House Standing Committee on Finance

Hey. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm calling the Wednesday, '8 Wednesday, 04/08/2026, 01:55pm, agenda for the finance committee here in Conference Room 308 for the purpose of retaking up, a couple of resolutions that we need to make some changes to. So we'll just go through it really quickly. We did schedule these previously, and we're just rehearing them again because there were some amendments we needed to make on the DM, hearing.

So we're just gonna jump right in. The first set of rezos is going to be HCR 93 HD1, HR 85 HD1 requesting the Hawaii seek commission on the status of women in collaboration with the legislative reference bureau to establish a working group and provide a report to the legislature on the ways to strengthen prevention, interventions, and protectors for survivors of image based sexual abuse. And we have testimony in support from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women.

Good afternoon. Yasmin Chaney for the Commission on the Status of Women. The Commission supports the resolution, stands on its written testimony, and offers the following comments to achieve the legislature's role. Firstly, the resolution's titles and working group membership be amended to include the Department of the Attorney General as the commission does not have the necessary expertise to identify policy enhancements adapted from other states to be incorporated into Hawaii law.

These amendments would ensure the working group's findings can be successfully operationalized at the state and county level, will stand up to legal scrutiny, and provide realistic legal remedies for survivors.

During the 2023 session, Act 157 created a working group and Act 156 created a task force in which the Department of the Attorney General was named as a member and had reporting requirements. To be frank, the Commission's current level of support from the AG is not sufficient to meet this working group's goals as their engagement is currently intermittent and not always timely.

It is the Commission's hope that as the named member of the working group, the appropriate amount of time and commitment will be facilitated by the department's leadership. The commission is not opposed to a member of the legislature being added to the working group to address LRB's concerns nor are we opposed to amendments that would address OHA's concerns. Secondly, there's a typo that was identified in our written testimony.

Lastly, another alternative would be the use of amended language from STR 81 SR 71 SD1 . If verbiage is added to the working group's membership, enabling the working group leads to add any other representatives with relevant knowledge or experiences deemed necessary.

Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony, and I will be available for questions. Thank you. That's actually everybody who indicated they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony in support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, comments from the Legislative Reference Bureau, and support from two organizations. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Anybody on Zoom? Members, any questions? K. Seeing none, we're just going to move on to our second result, which is HCR 14, authorizing the issuance of a perpetual nonexclusive easement covering a portion of the state's submerged lands at Waialae Honolulu Oahu for existing drainage purposes and for use operation repair and maintenance of the existing improvements constructed there on. Testimony in support from the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Hi. Good afternoon. Our testimony is a follow-up to our carrying out water and land. We were asked if the AGs needed us to amend it to be three easements, and the answer is yes. So the amendment that we're proposing are pursuant to our AG's advice.

Thank you. Thank you. Members, that's all the testimony received on this measure. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members, any questions? Seeing none, we're gonna roll right into decision making. And thank you members for your indulgence in doing one more rental hearing. Okay. So first up, again, HTR93HT1, HR85HT1, requesting the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women in collaboration with the legislative reference bill to establish a working group and provide a report to the legislature on ways to strengthen prevention, interventions, and protections for survivors of image based sexual abuse.

Changes we're going to make is we're going to amend the title and purpose of the measure to remove language that requests LRB to collaborate with the commission on the status of women to establish and participate in the working group, but they are going to be involved in helping to do the report. We're going to request that the department of the attorney general provide legal guidance and administrative support to the working group, as a not as an additional, be it further resolved clause within the resolution.

And we're going to allow the commission on the status of women, designate to the working group request drafting services, from LRB to do the drafts for the proposed legislation for the working group, provided that the request is made prior to 10/01/2027. And those are the amendments. Any questions, comments, or concerns, members?

K. A signature. Can you hold, please? Yep.

HCR 93 and HR 85. Recommendation to pass with amendments. [Roll Call]

Recommendation adopted.

Thank you, members. So final resolution, HCR 14 authorizing the issuance of a professional nonexclusive easement covering a portion of state submerged lands at YLAI Honolulu Oahu for existing drainage purposes and for use operation repair and maintenance of the existing improvements constructed thereon. We're going to do the amendments that DLNR proposed based on their discussions with the AG. So on page 2 lines, 1 to 13, whereas the total easements area is approximately 12,700 square feet.

We're going to add clarifying language that reads and is comprised of three separate easements of approximately 2,983 square feet, 2,190 square feet, and 7,527 square feet respectively to be confirmed by the department of, accounting and general services survey division, as well as page two, lines 23 to 24.

Natural resource will we're gonna just update the language to to also clarify that. So it will say, Natural Resources is hereby authorized to issue three perpetual nonexclusive easements covering portions of the subject. Any questions, comments, or concerns? K. And seeing that, Chair for the vote, please.

Thank you. Recommendation to move forward with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Rep Hussey and Rep Gedeon, are there any no votes Any reservations? If not, HCR 14 is adopted.

Thank you. We'll adjourn this agenda.

Hello, everyone. We're convening our 1:56pm agenda on Thursday oh, sorry. It's Wednesday. Wednesday, 04/08/2026 here at Conference Room 308. We have decision making on three items we heard previously.

The first one is SB 3219, HD2 proposing amendments to articles Article seven, section 12 and 13 of the Hawaii state constitution. Our recommendation is gonna be to move forward as an HD three. I'm gonna read out a brief amendment to make sure I have the language right. Okay. So for 03/02/2019, we're gonna replace every reference, reference to housing infrastructure growth to resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity.

We're replacing the current ballot question language with the newly proposed ballot question below. Shall the Hawaii state constitution be amended to authorize the counties to issue resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity bonds to fund public improvements and designated districts, repaid solely by future growth in property tax revenues within those districts, not by increasing your property tax rates where where such bonds are excluded from the company's debt limit and are subject to accountability and oversight requirements as may be provided by a law.

And I think the intent is to make sure that the language is as tight as possible as we've had prior proposed constitutional amendments that that we don't need legal muster. Do you have any questions before I vote? If not, question?

Hey. Members voting on SB 3219 HD2. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Thank you. Recommendations adopted.

The next measure is a related one. This is SB 3218 SD2 HD1 relating to bonds. All we would be doing is changing that same name. So we'd be replacing every reference to, housing infrastructure growth with resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity, to describe the bond, and we would be including any necessary technical amendments.

Questions on this matter? If not, Vice Chair.

K. SB 3218 SD2 HD1. Recommendations to pass with amendments, noting the excuse absence of representative Hussey, who will be noted as excuse for the remainder of these votes unless otherwise announced. Are there any reservations? Any no votes?

Recommendations adopted.

K. Thank you. The last measure for this I agenda is SB 148 SD2 HD2 related to combat sports. I've been doing my best to work with a community member who's much more knowledgeable about this kind of, thing. So we're gonna include some amendments as a proposed HD 3.

We're changing the number of members of the commission to nine. We would have the chair appointed by the governor and would would be a member of two new subcommissions. We'd have a sub commission on boxing and a sub commission on combat sports. Those two sub commissions would have four members each. Two each appointed by the Senate president and the speaker of the house.

Of those appointments, one must have experience regulating boxing events for the boxing sub commission, and one must have experience regulating combat sports events for the combat sports sub commission. So of those two appointments, one each would have to have those. So you end up with two on each subcommission. The chair would sub the chair would serve as a member of both subcommissions and would be the fifth vote for those two subcommissions. Okay.

That's what I got. Alright. We'd have to reflect any necessary date changes given that this was proposed last year, and we'd have a defective date inserted.

Any issues? Seeing none, Vice Chair?

It's SB SB 148 SD2 HD2. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Any reservations?

Reservations for Rep Alcos. Any no votes? Recommendations adopted.

Reservations.

Okay. And we're gonna adjourn real quick and then reopen for one fifty second just to make sure all I resets for a return. Aloha. We're opening our 1:57pm agenda for the House Committee on Finance on Wednesday, 04/08/2020 We have decision making on one item that was previously heard. It's SB 2125 SD1 HD1 relating to teacher licensing.

We're gonna make a couple of amendments, so this would proceed forward as an HD2. The first is inserting a five year sunset for this provision, and we would have a clean effective date upon approval since there may be teachers in this category who are currently, you know, kind of facing losing employment if we don't do something. That'll be the Chair's recommendation. Five year sunset, effective upon arrival. Members? Go ahead.

Just a comment. So I wanna thank, the HTSB for their thoughtful and detailed testimony and opposition. I learned a lot reading the, good citations in there for anybody who wants to learn a lot about teaching and the issues there. In there, they noted that their mission to collectively set high less licensing and credentialing standards that ensure every child in Hawaii has a qualified teacher.

But we already do and and that they don't wanna reduce their qualifications for teachers by by changing the standard. But we already do de facto reduce qualification standards by hiring substitutes to teach for long periods of time in schools. And, you know, we're as a teacher, I'm still licensed with HTSB until 2030 in two of the the categories they mentioned, which is secondary mathematics and and special ed.

But looking at those and also being a former department head, I wanna look at what really happens to teachers after the three years, and that's a discussion that I think was missing here. And what happens after the three years, and it happened in schools when I was at Campbell and at Nanakuli, was that some of these teachers, they just turned into subs right afterwards.

So they just stayed. They aged out to three years, and they just ended up being day to day. What happens when you lose emergency status and go to subs? You now get paid day to day. You lose every benefit that you have.

No nothing. No insurance. No, retirement. Nothing. You just go to day to day.

So if you call in sick, you won't get paid. Somewhere you won't get paid. Nothing. And then one of the things that HTSB noted that was a strong factor associated with teacher turnover was compensation. And so what I just mentioned there is actually a good a good breaking point for a teacher to choose not to be a teacher anymore at that point, and we can lose them.

So I think, you know, as as far as looking at these, it's good to extend it to five years. And I think that we really should look at at HTSB working with the DOE to ensure that these teachers are still getting like that are getting licensed and are on the right path. Thank you.

Perruso?

Reservations.

Reservations. Anything else? Reservations. Perfect. K.

And if not, question.

Hey. I'm voting on SB 2125 SD1 HD1, recommendations to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of representative Hussey, all members present, reservations from rep Perruso and Alcos. Any other reservations? Any no votes?

Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. We're gonna adjourn, and then we'll reconvene in one minute for our 2PM agenda. We are.

Aloha. We're opening up our 2PM agenda on Wednesday, 04/08/2026 in Conference Room 308.

And if you are on Zoom and are here to testify, please stay muted until called upon. And otherwise, we'll get straight into it. It is starting with SB2320 SD1 HD1 leading to agriculture.

K. We have the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations in support.

Afternoon Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Members of the committee, I'm James Tiede from the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Department of Education with comments. Not present. That's everyone who indicated they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony and support from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the University of Hawaii, four organizations, and three individuals.

Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members, questions? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to the next one. We have SB 2138 HD1, relating to the Hawaii National Guard State Tuition Assistance Program.

We have the State of Hawaii Department of Defense in support.

Good morning. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the party. I'll bring it to general retired, Dean Mitsuioshi. The department stands on its testimony in support and available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. University of Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Farrah-Marie Gomes, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs with the University of Hawaii system. We have provided testimony in support of SB 2138. That testimony was submitted, by vice president Halbert. We are in support of this measure, and we are here to answer any questions that you might have.

We stand on our written testimony and appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Mahalo.

Thank you. We have the Hawaii Army National Guard in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. I'm Colonel Phoebe Inigo. I'm with the representing the Hawaii Army National Guard. The Hawaii Army National Guard stands in written testimony in support of Senate Bill 2138. With that, I'll take any questions if there are any.

Thank you. Members, that's everyone who indicated to be joining us. Additional testimony and support from one organization and one individual. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Anybody on Zoom?

Members, questions? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to SB 2075 SD1 HD1 relating to public procurement.

We have the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization in support on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the committee. Debra Fleissman on behalf of the City and County of Honolulu Economic Office of Economic Revitalization. We stand on our testimony in strong support of this measure, and thank you for considering, this important piece of legislation to support our local businesses.

Thank you. Kapolei Chamber of Commerce in support on Zoom. Not present. Hawaii Food Industry Association in support on Zoom.

Not present.

Not present. The Economic Revitalization Commission in support on Zoom. Not present. Retail Merchants of Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee Members. I'm Dave Erdman, the interim president and CEO of Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Retail Merchants of Hawaii stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Polamuah Collaborative in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee, Matt Probert, Polamuah Collaborative. We stand on our testimony in strong support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's everyone indicating they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony in support or comments, from the state procurement office, testimony in support from four other organizations and three individuals. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

K. Members questions? Seeing none. We're on to SB 2353 SD2 HD1 relating to outdoor signage.

K. We have DBEDT Stadium Authority in support.

Thank you, Alpha City Authority, Chair, Members. We've started not just one issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Retail Merchants of Hawaii in support, Hong Ting.

Thank you, and aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee Members. I am Dave Erdman, Interim President and CEO of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Retail Merchants of Hawaii stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Pacific Resource Partnership in support.

Yes. Vice Chair, Chair, Members, Andrew Ferrero with Pacific Resource Partnership. We stand in strong support of the measure. I just wanted to highlight suggested amendment in our written testimony. The definition for digital outdoor signage device, that could apply to the scoreboards that are going to be installed into the new stadium, and so that could cause some issues.

So we're respectfully asking that you exclude scoreboard specifically from that definition. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The outdoor circle in opposition.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. I'm Winston Welch, executive director of the Outdoor Circle. You've hopefully read our testimony by now, so I'll be brief. SB 2353 is not a refinement, to our law. It's a complete break in a century of policy.

Hawaii has deliberately limited outdoor advertising to protect our scenic integrity and the character that makes this place different. This bill removes those protections, replacing it with no standards. There are no enforceable limits on content, size, brightness, movement, placement, or cumulative impact. It authorizes digital, district wide digital advertising, not just scoreboards. While some, supporters have described limited controlled usage, Those limitations are not in the bill.

Issues of traffic safety, migratory bird protection, aviation safety, and light pollution into surrounding areas is unaddressed. This is an this also is an area that is well regulated right now by the city and county of Honolulu. The land ordinance addresses size elimination, all of those things, and this has been done through decades of public process. This bill would override that framework and place authority with the stadium authority, an entity which has no expertise in land use or visible impact regulation.

Once written into, law, it's hard to change.

The public is robustly against weakening our laws as you've seen by countless members of actual humans testifying over this for the last several, sessions. Even independent voices recognize the problem. The star advertiser found this bill has close to zero limiting parameters and is not up to muster in the recent editorial. This bill does not stand alone as we saw yesterday alongside SB 2074. It represents a clear, trajectory, the steady commercialization of public space.

Once it's statute, it will not remain confined to this district. Residents enjoy and visitors who come to Hawaii come here and enjoy because we have made different choices for a hundred years. This bill asks you to undo those choices where no new law is required. We respectfully ask for you to defer, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Members, that's everyone who indicated they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony and support from one organization and two individuals. Testimony and opposition from two other organizations and 26 individuals. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Anybody else in the room? By Zoom?

Yeah. We'll go to Zoom. Please just state your name for the record before you begin.

Sorry. I sorry. I jumped the gun slightly there. Greg Misakian, testifying in opposition, strong opposition into this bill. I want to echo everything that Mr.

Welch said. I know he's also on the Diamond Head Neighborhood Board. And my name is Greg Misakian. I'm a former Waikiki Neighborhood Board member. I live right in the heart of Waikiki.

And I'm in strong opposition to this bill. There's many things going on in development and unfortunately not in a good way or development projects that are being planned.

And in addition, there's projects that are being planned. And in addition, there's an a bridge that they're trying to build that's gonna be like a a mini version of the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge. I used to live in San Francisco. So it's like a half of the Golden Gate Bridge, and and that's a monstrosity. And that's gonna have lights on it also if they ever get their way.

These are the kinds of things that mister Welch was very articulate in explaining that we're we're in a culture here that's different. I mean, I haven't lived here that long, but I know the culture, the Hawaiian culture. I also serve as the president of the Kukui Council, the vice president of the Hawaiian Alliance for Retired Americans. I'm very Kupuna focused, and I'm very focused on the people of Hawaii and the culture. That's why I chose to move here.

And I don't want it to turn into Vegas with, you know, crazy light displays, things like that. I do understand there's some moderation. There's a level where you have to have a certain amount of signage, especially for a sports arena or things of that nature. But as Mr. Welch articulated again, there's already regulations in place for that.

So if there's a need for an amendment to a certain regulation at some point, that can be addressed by City Council. This isn't the place to do it. Please defer this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anybody else on Zoom?

Members questions? Go ahead.

State Room Authority.

Just for the record. Mikey Dahl from the stadium authority. Thank you very much.

Hi, Mike. Please. Question is for under 18 b, that section was added, and I have a question on that. It says in the Stadium development District, for the purposes of this paragraph, digital outdoor signage means any outdoor, and it it talks about those there. My my question to you is, is there for anything that's not internal, is there anything that would be visible from any thoroughfare?

When you're asking is there anything that would be visible, it's difficult for me to answer that question because on our schematic design, we haven't specifically designated spots on the exterior of the stadium that we would put outdoor signage. What I can tell you is that all outdoor signage would be approved by the stadium authority. And the stadium authority, contrary to what the previous speaker told you, does have an enormous amount of experience in land management and construction. Yes.

We have members on the community that ensure that the stadium overall development and design is concurrent with community ethos, but we also have members.

For instance, our current board chair has over thirty to forty years experience at Kamehameha in their land management department and is currently the president of the YMCA building out the new one site. So we do have experience there. And while it's hard for me to say specifically where the signage will be, the intent is for the stadium authority to approve signage that will be inward facing to the district and not to hit the thoroughfare.

Okay. So if if there were any complaints from the community, how would that be handled?

So complaints so so first of all, what I would say is that any potential outdoor signage or any potential signage on the exterior of the stadium would first have to be approved by the stadium authority itself in an open board meeting where people then could testify as to the validity of efficacy of that potential signage. Then once approved, should there be complaints, we hope monthly stadium authority Board Meetings where we address those kind of complaints.

We also have quite a robust communications team that visits all of the neighborhood boards in the area and certain community when invited to certain community groups within the area where we can field complaints and then potentially remove that offer signage. But I guess what we're saying is that we trust that the stadium authority, the members from the community with a deep experience in land development and construction and land management, that they would be best equipped to receive those complaints from Benaguchi.

Okay. So it's just that sometimes looking at schematic and then seeing it real life, it affects different Sure. But my my last question is gonna be for what's possibly envisioned. Is there anything similar in our state that we would be able to, let's say, be there now to see what it would be like?

I'm not specifically aware of anything currently in the state to be able to model that after. I'm trying to think of off the top of my head as to what you could see that that would currently be like. I guess what I would say to answer that is to draw a picture. I believe I answered it a little bit yesterday with center heart with representative Hartsfield's questions, but it would be signage on the exterior of the stadium that was inward facing to the district.

So if you can imagine where the stadium currently sits, where that volcano sculpture is in the front, you have signage that says Aloha Stadium right above the box office area that's inward facing to the district.

So if you can imagine signage there that, again, would be inward facing, I think that's more representative of what we're looking at. Okay. Thank you.

Members, additional questions for Hartsfield?

Just give me a seat. Thank you.

It's a comfortable seat. I have no problem sitting here, representative.

So it's interesting to hear about this process in gaining approval. So my my question is, will the, stadium authority considers studies on how the environment will be impacted

before, considering approving any of these signage? And I'm asking because I remember on Kauai at the Hidina Stadium, you know, they built this huge stadium. They had the lights, and then it impacted the birds.

Birds. Right.

Right. So I don't want a situation like that to occur here, so that's why I'm asking this question.

No. And it's a completely appropriate question. Thank you for asking it. Short answer is yes. So the stadium authority works with DAGS and hires a myriad of consultants that help us with planning and contracting and do a myriad of different studies that allow us to make best decisions about the district itself. So RELCO is our our our LCO is a company that does these kind of studies.

And should we get to that place, we absolutely would be working with our private sector development partner to commission those studies to be able to make responsible decisions. I guess what I'm trying to say to you, representative, is that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum, that the stadium authority is not some foreign entity. Stadium authority are local people from Hawaii. I'm born and raised here in Hawaii.

We are simply asking for outdoor signage on the stadium that's inward facing into the district, And we do take somewhat offense to the idea that we would not be respective of the ethos of who we are as people or that we would be some kind of distraction that wouldn't allow us to best advertise who we are.

Our intention is not to block the mouth of the ears. Our intention is not to disturb or to be any different or to be somewhat offensive to the way that Hawaii has developed in the past. Our intention is to maximize revenue in the district, but to do so responsibly. So we so some of the testifiers in giving their testimony, we do take offense to the idea that we somehow would be Vegas lite or reflective of other stadium districts and other locales.

We are Hawaii, and we're very respectful of that or respectful of that.

Thank you for sharing that. And should this bill pass, just remember the people of Hawaii are relying on that testimony you provided. So

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely, representative. On those assurances. Assurances.

For instance, Andrew Pereira, our vice chair, sits on the committee, longtime Hawaii resident, Walter Famous, our current board chair. Again, thirty years experience, with Kamehameha Schools, Kamehameha graduate himself, Claire Tomamoto, Lloyd Hisaka from on and on. Everybody in the stadium on the stadium board currently and in our executive team are from Hawaii. And we I want to communicate to you that we understand the charge and would not do anything that's not keeping with the spirit of who we are.

Thank you for communicating it. Not not just to us, but to the people of Hawaii.

So 100%.

I have a quick question. Is it fair to read that this bill would already restrict it to being inward facing to the district?

It is not my read that the bill itself restricts it in that manner. And please correct me if you if you mean me wrong. But the intention of the stadium authority is to put signage that is inward facing into the district.

You know, there and you know this better than I do, chair, but there there are holes and there are, I guess, sometimes gaping holes in every piece of legislation that comes through, things that you just don't think about when you're discussing them. I guess what I believe this bill does is empowers the stadium authority made of local people who are serving as volunteers to be able to restrict that kind of signage.

K. You'd be fine if we included a couple amendments that make it a little bit more explicit.

That does not bother. I think the only place where we would provide any kind of pushback is on a restrictive legislation that would not allow us to then put signage at all. We want signage. We want the ability to be able to maximize revenues on-site, and we're fine with legislation that allows us to do so even if it is restrictive in size.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. And to follow-up to that, thank you for being here and walking out that process.

Oh, my pleasure. Thank you.

I think that's where I was leaning. Absolutely. We I completely understand the need to have some agency within your department to make some big business decisions, but also it being reflective of the the fabric of communities. That to be said, where within stadium authority or within your stakeholder groups is that the mission? I think that's what some of the community is asking for is where in your mission or where within your guiding principles is that checks and balances for the unique?

Does that currently exist within that framework?

No. That's a really great question. What I can say is that in our mission and in our guiding principles, it absolutely speaks to providing a service that is reflective of the Aloha Spirit and the people of Hawaii. That mission statement and those guiding principles are changing and evolving because the stadium authority is changing and evolving away from providing a direct service to then becoming land owners and land managers. I think that that this leads into a segue that's important to note to this committee.

The legislature has appropriated $350,000,000 for the stadium bill. There's another 49.5 in preconstruction planning that we need a ceiling removed on. We greatly appreciate your support. 350,000,000 sounds like a lot of money, but in that stadium development world, it is not a lot of money. For instance, the county of Buffalo in New York is building a set stadium of a comparable size to us, an outdoor stadium for 1,800,000,000, and that is more in line with what to expect for the kind of stadium we're getting.

To that end, that 350 is put into a pot, and then our private sector development partners putting in an additional 300 to allow us to build the kind of stadium that's reflective of the needs of people of Hawaii and allow us to demonstrate that excellence. In order to be respectful of that private sector partner, we need legislation like this that enables us to maximize his revenue sources.

If we do not do that, then we simply don't get the kind of stadium or the maintenance at that stadium that we need.

So thank you. Because it's gonna walk me into the next part, which is

Oh, did I set you up for something? I'm sorry. No. I'm gonna get punched in the face now.

No. You know, when you read further down in the bill, it the scoreboard. It talks about the scoreboard and the limiting size. And I think that's the other part that I'm hearing from the community is there are no governments. There are no limits.

As Chair mentioned, if there was language around size restraints?

So we don't specifically have any opposition to that kind of language. What I would push back on you, representative, is that the guardrails will be provided by the stadium authority itself. That the stadium authority appointed by the governor and advised and consented on upon the Senate made of local people from parts of the community itself, from Foster Village, NIAH Halawa, will be there to be able to shepherd in the kind of development, the kind of signage that's needed at the stadium.

So when so for instance, Claire Tomomoto from Aiea is simply not going to support a scoreboard that's going to obstruct or be not congruent with the community's needs. Neither will Lloyd Hosaka from Foster Village, and neither will Andrew Pereira or the other people on the board or myself when I previously served.

So I push back on the guardrail argument and that you're right that there's no legislative guardrails, but there's this regular there's this agency that was created to be able to manage the stadium development absolutely has the authority to say no.

Yeah. I mean, I hear that loud and clear. I think further down within the bill and within our county ordinances, there are limiting factors. And 28 feet by 10 feet, that's 280 square feet. I'm trying to find a nice balance that we can signal to community that, yes, there's gonna be some signage, but it will be within some sensible or reasonable understanding for me.

I hear you loud and clear. I'm from the Big Island. I'm a come in your guys' business.

But you're welcome to.

I just missed some of the comments, and I'm hearing loud and clear that Outdoor Circle and other members of the community who wanna be invited into this conversation have concerns. So thank you for answering that question about some evidence.

Okay. And the only thing that I would add is that we have a I believe, and and Lendly, I think, is nodding. We have a relationship with the outer circle. We absolutely involve them. We're willing to discuss with them rules and regulations that are sensible.

What we're not willing to do is we're not willing to cut off revenue streams for our private sector development partner.

Yeah. Winstan's a great partner for us on the big budget. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Members, additional questions? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to our next step. Sorry for the testimony back. And we're moving on to SB2657, SD1 HD1 related to Alzheimer's disease and related dementia research.

So we have the State Health Planning and Development Agency, SHIPDA, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Jason Misprow with SHIPDA. We stand in our testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. University of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Hi. I'm doctor Masaki, and I'm testifying on behalf of the John A. Burns School of Medicine. I'm the chair of the Department of Geriatric medicine. I stand on our testimony provided in strong support of this bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Alzheimer's Association Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Chair Todd, Vice Chair Togonichi, I'm Koby Chalk. On behalf of the Alzheimer's Association, we stand in strong support of this bill and stand in a written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Gregory Mesakian in support on Zoom.

Hello. Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Greg Misekian again. As I mentioned just a moment ago, I'm a kupuna focused advocate in the state. And, this this bill, I'm in strong support a very strong support.

Just to say something very briefly so we can move on. I know you guys have been having hearing after hearing. It's it it's home to me because both of my grandmothers suffered from a level of dementia at some point where I experienced that. I'm not sure they ever got to the point of Alzheimer's. It was, basically, dementia level, but I can imagine, because I have friends that have, shared with me the the devastation of, you know, their family members with Alzheimer's.

The most important thing to remember too is as our elders get to this stage, there's financial implications too that their lives besides their family's lives and their lives being destroyed at some point, their financial risks are always relevant. So it's something to be very aware of in our state where people get taken advantage of.

So I'm just sharing that as an additional reason to ensure that we have good, a good understanding of Alzheimer's, dementia, and other associated and related, illnesses that that go in in hand with those. So I fully support this. I'm sorry if I took a little longer.

I wasn't expecting to say more than a few words, but it hits home to me because I experienced this for both of my grandmothers. And I hope that you do move this forward and put as much money as you can to it. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's everybody who indicated to be joining us today. Additional testimony and support from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, the Disability and Communication Access Board, four organizations, and six individuals. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Please.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. As I've stated in my previous testimonies, I know I'm not the only one that this disease has made an orphan, and I've studied this disease like I had it myself, and I have the certificates to show it as well. And I believe that establishing a designated research center at it helps find sustainable solution towards those that are impacted by dementia.

And I urge you to continue to support the bills that are advocating for dementia and for those affected by it because it's it's more prevalent than you could imagine. And as we get older, so do our loved ones.

So I ask you to continue to be leaders and role models and support those that can't support themselves. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Can we just have you state your name for the record? Your name?

Thank you.

Oh, Hayden. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members, questions? Now we're moving on to the next item on our agenda. We're on to SB 2340 SB 2 h d one relating to community care foster family.

We have the Department of Human Services with comments on Zoom. I'm here. In person.

We have the meeting chair, doctor, and members of the committee. I'm meeting the issue representing DHS and.

Thank you. Department of Health with comments on Zoom.

Hi. My name is Ryan Lee, Medical Director, Department of Health, Developmental Disabilities Division. We stand on our testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Hi. Dainisha Bartolos. We stand on our testimony of strong support and here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Hawaii Disability Rights Center in support on Zoom.

Not present.

Not present. That's everyone who indicated they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony in support from the Disability and Communication Access Board, two organizations, and nine individuals. So anybody else with them wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members, questions? Now moving on to s B3245, SD1, HD1 related to the supplemental nutrition assistance program.

K. We have the Department of Human Services with comments on Zoom.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee Members. Scott Nakasone with the Department of Human Services on behalf of director Yamane. The department stands on its testimony, providing comments, and I'm available if there's any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. The Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support. Thank you for your closing testimony in support. Thank you. Thank you. We have, Hawaii Hunger Action Network in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Just wanna point out or Genevieve Mama Hawaii Hunger Action Network. Just wanna point out that there will be new work requirements from federal cuts starting this year, and it's going to impact over 16,000 individuals in the age group from 55 to 65, which makes it more important now than ever to make it easier for SNAP participants, including our kupuna, to apply for and stay on the program as they make up over 35% of our SNAP population.

This is something that 25 other states have implemented. It's something that department has stated last session that they will be able to do.

And I just wanna note that this also is posted to 2028 to provide time for DHS to implement after their new system. Mahalo.

Thank you.

Hawaii Public Health Institute in support.

Hello, mate. Chair, Vice Chair, committee Members, I'm Chris Caulfield from the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We're also in strong support of this bill. We supported it last year. You know, SNAP provides over $600,000,000 of food assistance to our state. It's not just assistance.

It's a lifeline. But right now, that lifeline is far too difficult to access, far more difficult than it needs to be, especially for our kupuna who must recertify every year despite federal rules that say that they should only need to do that or could only need to do that for periods up to three years, and that's what this bill is all about. It creates unnecessary barriers when we force our component to recertify so frequently to access food assistance. Every recertification is more paperwork.

It's it's more time off that our would have to take off from work to complete the task necessary for recertification.

It's more stress, more opportunities for something to go wrong, and, of course, that leads to more opportunities for benefits to be missed because of missed deadlines, confusing forms, and processing delays. Especially for remote communities, I often think about Hawaii Island or our neighborhoods where you have communities that don't even have the basic broadband access necessary to access some of the programming that's necessary for re for certification. So this bill required DHS to apply for federal waiver to extend our recertification maxed up to the federal maximum.

That would make our system work better, not just for our equipment, but for the system overall. Right now, the Snap staff are are massively overburdened.

The administration workflow for Snap is tremendous, and that would allow our minimizing recertification periods will allow staff to focus on improving service delivery as opposed to just doing more paperwork than they need to, and that would help more people access the support they need. Keep our SNAP error rate low, which is especially important, at this time because of the new requirements from HR 1. And this comes at the right time.

As you just heard, the new eligibility system b BES is supposed to come online, next spring. And so we have an opportunity to modernize and streamline SNAP operations in a way that benefits both recipients and the department itself.

So one in three households are struggling with food insecurity in our state, as you know, and we should be doing everything that we can to make it easier, not harder, for people to get the food assistance that they need. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Hawaii Appleseed in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of committee. Daniela Espotto with Hawaii Appleseed. We're in strong support of this bill as well. SNAP is so much more than a lifeline for struggling families. It's actually a huge economic stimulus for state of Hawaii.

It channels anywhere from 50 to $60,000,000 a month into our local businesses, strengthening our local food economy. Of course, when times are hard as they have been lately, more people are eligible, That means more more funding is coming into the community. But, of course, we don't want more people to be on SNAP. We would prefer that people are able to, you know, come have their incomes above that level and be able to afford the food with the incomes that they're provided with.

But this is there for them, and it is there for our local businesses when people cannot afford to use their own money for that.

However, when the program works well, it works great. When it is difficult to access as it is for many of our seniors in Kupuna on fixed incomes, it means that they can't access at all. We wanna make sure that every single person that is eligible is able to achieve is able to get through the system and is able to not only just get enrolled into the program, but remain enrolled. And so this program, as others have said, extends that certification period. It reduces churn.

It means that their seniors will be able to stay on the program for longer, and they won't fall off when when time comes up for research. Does that have a fiscal impact?

It would be just an administrative change staff office would have to make that we think would have a big impact in this time when the federal rules are changing that are gonna impact our senior population more than others. So please pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We have AlohaCare and Support on Zoom. Not present. That is everyone who indicated they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony in support from the City and County of Honolulu Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency, four organizations and 13 individuals.

Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members? Anything? If not, we're going on to SB 2057 SB 2 HD2 relating to law enforcement.

We have the state health planning and development agency, SHPDA, in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee, Jason Fitzgerald. SHPDA stands in its testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights and support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice chair, members of the committee. Liza Ryan Gill with the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. We stand in strong support, on this goal, and we'll stand on our testimony.

Mahalo. Thank you. We have Christine Andrews in support on Zoom. No problem. Not present.

No problem. Not present.

That's everybody indicating you may be joining us today. Members' additional testimony in support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Hawaii Police Department. Oh, sorry. Support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, eight organizations, and 33 individuals. Comments from one organization, the Hawaii Police Department, one organization, and then additional opposition from two individuals.

Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

There's questions for parts field.

Chair, I had a question, and just based on who's present providing testimony today, Probably Hawaii Coalition of Immigration Rights would be the best person to answer this. So, Liza, if you're not able to answer, I understand. But if you wanna give it a shot, here's my question.

Oh, I'm right here, representative.

Thanks, Liza. So my question is, can you explain to us what the definition of civil immigration enforcement is?

Yeah. Sure. I'll just note I'm not an immigration attorney, but I've done poly advocacy on this for a long time. Civil all immigration enforcement is civil. It's not criminal.

It doesn't fall within our criminal law, and so it's somewhat a little bit redundant, but it's just to make it explicitly clear for folks. So for example, our local police only have the authority to enforce state criminal law, whereas immigration enforcement is federal and civil. So they're completely separate.

Okay. So my if it's okay, Joan, my follow-up question is do you think it would be helpful to include that definition in this bill or a definition of civil immigration enforcement?

I mean, I think that's up to the legislators. I think for folks on the ground, I mean, most police know that they don't have the authority to do that because they're not trained to. And, like, for example, they they cannot detain somebody based solely on their immigration status. They also don't know their immigration status or have access to that database, and they don't have the statutory authority to enforce that, civil immigration law.

Thank you. Thank you for trying your best to answer my question. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair.

No problem. Members, additional questions? If not, moving on to SB 3040, SD1 HD1, relating to gun violence prevention.

Department of Law Enforcement in support.

Good afternoon, Jared. The deputy director will stand up. Thank you.

Everytown for Gun Safety and support.

Good Chair, good afternoon, Members.

My name is Jay Franzone. I lead government relations for Everytown for gun safety here in state. Everytown is the nation's largest gun violence prevention organization of over 11,000,000 supporters. Senate bill thirty forty would replace the gun violence and violent crimes commission, which is currently in place, which hasn't met in years, with an office that's very lean and focused on gun violence prevention. Right now, gun violence costs, state, $900,000,000, 19 of which is borne by taxpayers.

So it's a costly and preventable crisis that can easily be addressed. We have great gun laws, as you all know and about work done.

A strong implementation really is needed to make sure that we step in the right direction. If you have any questions, Mahalo. Thank you.

Dennis Dunn in support on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Todd, Vice Chair Takenouchi, and members of the finance committee. I'm testifying today in strong support of Senate Bill thirty forty, Senate draft one, House draft one. The purpose is already noted is to replace a gun violence and violent crime commission with a gun violence office of

gun violence prevention and establish an appropriation for that purpose, placing this in the attorney general's office for administrative purposes. Recent incidents of gun violence in Hawaii have shaken our long held sense of security as a state that has largely avoided the extremes of gun violence seen in the Continental United States. As we confront this growing problem, Hawaii must develop effective, proactive strategies to prevent gun violence before it occurs. Such strategies require cross disciplinary data collection, analysis, and informed policy development.

The OGDP is envisioned as a central source for this type of work, providing the governors, state departments, and the legislature with the guidance necessary to exercise leadership and and act meaningful legislation and policies to reduce and ultimately eliminate gun violence in our state.

The purpose of this proposed office is the elimination of gun violence, not the elimination of guns. Through comprehensive data collection and analysis, OGBP can help shape evidence based prevention efforts that address the root causes of gun violence and promote public safety. Gun violence is a plague in our communities as devastating as any disease pandemic. Preventive measures to stop gun violence are just as critical to public health and safety as vaccines are to combating contagious diseases.

Throughout my fifty year career in victim assistance, I have witnessed far too many times firsthand the trauma and suffering endured by families and communities torn apart by gun violence across Hawaii.

The pain inflicted by these incidents is profound and long lasting, and it demands a thoughtful, coordinated, and proactive response. I believe that this bill creates that. Thank you very much for your support.

Thank you.

Testimony from Chris Marvin in support.

Not here.

Not present. That's everyone who indicated to be joining us today. Additional testimony and support from four organizations and 40 individuals, opposition from three individuals. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members questions? If not, we're moving on to SB 2014, SD1 HD1 relating to public employment.

Department of Labor and and industrial relations with comments.

Hello, Chair. Madam Vice Chair and committee Members, Jay Putai for DLIR. We stand on our testimony. Operator comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Brass Root Institute of Hawaii in support. Not present. That's everybody who indicated they'd be joining us today, additional testimony in support from the Department of Human Resource Development, opposition from the Hawaii State Public Library System, and comments from three organizations. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to to testify?

Anybody on Zoom?

Members questions? Go ahead.

Chair, I have a question, and, unfortunately, DHRD is not here, so I'm gonna ask DLIR. If doctor.

So my question is in regards to positions, is it true that there are, positions that were vacant, but department could not fill because of restrictions in terms of positions being frozen, so they couldn't fill those positions. Do you know if that situation actually did exist for some state departments?

Not for our department. We didn't have any pros and positions. I know that, you know, because for some of the position, I mean, you know, the screening timeline sometimes is makes it nearly impossible for us to pick the best candidates. Because by the time we get a list, you know, the top the top candidates already have accepted other offers. And so it's not, you know, we're not losing talent because of lack of interest or because of lack of speed.

I mean, if this was a race, you know, by the time we get to the starting date, I mean, they already crossed the finish line and employers will move past.

So, again, I need to put you on the spot, but because you're one of the few testifiers here. So my concern is this five year automatic period. Anything beyond five years will be abolished. My concern is there are positions that have been vacant for that amount of time, but it's not because of a lack for trying to fill those positions. And and so that's a big concern I have if it's over to pass.

Is that a valid concern?

It is because there's a lot of positions, especially for DLIR. We have a lot of hard to build positions because the you know, there's very strict qualification requirements. You know, in Hawaii too. And the thing that you you gotta think about the state is that I think the job market has changed. I I mean, you always talk about people moving out because of affordability, and and and most of the people that have moved are, you know, that working age, 35 to 50.

So you're talking about a shrinking applicant pool. And then on top of that, you're competing with the private sector who can where they can pay more or even the, you know, the University of Hawaii, the the county, DOE. So it's it's a valid concern. I mean, we so sometimes we use eighty nine days to, you know, to fill the temporary.

So, I have one last question.

Chair. May I'm the deputy director for the year if, you know, I'd like to respond to that if if possible.

That's up to our part to know.

I'll ask you after I ask him the the follow-up question. So in terms of those vacant positions that are difficult to fill, I know part of it is part of the intent of this is to use those vacancy savings for other needs. Because when those positions are not filled, you have that you have those monies, right, that are not spent because those positions are not filled.

So how what is a way that we could possibly use those vacancy savings, but still keep those positions so that they can be filled and we can use the money for what it was meant to be used for, you know, to pay for their salaries. I

I mean, it's up to each department how they, you know, how they use those, you know, money. But like I said, there are challenges that are outside of our control where, you know, like I said, I mean, you know, you could post position, but if nobody applies, everybody can enter.

Okay. Thank you. And, sir, if it's okay, I can ask No problem. Director. Thank you.

Sorry. And Sorry. I didn't hear you. Jennifer, I missed it. It went so quickly and wasn't paying attention.

So I couldn't hear you call the ear itself. Sorry.

No worries. So you heard my concern about if, you know, if we just got rid of all the positions that have been vacant for over five years. So if that were to happen, would that not be a detriment to the state to abolish all these positions? Now you have a a shortage, right, of staff that still need to get the work done. And if you abolish it, that means the departments have to recreate those positions again and ask for those positions to approve.

So how is that saving money in the long run if we were to abolish those positions?

So, I mean, that that that's a good question. So let me give some numbers and some broad numbers. I was trying to find our report when the bill came up, and and our act 57 report is submitted to the legislature every year. So everyone does have a copy of it. At any given time, we have 4,000 some odd vacant positions.

Of those 4,000, about four to 500 are four year vacancy. So those are those are really long term vacancies. We did not sponsor this bill, and we did not ask anyone to sponsor this bill, but we support this measure because right now, these long term vacancies are really bumping up the vacancy rate for the state of Hawaii and, in in in many in many times, tying up funds that could otherwise be used. There are a number of different ways to address the staffing needs.

If a position has been vacant for that long so sorry.

Let me go back a little bit. Of those 4,000 vacancies, the HERD at any given time is only given from given by the department's 28% of those vacancies to work on. So in other words, of the 43 roughly 100 vacancies this year or 2025, we only had roughly 1,300 that we were working on at any given time. So the other 72% are either being worked on by the department through delegation or sitting there getting stale.

And so, if the issue really is is departments, are desperate to fill these positions.

We would have more than 28% that would be working on it. So I don't know that it's to answer your question directly, I don't know that it would be, an operational, issue for departments. I do not believe so. DHRD does not believe so. Because, again, to repeat, if we have 4,300 vacancies, technically, we would be working on much more than 28% if there was a dire need to fill them.

Okay. Anyone else? Go ahead.

Hi, Tesco. You're director. The question I have is, do you think, and it would just be a guess, if these positions will still be vacant if the departments didn't get the money they use for programming or anything else? Like, if they didn't fill it, they didn't get the money.

I'm sorry. Can you I didn't I didn't understand the question.

If the positions vacant, the department can use the money for something else.

Well, according to, BNF, you know, budget budgeting rules, technically, you're not supposed to. But I know that it does happen. There are a few departments who keep the vacancies funded, but there are other departments who use it for different purposes. For other purposes, I would defer to those department heads. I think director Butay had stated earlier, you know, each department treats their vacancies a little bit differently.

So I'm not sure if that funding is being redirected otherwise.

So in DHRD in your department, do you have any vacancies?

We do.

And do you guys use that vacancy money for anything else?

No.

Or do you just hold it and give it back at the end of the year if you don't have?

Yeah. We keep our vacancies fund.

Okay. And not spend the money. Okay. And then for the position the four hundred and five hundred four year vacancies, would you think that maybe some of those departments don't need the positions, and so they have to look at at the employment that they have and maybe just do without if we're looking at cost savings?

I mean, I can't speak on behalf of the those departments, but what we believe, the four or five year abolishment rule would do is, ensure that they have a staffing plan or a hiring plan, to fill those vacancies.

Okay. And since I sit on the labor committee, a lot of in the last two years of bills have come in to create exempt positions. And a lot of the reasons for exempt positions was saying that the herd was taking too long to vet, applicants, which is what we had heard here too. Can you tell us a little bit about that process for vetting applicants and why some of the departments would say it's taking too long?

The positions the the applicants have already accepted jobs everywhere else, and therefore, that is why they're keep they can't fill vacancies.

Yeah. That's a great question. I think a lot of it boils down to, supply. We have, I believe, the latest report is a 2.8%, unemployment rate. So it really is a a pool of of individuals that are actually going to be applying to begin with.

And it also be it also really depends on the on the class of of of of position as well. Some positions are just naturally more difficult to fill. I will say that for those the the the typical state positions such as an office assistant, we go through and we qualify over I'm sorry. We provide over a thousand names each year to the departments to fill their office assistant vacancies. And about 200 or 300 are filled.

And that is the largest pool of vacancies that we have in the state of light is office assistance. So I'm not going to deny that there are some positions that do take a while. An engineer might be, some of the DOT engineers, for example, are very special. They're very, you know, their skill set is is difficult to come by, so that's gonna naturally take a long time to fill. In those situations, departments ask for what's called delegation, meaning they they go on recruit.

They beat the bushes for their their pool of of applicants, and they they, you know, bring on a recruit they hire. And in that case, it does work for some of them. The DOH has quite a few delegation positions as well, such as your psychologist and and things of that nature. Those would be very difficult for DHIRT as a whole to to recruit, and that's why the departments do it on their own. So there's any number of reasons.

I think the heat hurt naturally, gets blamed for for not filling positions quickly enough. But oftentimes, you have to peel the onion back and the layers of the onion back to determine what's the background of this particular position. And if, you know, if we're looking for a chemical specialist engineer that's got, you know, a specialty in something that only five engine five chemists in the world have, that we're never gonna fill that position.

So we help the departments, and we give them that authority to do so on their own.

So last one. For if you can give us an estimate for nonspecialty, none that you have to do extensive background checks for just a regular state average employee of whatever that, most common or couple most common positions. How long does it take for you to process an applicant from beginning to end till their name is given to the department?

Let I mean, let's it really depends. If it's an entry level, it's pretty quick. Office assistant's pretty quick. Office assistant one, two, or three is very quick. But as we get, again, to different classes, an accountant four might be something where it'd be difficult for us to find.

Engineer, difficult for us to find. Up you know, planners, little bit easier. Right? It really depends on that skill set. So I'll say that, for an office assistant, from from receipt of application to qualification could take a couple of days.

For an engineer that, for example, needs to have certain certifications, could take a week or two for us to qualify to look through the application itself qualify.

And that means that the department receives the name within a couple of days?

Well, it depends. Right? Because when that when an application I'm sorry. When an ad goes out, there's there's a couple things. First of all, we say, okay.

You wanna have 10 applications. It's a numbers game. Right? You have to have a pool so you can hire one. You might have 10.

You might find that only one or two of them are qualified. And by the time you go through the whole process, maybe you're left with nobody because you you couldn't work out the salary or or without the hours or what have you. So it is a numbers game. And so oftentimes for a position like an engineer, we'll look for a small amount like 10, maybe 15. For a a more common position, we we, you know, get more.

So if the department is waiting for an an application pool of 10 or 15, we'll we'll wait until all 10 or 15 applications come in. And once they're received and screened, then we'll send them out.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. If we scooped these positions and, departments had a retirement, had overtime money that they need to pay out, temporary assignment, whatever, shortages. Where would that money come from?

That representative, I can't answer. I do know. You so I know what you're referring to, and that typically that does come from the vacancy, for those vacant positions. You know, I'm not quite sure. I think the re removing the positions or deleting the positions out of the budget doesn't necessarily always mean taking that funding.

And so I think working with BNF and the departments themselves to determine what amount is necessary. As as you well know, the state each department has what's called turnover savings, and that can range anywhere from two or 3% to 5%. And that's to take care of of those separate those separations. And and maybe that would be a good idea to just keep some of that funding there. So that's what I'm saying.

Is it okay to assume that those vacancy savings are used for those purposes? I think in many situations, it is, but I can't speak on on every situation.

No. I understand that. But, yeah, yeah, it's a little scary to think that if we just scooped it out, what would the departments do when they needed the that extra money to pay these employees for the separation or for the extra work? Yeah.

One idea one idea could possibly be to keep a pool of vacancies that are essentially, budgeted either b and f, or or dealer. Yeah. And if your department runs into a situation in which they desperately need a position that they do not have. You know, it could be some sort of internal process. The legislature would have to provide the, the pathway.

Right now, we can't move funding, without approval. The governor can under dire circumstances, but we'd have to make it some sort of easier path, and the legislature could help us with that. But you essentially locate a pool of funded positions that are, you know, not classified. And as labor, for instance, needs something, then they would put in a, you know, an internal application, and then we could send it over.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy.

Anything else? Nope. Moving on to SB 2645, SB 3 HD1 relating to fire prevention.

We have the office of the governor in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Tori Nakata with the office of the governor here to stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Land and Natural Resources in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. My name is Michael Walker. I serve the Statewide Fire Protection Forces for DLNR, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. Department stands on its written testimony in support of the measure as currently drafted. I'm gonna answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Hawaii State Fire Council in support on Zoom.

Hawaii State Fire Council. Okay. That's everyone who indicated they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony and support from one organization. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Okay.

Anybody on Zoom?

Yes, please. State fire marshal.

Oh, okay. Please go ahead.

I apologize. Our testimony did not make it in, but, obviously, this is Dori Booth, state fire marshal. We do support this bill as it advances a critical long overdue statewide framework for fire prevention and life safety. This will be a net zero, by with the adjustment of the staffing for the assistant fire marshals. So no additional fundings are are being requested with this, but it also does streamline and allow the flexibility for a more diverse staffing than what was previously written.

So we do support this, and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Anybody else on Zoom?

Members, questions? Seeing none, SB 3109, SD1, HD 1, relating to Hawaii Emergency Management Management Agency.

Department of Defense in support.

Yeah. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Raider General retiring, CMG. With the agency general, the department stands on its testimony in support of this measure and are prepared for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Also, testimony in support from the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. That's all the written testimony we received. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on

Zoom? Any more questions? No? SB2698, SB2 HD1, relating to transportation.

Department of Transportation and support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Dre Kalili, who we refer to the Department of Transportation. We stand on our written testimony in very strong support and are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Taxation with comments.

Good afternoon. Gary Sooden Lamont for Department of Taxation. Consent. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony from Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings in support on Zoom.

Hi. Hello. This is this is Sandy Weir. We are in support of this of this measure. Thank you for hearing it. Members of the finance committee Chair and Vice Chair.

Thank you. Testimony from Kupu in opposition.

Yeah. A vote from Kupu in opposition. Happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. And Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments on Zoom. Okay. Not present.

That's everyone who indicated may be joining us today. Additional testimony with comments from the Hawaii Tourism Authority, comments from one organization, and then support from nine organizations and two organizations opposing. Is there anybody else in the room, please? Just, state your name for the record before you begin.

Hi. My name is Monica Gibson, and I'm testifying on behalf of the leadership committee of the Care for In and Out Coalition.

While we appreciate the legislature's intent with SB 2,698, we respectfully oppose this measure. We acknowledge that the per passenger head fee is an important step, but this bill ultimately displaces cruise ship contributions to Hawaii's green fee framework at a time when our state faces worsening floods, wildfires, and infrastructure strain. Natural resource protection remains underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and we cannot afford to remove a major visitor segment from helping close that gap.

Recent research shows cruise passengers strongly support an environmental stewardship fee and are willing to pay the same or more than hotel guests without it affecting their decision to visit. Visitors want their dollars invested in land, water, and wildlife protection, not carved into inconsistent systems.

We respectfully urge you to maintain cruise visitor contributions on equal footing with all travelers and keep revenues aligned with the green fee priorities. Mahalo for the opportunity.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room? Anybody on Zoom wishing to testify?

Members questions? SB 3048, SB HD1 relating to the state building old council.

Great. We have the state of Hawaii office of planning and sustainable development in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. PS, can you just stand on the written testimony in support.

Thank you. Office of Hawaiian affairs in support on Zoom. Not present. Chamber of Commerce Hawaii in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Member, Julien Kiab on behalf of Chamber of Commerce Hawaii. We stand on our written testimony in support. Mahalo

Thank you. Hawaii Food Industry Association in support on Zoom. Not present. Gregory Mesakian with comments on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the the committee. Gregory Mesakian again. I added comments, but I do support the intent of this of this bill, and I do support the foundation of what's written there. So I do think it was well written and documented as far as what's needed.

The problem is you can you can have this position and maybe a staff behind you this position, which I think is very important to coordinate the building codes throughout the state so that it's not it it's collectively done as as one group as opposed to each county trying to figure out, you know, the building codes.

It's better to coordinate it with one head of that department. But the problem you're gonna face with this in my testimony is that no matter what you do at that level, we don't have the staff and the leadership to support actually implementing. It's the implementation of the process.

When people are going to buy for permit and they wait wait and there's a problem and then they start the work and there's a problem with that and then the work isn't done properly and there's a problem with that and they don't have enough inspect there's and they're not properly trained. Whatever you do at the top is worthless because at that stage, you're not having the right level of staff.

We're able to actually do proper inspections, facilitate getting the permit moved forward. And that's happening and continuing to happen every day. It's happening in my condo association where I serve as a director on my condo association's board. So I have very serious concerns regarding improper work that's been done here without proper permit. It's going on as I speak in the building and not even proper license in many cases.

And these are things that need to be addressed. So I don't know if you can somehow incorporate some additional language to amend this to ensure that the different counties, the different heads of the departments, in my case, it's Honolulu, addressed this. But if you don't, this is still a needed bill, but it's not gonna do anything to help. I really I real I really feel that strongly. So thank you for that opportunity to to share my comments, but I do support the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. That's everybody who indicated they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony and support from three organizations and three individuals. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members questions? Seeing none, we're on to our second to last item. We're on to SP 2367. SD2 HD1 relating to state voting facilities.

Department of lands and natural resources, Dobart, with comments.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, committee Members. Megan Statts, administrator for the division of boating and ocean recreation.

The department stands on its written testimony offering amendments Here for any, questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Shelley Oates-Wildling in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the committee. Shelley Oates-Wildling, founder of a youth nonprofit, a Kaikoukawa and US Olympic canoe and Kayak coach. I'm in strong support of this bill. After reading both the supporting and opposing testimony, I believe we're all in agreement on one important area, which is the current model of funding, maintaining, and managing of the Alloway Small Boat Harbor needs to change.

The state alone has done its best with the amount of funding, but this is just not one normal harbor.

It's rich in its history and its location, gives it the potential to become a real world class iconic destination as well as really providing for our local community and hopefully perpetuating the Hawaiian Waterman's culture. By passing this bill, you unlock the potential of a really positive private, public, and community partnership that could address all the real concerns that have been brought up including parking and community access.

With continued positive collaboration and state oversight, this model could work for everyone, and I respectfully ask you to support the bill and be a part of something that could be amazing for our community and our Peggy. Thank you.

Thank you. That's everybody who intended to be joining us today. Additional testimony with comments from two organizations and one individual. Is there anybody else in the room who seems to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Chair.

Oh, Chair. Oh, yes. Just state your name before you begin.

Yeah. Greg Misakian again. I did input written testimony in for this. I didn't have a chance to read through it last night. I was doing some late testimony, but I do fully support the last person that just testified.

She's very well experienced and knowledgeable in this area, and I fully support. If she's, again, I haven't read through the bill carefully enough. If she's supporting this bill and and indicates that it should move forward, that I endorse it fully. So I just wanted to add that comment. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anybody else on Zoom?

Members, questions? If not, onto our last item. We have SB 17 HD1 well, SD2 HD1 relating to wildfire mitigation.

We have the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in support. Not present. Department of Land and Natural Resources in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. My name is Michael Walker. I serve as the Statewide Fire Protection Forestry for DLNR, Forestry and Wildlife. Department has submitted test written testimony in support of the measure as drafted. We're gonna answer any questions we have.

Thank you. Office of the State Fire Marshal with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Sorry. I'm here online or under the weather. So we have provided provided written testimony and suggesting deferral of this of the of the bill. However, we do support the intent of it.

And after further discussions and similar to what DLNR's draft is also showing with the work that's being done through the AG's office in conjunction with HWMO and the statewide action plan that many of the outcomes and opportunities that the bill outlines may already be become be in conversation and reach.

So giving us the opportunity to get the state action plan implemented as well as wrapping up that project throughout the AGs will give us additional time to make sure that we get everything right and also can align with what's already being proposed through the state fire marshal's office with programs such as incentives for home hardening, vegetation management, and other opportunities.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have the public utilities commission with comments.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. David Richmond from the Public Utilities Commission. We stand on our written testimony, offering comments, but given the remarks from state the marshal's office as well as DLNR, we'll defer to them on the position, but but available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. That's everyone indicating they'd be joining us today. Additional testimony in support from the state of Hawaii office of planning and sustainable sustainable development, and three organizations, one individual in opposition. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Chair.

Yes. Please, again, just stay tuned for the record before you begin.

Thank you. Greg mistaken one more time. I'm a little bit surprised that the fire marshal not supporting this and others may be acquiescing. But I again, this is a bill that I didn't get to last night. There was a few that I was focused on, and I tried to read it as you were speaking, but it's it's difficult to go through it that fast.

It sounded good from the the summary, and I support anything and any money that can be put into, you know, helping to mitigate potential wildfires. I would suggest that this bill be looked at very carefully and move forward if, you know, if there's a concern about other organizations, the AG's office was mentioned. I'm not sure how the AG's office fits in except for possibly fire investigations, which I have very strong concern about with the state fire marshal's office. I've shared that with the fire marshal.

Not properly with the the fire department's not properly doing proper investigation and point to there is a potentially innocent people.

I have a very strong concern with one case. So I'm going to share that without getting into any details. But with that said, I would look at that also because we do have homeless encampments and we have other things that are continuously problematic and all of that needs to be looked at. So if you can incorporate that into this bill, possibly amend it again, I haven't had a chance to read through it, I would really look at that carefully.

This is not something we wanna have again.

And we know with the rainstorms, we didn't have proper mitigation of a lot of the issues with the, you know, things that are now being dredged. And and this is where we end up. So we have, you know, over $1,000,000,000 of damage. So please look at this carefully. I wouldn't let the opportunity go by.

Mahalo.

Thank you. Anybody else on Zoom?

Members, questions? If not, we're gonna recess briefly and then reconvene for decision making. Recess. Hi, everyone. We're opening up for decision making on our Wednesday, 04/08/2026, 2PM agenda here in Conference Room 308.

We're starting off with SB 2320, SD1 HD1 relating to agriculture. Your recommendation is to move as is. Are there questions or comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

Joining on SB 2320 SD1 HD1, recommendation is to pass unamended. [Roll Call]

K. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Bill number two. We have SB 2138, HD1 relating to the Hawaii National Guard state tuition assistance Program. Recommendation to move as is. Questions or comments?

Seeing none, Vice Chair.

Voting on SB 2138 HD1 , recommendations to pass unamended, noting the presence of all Members, who will be, counted as present for the remaining of the agenda unless otherwise announced. Are there any reservations? Any no votes? Recommendation's adopted.

This next measure will propose an HD 2, SB 2, 2075 SD1 HD1relating to public procurement. The proposed amendment will be blanking the dollar, amount thresholds that are in the bill. That's sufficient. Yeah. Questions or comments?

Seeing none, Vice Chair.

SB 2075 SD1 HD1, recommendations to pass with amendments. Any reservations?

Reservations for Rep Templo. Any other reservations? Any no votes? Recommendations adopted.

For SB 2353, SD2 HD1 relating to outdoor signage. Recommendation will be an HD2. I'm gonna read a few things out and then we'll let the smarter people who are drafting make this look good. So they're gonna capture the intent. That's the intent.

So in AT and B, which defines digital outdoor signage device, we just wanna insert some language restricting restricting the signage to being inward facing to the stadium district, defining the intended audience for any, you know, messaging and advertising to be those who are physically present within the district. And some guardrails ensuring that there are some protections against distracting drivers. Okay. So propose these two questions or comments. Rep. Perruso?

Appreciate the amendments. I still have concerns, so with reservations.

Okay. Thank you. Rep. Reyes Oda.

Same as what she said.

Yeah. Appreciate amendments. Maybe within committee report, look at an overall score footage.

Okay. We'll put them in committee report. Just Kinda posing the question.

I apologize, Chair, Vice Chair. My reservation is for was for this bill, not the previous one.

Oh, I don't think we can amend the prior vote, but you'd have reservations registered for this one. One. Okay. K. And then on the floor, if you want, you can clarify.

Reservation. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

Anyone else? Vice Chair?

K. SB2353 SD2 HD1. Recommendations to pass with amendments, Noting reservations for Reps. Perruso, Templo, and Reyes Oda.

Any other reservations? Any no votes? Recommendation's adopted.

Alright. Thank you. Moving on to SB 2657, SD1 HD1 relating to Alzheimer's disease and related dementia research. Recommendation to move as is. Questions or comments?

Seeing none, Vice Chair.

K. SB 2657 SD1 HD1 recommendations to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes? Recommendation adopted.

SB 2340 SD2 HD1, relating to community care foster family homes. Recommendation to move as is. Questions or comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

SB 2340 SD2 HD1. Recommendation to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes? Recommendations adopted.

SB3245. SD1 HD1. Relating to the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Recommendation to pass as questions or comments. Seeing none.

Vice Chair.

SB 3245 SD1 HD1. Recommendations to to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes? Recommendation's adopted.

Similarly, for SB 2057 SD2 HD2 relating to law enforcement. Recommendation to move past questions or comments.

Rep Hartsfield.

Sure. Thank you, Chair. I read through the testimony. I asked questions.

Shobha brings up a good point about police officers maybe not having clarity as to what they are able to do or not to. Also, the definition of, you know, civil immigration matters. I believe there still needs to be more discussion. I do see some benefit in moving this bill forward, so I'm gonna be voting with reservations.

Okay. Anyone else? Vice Chair.

Hey. SB2057 SD2 HD2. Recommendation is to pass unamended, noting reservations for Rep. Hartsfield. Any other reservations? Any no votes? No vote for Rep. Alcos? And Gedeon. Any other Noes? Okay. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. SB 3040 SD1 HD1, relating to gun violence prevention. Recommendation to move as is. Questions or comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

SB 3040 SD1 HD one. Recommendations to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes?

No.

No vote for Alcos. Any other Noes? Recommendation's adopted.

SB 2014 SD1 HD1 relating to public employment. Recommendation to move as is. Questions or comments? Rep. Perruso?

No vote.

I will also be voting no. While I have great respect for the introduce introducer, I think just abolishing all positions that have been vacant for over five years might not fulfill the intended intended intent of this bill, and I do have concerns.

No vote. Rep. Hartsfield.

I do believe the department should have some say as to what positions should be abolished if that is a way to, do some cost savings in terms of the budget. And so, because of that, I'll be voting no.

Okay. Anyone else? Rep. Reyes Oda?

I'm gonna be voting yes, but I really hope that we in the future, we can look at, if we're gonna look at cost savings, we should look at maybe what the model the city uses, which is if the position's vacant, they move it into a pool. The department doesn't get to use the money.

But if they want the position, they can request the pool to send the position back so that the money that's spent is for the intended purpose.

K. Anyone else?

SP2014 SD1 HD 1. Recommendations to pass unamended. Any reservations? Noting no votes for Reps Hartsfield and Perruso. Any other no votes?

Recommendations adopted.

SB 2645 SD3 HD1 relating to fire protection. Recommendation to move assets. Questions or comments? Seeing none. Right here.

SB 2645 SD3 HD1. Recommendations to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes? Recommendations adopted.

SB 3109 SD1 HD1 related to the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. Recommendation to move as is. Questions or comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

SB 3109 SD1 HD1. Recommendation to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes? Recommendation's adopted.

SB 2698. SD2 HD1 relating to transportation. Recommendation of new passes. Questions or questions? No vote?

Anyone's? Reservations? For Rep Gedeon and Hussey. No vote. Anyone else? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

SB2698 SD2 HD1. Recommendations to pass unamended. Noting reservations for representatives Hussey and Gedeon. Any other reservations? Reyes Oda. And then any other reservations?

Noting no votes for Reps Perruso and Alcos. Any other no votes? Okay. Recommendations adopted.

SB3048 SD1 HD1 relating to the State Building Code Council. Recommendation to move to ask. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

SB 3048 SD1 HD1. Recommendations to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes? Recommendations adopted.

The next measure, we have a proposed, amendments from our water voucher. This is relating to state voting facilities, SB 2367 SD2 HD1. Proposed HD would include language, Including language that says, any lease executed pursuant to the section shall include terms to preserve continued access to SeaScout units and other qualifying non profit youth maritime education programs.

The lessee shall provide a reasonable number of staff for more than subject availability at no charge consistent with section two hundred-seven, and may not impose additional fees inconsistent with this section. The board shall ensure such provisions are included in any lease agreement or management contract.

Questions? Comments? Seeing none of the picture.

Uh-oh. Oh, sorry.

We do have both.

Thoughts. I still have concerns about, an earlier version of this bill, which provided for leases, and they're referenced in the amendment. And I am deeply concerned about this long term pressure to privatize, the state voting facility, so I'll be voting no.

Okay. Anyone else? If not, next, sir.

K. SB 2367 SD2 HD1. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Noting no vote for Rep Perruso. Any other no votes? Okay. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. And our last item is the one seven SD two HD one relating to wildfire mitigation. I sympathize and I agree with some of the comments from the state fire marshal. For the time being, let's move this along. The plan would be to move this as is and get to conference, and then we can reassess.

So SB 17 SD2 HD1 relating to wildfire mitigation. Ask questions or comments. Seeing none, Vice Chair.

SB 17 SD2 HD1, recommendations to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no vote? Reservations for Gedeon, Reyes Oda. Any other reservations?

Any no votes? Recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you. We are adjourned.