Transcript Highlights:

• Fine with me.
• I'm fine with the combination you made. It works great. Thank you.
• Sure, that's fine.
• All fine. Okay. Anybody else want to weigh in on this one? Thank you, Chair.
• I'm fine with that too. I'm fine with that too. Anything else?

Summary: The Citizens Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences met on October 22, 2025. Members approved the September 22, 2025 meeting minutes unanimously and reviewed a draft 2026 meeting schedule, tentatively setting meetings for May 6, August 4, September 15, and October 20, 2026, without taking a formal vote. The commission then worked through its commissioner comments on tax preference reviews, with Commissioner Forsyth recusing himself from the natural gas for transportation and energy sales to silicon smelters items. The discussion focused on reconciling endorse/endorse with comment/does not endorse positions into final recommendations. The commission adopted comments for the liquefied natural gas preference, the natural gas for transportation preference, the energy sales to silicon smelters preference, several low-income housing and veterans-related preferences, and other reviewed tax preferences. Several comments emphasized reporting burdens, the need for clearer legislative guidance, and in the veterans’ item, the possibility that low use may reflect limited visibility of the preference. Staff also clarified the reporting requirements for the natural gas transportation preference and the rationale for continuing the LNG preference while asking the legislature to consider a Department of Revenue workgroup report. All commissioner comment packages were ultimately adopted by roll call votes, with the relevant recusals noted. No members of the public testified in person. The chair invited written testimony by email or mail and thanked staff and members for their work. The next commission meeting was announced for May 6, 2026, at 10 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• fines go.
• clear to me where do those fines go. clear to me where do those fines go.
• <00:13:35.760> more<00:13:36.000> than fined more than fined more than >> $10,000
• fines? fines?
• Penal Code and also to allow for fines Penal Code and also to allow for fines of<00:17:15.199> more

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint HHS, Agriculture, Environment, Energy, and Intergovernmental Affairs hearing focused first on SB 2262, a pollution and illegal dumping measure. The Department of Health said it stood on its written testimony, and public testimony included support from CARES with suggested amendments to involve the counties in standardized response planning and to address pollution caused by individuals. Members questioned the bill’s fines, where they would go, and how the department would handle carcasses and illegal dumping enforcement. DOH said administrative fines go to the general fund, criminal fines are collected by the Attorney General, carcasses are generally buried by the landowner under existing rules, and DOH mainly regulates solid waste and coordinates with counties and other agencies when violations arise. After discussion, the chair recommended SB 2262 be passed with substantial amendments. The proposed amendments would add DLNR to the task force, deposit all fines into a special fund to support enforcement, allow fines below $5,000 for littering and higher fines for excessive or chronic illegal dumping, and include a January 30, 2050 effective date. The committee adopted the recommendation, with members voting aye. The hearing then moved to the HHS calendar. On SB 2087, relating to health insurance, agencies including DHS, DCCA, the Attorney General, and Labor stood on written testimony, while several advocacy and medical groups testified in support. One Medicaid recipient opposed the bill, arguing the coverage should be immediate rather than phased in over three years. Angela Melody Young supported the bill but urged amendments to prioritize people with disabilities, kupuna, and mothers. Members questioned whether the rural health transformation program could support the bill’s deductible structure; the Department of Human Services said it was unlikely CMS would allow that level of coverage, though rural funds might help in other ways. The committee then moved on to SB 2089, which would expand services eligible for Medicaid prospective payment system reimbursement, hearing support from OHA, DHS, and others, along with testimony about mental health access and training. The transcript also began SB 2106, relating to health and eating disorder prevention, with a student testifying in support and citing youth eating disorder harms, but the discussion was cut off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• if they have pending fines. if they have pending fines. >> Okay. >> Okay.
• and um the old owner didn't pay fines and um the old owner didn't pay the<01:14:29.040> fines.
• the fines. the fines. What<01:14:30.800> happens? What happens? What happens?
• fines? fines?
• > the we used the fines [snorts] as per the we used the fines [snorts] as per the court<01:15:

Bills: HB1739, HB1741, HB2606, HB2362, HB2608, HB2294, HB2431, HB2375, HB2582, HB2585, HB2231, HB1601, HB2424, HB1956

Keywords: transit-oriented development, zoning, land use, urban planning, density, local governance, housing, inclusionary zoning, inclusionary mandate, affordable housing, below-market-rate housing, inclusionary housing, development exaction, impact fee, housing affordability impact fee, needs assessment study, financial feasibility, rough proportionality, essential nexus, county ordinance

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 19, 2026, and the chair opened by emphasizing strict time limits and that all bills would be deferred if the agenda was not completed before the noon session. The first major measure discussed was HB 1739 HD1, which would preempt county land-use authority in transit-oriented development areas. The Department of Planning supported the bill, saying it could promote state-funded TOD and infrastructure, while the city and county’s position was raised in questioning. Unite Here Local 5 opposed the bill, arguing it would strip counties of self-determination, disrupt state-county policy collaboration, and remove a check on unrestrained development. Committee members pressed the supporters on whether the bill was really about higher density and whether it would override local zoning and sustainability concerns. The committee then heard testimony on HB 1741 HD1, a housing bill described by supporters as reducing inclusionary housing mandates and increasing supply. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii argued affordability mandates reduce overall housing production and raise market-rate prices, while a Zoom testifier said the bill would improve housing stability, health, and community outcomes for working families, kupuna, and young residents. Members asked about the bill’s needs assessment and who would conduct it, with a witness saying the counties would likely contract it out but that the bill did not clearly specify the reviewer. HB 2668 HD1, dealing with water heating systems, drew testimony from the Hawaii State Energy Office and industry representatives. Supporters generally backed adding heat pumps to the law, but one solar-water-heater industry witness asked for amendments to remove or extend the current 15-year statutory life limit for solar water heaters and to update outdated standards and variance rules. A Kauaʻi Climate Action Coalition witness opposed the existing solar-only structure, arguing heat pump water heaters are cheaper, align with climate goals, and should be allowed without a variance. The Energy Office said the current law already allows variances in some cases, suggested adding high-efficiency heat pump water heaters to the exemption, and said the 15-year figure may be too short, with 18 years mentioned as a possible alternative. The committee also briefly moved through several other bills, including HB 2606 HD1 on off-site construction and HB 2362 HD1 on housing, with no notable testimony or action recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• that only has criminal penalties in terms of fines.
• Thank you. ...potentially put fairly significant, huge daily fines on them.
• And that's fine.
• “But no, I would be fine with that.
• The penalty for this crime is a felony and one to 10 years in jail, or a $2,500 fine to $10,000 fine

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, I'm fine. Thank you. So on SB 10009, are there questions from the committee?
• the uh revenues would go from uh fines the uh revenues would go from uh fines in<00:31:03.480>
• So in this bill, the way I read it, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's an additional separate fine
• We just going to move on, but if you have a question, no, no, that's fine. We'll move on.
• no no that's fine we'll move on<00:32:58.240> okay<00:32:58.799> thanks<00:33:00.080><

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several transportation-related measures. SB 282 would increase penalties for using an uncrewed aircraft, or drone, in the commission of a felony. The Honolulu Department of the Prosecuting Attorney strongly supported the bill, saying drones are being used to facilitate crimes such as burglaries, sex offender registration violations, and even murders, and that the measure would create a stronger deterrent and address sentencing issues. Members discussed how drone use could be investigated and noted that a prior Uncrewed Aircraft Offenses Act already covers a range of drone-related offenses. Testimony also included support from a Kauaʻi County Council member and the Office of the Public Defender, and the bill was then set aside as the committee moved on. The committee also heard SB 1032 on campaign finance, which would amend restrictions on foreign nationals and foreign corporations making contributions and expenditures. Testimony was listed in support from labor, civic, and advocacy groups, with some opposition, but the measure was not debated further in the portion provided. SB 1160, a consumer protection bill on ticket resale, drew support from venues and event groups and opposition from the Chamber of Progress, which argued the bill should target scalpers and deceptive practices rather than legitimate resale platforms. The Attorney General suggested an amendment to limit the bill’s scope to Hawaiʻi events, citing Commerce Clause concerns. On SB 344, requiring skateboard users under 16 to wear helmets, the Department of Transportation, Honolulu Police Department, and the Kiki Injury Prevention Coalition supported the measure. SB 106, which would let pedestrians cross outside marked crosswalks when a reasonably careful pedestrian would see no immediate danger, drew mixed testimony: public health and equity advocates supported it as a safety and anti-profiling measure, while others opposed it, warning it could increase danger on wider, faster roads. Committee members questioned whether Hawaiʻi’s current law is more dangerous because pedestrians must step into the roadway before drivers are required to stop, and the discussion continued at length without a final vote in the excerpt. The committee also heard SB 10009 on accessible parking fines, with DCAB and DAGS supporting the intent; a member asked that any new fine revenue go to the state parking revolving fund. SB 820, shortening the vehicle title transfer deadline from 30 days to 14 days, drew opposition from the Public Defender and Honolulu Customer Services, who said the current deadline is reasonable and the bill did not clearly solve a problem. Later measures included SB 1095 on license plate decal restrictions, SB 215 on towing and immobilization fees, and SB 1117 on electric mobility rebates and age/helmet rules, which received support from transportation and safety groups, though the transcript cuts off before any final actions or votes on those bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you and your members comfortable with a fine in lieu of a closure? It's the law.
• If the fine is bigger, that's a bigger smack. Is that not enough?
• Well, right now, the fine is based off of just alcohol sales.
• So for a multi-channel retailer, the fine is small.
• For a large store, the fine is substantial, but not substantial enough.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure opened its first hearing of the session with remarks from Chair Chan and Senate Co-Chair Pavel Payano, who emphasized consumer affordability and professional licensure reform. The chairs also reviewed public testimony rules, noting the hearing was recorded, testimony would be public, and speakers should avoid including sensitive personal information. The committee then heard testimony on several bills carried over from prior sessions and new proposals, with each witness generally speaking in support of the measure they addressed. On self-storage, Joe Doherty of the Self Storage Association supported House Bill 340 and Senate Bill 236, saying the bills would clarify abandonment procedures, allow electronic delivery and signatures for rental agreements, and address situations where a renter fails to return a signed contract after a facility sale, while preserving existing consumer protections. On housing and fair housing education, Nicholas Pelletier and counsel Justin Davidson of the Massachusetts Association of Realtors supported House Bill 343 and Senate Bill 232, which would require fair housing education for real estate licensees; they said fair housing training is already part of MAR’s programs but is not required for all licensees, and Pelletier described a personal example of discriminatory treatment in a rental application. Senators asked whether other states have similar requirements and requested follow-up information. The committee also heard strong support for House Bill 348 and Senate Bill 220 on licensure of applied behavior analysts from Dr. Pauli Gidej of MABA and Dr. Charlie Newfield of Beacon ABA Services. They argued that a dedicated board would improve oversight, speed licensing, and help reduce delays that affect access to autism services, noting the growing number of practitioners and the strain on families waiting for care. Later, Robert Mellion of the Massachusetts Package Stores Association testified for House Bill 390, which would expand alcohol license suspension penalties to all business activity for certain retailers; members questioned the impact on grocery and big-box stores, the difference between suspending alcohol sales versus closing an entire store, and whether fines in lieu of suspension would be sufficient. The committee also heard testimony in favor of House Bill 407 and Senate Bill 277 to license veterinary technicians, with witnesses saying standardized education and licensure would improve animal safety, clarify scope of practice, and better distinguish technicians from assistants. Finally, Craig Orlin of Honda supported House Bill 474 and Senate Bill 291, which would use RMV contacts to notify drivers of open safety recalls and require recall completion as part of registration renewal; he said the bills could improve recall completion rates and address the large number of unrepaired vehicles on the road. At the end of the hearing, the chair noted several bills that did not receive testimony that day, invited written submissions by email, and announced the committee would reconvene in about two weeks. Representative McKenna moved to adjourn, Representative Keefe seconded, and the committee voted to close the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of the collection of fines, individuals who fail to pay court-ordered motor vehicle fines are
• <01:35:45.840> for mentioned they're levied on fines for mentioned they're levied on fines
• obviously the $100 goes in the fine obviously the $100 goes in the fine bucket<01:36:07.239>
• <01:36:55.480> that assessments all also on the fines that assessments all also on the fines
• yes in terms of the collection of fines yes in terms of the collection of fines individuals<01:37

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting featured presentations from the Department of Administrative Services and the Treasury Department on state revenue reporting and unclaimed property. State Comptroller Dana Call explained DAS’s role in compiling statewide revenue reports, including the annual revenue plan set through the budget process and the monthly revenue focus reports that track cash receipts. She noted that unrestricted general fund revenue is about $2 billion annually, while miscellaneous other revenue is a much smaller and less predictable category, averaging roughly $30 million to $32 million a year. She also described two more material internal revenue lines: statewide indirect cost recoveries and post-retirement benefit recoveries, which are billed to agencies and often tied to federal reimbursement rules. Members asked about the interest line in the revenue charts and about how the figures were presented, and Call clarified that the totals were in millions and that the interest item would be explained by the Treasurer. She also explained that the indirect cost and post-retirement recoveries are internal cost allocations that flow back into the unrestricted revenue pool and are reflected in agency budgets as interagency costs. Treasurer Monica Meissner then outlined Treasury Department functions, including bank deposits, statewide disbursements, banking relationships, investments, debt management, compliance, the FONA College Savings Program, the ABLE Plan, scholarship programs, and the abandoned property program. In discussing unclaimed property, she said holders report property after a five-year dormancy period, the state uses automated systems and outreach to locate owners, and claim activity has increased. In fiscal year 2024, the state returned about $12.2 million to citizens through roughly 12,000 claims; over the last 10 years, about $72.6 million has been returned. She also said the state escheated $19.9 million to the general fund and $1.8 million to counties last year, and explained that securities-related proceeds are harder to estimate because they depend on market conditions. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• of Ethics, fines that remain unpaid and delinquent.
• While the amount varies, some fines remain unpaid for as long as five years.
• violated the code, then thumbed their nose at the law and don't pay their fines.
• from the violator's public paycheck until the fine is paid.
• Withholding is at 25 percent of the delinquent fine or the federal maximum, whichever is less.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met with a quorum present and took up two bills. First, it heard SB 72 by Senator Berman, which would allow candidates to use campaign funds for dependent child care expenses incurred while actively campaigning, with limits to prevent use for general family living costs and a requirement to keep records for at least three years. The League of Women Voters appeared in support, and Senator Rouson joked about whether the bill should also cover dependent pets. The bill was reported favorably by committee vote. The committee then considered SB 348 by Chair Gaetz, dealing with ethics violations related to falsely claiming military rank or honors for material gain and with collection of delinquent ethics fines. Gaetz explained that the bill would make such false claims a violation of the Florida Code of Ethics and authorize penalties including censure, fines, and possible removal recommendations; it would also allow public employers to withhold pay to satisfy unpaid ethics penalties. Senator Bradley asked for clarification that “material gain” includes political and professional benefits, not just money, and the chair confirmed that it does. An amendment defining delinquent penalties as unpaid 90 days after imposition was adopted, and the Florida Commission on Ethics spoke in support of the bill’s salary-withholding provisions and expanded jurisdiction. Senator Collins, a veteran, strongly supported the anti-stolen-valor section. The committee then reported CS for SB 348 favorably and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• that only has criminal penalties in terms of fines.
• Potentially put fairly significant, huge daily fines on them.
• And that's fine.
• But no, I would be fine with that.
• The crime is a felony, and one to ten years in jail, or a $2,500 to $10,000 fine, or both fine and confinement

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 4198, which would require employers to use E-Verify to confirm new hires’ work authorization and impose escalating penalties for violations, including warnings, debarment from state contracts, loss of business licenses, and other sanctions. Counsel and senators raised extensive drafting concerns, including circular language, conflicts with existing record-retention provisions, unclear references to “seeks to employ,” possible application to babysitters, lawn care, and other casual or household arrangements, and uncertainty about how the bill would work for employers who never actually complete a hire. The bill sponsor defended the measure as a way to strengthen compliance with existing law, protect employers who use E-Verify in good faith, and deter illegal hiring. After debate, a motion to table the bill failed on a roll call vote, 6 in favor and 10 opposed, and the chair then announced the bill would be sent to a subcommittee to be cleaned up, with instructions to resolve the drafting conflicts and other ambiguities. The committee then turned to House Bill 4710, with an amendment, which would require a person to be registered with a political party or as an independent 210 days before filing a certificate of candidacy. Counsel explained that the change would lengthen the current 60-day requirement and would affect both party-switching and independent candidacies, making it harder for candidates to change affiliation shortly before an election. Senators asked about how the 210-day period would work relative to the primary and general election filing deadlines, and counsel clarified that it would be measured backward from the relevant filing dates. The discussion focused on the practical effect of the bill as a “sore loser” measure and on the timing rules for candidacy filings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Vice chair Senator Fine here.
• Vice chair Senator Fine here.
• I share centre, fine. Yes.
• I share centre, fine. Yes.
• Fine. Yes.