001Hi, thank you for joining us today on um decision making for the committee on economic development and tourism. Today is Tuesday, February 17th, 2026 at 1 p.m. We are in conference room 229. Um uh for any reason we get cut off or go down, uh we will reconvene back on Thursday, February 19 at 10:05 p.m. Uh first up, Senate Bill 2693 relating to capital improvement projects for aerospace infrastructure. Uh recommendation is to pass uh with a defective date for July 1st, 2050. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Uh, Vice Chair Wai for the vote. Chair goes I. >> I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga. >> Hi. >> Senator Kim. >> I. >> Senator Favlla. >> I. >> Chair. Your recommendation is adopted. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Next up, Senate Bill 26980 relating to transportation. We are
002awaiting some uh some other information on this measure. We are deferring to Thursday, February 19th, 2026 in room 229 at 10:05 p.m. Next bill, Senate Bill 2374 relating to a blue economy. Uh same uh issue um awaiting some information in regards to the blue economy. So we will also be deferring decision making to Thursday, February 19, 2026 at [clears throat] 10:5 p.m. in room 229. Thank you. With that we are a journal. Hi and welcome uh to the committee on economic devel joint hearing with Senate committee economic development tourism and education. This is our 101 p.m. agenda and we have a one minute time limit for all testifiers. Um also want to recognize education chair uh Senator Kim. Uh this agenda has two bills. First bill up is Senate Bill 2816 relating to state enterprise
003zones. Um, first up on the test of fire list we have Dennis Link from the Department of Economic Development and Tourism. >> Hello chairs, vice chairs, committee members stand on it written testimony and support. >> Thank you. Next up testifying for HTDC Trung Lamb. Good afternoon chair committee from HCDC support. >> Thank you. Next up department of taxation. >> Good afternoon chair vice chairman Clinton Piper Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written comments. >> Thank you. My next up Naoto Weno from University of Hawaii. >> Yes, dear chair, vice chair and members. My name is Na Toeno, director of University Hawaii Cancer Center. On behalf of uh Cancer Center Jabson, uh we stand on our comments. >> Thank you. Next up, Department of Business Economic Development. Oh, hi Dave. >> Good afternoon, chair, members
004of Der, Deputy Director. >> Thank you. Uh next up, HCDA in support. Uh Tom Yamamaica testifying for Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom. >> Uh good afternoon chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. Tom Yamama Chica from Tax Foundation. Uh we will stand on written comments and be available for questions. >> Thank you. Next up, Patrick Sullivan on behalf of Oceanit in support. Um Ryan Churchill, Pacific Rim with comments. Elizabeth Ignosio, Hawaii Medical Association in support. JC Miku Mikulanic testifying for the Queen's Health System in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure, please? >> Good afternoon, senators. Uh for the record, my name is Russ with APEC uh executive director in Hawaii and I'm here to testify on behalf of of uh the enterprise zone which is very important to our situation right
005now. Uh I think we should reclassify some of the enterprise zone and increase the numbers and I do support the with the University of Hawaii cancer center. I was always a advocate for the uh uh cancer center ever since uh from day one and I've been putting it in in my strategic business plan for the APEC region so everybody can come here to have a cancer treatment and we can enhance our research and development for cancer and uh in top of the uh transplant as well. So I think uh uh increasing the enterprise zone in that area on Kakaoka area where uh the uh uh cancer center there's a pier 7 with the Hawaii development corporation that whole area can be designated as a enterprise zone and uh combine it with the foreign trade zone
006cuz we have a foreign trade zone right there too. >> So can you wrap it up here? >> So I I just wanted to make sure that we do have a free trade area. If we combine the foreign trade zone and the state enterprise zone, we don't have to pay import tax on tariffs. We don't have to pay state taxes for the business people to conduct business. So, we can and uh combine it with orchestrator. >> Your time is up. Thank you. >> So, I just wanted to support that measure. >> Appreciate it. >> Anyone else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none members, any questions? Senator >> Q, >> when was the last time that DEVED has done a comprehensive evaluation of the program >> of the enterprise zone program? >> Can I
007call up Jason Ishijima from the enterprise zone? >> Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Jason Ushijima DBED um program manager for Enterprise OS. I don't believe there was a comprehensive study done at least to my knowledge since I've begun with DBED maybe two or three years ago. >> So since 1986 as far as I know there's been no comprehensive evaluation. So do you even know how much money we're getting? How much ROI we're getting for our buck? >> Um we do every year we uh we do produce an annual report and I believe last year it was about One second. I have that for you. Thank you. So, there were the foregone revenues to the state were uh 460,000 and this was in 2022. >> Yeah. and overall um revenues of the
008companies who are currently in it um are 221 million. >> Uh and how many firms are you expected to qualify under this offsensus track collaboration? >> Um right now I'm I'm not sure about how many are going to be in the qualify within the the that specific track. Um yeah I I I don't know what that number is. What safeguards will prevent firms from restructuring existing activities to qualify for the benefits? >> Um, we do take a look at the ex the what the firms are doing as far as what their business activity is as long as 51% of those business activities are one of the qualified ones, they will qualify for the program. >> And so, how does this bill avoid subsidizing activities that would have occurred without the uh e benefits? Um so
009these companies who happen to be within this zone will be exempt from uh and do qualify for annual benefits uh do qualify for um uh get tax waiver as well as um tax credits for income and unemployment insurance. >> Yeah. But how do we avoid avoid this thing from being a a workaround? Uh I'm sorry, >> Senator on on that following your question to prevent current existing businesses from receiving the incentive. Is that correct? >> Well, not only that, you're going to have others coming in. I mean, okay. So, the cancer center and and the um Jabson is on pristine area. It's it really shouldn't have been there. I mean, this is waterfront property. We should have used it for economic development, but we chose to put this in. Okay. And and they have activity
010all around it. The enterprise zones was intended for depressed areas to bring in economic activity to areas and revitalize those areas. Not to go ahead and enhance an area that's already has that attraction. If we haven't attracted them by far now, what is going to bring them there other than them? Now you're going to have some of these existing businesses going to come in. And then you also have this what is it called? Reach out or with others that is not in the area. Right? What was that? >> That is the way the bill is written to allow companies outside of a designated area. >> This this bill language goes back to a site visit we did with Ways and Means Committee about being more intentional and instead of waiting for enterprise zones to utilize
011those incentives as a layer to attract business. So in this case, healthcare tech which came up in Reed's emerging economic report DEBED was asked how can we what does healthcare tech mean for the state and how can we be competitive when we map out the assets and we talked about regional economic development it includes land acquisition facilities Kako has those facilities in place for healthcare tech what that is defined we defer that to uh cancer center on what type of activities can come in from EBED standpoint with the enterprise zone inhouse. Our plans our plan calls for how do we layer incentives to attract business whether it's new business or existing business. That's a policy call if the way the bill is written to say okay are we going to allow existing businesses even outside
012of the district to receive those incentives. That's that's the that's the prerogative and decision of this body. But the whole purpose behind enterprise zones was to help revitalize um depressed areas again. And so there's other means besides easy designation to help these businesses or help if you want to promote healthcare, you want to promote those business, you want to attract that, there's other tools. Why are we taking an an entity that meant for depressed areas and and vitalizing them um and and trying to get away from that whole put the whole island in get the whole island to be an enterprise zone or for that matter give all the businesses a tax break if that's what you want but why are you taking this one small area and doing this >> this is so >>
013I mean you know this program >> so to your point about the whole island I mean it could be be that way if we decided certain activities in certain areas given those geographical constraints. You have agriculture in central Wahoo. We're looking at film on the leeward side. We have to identify what the economy is for the winward side, what the economy is for the Northshore side. >> Yes. So maybe you should be doing all of that evaluation and coming with us with a package instead of doing this peace meal at this point. And that's what that's my criticism because you've been since 19 what did I say 19 60 >> 86 and you guys haven't even done done a comprehensive review or evaluation and yet you're coming in wanting all these changes again knee-jerk reaction
014to areas that maybe felt that you know their area should get something special but to be clear areas are not getting the businesses because they can go these other areas. >> So, this isn't an administrative bill. We're not coming in asking. >> No, but you're supporting it. Correct. >> And you're going to have to be the one to to make to to implement it. So, don't tell me that it's not your bill, but if you're going to support it and you got to implement it, then yeah, it is. You are standing up for it. So, then you got to answer for it. >> True. Yes. >> So, if this isn't an incentive that the body decides not to utilize, that that is a call of this body. >> Okay. Well, I think we need you
015as a lead as a leader or as the department that's taking charge of this to show us some evaluation, show us all of this stuff. If you haven't done that and you don't have a comprehensive plan, then you know don't support peacemealing bills. >> Okay, >> members, any other questions? A seeing none, uh, moving on to Senate Bill 2900 relating to sports officials. Uh, first up, testify on behalf of Department of Education, uh, Superintendent Hayashi. I really wish she was here today. >> Sorry, I'm here in his place. >> Thank you. >> Chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee, Shantima, Assistant [clears throat] Superintendent, testifying on behalf of the Department of Education, the department stands on our written testimony and support of this measure. The Attorney General's office is in the best position to represent
016the department's employees in temporary restraining order hearings. Uh the department does not employ attorneys and the department does not have funding for private attorneys. Also, elevating intentional bodily injury of a sports official to a class B felony further promotes safety for our sports officials. Uh thank you for the opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions. >> Thank you. Next up, Haley Chang. Uh testifying on behalf of the Office of Public Defender. Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the uh joint committee. Um my name is Haley Chang. I'm the first deputy for the office of the public defender. We have submitted testimony in opposition to this measure purely because um it is taking what is classified currently as misdemeanor conduct of bodily injury, which can be just physical pain without any sort of
017bodily visible bodily injury. You could shove someone and they could say that hurt that is bodily injury. Uh what this bill is seeking to do is take what's already a protected class under our assault statutes. Sporting officials are already protected under the assault second offense um which is elevated for other classifications and taking it above and putting it as a class B felony. Uh you can see in the measure all of the other protected classes that this would escalate beyond our education workers, doctors, um correction workers, all of the other protected classes and this would even go beyond them. So that is the basis for our opposition. I say I'm out of time. I'll be available for questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh next up, David Matsushima, Deputy Attorney General on Zoom. Oh, in
018live in person. Thank you. uh chairs uh Dquite an uh Kim members of the committee uh deputy attorney general Alan account on behalf of the department of the attorney general. So we uh just offered comments on this bill. Um this bill has essentially two sections. Um the sections one and two have to do with the civil action. Um three speaks to both and then um sections four and five speaks to the criminal action. So, um, in regards to the criminal action, we note that, um, in order to be consistent with the already existing special classes, we'd ask that, um, you insert substantial in front of bodily injury in section 4 and delete section five that allows for, um, some, uh, consistency between the special classes. Um as to the civil action section, um you know,
019the department of the attorney general is the body that represents uh the state and the state employees. But um this would effectually make us plaintiff attorneys at least when it comes to um the type of offenses that um this bill would ask us to do. Um, so we ask that that be deleted and the policy be put in place for the departments um, including education to um, be able to hire private counsel. Thank you. And I'll be available for questions or comments. >> Thank you. Uh, next up, Osatu from HSTA in support. Uh, Josh Hernandez for Intercolastic League of Honolul Pacific Buddhist Academy in support. Uh, Leolani Corpose, Maui High School Athletics in support. Heat Amamia, Hawaii High School Athletic Association support. Randy Pereira, HGA support. Christopher Chun, Twice High School Athletic Association in support.
020Seven other people are also in support. Anybody else wanting to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions? Senator Wakai, >> Alan from the EG's office. So I understand your opposition to section one civil action part because it was never an intention for the AGS to be plaintiffs attorneys for individuals. But in the case with the Natalie Iwamoto uh punch out um she had to go hire her own attorney to go and get a TTRO. So this this part was supposed to be focused on that. So that the initial hearing not to take this thing to civil action but to say like you know bad actor you need to stay away from whoever was the victim. Could we skinny this down so that the AG's will at least at the outset at the moment
021when the person needs to get the asalent away from themsel the attorney general can pick up that part of uh the civil action in getting a TRO? >> Uh I think uh Senator Quai uh it's a great question. Um when it comes to um just declar a declaratory or injunctive relief um you know uh the companion bill to this um we still did recommend if that you were going to keep the civil action in which the attorney general's office um would represent um that would be kind of the most limiting factor but we still believe that that would still serve as kind of a plaintiff attorney type of role. Um and the bill as written has to do with you know assaultive behavior specifically. So even though the assaultive behavior is the basis for the
022petition for a temporary restraining order um the facts that are going to be gleaned from those types of hearings are still um civil in nature in which they have different definitions for what civil assault is versus the second component which is criminal assault. They actually have different elements there. We construe them completely differently. So, um, our recommendation is still that because that type of civil action would be brought on behalf of the, um, employee, whether it's a sports official or someone else that falls under that category, um, it kind of opens the door to us representing people beyond that. So um our recommendation is still that what's the cleanest version is to instill a policy and I know other bills are trying to do that same thing to um give guidance to the department of
023education or any other department who may want to protect their employees through injunctive programs by giving them a a policy that says um you can either hire a full-time advocate that can do these types of reviews and assist the department and the employee in filing those types of claims. >> Okay. But if we put the burden on DOE to then do that, then it's going to cost the taxpayers a substantial amount of money, right, to pay a private attorney whatever their billable hours is. I mean, can you offer us language that can just skinny this down so that that is I mean, you say it opens a door. Well, we don't have to open the We can put in language here where the doors open this much, not wide open. So, can you offer us
024language that can make it specific that the civil action will only be for helping someone who's been assaulted get a TTRO against whoever the asalent is? That's all that we're asking for. >> We can provide that type of language that that the this body can create that language. So, it's just our recommendation that because of the the role of the attorney general and its deputies is to take up certain actions in behalf of the state. um that doesn't speak to that that language cannot be inserted um in order to um meet the intent of what this body and the bills introduces are are seeking to do. >> Thank you. >> Follow so um the education committee passed a bill >> two days when did we pass it? Um, but we had language in there that
025said uh that DOE will assist, don't hire an attorney or anything, but assist with a TTRO and also by giving them the day off or whatever time off that they need. And I think that language is there in that bill. Not I'm not sure if that bill can be amended to include um sports um personnel u but certainly it was DOE employees. So I think we already have that measure moving forward. So um we can look at that. Yes. And and that was what I was speaking to. I I I know the House companion was HB1 1888. I'm not sure the Senate bill's companion. Um but the the I think the only discussion that was happening was the term legal advocate was the the employee or the position that the department would seek to use
026to um assist the employee and the department to um rise make those actions move forward. Um but there was a section of caution that u my colleague had um put in front of that committee that um that advocate because the work that is done we don't want them to um purposefully engage in the unlaw the unlawful practice of law. So um the there is a fine line. We want to be able to say, "Hey, there is someone out there that can help you file these things and get these petitions because you're right, you know, teachers and other staff members um should be able to have that protection." And I don't think that there's anything that can't um encompass sports officials or or broaden it to protect more than just um our school officials. It can
027go to other departments as well. they can use that as a model to say hey if our department because of something happening in agriculture whatever there's an increased uptick in harassment type events that they can't follow the pattern that has been recommended for the DOE for sports officials and teachers >> um so are these referees coaches um considered DOE employees >> so uh the section three is quite broad because it also talks about um officials that are on both public and private school lands. So it they can be volunteers, but um what's been encompassed as far as we've reviewed is any volunteer that falls under the precipitate of the DOE or a school, they do fall under that. But there is like athletic associations that are nonprofits such as HHSAA or OIA. they're technically not
028attached to um the Department of Education. So that would broaden it beyond just state uh employees. >> Okay. So the Senate it's Senate Bill safety of um what was that? Um education workers. Yeah. So would would this bill cover the question? I'm guessing this bill cover referees and coaches find it. I think if they are employees of the DOE or DOE schools, this this language in this bill um is much broader when it speaks about sports officials. It also speaks to like um volunteer referees, timekeepers. So if we were to amend further because that bill goes to ways and means uh 3179 to to definition of the referees coaches and so forth to be fall under the um safety of employees as this bill speaks out with assistance for TTRO and so forth. >> I
029believe it would. Yes. Um, Senator Kim, I think another thing that um, the department also they wanted an even broader definition of sports officials and which we have no objection to that included athletic directors specifically that that name title. But I think when you look at sports official generally that would still fall under it. But just for clarity to make sure that um sports officials included athletic directors and an amendment to that bill to add that language I believe would strengthen and and cover uh Senator Wai's concerns >> because it's not the intention to elevate uh these sports officials above all the other categories. Right. >> Absolutely. So that's why we wanted to be suggested as a model so it can be taken by other departments um to use if if they were dealing with
030that same uh same type of crisis that we've seen recently. Um and then that would also help address and kind of split this bill away from um the elevation uh that it's seeking in the criminal components in sections four and five. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh, Senator Fella, >> attorney attorney general. Maybe maybe if you can answer if you cannot then we get um Sean to come up. So my question is I understand this complexity of this bill by my understanding as a former DOE worker if a student or a person assaults a DU worker isn't that a felony? >> So this bill could make it a felony. Currently um the protected class is a C-class felony as is. Um, so that covers a a a variety of different um occupations.
031Um, so it is already currently a C-class felony. Um, what this uh bill does is, you know, kind of the concern um of Senator Kim is it pushes sports officials into even higher category or protection, which would make it a B-class felony without adding any other conditions. That's why our um office added um a recommendation to add substantial in front of bodily injury to make sure that it tracks with the more seriousness of the offense while still leaving the C-class um bodily injury um felony available cuz that's going to still go to the charging discretion of the deputies at what comes in. Um, as Miss Chang mentioned, what considers bodily injury is going to go down to the facts of each individual case. And the prosecutor or attorney general handling handling the prosecution is going
032to have to make that discretion to determine how serious the injury or bodily injury or pain level threshold is met in order to determine the seriousness it gets charged at. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, J. >> I would think if you get punched in the face, that's pretty bodily injury right there. Yeah. I mean at whatever pressure you getting punched to this. But any question um without this bill, do sports officials um have to obtain their own attorney if they assaulted or threatened at a school? [clears throat] >> Depending on what they're seeking. So if they're um looking for criminal charges to be brought, um the either the attorney general's office, criminal justice division, or the Honolulu prosecutors are going to handle um prosecuting the asalent, right? Um but the they just are essentially
033witnesses or complainant to that. Um and they cannot even tell them, hey, even if there's proof, I want that person charged. That goes to the discretion of the state um through its prosecution. Um but the other question is um if they want a TTRO or if they want an action for damages for the pain and suffering or injuries that they've uh >> taken, they would have to hire a private attorney. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other question? >> Yeah, one follow again questions. Look, this is to add um sports officials, right? The reason why I don't think everybody can understand, you know, not everybody out there in TV land understand if we don't protect our officials on any level, we're not going to have sports cuz they don't feel safe and we already got a
034shortage of officials. So, you know, a lot of people have comments and saying, "Oh, you know, but no, it's different now. It's not like when I was going school, you know, 2 4 6 8 or whatever, you know, 1 2 3 shoot the referee [laughter] like, you know, that was friendly kind of song, you know, wasn't nothing. But nowadays, we're in a different category. You know, everything is physical. >> So, I just want to make sure that we everybody understands if we don't take care of our our officials, um, we're not going to have sports. And and just to uh clarify, Senator Favlla, um as as your original question was, there is sports officials are included in the uh uh special protected classes under the C-class felony of of assault in the second degree. >>
035Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Uh any other questions? Seeing none, short recess. Uh welcome back to the joint committee on economic development and tourism along with education. Um in regards to Senate Bill 2816 relating to state enterprise zones. Um there are going to be se several changes we're going to make and we're going to need some time to work on this bill. um looking at deferring this measure to February 19th, 2026 at 106 p.m. in conference room 229. Uh next up, Senate Bill 2900 relating to sports officials. Um uh thank you, Attorney General. A lot of good comments made. Uh but there is a vehicle uh that is moving Senate Bill 3179 and we are going to use that vehicle uh and make some changes or some amendments to that
036bill to to tighten up the language uh when it gets to ways and means. Um so I am going to defer this bill uh indefinitely. With that we are adjourned. Thank you. Hi. Uh, welcome to the hearing with the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism. This is our 111 PM agenda. We have a 1 minute time limit for all testifiers. We have various agendas to get through this afternoon. This agenda has four bills. Up. First is Senate Bill 2716 relating to cooperatives. Uh first up uh Department of Business and Economic Development Daily. >> Thank you. Next up, Konyi Def Franco with Hawaii Co-op. >> Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Ki DeFranco, managing director of Purple Knight of Foundation and co-founder of the Hawaii Coopi. I strang stand
037in strong support of SB2716. Cooperatives are businesses owned and democratically governed by their members, including workers, producers, and consumers. They operate on a one member, one vote principle, keeping decision-making and profits local. SB 2716 establishes a cooperative development program within DBED to provide cost sharing grants to support 10 to 20 local co-ops annually with startup conversion costs such as feasibility studies, legal services, and governance design. I would like to address comments about funding and staffing raised by DEBED which we appreciate and align with. When Hawaii has supported emerging industries like aquaculture, the state invested early and assigned dedicated staff recognizing long-term potential. We hope cooperative development can be measured the same way. Last May last May we convened the first cooperative development gathering with over 60 co-ops, emerging farmers and community members. Today we have
038over 80 members meeting by monthly for peer-to-peer learning on co-op models without any current funding. We're excited to spark renewed interest in this uh economic model. Mahalo. >> Mahalo. Thank you. Next up, Hunter Heavlin testifying. Hoy Farmers Union in support. No, you Hunter. Um is okay. Hoy Farmers Union uh in support. Kelly Timi and and Deven Cooperative on Zoom. Sorry your name. >> It's okay. Um Aloha chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Um my name is Kelly Timmyi. I'm the director and co-founder of the Enliven Cooperative, a workerowned notfor-profit ecosocial learning organization in Hilo. I'm testifying in strong support of SB2716. Over the past three and a half years, I've been providing cooperative technical assistance to more than 20 cooperatives across Hawaii um in all stages of um our supply chain in our
039food system, in agriculture, including aquaculture, in energy, housing, water. Um as county mentioned, cooperatives keep wealth, jobs, and decision-making in local hands. There is a significant momentum currently for groups across all sectors wanting to create new cooperatives, but currently there is no designated institution in Hawaii to offer this essential cooperative technical assistance support. The biggest barrier for new cooperatives remains the high up upfront cost of organizing, technical assistance, legal services, and governance design which which can cost thousands putting cooperative ownership out of reach. >> Can you wrap your testimonial? >> Yes. Um SP2716 addresses this gap by creating a cooperative development program in DBED to to fund cost share grants and nonprofit partners who can provide this needed support. And and with this bill um this can really help our infrastructure to grow a a
040resilient co-op economy. Thank you. Ma mahalo. >> Uh next up actually we have 21 people in support of this measure. Um, if I missed anybody, anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? Angela, notice you. [laughter] >> Thank you, chair. Um, and aloha committee. Angela Melody Young testifying um in uh strong support of this legislation. Um as proposed, it will um foster economic resilience um and it will assist with community wealth building um by helping with startup capital and technical support for um cooperatives. And um this um will help with um the targeted assistance for um high poverty need communities such as Native Hawaiian communities and um also for um farmers, local farmers, and encourages local ownership, improves um the quality of life and job quality um while helping to um grow economic development by
041reducing the reliance on um outside corporations and um I think this will really help with the small businesses in Hawaii um and to support um agriculturally um grown um businesses and other businesses. Thank you. >> Thank you. Then we have Gregory Msakian in [clears throat] opposition. Uh anyone else wishing to testify on the measure? Uh seeing none uh members any questions? Uh uh debate please. [clears throat] I didn't so would this co would the cooperative development program be a program for the department and would who would staff who would staff and run the program? >> Good afternoon sharer deputy director at DBED. So I'm looking at the bill. It would look it looks to establish a new program and we don't have current capacity or current staff to transfer from. So the resources provided in
042the bill do provide for some administrative staff but then that reduces if the bill goes through the a lotment for the grant program. So our testimony we would have to we request additional resources plus permanent positions to stand up this new program. So I noticed the bill also appropriate 750,000 for fiscal year 2627 to establish administer the program. If that's the case, do you know what type of grants you'd fund given the 750,000 for appropriation provided in the bill? >> The bill outlines the activity. It seems to be like agriculture as one of the primary. Um, we would have to [clears throat] go through the final bill and see what that process would entail. Also, what that process would look like. We would need rulem. Um, it' be through like RFP process. Um, we do
043have programs attached to agencies that currently do grants, but there is a process that includes the board for approval too. So, this would be internally within DBED the way the bill is structured with the director approving. So, help me um understand or at least um maybe elaborate [clears throat] on it. Um with some of your attached agencies that do do grants. >> Mhm. >> How would you prioritize like within the cooperative? Who gets the grant? You know, for one reason or another, I can see some people might not be able to qualify um within the cooperative. How how do you guys prioritize that? >> That's that is a challenge. We do have bylaws or procedures in place that set parameters on the type of activity based on the program itself whether if it's in statute
044or was outlined through legislation. Um the board can set policy and parameters as well. There's also um consideration if the applicants were awarded a grant in prior years and at what amount. So that's all vetted through board and the staff of the attach agency. Thank you. That's um Senator Kim. >> Okay. So, the $750,000 to administer, establish and administer the program. Um develop chapter 91 administrative rules, design grant criteria, scoring systems, monitor compliance. How many people sta how much staff would you require to stand this up? >> It's off the top it would be about three. You would need you would you would want odd number for vetting. Um but someone to administer you would need expertise on drafting um and then administrative capacity at least two to three would be up the top but
045we would have to vet and come back with a final [clears throat] >> no more than no more than that. >> Right. How many vacancies you guys have right now? >> Oh I don't have the the number off the top of my head Senator. um roughly uh I'm going to say maybe 40 or 50 vacancies uh departmentwide. We're I think we're at we're about 18% out of 400 FTE. >> There's no guarantee that we give you these positions you're going to fill them right away. Especially if you need expertise in a certain area. >> Correct, Senator. Those and I also caveat those vacant positions um they're not afunded. They're not general funded vacancies. Um majority of them are non-general funded. So we wouldn't be able we don't we wouldn't have the funds even if we
046were to redescribe those vacant positions. >> And do you have the space for all of this to to show up a whole another program again? >> We office space we would we do have we we we would have space. Um but I would also say you know this process here is similar to 42F which is the grant and aid which >> my next question. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> How different is this from grants and aid? Well, you already have grants and aid. So, I mean, and like you said, other agencies do grants. So, are we duplicating all this whole grant process in every agency? >> You know, the duplicate and the agencies that currently do grants, we're not duplicating. Those are specific to like the Hawaii Technology Development Corp., which they have the federal manufacturing
047assistance program and the state. So there's there's no duplication there unless the 42F awards an applicant who probably applied to that then that that would be um we don't have any program that focuses on this type of activity but then again yeah the question could be are you duplicating uh >> but they come in they can come in for right now for grants from the ledge right >> and you know the amounts in here no less than 10,000 no more than 50,000 Um I I'm not based off of the grant programs we've seen before and agricultural a lot of it comes down to infrastructure and facilities. Now these may be using this cost for specialized equipment and things like that which the manufacturing systems program majority of those applicants are in the agricultural and value
048add manufacturing. >> Okay. And the the time it would take to stand this thing up, >> rule making everything a couple years. >> Rule making takes one to two years after you have the staff established which takes 12 to 18 months, right? >> Um we would have to go through the civil service process as these positions are within the department. >> Okay. So at the end of the day within the money left over and the amount of grants you're going to give, what kind of ROI can we expect? I wouldn't know that answer right now, Senator. It would we would have to look at what activities the grants would be awarded to. Even even on that, we track there's no telling up front. Even when we look at some of the existing programs, we have
049to survey the companies at the time of the application midway and then exit and then some follow up thereafter to see if it was the grant that sustained it and if they were able to grow or if it was frankly just a subsidy in that point of time. Do you know whether or not the legislature in their grant giving every year that we have a an evaluation of of the grants that we gave and what we what was achieved? >> I need I need to get back with you on how our programs do post. >> Can you get back to us on that? >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to Senate Bill 2746 relating to taxation. Uh, first of department of taxation. >> Thank
050you. Next up, Tom Yamama Chica on Zoom. >> Aloha and good afternoon, Colleen Terramai for Tom Yamamaica. The Tech Foundation of Hawaii stands on its written testimony. Mahalo. >> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on the measure? Uh, seeing none members, any questions? >> Senator Kim, have folks evaluated the potential tax um, losses based on this? No, I I looked at that and we did not have any numbers because I know this bill has come up in the past but um the revenue estimates were not there but we we will have them. Okay. So this is just on medical travel expenses. So if you don't have the means to travel to go to get medical and you have to just stay here that doesn't benefit them, right? Correct. People versus if you gave uh
051like I don't know excise tax exemptions or whatever for certain things um would have a more equalizing benefit across the board in a measure like this. I I mean I don't know if I could evaluate that because if it was a a general excise tax exemption, but if I mean if you couldn't afford it, I'm not sure. I I suppose you mean if you have a general excise tax exemption over the board, then everybody would have more money in their pocket to be able to afford >> Well, general excess on on medical some medical treatments or whatever. >> Yeah, because >> Oh, correct. Yeah, because this is giving you tax credit on travel to the mainland, I would imagine, or the neighbor island to get medical treatment. So, it would only give you tax exemption
052on that portion, a travel portion, and not necessarily on the treatments or the cost to actually get get it, right? >> Yes, correct. Okay. Thank you. Well, just one quick question. Um I guess actually I'm looking on page nine of the bill says qualified expenses means travel expenses not covered by insurance incurred by a patient and one accompany caregiver to obtain medical care including air lodging ground transportation medically required incidentals parking fees incurred at near at or near the treatment location. So if this medically required incidentals could also fall under medical >> yeah would would fall under the expenses that you could get a credit for. Yeah. >> Um is it qualified? Is it any kind of medical treatment? >> Does it look like >> any kind of medical? >> Yeah, there is a definition
053that is referred to in the Internal Revenue Code. So, it excludes um some elective treatments like cosmetic surgery, but it's medically necessary treatments. >> So, it's the same. It refers to the Internal Revenue Code definition of medical care that they use when you take a um deduction for medical travel expenses in your itemized deduction. So using that same definition of medical care. >> So if I wanted if I needed to have cataract surgery, which I did, and I decided that I wanted to take a vacation. So I decide I'm going to go to Las Vegas and have maybe I shouldn't be Las Vegas, go to I don't know Colorado or New York to get my um cataract surgery. and I really need a companion because I'm not sure if I'm gonna see well and I
054take a care so-called caregiver that would be covered. You think >> I don't I don't think that would qualify under this because you would have to prove that you couldn't get that surgery here. >> Okay. So, you would have to prove that. >> Yeah. Or I mean unless you're Yeah. Yeah. You'd have to prove that because your doctor would have to write it. >> So, technically I think we're looking at the more affluent people that are seeking medical treatment elsewhere. I mean, yeah. Got to be able to afford the not only the treatment, I mean, but the travel, right? Right. Right. >> Okay. You actually, can you come back real quick? I go really quick. Is it efficient to have both DBED audit these medical expenses as well as do tax? Um well on our
055other tax credits that we have other agencies certifying we also I mean have the right to audit it which is yeah which is good because we're more of the tax specialty and then they are more of the subject matter specialty. So um >> I wouldn't think DA could fall under medical. I would think maybe the Department of Health or >> Yeah. I I'm I mean, >> right. I don't know who should certify it, but [laughter] >> I'll just ask Senator Kim. Okay. >> Thank you. Uh next up, uh Senate Bill 2906 relating to tourism. Uh first up, uh Hawaii tourism, Caroline Anderson. chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Um, he say stands on its written testimony offering comments. >> Thank you. Next up, Nalani Brun on Zoom, uh, testifying for County of Kauaii in
056opposition. Aloha. Honorable Chair Decoy, Vice Chair Wakai, and members of the committee. Um, I respectfully oppose SB2906. Um, tourism, marketing, and destination management. They're operationally inseparable functions. You can't take them apart. And in typical government practice, when you structurally separate things, um it often results in operational disconnection. And when marketing and management are not tightly aligned, the burden always ends up um falling locally to be handled. So with that, I just um I just had some s um suggestions in my testimony that if it goes forward that just to there are items you could do to make sure that that doesn't happen. Um but tourism governance really should move towards stronger integration and not structural division. So mahalo for letting me testify. >> Thank you. Uh, next up, Antonia Davis testifying for activities and attractions.
057Association of Hawaii in support. Scott Turner in support. Tapani Maui Ocean Center in support. Um, late Muffy Hanaman in support. Bill Calva in support. And Greg Misaki in opposition. Um, Jim Anachri, do you want to testify on this? Yes. [clears throat] Thank you, Chair Doy. Uh, members, uh, as a member of the prior governing board and a member of the current advisory board, I I support Caroline's testimony. However, I'd like to, uh, bring into focus something that was just mentioned, which has to do with integration with destination management. We know that maybe the Achilles heel that's recognized is cross agency integration. And how do we uh, obtain that or attain that? So the activities of cross agency could theoretically be managed by whatever entity we identify. But the authority for cross agency integration or cooperation
058is more difficult to envision without uh something like a a leazison at the cabinet level. So while I'm not specifically providing testimony in support of this, I'm registering the comment that this is a active debate when the members of the HDA board discuss governance. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jim. Anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing none members, any questions? Senator Wai >> Caroline >> I talked to so many people in the industry and they feel like HT is almost bipolar in how it's responsibilities are almost uh opposite uh some some of the pain points for for tourism from the local perspective is like our traffic and and parking is hta the best suited entity to delve into how we're going to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion in parking lots. >> Thank
059you, Senator Wai. Um, you know, with the passing of act 132 this past legislature session and governor signed it. Uh, the CEO, president and CEO reports directly to governor. And so we believe that you know with the CEO reporting to governor right now um that authority is delegated to DEBED director. So I'm reporting to um director Tokyoa but when the new CEO comes um they'll have a direct relationship with governor. So you know we see that it's um a little bit of an overlap and we're hoping that with the CEO reporting to um governor that will help bridge um all of the other um state agencies. Um and we're also actually doing that right now with our uh DEMAPs. Uh you know, we uh went out to community. We started talking to community industry and
060you know, we're trying to work with the various state agencies and county agencies. I understand what you're saying. Um >> so many of the industry are are are crying that they need more emphasis on the marketing side. And I mean issues like trespassing, crimes against tourists, you know, how to manage Airbnbs and short-term vacation rentals, expertise in climate change, expertise in cultural preservation. Those are all important, but probably beyond the the expertise of tourism marketers. Wouldn't you agree? So currently the Hawaii Tourism Authority in our statute um puts in destination management. So our team um part of our team are the destination managers that um are looking at these types of issues. So right now you know our team is looking at both >> right. So this bill cuts it up so that your team
061who does destination management can really focus on that through the office of a tourism liaison and then your hta team can go back to what it does very well which is branding and marketing the state to people around the the globe. Wouldn't that be a better in terms of transparency, accountability? Like if I have a problem with um climate change issues, is it right for me to kind of voice my concerns to you or to someone who really has understanding about climate change and what mitigation measures need to be put into place to >> address that? So I I believe with our current team um you know our community our industry can look towards HCA um to you know to sound give that voice um when we're here to listen and see what we can
062do to help and um I I understand what you're saying um you know there was a tourism laid on you know a a couple of decades a decade ago or decades ago um and it did work. But right now, how the legislature has structured us with the president and co reporting to the governor um we feel that that right now is we we want to continue the momentum and we want to work that work in that um manner with governor and governor's um directors in addressing um mitigating uh visitor impacts. >> Okay. All all I have to say say is that you know the people in the tourism industry are crying uh for more emphasis on the marketing side and I understand we legislatively put that responsibility on you and I think sometimes maybe it's
063something we should take a another look at whether you and HTA can be you know the repository for all of these responsibilities u and do and have the expectation that you're going to do it well at a certain point there there's too many responsibilities you don't have the expertise to do all of these other destination management stewardship issues and maybe we should peel that off uh to to have other entities. I mean if it's about like traffic, you have to work with the Department of Transportation, right? Not HTA is not going to change the outcome of traffic and and parking, but you can work with DOT to get all of those things done. So I just see that there's there's just too much on on your plate and this bill is trying to address uh
064and and and focus you on on what you do. Well, so sorry, it's not a question, it's just a commentary. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, how many how many in your team that do destination marketing right now? >> Destination marketing. >> Yeah. >> Uh, currently we have three. Um, but in total there are there are four positions. So a total of four. >> Currently there's four. >> Four. One is vacant. >> Um, yeah. when is that the chief brand officer? >> Okay. And I'm not sure when you refer to the tourism leazison before that it worked because if it worked I don't know why we don't still have it. So in what manner did it work? >> So the um the tourism leazison was under Governor Lingal's administration. Marshia Weinert was the tourism
065lison and we know that you know working with her I mean from what my recollection [laughter] um you know uh she did help to coordinate different state agencies um and she did uh you know um we had our strategic plan back then >> um and you know she helped >> and it didn't require a a bill right the governor's office have can just do a leazison right Yes. Yeah. I don't believe we did a bill on that. Um I guess I have a differing um point of view having been tourism chair years and years ago and and so forth. But to from my understanding is that even if we didn't do a dollar of marketing, would we still have visitors? >> We would still have visitors. Correct. But maybe Oh, sorry. Go ahead. No. >>
066Um, it maybe it might not be the right type of visitor that we want um to Hawaii and um >> Sorry. No. Okay. Because I hear this all the time from from people is that, you know, if we didn't spend a dime, the hotels are spending it. The airlines are spending it. They are marketing. They're not going to let they're not going to let their planes go empty. They're not going to let their hotel rooms go empty. So the marketing dollars that we do give supplements and many times the entities have cut their marketing budgets because the state is supplementing the marketing budget. Um but what I hear is that doesn't matter how much money we spend on marketing, if our trails are not pristine, our beaches are not pristine, if our environment is not
067taken care of, if crime is not maintained, they're not going to come. >> They're not going to come. And that's one of the things that we try to push for hta to do not just marketing but to take care of the environment or take care of the the visitor experience which is the environment and our pristine um beaches and our mountain trails and so forth all of those things. So in that sense I think that you know it is the role of HTA and if all we're going to do is have and there's nobody here from the governor's office but one leazison sitting in the governor's office then dictating to these three positions I don't see the difference if the CEO is reporting to the governor. Isn't that the leazison that the CEO would be
068direct lying to the governor? >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> Um to to prepare all of this or to be able to to get the information cuz I don't see the governor putting in staff within his department to actually do this cuz they're just going to farm it out to DOT, farm it out to egg farm depending on what the complaints are or what the problems are. >> Right. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, so just as a followup, where are we on the CEO? >> So, the um actually would you like to comment on or I know the board um is meeting uh the permitted interaction group has their next meeting? >> What what process are we in with getting the CEO on board? Um >> yes, the last time >> they are I mean
069>> yeah, >> I defer to our chair [laughter] You told us that the last time we were at the convention center, right? You gave us a timeline which is quite a ways away from what I remember. >> I just thought you can speak to it. >> Thank you, Senator. I'm the chair of the CEO search permitted interaction group and the chair of the administrative committee that oversees that. So, uh, we do have a calendar that was established in December. As you know, the advisory board had to ramp up and, uh, we had to better understand the statutory language, how it's changed in terms of identifying the CEO. We then had to get a clarification from HR and from the AG regarding the classification of this CEO. They are now going to be an employee of
070the state of Hawaii, not an employee of the authority. That requires a different characterization. We identified to the search group that we were going to pay a certain amount and have a certain classification and reporting. All that's changed. So the the result of that original search uh 23 some names um they applied for a different job than the one that they might potentially be hired to. So the question is do we have the best pool of candidates given the existing or the current conditions rather than the previous conditions. So we're in uh consultation with DBED director and we're trying to get to the quickest result we can. We I think we have a a able administrator in Caroline at this point, but we know we need to get to a permanent CEO and get that
071name to the governor to forward to the Senate. We are working on the fastest schedule we can, but we are an advisory board of volunteers and we do have limited uh understanding. Up to this point, we had limited understanding of who we were actually hiring. questions. Okay. >> Question. >> Okay. >> Um the 23 names that you folks got, was any vetting done at all? >> The names have uh that their resumes have been reviewed by uh myself for instance and some other members of the pig the permit action group. >> Um I I I don't see an immediate um savior. So, um, if what we're looking for is a CEO that can, um, resolve all the issues that the new CEO will have to do, which I would argue are primarily [clears throat] communications
072with the legislature now that HTA relies solely on a funds, I think the interaction with the legislature about the ex uh, responsibilities of HTA, as Senator Wakai was alluding to, the complexity of destination management, this person has to have a different skill set than the ones that I've reviewed. Okay. But the position is ever changing, right? I mean, we have this bill in front of us. If the bill passes, that changes. If the bill doesn't pass, it stays the same. But I guess when you if you vetted the the the U names, isn't there anyone in there that has the potential? because I don't know that you're going to be able to to get somebody specific if now you're saying they're concentrating on working with the legislature because they still have to have tourism background
073so forth. So isn't there anybody that that you folks can can approach as far as you know a a highly potential candidate that we don't have to go through a whole another round of candidates and and redefining what it is and so forth. Senator Kim, the answer is yes. There are names, there are people that have applied that could be potentially a a very good CEO. However, as you describe the existential threats that hang over HTA right now, uh how do we in good faith ask people to come forward and apply for this job in public because it will be sunshine when we get down to the last few names to go to the board. How do we in good faith ask somebody to put themselves in the public's eye and perhaps with their current
074position in jeopardy for applying for this job in good faith? >> You ask them. You ask them like any other position that we're recruiting people. You ask them, you know what's going on. Are you still interested? You know that this might be the Would you still be willing to to put your name forward? I mean, you ask them and see what they say. And if they're interested, then Yeah. And >> we did that. We asked them in January, are you still interested in this position? They've said so. So, our March permitted interaction group agenda is for uh deeper vetting to occur on some of the applicants and we will move forward with the pool at hand, but mindful of a change in circumstance. That is, we need to be fair to both the public and
075to these individuals. >> Right. Okay. So, it it sounds different from what you said a little bit earlier to what you're saying now. It sounded like you were going to go through this whole another process, but now you're saying you're just gonna you've already vetted some of them and you want to vet them further. >> Both are both are true, Senator. >> What do you mean both are true? We are going to do our work and we will if nothing else learn how to as a group advisory group come through the process the vetting process with the candidates on hand and one of them might rise to the surface or two or three but we also have to be mindful of the change in circumstance and we're seeking advice from HR and the AG as
076to whether we need to do an open search and we have to be in consult with the governor through his DEBED director. That's the way the advisory board works nowadays. Yes, but you don't have to necessarily or DBED does not necessarily have to have an open process. Again, I mean, you could literally pick from this group if somebody's willing and you folks feel that that person is qualified. >> It's within our capacity to do that and recommend that name to the governor. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Thank you. Um, we're going to take a short recess and switch over to um our triple short recess. >> Good afternoon. We're convening the joint committees on waterland, culture, and the arts, economic development, and tourism, and education on our 105 p.m. agenda here in
077state capital conference room 229. We have one measure on the agenda, SB2807 relating to destination management, which transfers functions relating to uh destination management from HTA to DLNR appropriates funds to DOE. Um, we'll just note there's a number of testifiers on this. Um folks, I know we're short on time, so folks are um open to making sure that they have their written testimony submitted, we appreciate that. And in that case, uh for those who are, uh open to standing on their testimony, we appreciate [clears throat] that as well. So, uh up first on SB2807 is DLNR. >> Thank you very much. Up next is Department of Education. Uh, we Oh, good afternoon. >> Thank you very much. Um, up next is the Kauawaii County Office of Economic Development on Zoom. [clears throat] >> We are
078I'm sorry, we're unable to hear you. you muted. >> No, [snorts] >> you know, why don't we um come back to you see if see if you can fix that. Um up next is the McKinley Community School for Adults. >> Good afternoon. >> Thank you. Uh and finally um James >> McCaulay. >> Thank you. Uh and then um it is um [snorts] Kawaii still on. Oh, still can't hear you. >> Okay. Uh we'll assume you're going to stand on your testimony then. Thank you very much. Um that's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB2807? >> Please come forward. >> Aloha. >> I believe we do. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Aloha, Angela Melody Young testifying in strong support um of this legislation. Um so um
079the legislation anticipates that the funding will um request that DLNR and DOE to work together to get to common goals. And um so if the office as I was you know reading the testimony um from my analysis it seems like the office is not ready and so perhaps I could ask the committees to consider a work group. So um Wiki Ki is the district is much like Aloha Stadium district and in my opinion Aloha Stadium will be much more complicated to plan for. Um so it could um consider in the work group the county's offices um such as DPP with zoning regulations to accommodate affordable housing projects and transit oriented development districts and mixeduse commercial development to support housing infrastructure um and as well as perhaps invite um the University of Hawaii because a train
080anticipates um the uh school and the students to be built um to accommodate the heart corridor. wrap up. Your time is up. >> Yeah. So, um if you could consider my amendments um to help with improving the quality of life for families in Hawaii and to improve communications within the departments. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none, are there any questions? >> All right. Thank you everyone. Seeing none, um uh we're going to go into decision-m on this measure. Um appreciate everybody's uh time and testimony on this. Um, looking at the testimony, we recognize there are some issues to be resolved. So, for the moment, I recommend deferring this measure. >> Same here. uh economic uh development tourism uh green with the lead chair [clears throat and cough] >> education
081same recommendation. >> Thanks everybody. We return. >> Hi. Uh, reconvening back on our agenda, our 111 agenda. Um up next is Senate Bill 2353. I will ask you if you have submitted testimony if you please stand on your testimony. Um as we are coming to a close of this uh our time block. Uh so first up Mike Yadal stating authorities in in support in support. Uh, next up, Jillian Anderson, Wiki in opposition. Uh, next up, Trevor Abberuza Arbarzua, Wiki Business Improvement District. >> Yeah. Thank you, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Trevor Arbzua, president, executive director of the Wiki Business Improvement District. I stand on my written testimony. I'm very happy to answer questions, but we have been short of time. Thanks. >> Thank you. Next up, Winston Welch testifying for Outdoor Circle
082on Zoom. Go ahead. Yes. Aloha chair and committee members. Uh the outdoor circle um stands on its written testimony just very briefly to say you know this bill uh is contrary in a very negative direction for a hundred years of history prohibiting billboards and off- premises advertising which are designed to protect our scenic integrity, roadway safety, economy and character. Mostly this uh you know these signs are designed to distract drivers. They're designed to distract pedestrians in an area that's very dangerous uh to drive in, to walk in. Uh well, we'll just say it increases complexity. The Wy Ki neighborhood board representing residents most directly affected by this has also testified against it. Visitors come here in part because of our protected environment. because it's not Las Vegas or Tokyo. Our laws are very carefully uh
083crafted here in Honolulu and uh we don't need additional signage for kiosk. They are already allowed under this bill. So for this and many other reasons, we strongly oppose this and urge you to hold this measure. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh just for correction, I believe that um the Wiki Business Improvement District is in support and he just testified in support. No, no, no. I I just wanted to correct that. [clears throat] >> Neighborhood board. >> Yeah, >> that opposes. >> Oh, it's okay. >> Yeah, the neighborhood board. >> Uh next up, Stanford Car. Uh Stanford Car Development in support. Diane Harding, president, Outdoor Circle in opposition. Um Scene America in opposition. Gia Hutchinson in opposition. Jack O'Neal in opposition. Uh, as well as three others in opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify on
084this measure? >> See, go ahead. >> Discrimination. >> No, no discrimination here. One, >> just kidding. Aloha, Angela Melody Young. Um, actually, I was reading my testimony for this legislation when the >> If you can sum it up, it would be super helpful. Angela, >> what's going on? So, um, okay, there's a little confusion. Um, okay. So, I just want to um say that I am in um strong favor of this um legislation because um the businesses to be supported by outdoor signage um helps to develop the um economic development in our communities and um the Aloha Stadium um district um for it to be anticip anticipated that it will um bring a lot of visitors, tourists, and um gather people for the University of Hawaii games. Um if there can be more supportive policies
085to help with flexibility for economic development in these zones, it would be really helpful to supporting the middle class families. Thank you. Okay. >> Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions? Quick question. Senator Wai, >> um just want to point out some factual inaccuracies by the outdoor circle. [clears throat] >> Um this digital signage is not for drivers, right? It's for pedestrians, right? So in terms of there's not going to be distracted drivers. >> No. And I think that uh even the way the bill is it kind of leads with advertising. I think that's sort of a misconception as well. And what we're doing in Wik Ki is we're studying other downtowns really metropolitan areas around the country. and what are we lacking in Wy Ki? And we specifically
086did that during the tsunami scare we had a few months back where pedestrians didn't know where to go. There was a lot of misinformation on whether to evacuate, whether to not. And we've studied that other cities like Miami, like Berkeley, California that has some of the strictest signage laws. They have these digital kiosks to be able to communicate with the public. So these, you know, the these companies, they they'll put them in. free of charge and you're able to uh have security cameras on them. So, you know, Mike Lambert with Department of Law Enforcement is adding cameras. Wy Ki, this would, you know, add dozens more. You'll be able to communicate to community members on emergency preparedness and on a number of different things. But yeah, this is kind of bringing us into our Wy
087Ki special district and then the stadium district, again, a very commercial area into the 21st century in terms of communicating with the public. So, >> and does a Wiki neighborhood board support this? >> So, I know Yeah. Jillian Anderson, I know, who's on the board, put in testimony, but I've talked to members of the neighborhood board, Bob Finley being the chair, and you know, they've been supportive of of these measures. And what I'm [clears throat] going to do is I'm going to reach out and and formally go over this bill with them because this is going to improve public safety. This is going to improve communication with visitors, but also residents. And again, it's going to add another dimension to our uh commercial area of Wik Ki and the stadium district. So, this is going
088to be great uh for not only the economy, but for the the residents of Wik Ki. >> Thank you, T. >> Yeah. Thank you. Oh, just for followup. >> Yes, sir. >> So, this is not going to be like a Las Vegas sign smoking hamburgers. No other. Okay. >> No. And we don't want that, right? We want this for again for public safety reasons and you know, we we don't support that. We don't want a billboard on Diamond Head, but we do want some sort of digital kiosks uh to bring us no corporate. >> None of that. No, sir. Yeah. >> Thank you, Senator. So, um where's the guarantees that it's not going to go that way at some point? I'm not sure whether it's in the bill or not, but I know that the
089bill the way it's written is for these specific digital kiosks that are on the public rights away. So, I know this and and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this has to do with on private property of hotels, right? So, you're not going to be able to put a huge Sheridan sign or you're not going to be able to put So, this is for the public rights way. And I believe also the city and county has to pass an ordinance to allow this. So, this just allows within state law for the cities to do this. Um, here in Hawaii, we have a state law that kind of prohibits this this signage, but and I think it's important. >> We have strong laws against signage, but you go all over the place and
090you see all these violations. Right. Right. [clears throat] >> So, >> I agree. And and the main point of this bill is again for this this specific kiosks that a lot of cities do have in a lot of uh metropolitan hightraic foot traffic areas. Um, and you need this certain law to be able to to do that. and I could send around to your teams as well kind of what it looks like. Um, but it is going to be for the benefit of of not only again visitors but residents. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Uh, any other questions? See none. Uh, short recess. Hi, thank you and welcome back for decision making on our 111 agenda. Um, first up, Senate Bill 2716. Um after conferring with committee as well as the introducer of the bill,
091we do know that we need to um put a little more work into this and and finalize some language. Um I'm going to defer decision making to February 19, 2026 in conference room 229 at 10:5 p.m. Um next up, Senate Bill 2746 relating to taxation. Uh this bill needs a lot of work um and and more uh conversation. I'm going to defer this bill indefinitely. Uh next up, Senate Bill 2906. Um, I'm going to be passing uh with an SD1 by taking out the language uh establishing a tourism and establishing a tourism liaison, making necessary technical and non-substantive amendments and blanking out the appropriation amounts and defecting the effective date to July 1st, 2015. Uh, any discussion? Can you also delete out what the what this tourism leazison person will be doing at this point
092until we can hear from the governor's office >> and also deleting out what the tourism position will be doing until we hear back from the governor's office >> that hear back could be in the committee report but just blanking out >> yeah what she said >> so blanking out oh you know tourist shall do all of this stuff we're going to blank that out we're just going to create the tourism from leazison for now and >> and then adding in the committee report until we hear back from the governor's office. >> Okay, >> members, any discussion? Seeing none, um, vice chair Kai for the vote. Chair goes I. >> I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga, excuse. Senator Kim, >> I. >> Senator Favlla, >> I. Chair, your recommendation is adopted. >> Thank you. Next up, Senate
093Bill 2353. Um we are going to pass this with an SD1 by making necessary technical and non-substantive amendments and defecting the effective date to July 1st 20150. Members, any discussion? Seeing none, vice chair wokai for the vote. Chair goes eye. >> I vote yes. Senator Fukunag excuse. Senator Kim. >> Senator Fabella. >> Hi. >> Chair, your recommendations adopted. >> Thank you members and thank you for joining us. With that we are ajourned.