Council. Testifying first is DLNR.

Oh, DLNR stands on certain testimony so far.

Thank you. That's everyone who signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none, are there any questions? Seeing none.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1823 relating to the Coastal Zone Management Act, which specifies certain activities should be exempt from special management area use permit requirements and exempt state, federal, and county funded infrastructure improvement projects from an environmental assessment projects that are exempt already from an environmental assessment or for which a finding of no significant impact has been issued. Justifying first on 1823 is the office of Hawaiian affairs.

Aloha, Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye, and Members of the committee. My name is Lealoha Makuinani on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We oppose this bill as part of our OHA mandates. We regularly review SMA permit applications and environmental assessments. So we're very familiar with both of those processes.

Our concerns here is that this measure uses language that overextends the builds and stated intent to streamline essential public infrastructure, and would actually include almost any private development project that is approved by an agency, and determined exempt from an environmental assessment or receives a finding of no significant impact. The issue with using the is is with using the language where it states that the federal state or county authorized projects, and also including the term improvement projects.

Together an authorized improvement project could cover essentially any type of project far outside of the scope of essential public infrastructure. And we also emphasize that SMA requirements are narrowly focused to review impacts in the ship that are shoreline specific while environmental reviews are cover a much broader scope. So from our review experience, even where a project may not result sorry?

If you could summarize your.

Okay. Yeah. Where it may not result in significant overall impacts, the SMA permit may still be necessary for those smaller scope, public feet protections and access rights and such. So for those reasons we oppose the bill and ask to defer it. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you. Okay. Signed up next is OPSD. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. We you have our written testimony in support. I want to clarify a couple of apparent misunderstandings by those who oppose it. One is that special management area is equal to shoreline area. They're two very different things, And, these types of projects cannot be done in a shoreline area at all so that that protects our shoreline area and that protection remains.

The other, point that I wanna make is that, any government agency action that is determined to be exempt within Chapter 343 still requires a public notice of exemption to be filed published in the environmental notice, so that gives the public awareness of that. And, of course, if they're also subject to environmental assessment that has opportunities for public input on the project. So that Thank you.

Thank you.

Testifying next is Grassroot Institute. Sierra Club on Zoom.

Oh, sorry. Okay. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. We're in opposition to this measure, both with it in its intent and in its as drafted. First, I kinda want I wanna you know, we I think we've already clarified the shoreline versus special management area distinction, in this bill.

So I think it's a little bit of a red herring in terms of what the opposition's saying. You know, beyond that, you know, the in terms of the bill to roll back closer protections and oversight in taxpayer funded projects is, you know, I think, especially in these last couple of weeks is just not a good idea.

Like, we need to put in mind decision making and project planning when we're dealing in our closer areas, especially with the threats of floods and and and groundwater intrusion and so forth. But I also want to emphasize really quickly this bill goes much farther than what its stated intent is.

So if you look at the language on page three, lines 12 to 14, where it says that whole list of things should be exempt from special management error use permit requirements, that language suggests it's either superfluous or it's suggesting that all of these things should be exempted from my SMA permits even if they have what's, you know, the significant impacts or cumulative impacts, which is the catchall at the end of that.

But you could summarize.

Yeah. So I'lI say this measures over broad it's misguided and we respectfully ask for oppose this measure.

That's I believe everyone who had signed up to testify on this measure. There's a whole bunch of other written testimony. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in this measure? Or on Zoom for that matter? Alright, hearing none other questions.

Real quick for OPSD. Thanks. You'd mentioned a lot of well, hearing the other testifiers and whatnot, but you'd mentioned the projects contemplated by this bill cannot be done near a shoreline anyway. Can you expand on that?

So the counties established the special management areas creating their own boundaries that are generally wider than a shoreline parcel, usually a fairly broad area. So the shoreline parcels, most of those, they include a shoreline setback. And those shoreline setback areas can't be can't have these kinds of projects in them anyway. So our shoreline is protected. But we have development in special management areas.

In fact, two zero five A does not prohibit development in special management areas. It does allow the county authorities to determine whether what's appropriate. And in this case, this would add to the list of 23 other exempt actions that the legislature has added to this statute over the years that then are able to be built without a special management area permit.

And I think maybe there's some confusion that the amendment on page three, two, does not include, development does not include, means that all of these 23 current exemptions are being proposed de novo now. They're already in there and we're only suggesting a twenty fourth one, which would be those federal, state, and county infrastructure projects.

We think that that will be a way to streamline getting those projects done.

So for the list that's listed here sorry. I'm going back to the hearing we had on this similar bill Yeah. You know, a month ago.

Yeah.

List includes for the purposes of this paragraph, infrastructure includes water lines, water facilities, wastewater facilities, communications, electrical, television, roadway bridge, driveway improvements. Along the shoreline, don't a lot of those things exist right on the shoreline right now?

Yes. So for instance, Cam Highway out at Kawa'aba, those are grandfathered in because they've been there for a hundred years and they, you know, can be protected if they're damaged, if they're, you know, if a authority decides that that is necessary for critical services to those communities. So you'll see that, you know, DOT does go and try to repair those when there is, you know, undermining by wave erosion.

This doesn't, this would be that kind of repair, which is already actually exempted, would not require a- an SMA permit. And I think it's the clarification that allows the counties to be clear about what their obligation is for these exemptions and the other ones that are listed as new language in that proposed Section X.

Right. So for a new project, let's say, or even just a maintenance project. Let's take the North Shore example you cited, right? Highways falling into the ocean and so DOT wants to come in and repair that. Under this bill or sorry under the current law they don't need to come in if they're just doing repair work

That's correct.

Or an environmental assessment is what you're saying?

They do do environmental assessments and EISs, and those get published in the environmental notice. So the public does have an opportunity to comment, and for an EIS they have to hold a public hearing. So that is not affected by this proposed measure at all.

I'm sorry. Yeah. Sorry. I didn't mean exempt from EA, but exempt from ESMA permit.

Yeah. They're already.

They're exempted. Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. Thanks. And then for Sierra Club real quick.

Mary Alice, I'm gonna yes. Stay here. Thank you.

Thanks. So Wayne, hearing the conversation going on, is that your interpretation as well that even prior to this bill, those sorts of projects just in that area are would already be exempt from an SMA permit?

No. That's that's not quite correct. So that long, laundry list of things that are generally exempted from the definition of development that triggers estimate permits, they would be, under current law, recaptured under that definition. So they would still count as development if they have a cumulative impact or significant environmental or ecological effect on the special management area. And so that's a that's a safeguard.

Right? In case you have a big project that's gonna cause massive erosion or gonna have, you know, other ecological impacts, it still gets captured under the estimate permit requirements currently. This bill, this language, would totally exempt all projects even if there are massive impacts to the coastal areas under the language that's added under, you know, on page three. Now I see Mary Alice shaking her head.

With respect, I mean, that language is added in at the request of OKSD specifically to clarify the estimate permit is not required for those exempted definitions.

So, I mean, that that that's one of the concerns about the over breath. It's it's just it it it's it's way it opens the door way broader, bigger than just providing a limited exception for, you know, these infrastructure type projects.

Thanks, Vice Chair.

Yes. But when on page two, it does say it's certain activities should be exempt. So it's not everything, my understanding. Correct?

Yeah. So it's that list of a, b, c, d. So, you know, everything from, you know, demolition of structures or build or, like, single family homes or, you know, installation of on the ground and city lines. Like, all these things are generally already exempt, but if it's gonna have a really big impact, you still have to get an SMA permit.

Our concern is the language of this bill now makes it so even if there's a big impact, they don't need to get their SMA, and then they don't need to, you you know, have the added level of of mindfulness and oversight, that would, provide.

But specifically on item two, we're only talking about the federal state funded projects. It's not talking about any other areas like residentials as well.

Yeah. That's the intent of the bill, but the way it's drafted, especially with the language on page three lines 12 to 14, the added language, that's what makes it broader than just the infrastructures items.

Oh, where it says does not include the following and the following should be exempt.

Yes. Yeah.

So maybe some language corrections or something?

Well It's not the intent that to, exclude significant or cumulative impacts because that those should go through a not only a 343 environmental disclosure, but also an SMA permit if that if there are significant or cumulative impacts.

Oh, you know what too? I can see what he's saying, because in A, it does say single family residence. Well, one reason, Wayne, is concerning with your opposition, as an example, Big Island, the falling bridge at Coconut Island, is one big, major construction that will be starting by the county and the states, the Singing Bridge right outside of Downtown Hilo is going to go to a massive reconstruction of that bridge.

And if this helps the county, because it's a state and actually it's two funded projects, federal and state, given to the county. So I

Probably have a HIPAA and a NEPA disclosure process.

Okay. So Public input. But further, Mary Alice, you did say we have 323 projects already in the exemption on list, but you did say this will add 24. But are you saying 24 in general of many projects? Only one item of having to add one to increase the number to 24?

Because there is

Just, just the language in, the proposed section x in the bill. On page eight,

as Wayne noted, so it's federal, state, and county authorized to implement the infrastructure improvement projects. And so either they are determined to be de minimis by a department's exemption list and which is conferred to by the Environmental Advisory Council and published in the environmental notice or they are for which a finding of no significant impact has been issued, which means they've got an environmental assessment.

Okay. So the language that Wayne mentions, and for our sake, do you think that we need to make some amendments to the language in this bill?

Well, considering that there seems to be considerable concern, and I took a quick look at the opposition testimony and it all seemed to be extremely concerned that this was way broader than the intent. So I think maybe something to reduce the, to make sure that it's clear that this is a limited

Can you help him with, offer some amendments to the Chair? Yes. We can. If the chair agrees and see if we want to move this measure forward or to the Chair. Okay.

All right. But at least clean up the the language so there's no misunderstanding. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Okay.

Further Thanks, Wayne.

Thank you, David. Further questions? Seeing none. Thanks. Let's move on to the next measure, HB 1842 related to government, which amends act 289 to replace parcels that are being potentially swapped between the state and the county.

So testifying first on HB 1842 is oh, officer oh, excuse me. Attorney general.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Chairs, Members of the committee. The office of the attorney general offers comments in an effort to clarify which state agency will be responsible for management of the properties transferred from this act. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thanks. Up next is Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. DLNR Land Division drafted the testimony on this one. We stand by our concerns and our written comments on this one, but we're here for to answer any questions you guys have. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on HB 1842. Is there any other is anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? I'd seen none other questions.

Order yeah. Order them. This mesh this bill seems like it's almost similar to the bill we had last year on the acquisition of Alii Tower Yeah. And working with the city and county in some of the projects such as Ala Park. I think I remember. So what does this do now? This agent come down compared to the one we had last year?

So last year's one, it was Liliha Civic Center. Now they're swapping it for West Ridge, which is out by Pearl Ridge. It's, like, a two story commercial center. It's one of our fourth highest income generating properties. And as currently written as the AG's office has stated, currently, we don't have management rights over a tower if it was to come to us because it's excluded from 01/2012.

Okay. Hold on a second now. So Westridge is, we own it?

We yes. The state of Hawaii is not

not Now I remember looking at I mean, remembering last year's one, I think it went through a subdivision, an entire subdivision. And the housing agency rejected that proposal to give to the city. So this Westridge is a condominium? No. It's a commercial.

It's a two store it's like a two floor commercial place, near Pearlridge Shopping Center. Okay. And that's owned by

That's owned by the state. The state. Yes. Okay. So what we're saying is you're disputing that action?

Correct. Correct? Yes. Okay. We don't want it to be part of the negotiations.

No. Thank you. Okay. Okay. And then, so are we saying that this similar to the bill last year, that the the measure is to acquire Ali'i tower?

So what they wanna do is they wanna swap. Right? They want the county to give us a heat and then give and from the city to give all these things. Yes. Okay.

So there were some disputes with the bill last year. Not, not disputes, but the legislature did not pass the measure yet because of the ownership of Ali'i Tower that was questionable. There's an owner. Correct. There's, there's all these tenants, eco, city and county.

Yes. I think he co has like over half of that. There's an owner. Okay. Alright.

Okay. We'll see what happens then. Okay. Maybe stall again. I am not sure.

Yeah. Okay.

Alright. Before you go. Thanks. Thanks. So I wasn't I wasn't here for last year's discussion, but reading into the testimony, so DLNR's concern is, I have to imagine, less so the specific parcel itself, but rather the revenue stream that comes from it.

Well, the okay. There's there's two problems overall with the bill. One is, yes, the revenue source that gets taken away from the SLDF. Right? It's our fourth highest.

Is that right?

Without it, we'd have to come in and ask for general fund appropriation. The second part is is that under 100 and 712 right, exempt certain things from public lands. This particular on the E Tower is exempt from public land. So DLNR couldn't manage the building. However, right, the intent of the house, I believe, it was for office space use for the state agencies.

So DAGS do it? So DAGS could do space lease, but DAGS can't hold a ground lease. So it's kind of acatch 22, which is I think why AGS is asking to strike out.

So you guys have the ground lease, and theoretically, would the revenue also come back to you for that particular property?

Theoretically, yes. Through the sandwich lease, the sublease process. Yeah. We could pick up revenues in that case if Yeah. Yeah.

If it wasn't exempted.

So does that resolve all the concerns then? And Assuming it's like, let's say

necessarily because we don't know what the financials are on the city side. We don't have access to those.

But if it were?

I mean, if it could balance out and we could get access to that information and make an educated decision the same way the city has requested, I think, you know, it's something that we couldn't negotiate at that point. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. More questions because some of the items at TMKs are different from last year. So just to get this off, are they? Yes. Yes.

Yeah. Now, Aala Park, we only know that and chair, I don't know if you knew that. I did know that, but Aala Park is one park. Half of the one park is city and half of the other park, but it's one park. Okay.

So only half of the Aala Park is now considered going to the city. So the full park. Yeah. Okay. We we got half a park.

Now what's the what is this TMK Morgue addition or Margu? I don't know. What's the M 0 R G U E

And, Tijuana? Within the same areas. This is our new administrator, Sanhedrin.

This is and President. You're Craig. No.

You're No.

This is Seiji. Seiji. Okay.

Nice to meet you.

Yes. Okay.

So the Morgue is, the medical examiner's office for the county.

Where?

It's in Ivalet. Okay.

It's also all of you.

you will also be in that one same area. So that's why we said that it's in the future rate for the city. It wouldn't make sense because it's all that one area.

And all of

Yeah. But the last year's bill was referencing the acquisition of Alii Tower for the movement of the capital. That was the bill. Okay. Now, later, I guess after the capital, we all move there, then it becomes a part of, if it becomes part of the state, then it gets to be used for offices.

But this one here is acquisition on this bill is for office space then.

Well, my understanding from the house hearing, right, is that it was they wanted it to use for the capital, but again, there's no empty spaces,

I guess. Yeah. None at all. I Yeah. So I don't I've been there, so

I don't know how that would Okay. Okay.

Work. Yeah. Okay. It doesn't seem like it's gonna work. No.

Now, from your perspective, did the city, did they had testimony. No. They did have a testimony. Who is it from?

Mayor Socko.

Yeah. Write for me. Oh. Oh, okay. I see it.

Okay. Oh, he has comments. Okay. All right. We will just, all right, think about it.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for being here.

I appreciate it. Thanks, chair.

Okay. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the last measure on our agenda this afternoon, HB2218 relating to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, which authorizes DLNR to enter into community co management agreements and establishes procedures and qualifications. And testifying first on 2218 is the Hawaii's that can't be right. DLNR.

DLNR stands up for the testimonies.

Thank you. Hawaii State Youth Commission on Zoom.

Aloha. My name is Melek Koneali speaking on behalf of the Youth Commission in strong support. We stand on our written testimony and highlight that this measure also creates meaningful opportunities for place based learning, especially at a time when environmental literacy is urgent. Expanding community based co management helps bridge this gap by connecting young people directly to the lands, practices, and communities that sustain Hawaii's natural resources for generations. Mahalo.

Thank you. Office of Hawaiian Affairs on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye, and Members of the committee. My name is Sharde Freitas, a public policy advocate with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. We urge the committee to pass. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next is Kua.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, committee Members. I'm Olan Leimomi Fisher with Kua'aina Uwa Wamo. We stand on our written testimony and strong support. We've helped with the development of this bill from the very beginning, and I just wanted to highlight that, the five year reviews, that was added in the HD one version is unnecessary, and the confusion that there been about whether this would allow for any fee simple sale. It it doesn't.

It would allow for only 65 years maximum under these types of agreements. So we're here for any questions, and thank you for hearing it.

Thank you. It's like online.

Billy Kinney, Assistant Director of the Hui Makana. We stand on our written testimony and strong support. With the only the consideration that if that Kua's testimony addresses some of the concerns that were spoken of that Olan just addressed and also, the the five year review that was included in the HD two version, I think that's a a little bit unnecessary. And I would strongly urge the committee to pass this measure, but without the without the five year review edition of h v two.

Mahalo. Thank you. Mister Wichman.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Chipper Wichman here, founding director of the Hui Makaʻāinana o Makana and current vice president of the board. We stand on my written testimony, but also just wanted to emphasize our strong support for Kula's testimony and the unnecessary it's unnecessary having a five year review in there and as well as the misunderstanding around the term disposition. So I'm glad that that was previously clarified.

I if there's any questions, I also wanna say and it's in my testimony, but we in drafting this bill, we thought long and hard about how organizations would need to qualify for a community co management agreement, and that's very well detailed in the bill.

And so hopefully, if there's any questions on that, you'll raise it. Alon there in the room can answer any of them. So thank you. I'm available as well for any questions. Aloha.

Thank you. Up next, Moana Ohana on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. Sierra Club on Zoom.

Oops. Sorry.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Oh, here we go. Sorry. It

it's it's not letting me. Okay. Here we go. Oh, we are in strong support of this bill. Just echoing the remarks of the previous testifiers regarding the kind of arbitrary and superfluous five year review requirement that could limit the potential of this the the great potential of this bill just because of the administrative burdens that that we partner would create.

Otherwise, happy to answer any questions, and thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Online again, Kalani Hale.

Aloha, everyone.

I do support strongly HB 2218 as well. I submitted a written testimony. I also agree with, previous testifiers' call regarding the additional five year review is unnecessary. If you have any questions, I'm more, likely to answer. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then finally oh, on Zoom, Curt Cottrell.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the committee. Good to see you guys. Can you hear me and see me?

We can't. Oh, yep. Yep. Got you. Anyway,

Curt Cottrell, and, I am in strong support of this measure as well, and I wanna amplify what everyone else has said. It, this is just another example where the relationships that DLNR has developed with our co managers are moving a little faster than the statutes. And so the statutes and thank you for hearing us need to catch up so that we can not only get some of these locked in like at, but there is a strong amount of support to do this statewide and other communities.

And this just adds tools to the tool shed to diversify how government can collaborate with our communities on co management. So thank you for hearing the measure, and I suggest to change the date.

Thank you.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on HB 2218. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Good afternoon.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Hannah Lisiak, and I'm testifying on behalf of the ocean legislative task force in strong support of this measure. This measure emphasizes the role that communities can play in caring for our lands and our waters through structured partnerships with the state. And we also appreciate this that this measure recognizes the long standing native Hawaiian and community stewardship traditions that have helped sustain natural and cultural resources for generations.

Our coalition represents over 150 individuals across over 20 organizations, and we'd also like to test to echo the testimony from Kua and their recommendations on this measure.

I wanna thank you for hearing this measure, and Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else on this measure? Alright. Seeing none. Thank you everybody.

Are there questions?

Yeah. DLNR.

And hopefully, if Curt's online, I got a couple for Curt. Yeah.

Okay. My question is with reference to the leases, if the lease also includes a nonprofit or organization, and they do a collection system monetary, such as if they want to, like Ienna have a parking, but they'll be charging for the parking and the fee collection, and future. What happens if there's any infrastructure improvements such as the pavement of the road or parking lot is, you know, got the potholes, we need to fix it.

But here in the meantime, there were fees that were charged to a nonprofit. Where does the state, I mean, are they totally involved with making sure that there's, the infrastructure being supported by the state doing a grant or fixing the road or the obligation to fix the road that the state will be responsible for the infrastructure or the community.

How would that take into consideration?

Thank you, Senator. PEK Tomczyk, DLNR State Parks.

That's why it's a co management. We would work with them on how to move forward on these types of projects. Currently, some of the projects are paid for with the fees that they collect, and some of it we take care of.

Oh, okay.

And so it depends on what it is and and the amount that is, needed for the project.

Okay. Now there's some areas that may be leased out, but if it's going to be open to the general public or visitors or whatever, and there's no infrastructure like, bathrooms, if it's, you know, so would DLNR just lease out a, you know, a parcel, knowing that there's no other improvements to the parcel, or would you be in particular, responsible for finding the location of a lease arrangement, making sure everything is addressed?

Or or decide if a community wants to have this parcel, then they give you their plans. And that would I would think that you would do that first before leasing the lands out.

Yeah. Hi. Chris Minkowski. Morning. Good afternoon, I should say. You're completely right. It sort of spices of what you said. So it is, again, a very it's a co management collaborative process. So we wouldn't lease out certain lands or Okay. Put that out forbidding, you know, without a plan in mind or understanding, like, some of the resources that would be made.

Okay. So it's not like a guarantee that if a community or non profit wants a particular parcel, it's not, yeah, a guarantee that they'll get it. Because you guys will make sure that get it. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. That the plan must be provided prior to Yes. Accepting an arrangement with the lease. Okay. And I thought I saw something about purchase, but we're we can't sell public lands.

So we just want to make sure it's everything is by lease, yeah? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Because it's on page nine, disposition of public lands.

It does say dispose of public lands if feasible by lease, lease with options to purchase license. I would suggest that we take that portion out of the bill if it moves on further.

Are you talking about edits to 171 13? Disposition

Of the funds.

Yeah. So the inclusion within that, the community co management agreement, that does that just amplifies the power of the board to engage in these community co management agreement. The the fact that it says

Yeah. Yeah.

And any any public lands gotta go to BLNR anyway. Right? Okay.

And so that's the other assurance is that when there is a plan in in place or in mind, that's collaborative with the division that's gonna bring it to the board.

Okay.

So there's vetting the entire process.

Sure. Alright. Thank you.

Well just to just to that comment, this has been brought up by some of our other colleagues as well. So the disposition so reading the way I'm reading this, correct me if I'm wrong. This allows for sorry. 01/2013 allows, right, for the disposal of public land. Right?

NP simple by lease, lease with option to purchase, licensed community co management agreement, which would add that in Or permit. But it would not allow, for example, through a co management agreement, the actual sale of public land in that case. Yeah. Yeah. Totally different.

Yep. Okay. That's important to clarify.

Yeah. And I thought see online 414 anyway, no person shall be eligible to purchase.

Correct. Yeah. Public trust duties will be

Yeah.

Right here too.

Okay. And then the second thing I had, I see Curt's being very patient. Thank you, Curt. But for DLNR, under 171 c, subsection b, community co management agreement shall be used solely and exclusively for one or more of the following purposes: preservation and practice of all rights customarily and traditionally exercised by native Hawaiians for subsistence, cultural, religious purposes, preservation, protection, and restoration of archaeological, historical, and environmental resources, rehabilitation, revegetation, restoration, and preservation of native species and habitats, management of parking and visitor activities, or ina education.

Within that list, which seems to be very narrowly construed by the way it's written, In lands where dealing on our lands where there's, like, public recreation and stuff like that, does that fall within this scope?

For sure. So if you look to subsection four, management of parking visitor activities, so we can align that with what they do at Steak Park and some of our other community members and just ensuring, you know, the rules of the state park are followed, allowing for ingress and egress and ensuring all of those, you know, many neat details are covered.

But if for example, I mean, for other stuff like baseball fields and things like that.

Sure. Again, right, that's the collaborative approach depending on what the need of that public land is. If it has a baseball field on it, might as well have someone take care of it and probably be improved, etcetera. Yeah. I hope the answer is it.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah. No. There's a couple instances that come to mind. So for example, right, the HPU acquisition, it's got all kinds of preexisting fields for stuff on there. I think ideally if there's somebody who wants to be the steward for that so that.

This would be a perfect example of what we could do with it.

You said it's, you know, it is narrow but at the same time I think it's broad enough to include activities like that.

Yeah. Would it be helpful if we like specify that, like recreation?

Sure. As in like let's say management of parking, recreation, visitor activities?

Yeah. Something we'll figure something out. But does that introduce any sort of other I mean, I get why this is narrowly tailored. Right? We don't want to just have people signing up for stuff willy nilly or the department just saying, yeah, you guys take care of all of it for folks who are just definitely not prepared.

But, yeah, it seems like there's some something there.

We'll go back, talk amongst the rest of the divisions to, double check and

Send you some language.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Well, another thing too is that whatever is presented here, I think you also need to get DLNR as well. Right? So is DLNR after the fact or Yeah. We do by legislation first, then DLNR?

Yes.

Ultimately, it's up to the DLNR, right, to approve or

So once this goes into place, then the divisions can start using this tool to work with community, and then they present it at DLNR. I would And that would be the public

Yeah. In public Well, I would say that perhaps the legislature should have some role into seeing what those parcels that's going to be leased out, be given to us, as well. So we know what parcels are going to be sent. I'm thinking about looking at what we did with act 90 on the transfer of lands from egg to I mean, transfer of DLNR lands to DOA and the process.

But the lands are staying with the department.

Anyway, in the community stuff. Yeah. Well, DOA lands too is still Oh, it stays with DOA on the land transfers.

Yep.

Okay. Alright. Well, as long as maybe the reporting or something that any of the lands transferred, there's a report coming to the legislature to see what parcels were given out?

Senator, it's not a land transfer so much as it's an agreement between us and the nonprofit and the nonprofit.

And, if I may, I don't so in sending out concession agreements and leases, this is sort of the same process. And we wouldn't give out a meeting management agreement to just send.

And, yeah.

We favor this meeting, but okay. Alright. Chair.

Further questions? Alright. If not, thank you very much. Curt, thank you so much for your patience.

I just wanted to ask, with your wealth of experience in this, is there anything else that well, I have two questions. So the first one is well, let me confirm what we said in the in the specific use cases for which we're authorizing co management agreements, the HPU example and and stuff like that for recreational side lands. Is there a language or is there something there that you think would be obvious for spelling that out so that it's applicable but also, you know, narrow and not gonna get us into undue trouble?

No. That that's a great question, Charlie, and I think PEN Kinda Kinda nailed it. Language could be inserted that includes, kind of a generic recreational element of these co management agreements to broaden it just a little. But you also hit it on the head is, by necessity, we have to maintain or the department has to maintain a fairly tight bandwidth on these opportunities because it's not a one size fits all. It's gonna be a a specific case by case relationship.

A lot of it's gonna be based on capacity of the organization, But the big takeaway is none of these are exclusive dispositions. They're all gonna be nonexclusive leases because they're co management. So look at it as simply we're just extending government's ability to manage public space either on a natural or cultural value or recreational with just supportive and engaged communities that happen to be our neighbors that have capacity to help. And in doing so, back in the past, they had to do it for free.

Like lived on grants for years, and and there's a little bit of revenue generated from camping.

Now there's a chance for the community to share in that revenue from the visitor industry in particular where we have these areas highly impacted by visitors, and there's an opportunity to collect some revenue either through parking entry or or, say, camping fees. So does that help kinda box it up?

Yeah. I think so. Which takes me back to my second question, which is, do you do you miss this yet?

Well, it looks like you're a farmer over there with your your nice tea leaf.

Yeah. This is my backyard, and and, yes, the tea leaf in Kalihiuka gets this big. You know, I'm constantly whacking it back. But I have to say and thank you for the question. I don't miss it, but I like being able to drop in on things like this where I have a choice rather than mandate, and that's very refreshing for me.

So but I do I miss you guys. You know? That's why I'm here.

Good. Good.

We miss you too. Alright. Thanks.

Okay.

And then yeah. Real quick. Just from, I guess, a prospective user side on the

Yeah. Just just to go into the recreational, adding that as a possible purpose. So that section was mirrored off of, like, the island Reserve and the purposes that are already allowed through that. And so this the intent of this is really for Malama Aina kinds of activities. The the parking and visitor management was was at a request of DLNR specifically related to and the things that they do there.

But not to say that recreational activities couldn't be covered through a concession agreement or curatorship or other types, but just the intent of this with community co management was not not supposed to be more like recreational kind of use.

Yeah. I think this is our intent on on some other situations that could be, applicable. So but that's not to that shouldn't impact, I think, what you guys are contemplating.

Well, and if you look at to the plan requirements, it does require, like, native Hawaiian perspectives and cultural practices as well. So I'm not sure how that would relate to recreational, like, baseball kinds of uses, you know, but there's all those other kinds of agreements like leases, cure things that are already allowed. This is creating a brand new pathway, and it wouldn't allow for leases. That's that's already something allowed. It's creating community co management agreements for up to 65 years.

Yeah. So yeah.

Just to clarify.

Thanks for letting me speak.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none. Thank you, everyone. So we're at the end of our agenda.

Thank you.

We're gonna see 2:38. We'll take a quick recess.

Alright. Good afternoon. We're reconvening the committee on water and land on our 01:05PM agenda here in Conference Room 224 for decision making on a number of bills beginning with HBS excuse me, HB six four zero nine relating to small boat harbors.

I'd like to defer this for decision making until Wednesday, the 25th. That's this Wednesday here in State Capitol Conference Room 224 at the end of our 1:05PM agenda. I mean, work out some of the questions raised by some of the discussion and testimony. Moving on to the next measure, HB 2599 relating to aquatic protection.

We'd like to move this forward with amendments, making a few amendments, clarifying, some of the goals such that reefs and related species shall be maintained at levels no less than the best science, and, department science advisers determine are able to reasonably withstand, the worst bleaching events, coral bleaching events, and threats over the coming decades in order to protect public trust resources and ensure that planning and decisions are made accordingly.

We'll also enable the department to take temporary immediate action when necessary to protect critically endangered reefs, as well as adopting rules to achieve its broader goals pursuant to the testimony. Finally, change the effective date to upon approval. Any discussion with that? Seeing none Vice Chair.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on HB 2599 House Draft 1 to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on HB 2395 relating to the taking of marine deposits. I'd like to recommend passing this with amendments, just changing the effective date to 01/01/3000. Any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on HB 2395, House Draft 2, to pass with amendments with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 2361 relating to the Economy Bay Regional Council. Similarly, we'll recommend to pass this with amendments, just changing the effective date to 01/01/3000. If there's no discussion, Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair's recommendation on HB 2361 House Draft 1 to pass with amendments with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Next is HB 1823 relating to coastal zone management. I'd like to move this forward with amendments. I want to thank everybody for the discussion on this one, first of all. I think we're going to take a moment to figure this out, but for the moment, we'll as this goes forward to the next committee, we'll work with the stakeholders between now and then try and sort out some of the question marks that were raised in some of the discussion here.

But for the moment, what we'll do is adopt a language from the Senate draft one of SB 2547, which was the companion measure that we had heard a month or five weeks ago, which focuses the measure as it applies to Lahaina.

And add in, I'll also note there's also a change we'll make based on OPSD's recommendation and see how that plays out for the testifiers in this committee which would be on page three, line 12 under subsection two to remove the language and the following should be exempt from special management area use permit requirements, which hopefully resolves all the issues that I think have been raised in some of that testimony.

So we'll see what that looks like, but for the moment make sure it goes forward for further consideration. So any discussion on that?

Okay. Chair's recommendation on HB 1823 House Draft 2 is to pass with amendments with five members present only, those, voting with reservations. The Vice Chair will vote with reservations purely for the matter that I think this would, should be, statewide and not to one specific, Island or district. Any other reservations? Any no votes? Okay. No vote for Senator DeCorte. Measures adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1842 relating to government. I'd like to move this along with amendments adopting the AG amendments, clarifying the public lands language so that DLNR would have authority over the property, which may help resolve some of the concerns over financing and other things. But we'll take the moment for now as this moves on to the next committee to see if we can get some other additional details on finances and other things that were raised in the discussion.

If there's no other discussion on that, Vice Chair.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on HB 1842 House Draft 2, to pass with amendments, with five Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And finally, on HB 2218 relating to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, like to move this on with amendments, adopting the DLNR amendments to ensure the department and applicant, for a co management agreement collaborate in the adoption of that plan. Secondly, adding to the list of public purposes for a co management agreement management of public recreational facilities as we discussed.

And then finally, we'll for the other testimony being raised about the five year review, I think for the moment we'll make it a ten year review noting some of the questions over capacity but also noting the transparency and accountability needed for some of the stuff since it's new so with that any discussion if not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on HB 2218 House Draft 2 to pass with amendments with five Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Alright. Thank you very much. With that, we are adjourned. Alright. We're convening the committee on water, land, culture, and the arts on our 1:16pm agenda, here in Conference Room 224.

This is for the purpose of hearing one g m. We heard testimony on this GM last week. I got it. But we're gonna be voting on it right now. So we'll be taking up GM 651 submitting for consideration confirmation to the King Kamehameha celebration commission gubernatorial nominee Zachary Ventilina for a term to expire 06/30/2029.

Having heard from the public sorry. Can you guys can you

guys keep it down back there, please? Thank you. Having heard from the testifier and testimony from the public last week, the reclamation will be to advise and consent on GM 651. There's no discussion on that. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on GM 651 is to advise and consent with five Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote of it. Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Now we're adjourned for the day.