Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Committee on Education. We are on the 1:12 PM agenda. Today is Wednesday, March 25th. We're in Room 229. And although it's the 1:12 agenda, it is 1:40.

Our joint hearing got pushed back because other chairs are hearing other measures. Similarly, the same holds true for 1:11 agenda that we will try to get to as soon as we can. This hearing is being televised live on Olelo and YouTube. If technical issues occur, committee will convene—reconvene—on Wednesday, March 25th at 2:00—at 1:00 PM—in Conference Room 229, and a public notice will be posted at the Hawaii State Legislature website.

And due to the number of measures before the committee and the volume of testifiers, testimony will be limited to one minute per testifier.

The first item on our agenda is House Bill 2296 House Draft 1, relating to school meals; reduces the amount the Department of Education is authorized to charge for school meals to all students enrolled in Department of-- in the department, and charge no more than one quarter of the cost of preparing the meal. So first up on the testifiers list, we have Keith Hayashi with the DOE.

Aloha, Chair Kim, members of the committee. Sean Tajima, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony with comments on this measure. The department requests that the bill revert back to its original form. The original form requested that meal prices be no less than 25% of the meal cost.

The amended bill change it to be no more than 25% of the meal cost. The amended bill would require the department to lower current lunch prices, which would decrease revenue and be an increased financial burden to the state. The department prepares the language in Senate Bill 2615. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions.

And it's, again, no less than, is what-- the language you want?

We prefer no less.

No less than. Right. Okay. And has Senate Bill 2615-- is that moving on the House side?

Okay.

Yes.

Well, it was heard, and I believe it's moving.

It's moving. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Will Kane.

Aloha, Chair, members of the committee. Angie Chapman, Governor's Office, on behalf of Will Kane. The Office of the Governor stands on its written testimony in support.

In support of which one? Of no less or no more?

As it stands.

Okay.

The current draft.

The current draft? The current draft will be no more, right?

Yeah. Yeah, the lower the lunch.

They'll lower the lunch prices. You better check to make sure that that's what they're doing. Okay. Nate Hicks for the Hawaii Public Health Institute. Aloha, Nate.

Aloha, Chair, members of the committee. Nate Hicks with Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. We saw that there was a attempt to increase lunch prices last year due to the current language, and we support this measure to make sure that lunch prices do not rise and students are able to afford being able to, you know, afford meals. We do want free school meals for all keiki, and so making sure we don't rise prices would be a first step to making sure we get there. Mahalo.

Okay. Thank you. Lauren Zirbel for Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom. Lauren, are you there?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Let's see. Geneva Mama?

Yes. Aloha, Chair and members. Genevieve Mama, Hawaii Hunger Action Network. We represent over 20 anti-hunger focused organizations. We support the bill as it's written now, which is that one quarter. So, we do support any measure that expands access to free school meals, and this would reduce that obstacle.

So if we do actually align with the governor's commitment to universal free school meals in five years, if we changed it to no less than one half, then we would have to be back here again trying to change the rule again, so that's why we're supporting this no more than one quarter. Mahalo.

Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure whose name I didn't call? Okay. Members, any questions?

Question.

Senator DeCorte.

DOE? Sean, please. Thank you. So the State Auditor had done an audit on the school meals, and on page three, it does show that DOE does not have the data about the cost of each component of the meals served at its schools. Without such aid, the department is unable to determine what dishes or items, et cetera, et cetera. Let me just move down to the final. Specifically, what ingredients within those categories provide the best opportunities to increase local food usage and spending?

So to keep it at your preferred language, which is not less than one half, that would take us to, like, regardless of how the system is performing, right? And so, the no more than one quarter actually prioritizes affordability and accountability. So I think in conjunction with the auditor's report, it would seem more specific and direct if we do keep the no more than one quarter. Do you have a response to that?

Yeah. So for the regards to the audit, the part that they were focusing on was, how much does each ingredient cost in every meal. So even in our new-- so we do have a new system that we're starting up next year because we have a-- we finally settled the contract for that so you'll keep track of everything. I still don't think it's gonna be able to calculate how much is every ingredient, but as far as the-- with regards to this bill, we're using the total cost of each meal, which is basically calculated.

So we have that number. And it's basically calculated by the total expenses, which is how much the food costs, how much milk costs, how much labor costs, and how much the equipment costs. If you add all of that up for the year, you divide that by the number of meals served, that's the cost per meal. So we have that figure, but the part the audit is focusing on is, like, how much every ingredient costs in every meal. We don't have that.

So as far as the locally sourced one, we're working on that, but for this purpose, we do have the cost per meal, which is the total expense divided by the total amount of meals, which is $9.05.

Yeah, because they're not less than one half. Actually, like, the DOE is more so prioritizing flexibility in pricing, right, where the no more than--excuse me--no more than one quarter actually keeps accountability over those operations. So your plan to be more precise is based on a system that hasn't even been implemented yet.

So--

Is it next year?

This coming year.

Oh, this coming year.

Yeah. Yeah, so as far as the accountability, for this one, it's-- and just to clarify, it's no less than 25%. Because if it was no more than 25%, we'd have to lower the current meal cost-- meal price.

Yeah, excuse me. Yep. So for the record, DOE is supporting not less than one half. 50%.

25%.

Oh, 25%. Excuse me.

One quarter.

No less than one half. Yes, correct. No more than one quarter of the preparation cost. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, does that include fringe then in your 905 or is it just pure-- what DOE is paying?

Just DOE.

So you're not including the fringe benefits that goes into the meal cost?

For the staff?

Yeah. You don't think that's a part of the cost?

I'll have to check on that.

Because at some point, it's kinda arbitrary in how you're picking that number, right? Or is there some direction on how you're coming up with that 905, and has it been consistent on how you've been calculating it?

Okay.

Yeah. I know--

It has been. Let me check on that.

Because part of it is if you can decide one year is just purely the food cost. We're not even gonna include personnel, right? And so I think we just need to make sure that we have a handle on what it is because if you potentially can keep changing the number, we don't know what we use to calculate if we're not sure, right?

I know the method of calculation has been consistent, but let me check on if the fringe is included.

Right, because if you include fringe, then, you know, you might-- the number might be off, right? So what is your plan, then? Because, obviously, what we need to understand is how long have we been at 905, right, and how long have we been out of compliance? And based on increasing salaries plus food costs, what is your plan to increase the food prices, right?

I think the board tried to do something, and then I-- we haven't seen anything, but obviously, you might be out of compliance with this relatively quickly, and if we don't understand what your plan is, then we don't know what the right number is, if it's more, is it less, you know, in terms of what we're gonna put into the bill. So we-- but for us to to make that sound decision, we need to understand what is your thinking, right?

So I think whether this bill passes or not will impact our plan because, like you said, there was a proposal last year, I believe, to increase it, I think, a quarter a year to be in compliance with the statute, but we actually went the opposite way. We made more meals free, so reduced kids are free this year and next year the ALICE students are free. So as far as moving forward, I think we're waiting to see what happens with this because if the ceiling is 25%, we need to lower it from there, even though food costs are gonna increase.

So you're-- wait. So you're planning-- so depending on what the outcome is, you might lower because you wanna-- depending on if we go upper or above or below?

Yes.

Okay.

Because the current language creates a ceiling.

But don't you know what is your projected increase per year? Like, is it 5% or is it like-- well, what is it-- the historical's been of getting to that 905, right? Like, what has the increase been over the past couple of years?

We were still calculating that. I can get back to you on the increase over the past several years.

Because then we can kinda know-- okay, we know that we're gonna calculate 5% a year, then we better make sure that the board is corresponding, making sure that that, you know, increase is happening at the board level because I don't think what we want is we come back a couple years from now and you guys just didn't move the meal price, and we're out of compliance, and then we gotta change the law to, I don't know, 15%, 10%, right?

So I think part of it is is we just don't wanna get into this situation ever again where we have to keep tinkering because I think this is year two of trying to change the meal price, right?

Certainly. I think, like Senator DeCorte was saying, creating the baseline as 25% gives us flexibility to raise the price according to food cost. The food cost is gonna go up. That's why.

Well, and labor costs are gonna go up, if that's what you're calculating in.

Yep.

So do you have a better handle than on the food cost? Because last year, when, you know, your predecessor-- you know, predecessor before your position was created, they weren't really sure what the cost was. So has that changed from last year to this year, and how did you get that under control?

So the current-- we do have the current cost for this current year, and it's basically, like I shared, it's the cost of food, cost of milk, cost of equipment, cost of labor divided by the total number of meals.

So did we always have that? Because last year, my recollection is we were-- or we weren't even sure.

I can't speak for last year, but that's the formula that we're using.

Okay. So I think we need to understand what is the historical data and what is your projections because I think the projections is what's really important to us.

Okay.

Because we just don't wanna keep coming back and having to do it by statute.

And the cost will go up because we're increasing our locally sourced, too. So overall, the--

But then you gotta factor that into the plan, right? And at least we kinda understand because then we gotta understand what is the cost to the state that we're gonna subsidize as well.

Right, and I think everybody wants to make sure that all our kids are fed, but we just gotta go in with a clear picture of what that looks like.

Right.

Yep. Yes.

All right. Thank you, Chair.

Is the percentage that we're talking about on food, does that includes, like, breakfast and other snacks that the schools are now giving out? Is that--

It's for all meals, yes.

It's for all meals. Okay. What percentage now of the students with the bills that we've passed--with free and reduced lunch now getting free meals and then next year with the ALICE--what percentage of the students will we be covering for free?

So currently, the total number of meals that we serve per year, 11 million of those meals are free, 7 million are paid, and about 1 million are reduced. So this year, those 1 million reduced meals are free. And then next year-- let me get back to you on that. I have the figure, but--

So--

--we do have the ALICE figure for next year.

--what's the overall increase over with the reduced and the...

The ALICE?

The ALICE.

For the cost that's being subsidized?

Yes.

I believe for this year, we're allocated-- I'll get back to you with the exact figures, but I think it's about $1 million for the reduced. Next year for ALICE, we're allocated about 500,000 for that.

Okay. So where is that money coming from?

Well, that was-- that was allocated.

We allocated all of that money already on a--

Yes.

--basis? Okay. So that's-- you know, I know everybody wants free lunch for everybody, but somebody's gotta pay, and where is that money gonna come from? It's not gonna come from-- it's gonna come from K-12 somehow. It's gotta come from your budget, right? And if it comes from your budget, what does that mean? Some place gotta be cut.

Correct.

So I hope people understand that when they're looking for free meals for everybody because it's not sustainable, you know? It's just not sustainable, and with the food cost and the labor cost, it's like at home, you know? How are you gonna pay for stuff? It's like, oh, government's gonna pay. But guess what?

How will we-- government gets the money from? From you, from the taxpayers again and, you know, businesses and so forth. So it is a cost that has to be balanced. We want free college, we want free childcare, we want free preschools, you know, and somewhere somebody's budget's gonna get cut, right, so we can pay for it. And so, hopefully, DOE, as you come forward, whenever you guys are asking for more positions, more money, free this, tell us where-- who you're gonna cut.

Agreed, Senator. I think we're not opposed to free meals or cheaper meals, but I think we're trying to find that balance, and so I think, you know, thanks to you folks, we have money to reduce kids and ALICE kids free, but we're trying to find that balance and that's why we're asking for the 25% to be the base and not the ceiling.

And that's why I hope my colleagues who introduced these measures and the public out there that's asking for it understand that somebody's gotta pay for this, and the people that pay the most is the ones in the middle-- middle class is gonna be with these bills and see that their cost of living is gonna go up because we have to fund all of these services.

We can't sustain it, and every time the federal government stops something because we counted on federal grants, then they expect the state to cover it and we just don't have those funds to cover it. So, thank you.

Thank you.

One more question, please.

Senator DeCorte.

Sorry. I forgot to mention that the audit report also found that there is no consistent oversight in food spending at the school level and nearly $1 million in unused federal food credits over the past two years. So spending increase, and there's really no safeguards. So I think it's important for us to acknowledge that there needs to be some kind of parameters, some kind of boundaries, some kind of capping, because if not, then the spending just becomes a little bit more not held to some kind of standard.

So the auditor's report pretty much said it for me that right now there is no specific plan in place, and so I think that within your guys' system, if we give you folks a cap, then you folks will be forced to work within those parameters.

No, they just gonna come ask us for the money.

So for the--

That's true.

--the budgets at school level, that is something we're working on. We're not disputing anything in the audit. It is something that we're working on. We do have to set budgets for the schools. We're figuring that out because we also need our schools to prioritize buying local too, which is more expensive. So we're trying to find the right threshold that it's not an open blank check, but it does allow them to purchase more local food.

And the fact that you folks add breakfast and snacks, that's even higher cost. So, again, when we're saying free lunch and there's free breakfast and there's free after-school whatever-- some schools give more-- do more than others, but that's all a cost--

Yes.

--right? It's gotta be considered. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions, ma'am? Yes, if not. Thank you, chair. House Bill 13 I'm sorry. House Bill 1934 House Draft one, relating to the state librarian to establish an imagination library of Hawaii program to provide one free book each month, to children from birth to five years of age who reside in the state.

Thank you, chair.

And, first up on this is Stacey Aldrige from the Public Hawaii State Public Library.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Senator DeCoite- DeCorte, and, Senator Hashimoto. The Hawaii State Public Library System stands in support of the intent of this bill, which really is one of the things that we know helps kids become readers, which is having their own libraries. And so this bill would help us make sure that Keiki, zero to five would be able to get a book every month, until they became five to build their own libraries and to build their literacy skills.

We do, ask respectfully to, consider two things. One is, fully funding the program for the first two years.

As the partnering, group that we work with, we figure out how to build the the private side so we would be able to pay for, the the program. So it'd take about two years. And then, we would ask for about 50%, to be covered by the state. So it would be a public/private, partnership to ensure that, the future Keiki could participate in this program. And lastly, a coordinator, enough funding for this project to have a coordinator who could work with this program.

We have a small version of the program right now, and it takes a lot of time just for about 500 kids. If you imagine, we have, I think, 80,000 kids who would be eligible for this program. So we appreciate your consideration of this bill and support of literacy in our state. Mahalo.

Thank you. Nainoa Mau.

Aloha chair and members. I am Nainoa Mau, executive director of friends of the library of Hawaii. And we currently run this program in a few rural pockets of the state. We operate on the entire island of Molokai, Lanai. We cover the Kau region of the Big Island, the Hana, town of Hana on Maui, and we cover the North And West Sides of Kauai.

And, we cover those 500 some odd kids that, Stacy was mentioning. This bill would expand that program statewide, and it's through Dolly Parton's Imagination Library, and she is a huge supporter of literacy. She has gotten the, cost per book down to $2.60 per book mailed to homes every month. So that's about $31 per child. Like Stacy, state librarian had requested, we also, as the probable nonprofit partner, we are not at this moment ready to satisfy that 50% provision that's written into the current bill.

And so we do ask that the state does provide full funding until we are able to find private partnerships.

Okay. Sounds good.

Thank you. Thank you.

Scott Herrick on Zoom. Scott, are you on?

I'm present on Zoom chair.

Okay. We did have six in supportive, testimonies and one of those and zero comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? HB 1934. Hearing none, questions?

I have a questions for the library. I'm very familiar with the Dolly Parton, reading program, and I know, about the Molokai one because of Senator, Ducoit, and I think it's a marvelous program. However, for having a child and having availability books does not necessarily mean that the parents will read to the child and that the child necessarily reads. So it takes a lot more than just receiving one book, you know, every every child for at certain throughout till the age five. That's one thing.

The other thing is not every student or every family needs to have a supplemental book. So can't you look at the program and see where are the areas of need so we can focus in on those that one, the parents can't afford the books or two, don't have the books, instead of saying one child in the whole state because there's just not enough funding to support to continually support something like this. And we have to be realistic about that.

And the other area is to look at the libraries and the books that you folks probably, phase out, children's books, how the the perhaps those books can be utilized. So I'd hope that you folks will come back with a plan, on looking at that and see how we can get a sustainable program and still meet the needs of those who really need to have this.

So And I would just like to add, though, there was an an international study done in the early 22 thousands, across 42 countries that there were two things that were important for kids' education and and whether or not they would be successful. And one of them was having a home library. So I hear what you're saying that they may not be read to, but there are also kids who parent parents might not read to them, but they will read. Right. And so understand.

I think, and I I understand the cost. I just think when you think about the full investment in literacy, this is just one part we can play in ensuring that not only do they start with their own libraries, which will lead them into using their libraries as well. I I think it it can be a win, and it's it's not as much money. It's not as big of a a pocket of money that we would need

to do this program. Understand.

And we would hope to do it in a public private partnership, so we wouldn't rely entirely

on the state. No. I I agree with you, but everybody has their own little "it's not that much money." It's not that much money. It's not that much money, and we continue to add up.

So I'm just trying to be realistic, and let's start with those areas. And perhaps within that time, then you can get the private sector to come in Because we cannot be all things. I mean, you know, we we're doing pre early child preschool because this is the same thing. We want them to start reading early. So hopefully, that That will touch the other.

Yeah. But but there's cost, and I'm being realistic on this. Absolutely. OK. Thank you.

Any other questions? There are no questions. I'm going to recess and go into the joint committee with CPM right now. We're gonna go to our 02:00 agenda item. Is that okay. Yeah. Because we are we we still have another agenda with

Sure.

Waterland.

Waterland that is not here. So, we're gonna recess and then go into our 2PM agenda item. Let's see.

Okay. So, we are now going to start with our 2PM agenda items starting with House Bill 2161. This is relating to Pharmacy. It establishes the Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy special fund to support pharmacists workforce assessments and planning efforts. Establishes the pharmacist workforce assessment fee.

And testifying on this measure, starting with Rae Matsumoto for the University of Hawaii.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Hi. We stand on our written testimony, and I am available to answer questions.

Thank you. Christopher Fernandez for DCCA, Board of Pharmacy.

Good afternoon, chair. Board stands on this testimony supporting the intent of operating commission.

Thank you. Paula Doan for Jack Lewin. Not here. Okay. Corey Sanders.

Good afternoon, Chairs Kim and Keohokalole. Corrie Sanders, Executive Director of the Hawaii Pharmacists Association. I wanna thank you for hearing this measure. I'm of course, gonna stand on our written testimony and strong support, but I wanna use my time briefly to elaborate on the vision for the center and probably get ahead of some questions that you folks have for us.

So unlike nursing and medicine, pharmacy doesn't have a workforce assessment fee tacked into our licensure fees. I've included those proposed fees in my testimony. They've stayed stable over the past three years that we've introduced this bill, and we've had no pushback from the profession.

Even with the modest increases, we're still one of the most inexpensive states to either be a pharmacist or do pharmacist business in the state, and we don't see this as being a barrier to the profession across Hawaii.

Secondly, and most importantly, being quite transparent with you folks, it can be challenging to be an advocate for a profession that I love and believe in so much when we have very little workforce data.

We've got no one that's collecting the number of pharmacy closures across the state. We're passing some really great initiatives, and we're unable to report back the impact factor. So we're hopeful that we can get some more data to present to you folks and to really use the momentum that we've garnered over the past couple years for our profession. I will stand by for any questions. I wanna thank you again for scheduling this measure.

Thank you. Kimberly Svetin?

Not here. Let's see.

They are on Zoom, chair.

Oh, on Zoom. Please go ahead.

Chair. Hi. This is Kimberly Svetin. I'm actually calling from Molokai Drugs. Aloha, Chairs Kim, Keohokalole and the committees.

We stand by our written testimony, for the hopefully, the new center for pharmacy. And as was stated by previous testimony, we have nothing like the centers for medicine and nursing, and we're asking to establish a center for pharmacy in the State of Hawaii.

It will not cost the State of Hawaii money. Private entities such as Molokai Drugs will be helping to pay for the center. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure?

Hearing none, questions? Chair, you have any questions?

Okay. I do. So perhaps

So I understand, what you're saying about the workforce development and comparing it to the nursing as well as physicians. But the pharmacy, do you have any documented shortages? Because my understanding and my research so far is that the pharmacist does not face the same kind of shortages as as nurses and doctors.

Because the only data that we're operating off of is the deep data that the DCCA has collected. So we have data on how many pharmacies and pharmacists are on each island, but that's it.

I actually think Rae, Dean Rae might be better proposed or better posed to answer that question. I know she's been tracking national shortages, and there's some upcoming pharmacy shortages in the next decade. So

But the data shows that there's more localized and distribute- distribution based concerns without clear defined statewide shortages. Also, our pharmacy school is far from even being at its maximum enrollment. The enrollment is low, and there's a lot of issues about that. The fact that it's on Hilo and there's not a lot of clinical work that can be done.

I have to come to Honolulu. And so the enrollment at the pharmacy school is down. Half the students come from the Mainland. They don't stay here. So there's a lot of issues surrounding this and I noticed that the fees that you folks are putting on, a $100.

Right? Is that what you said?

Yeah $100 every two years. So $50 every year. And right now, it costs me $90 to practice pharmacy in the state.

$200 for wholesale prescription drug distributors, $200 for each new and renewed pharmacy permit, $200 for each new and renewed permit. These are even higher than the nurses and the doctors.

So 100 a year. So we're biennium, renewal fees, so 100 a year. And, even with those increases, I'm telling you, it is so expensive to conduct the business in other states. Right now, the other entities, like wholesale manufacturers and the miscellaneous permits, I mean, in other states, it's four or 500 dollars, and we're close to 100 or $200. So even with those increases, it still places us towards the bottom of licensure fees.

What I can say about the workforce data, and like I said, Rae can better speak to the questions in the comments that you had created around the university. We are seeing a lot of gaps in specialty pharmacy practice.

So as we're advancing what pharmacists can do across the state, I mean, we can be board certified in oncology, geriatrics, infectious disease, all these different positions. It is really, really difficult for us to fill those positions, especially the that have advanced training.

And so as we continue to expand our scope, that's the data that we're also hoping to collect is where can we localize and where can we position our workforce based off those data?

I haven't seen any data about pharmacist shortages in the state, but we're also, like I said, not collecting data. We only have the number of pharmacists per state on each island. So I wouldn't confidently say, in either direction, please, because I don't think the data exists at the moment.

Right. And it doesn't seem to be the demand. Like, I was talking about the pharmacy school and the number of students that, you know, that is going into it. And if the if the demand is there, and I know we built a pharmacy school, at 1.0 where there seemed to have been a shortage, and all the other universities also did it.

And they some of them are doing it cheaper. They're more convenient. And therefore, our pharmacy school has been lacking as far as students and enrollment.

What I can say is that's a trend across the country is that pharmacy enrollment is down trending. It is also not very advantageous to practice pharmacy in Hawaii because we haven't had a lot of these progressive measures that are involved in our scope of practice.

So students are going to other states because in our sister states like California and Washington, you can write prescriptions for certain initiatives. You can practice at the top of your license. We are not practicing at the top of our license.

So we're hoping that this center would take on federal and state funding and finally coordinate some of those initiatives to make the pharmacy profession more progressive and to expand some of the opportunities for pharmacy in the state here.

I will say anecdotally right now, Kaiser, I think, has 10 open positions for pharmacy. Queens had to pull two positions recently because not enough specialty pharmacists applied. So again, I understand about your concerns with the data, but I'm not seeing data that points in either direction. Yeah.

And, like I said, Rae can really attest to some of those national trends better than I can if you would like speak with someone.

So is there any other entity that could take this on rather than the school of pharmacy itself?

So it is really hard for the state association. My position is only funded a couple days throughout the legislative session, and it's a grant that's not sustainable. So we're hopefully, hopeful that this is an actual sustainable model.

The university, we don't want this to be an extension of the university even though the flow of funds goes from the DCCA to UH. This would be a completely independent entity. So to answer your question, no.

The state association could not take this on.

Right. So how do you ensure that know, it's not an extension of the pharmacy and it's own thing if they're gonna you know, money's going to them.

Yeah. There's a couple of ways we could go about that. Nursing, they have a governor appointed board. I think with just one FTE, we didn't wanna necessarily go down that road right now. But if that's something that you guys are interested in putting in to hold us accountable, that's fine.

We would go through the typical UH higher process, and we would include, stakeholders like the Board of Pharmacy, like the Hawaii Pharmacists Association, different stakeholders throughout the profession to make sure that it is an independently governed entity even

So under the current proposal, who would what would be the governing structure then?

A board. A

No. In this bill, it allows for a board, but I thought there was no board yet, or is it not gubernatorial appointed? Is that what you're saying?

We didn't put it in the in statute, but if it's something that we wanna include in statute to hold us accountable, we're happy to do that to appoint a board that has different professions

And absent that, what is the governance structure? You know, because you only you said you only have one FTE. So what how is it that you're gonna hire this person in the interim. When we don't have that board?

I think Rae might be better positioned to answer that question. Our thought would be that it would go through the typical UH hire process. And, I've been a part of committees, selection committees, where you have outside stakeholders that are involved in that process as well.

Right. Who ultimately gets hired than the dean at that point? Because their your administrative will be attached. Or

That would be a question that Rae could answer better than I could. I would assume that it would be up to the entire board, not just the dean a dean appointed position.

What board? The regents?

The oh, no. I'm sorry. The selection committee.

Okay. So we're unclear then on the governance and what it's gonna be used for then?

No. I wouldn't say that. The selection committee, we would go through the process at UH and have a selection committee that has stakeholders that are involved with the university, but also outside stakeholders.

That's not in the statute, though.

And then the correct, no. That's not in the statute. And then the governing board would be outlined in constitution and bylaws that includes pharmacists from every sector of the profession and then some outside stakeholders too for medicine and nursing to make sure that it's well rounded to position to meet the needs of the state.

So, potentially, it could get caught up in the UH bureaucratic system if we're not careful then.

But I'm more than happy to work on amendments that have those outlined as this bill hopefully can change.

Sure.

Thank you, Chair.

You're welcome. One more question. So have you folks, surveyed your current pharmacist about these fees?

Yeah. We have been advocating for this the past three years at our annual meetings. I also do multiple policy updates to our association throughout the year. I couldn't have we haven't sent out a survey, but we've not received any pushback at any of those meetings or any of the presentations.

Couple of calls. And there was a a testimony, I guess, given to the house who said that they're a licensed pharmacist for twenty years and that they, few suggestions to remove the proposed workforce assessment fee from the individual pharmacist biannual renewal fees, limit the scope of the use of the monies collected to workforce assessment and scholarships that exclude student loan repayment use. I guess that has been taken out. I can see that in the bill.

In my personal experience, there is not a pharmacist shortage like we are experiencing for physicians. Take a look at local pharmacist job listings. There are very few. There has been the case in my twenty years of practice. Rural area shortage have more to do with the cost of living issues and pay that is not competitive.

Furthermore, increasing the number of clinical training sites and expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists will produce better trained and more competency pharmacy professionals as well as fill in the gaps where these health services are lacking.

So there is some issues with some of the pharmacists now. So I hope that you folks will, you know, be more mindful of this.

Consider that. Sure. Yeah. I guess my only thought is that, again, we're practicing not towards the top of our license here. So as we continue to use the center to push more progressive initiatives and to collect more data to hopefully come back with cases for you folks, I think that's one of the biggest roles of the center is to talk about opportunities for the profession to expand our abilities across the workforce to be in different care settings.

Okay. Well, what comes first? Do we the need and the demand and then to get in the data and, you know, so then we charge them first and then get the data and find out maybe it wasn't it's not needed. Yeah. So

Understood. And then the last thing I wanna say, I'm sorry. I'm taking so much time.

I feel like there's not a proactive pharmacy entity on a lot of different boards across the state. So we're very lucky. We have some awesome partnerships with Shifton with the university where they're an extension of our voice, but there's not a pharmacist sitting on the rural health transformation program deciding board.

There's an initiative moving this year that has to do with state planning and development and vaccinations, and pharmacists don't have representation there.

So our association is completely volunteer aside from my position during session that's just grant funded and not sustainable.

And so we're hopeful that if we do get the center for pharmacy, we can finally have a proactive voice at a seat at the table at a lot of these state discussions where pharmacist voices are left out at the moment.

Okay. Members, any other questions? Hearing none. Thank you.

We will recess this.

Call back to order the Joint Committee on Education and Committee on Consumer Commerce and Consumer Protection. The chairs have come to a decision for House Bill 2161, House Draft 3, relating to pharmacy. Our recommendation is to go ahead and amend this to further defer the date to July 31st, 2055, and that any technical and non-substantive amendments for clarity and consistency be made.

The measure already contains blank appropriation amounts and a defective date—an effective date. So, with that, the chair will put into the committee report some of the concerns that was raised so the next committee can review that issue as well. And so, with that, members, any discussion? Any questions? Hearing none. Chair votes aye for Committee on Education.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

CPN, same recommendation. Passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, chair. Okay. Do we know if chair from Water Land is available?

Sorry about that. We're trying on.

Okay. Okay. So, we're gonna go back. IT?

Oh, chair. We are still currently live on YouTube.

We're not finished. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. We're still in.

We will continue where we left off and where, where, where did we left off?Okay.

We got through with the libraries. Okay. We are on House Bill 2567, house draft one, relating to education, establishes the early childhood education investment special fund, and the testifier on that one.

Yuko, are you calling our cross-cross? Not here. Malia Tsuchiya for Hawaii Children's Action Network in support. Randall John Francisco in support. There is no one here.

Anyone here wanna testify on this measure? There's no one here wanting to testify. There's nobody we can ask any questions of. So with that, we'll go into decision making on these items. Okay.

House bill 2296 House Draft 1. This is the school meals members. The recommendation is to substitute Senate Bill 2615 language into this measure and delete the the the house version and put in the Senate version. And then we will further defect the date to 07/31/2055. And the Senate Bill puts in no less than 25% language that was already in that bill.

Just so the public's understanding where we're at. May any discussion members?

Chair, I just I just hope that they will get us the the historical information soon.

Right.

It's a little late.

Again to this program. Right? Right. So ordered. Chair votes aye.

HB 2296. Chair's recommendation is to pass an amendment. Chair votes aye. Noting the issues of Senator Gitani and Fukunaga, I vote aye. Senator Decorte.

Aye. Chair recommendation's adopted.

K. Thank you. For House Bill 1934 House Draft one relating to libraries, you know, I think that this Imagination program is a good one, although there are concerns with the cost and, you know, looking at who really will benefit by it. So I am going to continue to allow this measure to move forward to raise a means, with some technical non substantive amendments that may be needed. The blank the appropriation amount is blank, and I'm gonna further defect the date to 07/31/2055.

But I really urge the library to come in with a plan, that may be sustainable and that we're targeting those areas, like we are right now with Molokai and some of these other areas because we have to start to be mindful of, you know, what we can afford and what we can do and how we go into the future on this. I-I believe firmly on literacy and helping our students.

But, again, just because you have a library at home and we have a library at home, and I tell you, after my son reaches a certain age, they don't look at those books at all. They're on their devices. So maybe we have to send them audio books or something, but we really have to keep up with the times.

And I think that we need to look into the future and how we do this. So but having said that, recommendation is to amend. Any discussion members? Seeing none, chair votes aye.

Members, HB 1934 chair's recommendation asked for the amendment, chair votes aye. Noting the excuse of Senator Kidani and Fukunaga. Any members waiting for reservations or no's? With all is voting, aye, recommendation is adopted.

Okay. And with that, we have adjourned.

Oh, we have one more.

One more. Yeah.

2567

Education. Very good. I thought I just knew that one. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that. House bill 2567 house draft one. This is established as the early childhood education investment special fund.

There is nobody here to testify on this measure, so I'm gonna recommend we defer. Unless anybody has any opposition. Okay. With that, we are adjourned, and we will that our chair only now arrived.

There is nobody here to testify on this measure, so I'm gonna recommend we defer. Unless anybody has any opposition. Okay. With that, we are adjourned, and we will that our chair only now arrived.

I've been here all the time.

Thank you for your patience. We're convening the committees on education and water, land, culture, and the arts. Appreciate everyone's patience.

Consideration while we had multiple other agendas in the other room. I apologize. Up first, this measure is HB 2592, relating to the Mauna Kea Stewardship Oversight Authority. I'll note we have everyone's written testimony so to the extent that we can be very concise would be appreciated. We'll be limiting folks to one minute to make sure we can get through all the testifiers, but up first is the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good afternoon, chairs. We stand on our written testimony. However, I did wanna clarify one point. So, after we submitted our testimony, I did find out that there are certain conditions within the CUP that may not necessarily be applicable to only be observatory. I think there are some things that are UH specific. So, in those cases, you would need to go back to the Board of Land and Natural Resources and get those CUPs amended for the conditions to be applicable.

Thank you. Testifying next is the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority.

Chairs, vice chairs, committee, John De Fries, Executive Director of the Authority. We submitted testimony and stand by our testimony.

Thank you. Attorney General.

Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. My name is Tina Tushyama on behalf of Attorney General's Office. We submitted the testimony with respect to three concerns. I'll be available for testifying—or questions. Thank you.

That's everyone who signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Thank you. Anyone else? Going once, going twice.

Okay, seeing none. Other questions?

I believe.

Thanks. For the AGs. Thank you. I know there's a lot there to unpack. I'll probably be doing some follow-up after the fact to sort through some of this. But in short, the biggest first thing I wanted to just touch on was the recommendations in everyone's testimony that touch on the CDUP and whether or not, as that follows the land, that should be specifically cited in the measure or not.

And with DLNR's comments, I think you heard in the prior testifier, there are other things apparently that may not be necessarily specific to the telescopes and MK. So, could you speak to that?

So, I believe it's—I think the general proposition that CDPs run with the land and that it runs with the use that the CDUP's permit to the property. So, without a CDUP, the uses will not be permissible. So, and the fact, so, the fact that, you know, even though there—if the conditions are not met, then someone would need to be responsible for the conditions to be complied with, or else they won't be authorized.

So, technically, even if a permittee is not named, someone with a land interest, presumably the state agency with the management and control of the property, may be liable for compliance with the conditions. Does that make sense?

I think we'll have to follow-up.

Okay.

Secondly, to your other point on some of the liability and other things that you mentioned in your testimony, there's obviously a complex situation laying out here. Are there any other specific recommendations for how to resolve that, that were not mentioned in your testimony, that might apply?

I believe that, you know, our comments were made a bit broadly so we can understand the scope of the waiver from liabilities that, that is being sought out. If we just didn't think that, you know, as written, the waiver would have the effect that may have been intended, if it was really broad, and that they may need to be limited in order to have the intended effect.

Sounds like we're gonna have a robust discussion in a follow-up meeting.

Just follow-up, Chair. So, as far as the claims and the liabilities, was that the original, original language?

Original language to the act?

Yes.

I believe so.

Okay. So.

Oh, I mean to the bill?

No. No, to the—is this the, is this the language that is in the act now?

No. I don't know.

It's not in the act. Okay, because I was gonna raise why wasn't this raised earlier if when we did pass the measure, if this, in fact, was the original language, not in the measure.

From our office, I can't really provide a definitive reason why it wasn't raised earlier. But I can assure you, there have been a lot of people keeping an eye on this. And I think our office reassessed our approach. And we're just grateful for the opportunity to provide comments at this time.

Okay. Can you just go back and then get back to us on whether or not this is existing language or not? It's in the act. I think I have other questions.

Sure. Let me—thank you. Let me switch over real quick to—okay. So, if you would switch to De Fries.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. In your guys' testimony, you'd also referenced some of these things, in particular the CDUP issue.

In the event that we let the CDPs run with the land, are there any other adverse, I don't know, outcomes or impacts or anything else? What's the, what's the risk of doing that? Is there a risk?

From, from the outset, there's been a concern about being the permit holder and having oversight and enforcement over that permit. And so, the position that we took was to distance that. Right? And, effectively, it does run with the land from DLNR to the authority to the sub lessee. Right?

So, could we make it work? Yeah. I realized how delicate situation it is. And there are..

Was that a case answer to can we make that work?

You know, we're right now co-managing with the Mauna Kea—Center for Mauna Kea Stewardship. So, while we would like to see the CDPs, that's still our position. But if this committee decided to amend that, we'd have to work with it, whatever that fallout is.

Thank you.

So, do we—do you folks have your plan and everything? I, I know you've been working on this, but where are you at in the whole process?

The, we are right now in—we contracted our management plan creation back in July and it's scheduled to be completed in October as the final deliverable, which then will trigger several months of vetting by the authority itself. But the actual planned deliverable is scheduled for October 2027—2026, excuse me.

And as far as all the transition, has that, has that occurred in the university? Has everything been transferred?

You know, we currently are in a joint management committee with the Center for Mauna Kea Stewardship. We've got multiple tracks going relative to the transition. One of the major ones is the legal analysis of all the assets, contracts, agreements. That scope of work is nearing completion. Both Dr. Chung and I are in possession of a draft report that needs to be vetted by both sides.

And, but my sense is we're within sixty days of completing that aspect of it. We're also doing a transition, looking at ways to accelerate the transition of the staff to make a full completion of staff transfers by 07/01/2027 or twelve months before the, the effective date of it. So, there are multiple tracks at work right now relative to that, the two biggest ones being the assets and the staff.

Go ahead.

Thanks. Just switching gears just for a moment on the question of lease extensions. Several prior bills this session have contemplated extending for a period of ten years the various leases and so forth for some of the properties. The AGs had recommended in the last measure basically requiring that process to start without by statute enforceable law forcing that extension. Is that something that's been debated by or talked about by the?

You know what? We've completed, in the last year and a half, 16 meetings in the community, primarily on Hawaii Island and then on each major island. I would say that a blanket ten-year automatic extension would, I think, jeopardize a lot of work that you guys have put in, the university has put in. I just think there would be a reaction to an extension of that, that link.

Now, I thought that the, the amended started in bill 2593, where the authority was given the responsibility of granting up to ten years and could be handled on a case-by-case basis, made more sense.

But I am concerned that from our vantage point, an automatic ten-year extension is problematic.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

Just two more questions.

How, how, how realistic is it that you folks are going to—when do you have to have this all done by? What's our deadline?

07/01/2028. So, we are in month 33 of a sixty-month transition period.

Okay. And how realistic is that these are gonna all be completed and at that time that you folks, the authority, is gonna be really up and running to be able to take over this whole responsibility? Because from what I'm hearing is that the confidence of that happening is very low.

Comprehensive management plan will be completed. Administrative rules will not. That'll require more time.

When you say more time, how much time?

That, I would say, like, eighteen to 24 months beyond that.

Why? You folks have had years working on this, so why is it gonna take another eighteen to 24 months?

We will—we're in the process of finalizing a drafting an RFP to initiate that. But the degree of community engagement is going to require that added time, which is one of the reasons why we're advocating the use of the existing plans and rules, until at such time the authority can adopt its own set of new rules going forward. Functioning at the joint management committee level, we are already operating within that premise as well.

So, the rules, the plans, begin to subplant what's there currently once they're adopted by the authority.

So, why is it taking you this long to even start to go out for the RFP?

You know, I don't really have.

We've been focused on a range of things that that this sequence of starting at this point is what it is. I mean, I, I, I wish I could turn the clock back, but.

Okay. So, if you could turn the clock back, what would you have done?

You know, if you, if you could turn it back—well, let me let me say this. None of us at this stage are convinced that extensions are completely necessary. Okay? But having that as a tool, in the event we do require it, would be...

Extension of what? The lease is extension of the authority.

The ex, extend—the power to extend the lease is born given to the authority. Yeah.

So, how does that—you're welcome to come forward. This is for further...

May I add? John Comenci. I'm the Chairman of the Mauna Kea Authority. Thank you. Let me add something to the question about the rules and regs. The rules and regs can only be started to be developed after we adopt the master plan. The master plan has to be the focus.

You cannot create rules and regs without a master plan. So, the fact that our master plan is not going to be ready till October is people can start drafting it. But based upon the community input and you know how, how much input you have to get on rules and regs. So, that's one of the reasons why we cannot start on the rules and regs until we adopt the master plan.

Does it make sense to start doing the rules and regulations before you adopt the master plan?

So, the RFP that you're being worked on, right, right now, is that what you're telling me?

Yes.

So, what is the RFP asking for?

The creation of a new set of administrative rules, part of which would be evaluating the existing set of rules and also doing an assessment of other institutions and agencies that are working in sensitive areas that have high cultural standards...being one of them...being another example.

So, those are existing. So, what stops you from doing those assessments? I mean, you know, that's why I'm trying to get a handle of it. Yes, you need your master plan, but in the meantime, you have, you need to do these assessments and so forth.

And if you're hiring a consultant to do that, why is it dependent upon the master plan at this point? At some point, it's gonna come into play, but, I mean, you, you folks have been working on this for years, and I've been saying that you guys gotta move quicker. So, I still don't understand why you not—why you haven't started on these assessments already.

Well, I think the the chair makes the point that this is sequenced around the timing of our plan. We don't have to have our management plan completed. But based on the input, we can start to initiate this, which we are.

Well, I would think that you would have the assessments that have that whole portion ready and waiting so that as soon as they have master plan or whatever. But to to say, okay, we're gonna do this. Now we're gonna go this, and it's, and it's over here when you could have had that part done so that portion can be completed almost simultaneously.

But now, you're still gonna go over all the gathering of the data to, to even start when that can be done during this period while you're waiting for your master plan.

Right? I mean, that's the kind of steps and that's the kind of management that seems to be lacking by the authority.

Noted. Thank you.

Okay. Kinda late, but okay.

Any further questions? Yeah. You have a call, please. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

There's no further questions. Next, we'll follow-up offline, whichever you want. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Loading time is short.

We'll move on to HB 2437, relating to arts education. On this, I think there was one testifier signed up on Zoom. Wooly Pak?

They are not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. That's everyone who signed up to testify. Is there anyone wishing to testify? Seeing none. There's no one to ask questions of. So, with that, we'll go into decision making.

Okay. Beginning with HB 2592, relating to the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority, I'd like to move us forward with amendments. First of all, I'd like to adopt DLNR's clarifying amendments on MK SOA's ability to hold property. Secondly, while we won't require leases to be extended for ten years, will include the language from previously moved out of this body in HB 2593, which is a directive to get that conversation going.

We'll add in the language also relating to reversion upon completion or non-completion of the transfer-by date certain. However, not due to the conversation that we had here in this room today about process and timing, but solely because of the let's say uncertainty within some federal agencies, we'll make that threshold for that drop dead point additional eighteen months out to 12/01/2029, which then will mean things revert back per the schedule in question.

Finally, let's note in the committee report, we'll ask the AGs, as well as other stakeholders, regarding the CDUP question to help weigh in and we can hopefully clear that up as we go into the next committee, our set of committees.

Although there's—and there's a lot that needs to be worked out, time is short, so folks will really have to come to the table on this if it's going to proceed. But for the moment, we'll stop there. I'll note it does have a defective effective date already in the bill. Any discussion or comments? Hearing none.

Acting vice chair for the vote. Okay.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to HB 2437, relating to arts education. Recommendation' to pass with amendments, just changing the effective date to January 1, 3000. If there's no discussion, Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Members, we're voting on HB 2437, HD 1. Noting the excused absence of Senator Inouye and Senator Chang. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

And for the Committee on Education, same recommendation, pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Chair votes aye. Noting an excuse of Senator Kidani and Fukunaga. Any Members voting with reservations or noes? With all others voting aye, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. We are adjourned.