Transcript Highlights:

• three, um, polls and surveys, um, we discussed last winter whether this would have the effect of limiting
• c><00:06:43.120><c> the</c><00:06:43.280><c> effect</c><00:06:43.520><c> of</c><00:06:43.759><c> limiting
• </c><00:06:44.080><c> or</c> would have the effect of limiting or would have the effect of limiting or
• sets silence public employees and sets dangerous<00:16:45.519><c> precedents,</c><00:16:46.079><c> limits
• </c><00:16:46.959><c> open</c> dangerous precedents, limits open dangerous precedents, limits open dialogues

Committee: House Election Law

Transcript Highlights:

• We have 10 sources, aggregate sources across eastern Washington and North Idaho.

Bills: HB2104 , HB2348 , HB2454

Committee: House Agriculture & Natural Resources

Keywords: aviation, wildland fires, funding, disaster relief, emergency response, timber sales, land sales, process efficiency, legislation, department language, regulatory burdens, small producers, infrastructure materials, economic growth, manufacturing

Transcript Highlights:

• members of the committee, my name is Corey Shaw, and I am testifying on behalf of the Washington Aggregate

Bills: HB2228 , HB2273 , HB2418 , HB2381

Committee: House Local Government

Keywords: building code, safety regulations, construction, scissor stairs, state standards, embodied carbon, building materials, sustainability, environment, permit review, project permits, land use, zoning, development regulations, residential development, housing permits, affordable housing, local government, county planning, city planning

Transcript Highlights:

• yes, and when you actually look at that data, because of these tracking services, you can start aggregating

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• 22 positions from DMS to create the new agency for state systems and enterprise technology as we aggregate

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government heard a presentation on its 2025-2026 budget recommendations and adopted the proposal as a recommendation to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The chair highlighted major funding items including more than $1.2 billion for water quality and Everglades work, citrus recovery, food bank and pantry grants, wastewater and drinking water loans, beach restoration, flood and sea level rise projects, rural land protection, disaster loans, state facilities repairs, SLERS, accounting system replacement, and continued funding for My Safe Florida Home. Staff were authorized to make technical adjustments, and members were told final proviso project lists would be printed later in the week. The committee then considered several bills and reported them favorably, including SB 796 on DEP general permits for distributed wastewater treatment systems to help local governments address failing septic-related water quality problems; SB 1162 expanding boating improvement and water access facilities programs; SB 466 implementing the Florida Museum of Black History task force’s selection of West Augustine as the museum site; SB 178 creating a FAMU agronomic study on viable crops for land taken out of production; CS/SB 678 allowing pawnbroker transaction forms to be printed or digital; and CS/SB 736 updating the Brownfields program, with a technical amendment adopted. Testimony on these bills was generally supportive, with speakers from affected industries, local governments, and advocacy groups. The committee also took up CS/CS/SB 700, the comprehensive Florida Farm Bill, which included technical agency changes and major policy provisions such as restrictions on additives to public water supplies, labeling requirements for meat, milk, poultry, and eggs, drone-related protections for farmland, disaster recovery loan updates, an honest services registry for charities, FFA scholarship and school infrastructure provisions, and a mechanism for state purchase of former solar-converted agricultural land. The water-additive provisions drew extensive debate and testimony from supporters and opponents, including dental professionals, public health advocates, and groups arguing for medical freedom and local control. Despite the controversy and a no vote from Senator Arrington, the bill was reported favorably. Finally, SB 1226 creating a regulatory framework for pet insurance was also reported favorably, and the committee adjourned after members recorded additional votes on several bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we do have this room for only a short period of time, so I'm going to limit everybody's testimony
• to two minutes, and I will limit the questions asked.
• outside financial expert in charge of overseeing how federal and state water funds are spent, and limit
• With the exception of older bond payments that were already tied to the system's revenue.
• And we would like your input on potentially raising rates or passing a bond measure or taking on debt

Committee: House Conservation and Natural Resources

Summary: The Conservation and Natural Resources Committee first took up Senate Bill 953, which was described as ensuring environmental protection funds remain dedicated to that purpose. The committee substitute added provisions from House Bill 1885, changing Clean Water Commission membership conflict rules, and Senate Bill 1397, giving certain reservoir water storage contract holders exclusive rights to return flows. Members discussed the conflict-of-interest language and the water-return provision, then adopted a House committee amendment and the amended substitute by voice vote. The committee then voted the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 953 do pass by a 6-5 roll call, with Representative Wellenkamp voting no. The committee then heard House Bill 3193, a proposal by Representative Wellenkamp to reduce single-use plastic waste in state parks and historic sites by phasing out plastic bags, plastic water bottles, and Styrofoam/styrene containers, while allowing exemptions where needed. Supporters, including conservation groups, a Missouri River Bird Observatory representative, and others, said plastics harm parks, waterways, wildlife, tourism, and human health, and urged alternatives and better waste practices. Some members raised concerns about accessibility and the need for practical substitutes for people with disabilities and for emergency or park operations. The Missouri Beverage Association opposed the bill, arguing its plastics are recyclable and that education and recycling are better approaches than bans. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 3320, the Drinking Water Transparency and Accountability Act, which would assign Missouri public water systems A-F grades based on violations, finances, operations, and infrastructure, and would impose additional oversight and spending restrictions on systems graded D or F. The sponsor said the bill would make water-system problems easier for ratepayers to understand and help address chronic failures; supporters from Missouri American Water, Central States Water Resources, and the Missouri Chamber said it would improve transparency and support investment. Opponents from municipal utilities, the Missouri Municipal League, and the Missouri Water Association argued the bill oversimplifies a technical field, duplicates existing consumer confidence reports, could confuse customers, and may undermine trust in local systems. No vote was taken on HB 3193 or HB 3320 before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• They can't afford to buy stocks, bonds, other assets.
• They can't afford to buy stocks, bonds, other assets.
• They can't afford to buy stocks, bonds, other assets.
• They can't afford to buy stocks, bonds, other assets.
• They can't afford to buy stocks, bonds, other assets.

Committee: House Economic Development & Technology

Summary: The committee on Economic Development and Technology heard testimony on several bills, beginning with HB 22, which would limit state and local cooperation with federal immigration detainers. Supporters, including the Legal Clinic, the Office of the Public Defender, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, argued the bill would protect due process and constitutional rights regardless of immigration status. Some supporters requested amendments, including removing a probable-cause terrorism provision, adding enforcement language, and preserving warrant requirements. Public testimony was heavily in favor, with the chair announcing 91 testimonies in support and 52 in opposition. The committee then heard HB 73, which would prohibit setting aside public lands for immigration detention facilities. Testifiers in support said public land should serve local needs, not detention centers, and cited housing, food security, and community trust concerns. The Office of the Public Defender and others also supported the measure, and the chair reported 85 testimonies in support and 40 in opposition. The committee next took up HB 438, which would fund legal representation for people in immigration proceedings. Supporters, including the Public Defender, the University of Hawaiʻi Law School Refugee and Immigration Clinic, the Hawaiʻi Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU, emphasized the civil nature of immigration court, the severe consequences of removal, and the need for more pro bono and trained attorneys. Several suggested amendments focused on training and building a legal-services pipeline; the chair reported 83 testimonies in support and 51 in opposition. The committee also heard HB 457, aimed at requiring notice to detained individuals about their rights when ICE seeks to interview them or has a detainer request. Supporters said the bill would ensure people understand their right to remain silent and to refuse interviews, and the Legal Clinic suggested the warning be given orally, potentially via recorded messages, rather than only in writing. The Office of the Public Defender noted the bill aligns with existing due-process warnings in criminal court and suggested referencing current law. Finally, HB 476, which would raise the capital gains tax rate, drew support from Hawaiʻi Appleseed on fairness grounds; the Department of Taxation said it would review revenue questions but had no estimate available. After recess, the committee returned to decision-making and moved HB 22 forward on the chair’s recommendation of HD1, with the chair noting that the bill already contained language allowing counties to adopt stronger standards and protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, it limits excessive setbacks and prohibits internal setbacks between newer creation puzzles.
• So also the cities have been applied since like two and a half story limits, which actually very hard
• Also, it limits excessive from setbacks, prohibits internal setbacks between newer creation puzzles.
• California's housing crisis continues to limit homeownership opportunities and increase housing costs
• So you got park bond money if you built housing.

Committee: Senate Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• If House Bill 1295 moves forward, I encourage the inclusion of a sunset clause or a time limit to allow
• If House Bill 1295 moves forward, I encourage the inclusion of a sunset clause or a time limit to allow
• for review and adjustment. of a sunset clause or a time limit to allow for review and adjustment if
• House Bill 1796 authorizes school districts to contract indebtedness and issue bonds without a vote of
• It provides that this new authority is limited to school districts that have passed a capital levy and

Bills: HB1796 , SGA9249 , SGA9269 , SGA9244

Committee: Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education

Keywords: school construction, contract indebtedness, school districts, bonding authority, education funding

Transcript Highlights:

• LET'S MOVE TO SENATOR AVILA SJR 7010 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY ON SENATE LIMITATIONS.
• THIS IS PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ON ASSESSMENT LIMITATION LONG TERM LEASE BY SENATOR AVILA.
• IT ESSAYS MAY NOT DISPLACE A FLAG THAT REPRESENTS A VIEW POLITICAL VIEWPOINT NOT LIMITED TO POLITICAL
• WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LIMIT SPEAKING TIME TO A LITTLE UNDER A MINUTE.
• FOR TAXES PLEDGE DON'T HAVE TO BE REAPPROVED UNTIL THE BOND ENDS UNLESS THE BONDS ARE SET TO RETIRE

Transcript Highlights:

• Public testimony will be limited to three minutes per speaker. If you wish... Mr.
• While, and by the way, these, some of these services are provided within city limits.
• Great setup, but it limits counties like Harris County. Did we have all the big city problems?
• The county can do bonds, revenue bonds for parks, and this Parks Board can kind of supersede those being
• spent, but again... and they can't approve the bond, that's all set by the commissioner's court.

Bills: HB336 , HB554 , HB849 , HB 1033 , HB1338 , HB 1246

Committee: House S/C on County & Regional Government

Transcript Highlights:

• The four corners has been working diligently on that, and yes, with limited resources and different approaches
• bit disagreement on what we're doing, but also my big part is what we're doing to fund this with the bonds
• looking forward to what we need to do when it comes to those revenues and also what, whether it's bonding

Summary: The conference committee met to act on the conference agreement for gross substitute Senate Bill 6005, the state’s two-year transportation budget. Staff summarized the agreement as a $16.6 billion appropriations package for the biennium, compared with $17 billion in the Senate version and $16.5 billion in the House version. The budget includes about $800 million in reappropriated capital funds to continue existing projects, plus new funding for preservation, maintenance, and ferries, and it is tied to a six-year plan with project lists referenced in the bill. Members from both chambers praised staff and described the agreement as a compromise focused on maintenance, preservation, ferries, and traffic safety. Several speakers emphasized that the budget addresses immediate needs while acknowledging broader long-term challenges, including the need for sustainable transportation revenue and future planning for ferries, culverts, and capital projects. Some members noted concerns about the financing approach and the use of bonds, but still supported the overall agreement. On the motion to approve the conference report, the committee voted 5-1 to recommend the conference budget. Representative Barkis voted do not recommend, while Representatives Donaghy and Fey, and Senators King, Krishnadasan, and Leavitt voted to recommend. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• At this team, the four corners has been working diligently on that, and yes, with limited resources and
• in disagreement on what we're doing, but also my big part is what we're doing to fund this with the bonds
• looking forward to what we need to do when it comes to those revenues and also what, whether it's bonding

Summary: The conference committee met to act on the conference report for gross substitute Senate Bill 6005, the state’s two-year supplemental transportation budget. Staff summarized the agreement as a $16.6 billion budget for the biennium, compared with $17 billion in the Senate version and $16.5 billion in the House version. The package includes about $800 million in reappropriated capital funds to continue existing projects, along with new funding for preservation, maintenance, and ferries, and it is tied to a six-year transportation plan and two project lists referenced in the bill. Members from both chambers spoke in support of the compromise while noting ongoing concerns about long-term transportation funding. Several emphasized that maintenance, preservation, ferries, and safety were the central priorities, and that the budget would help keep workers employed and projects moving. Chair Fye and Ranking Member Barkas both said more work is needed in the interim and next session to develop a sustainable long-term revenue and capital strategy, while Senator King, Representative Donaghy, and Senator Krishnadasan highlighted the preservation, maintenance, ferries, and jobs impacts of the agreement. After debate, Representative Fine moved to approve the conference report. The committee then took a roll call vote and recommended the conference budget by a tally of five to one, with Representative Barkas voting do not recommend and the other members voting to recommend. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• assessments, fees, or taxes, all subject to voter approval Senator Birdwell: or through the issuance of bonds
• As a result, validating language is required in order for the district to issue bonds.
• The district is located in Austin County within the Senator Nichols: corporate limits of the city of
• Improvement District will contain approximately 480 acres not located within the ETJ or corporate limits

Bills: HB103

Committee: Senate Local Government

Summary: The Senate Local Government Committee met to hear and act on a series of municipal utility district and municipal management district bills, most of them presented as template or cleanup measures. The committee first heard HB 5672, which redefined the boundaries of the Driftwood Conservation District in Hays County to match acreage added through landowner petitions; no one testified, and the bill was reported favorably and placed on the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then took up HB 5696 for the Reserve Municipal Management District in Mansfield, where Senator Birdwell explained a committee substitute that conformed the bill to the standard MMD template; the bill was left pending subject to call of the chair. Similar template or technical bills followed, including HB 5680 (Bayou Bell No. 1 MMD in Liberty County), HB 5654 (Montgomery County MUD No. 263), HB 5662 (Fort Bend County WCID No. 12 with road powers), HB 5658 (Craver Ranch MMD in Denton County), HB 5661 (Fort Bend County MUD No. 286), HB 5699 (an exclusion/contract provision for Harris County MUD No. 405), HB 5679 (Hills of Walnut Creek MUD in Parker County), HB 5437 (validation language for Austin County MUD No. 1), HB 5665 (Waller County MUD No. 70), HB 5656 (Fort Bend County MUD No. 263), HB 5670 (Montgomery County MUD No. 259), HB 5651 (Montgomery County WCID with drainage powers), HB 5682 (Comina Ranch MMD No. 1 in McKinney), HB 5320 (merging Starr County drainage-related districts), HB 5677 (Pura Vida MMD No. 1), and HB 5666 (Fencey Road MUD in Harris County). In each case, the sponsor described the district, acreage, location, and powers, and committee substitutes were often used to align the bills with the chamber’s standard template language or correct drafting errors. Public testimony was repeatedly opened and closed with no witnesses appearing for or against the bills. The committee consistently adopted committee substitutes when offered, then voted to report the measures favorably, usually with recommendations that they do pass and be printed, and to place them on the local and uncontested calendar. Most roll calls showed 4 or 5 ayes and 0 nays, with some members absent or not voting. HB 5680 and HB 5682 were reported with committee substitutes in lieu of the filed versions; HB 5658 was reported with a do-not-pass recommendation on the filed bill but do-pass on the substitute; HB 5677 was handled similarly as a companion/template cleanup measure. The committee also noted a few procedural issues, including quorum concerns early in the meeting and a mislabeled bill number that required clarification. At the end of the meeting, the committee adopted several motions in writing and then recessed to reconvene 15 minutes after adjournment of the floor, anticipating possible additional bills later in the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• It sets a declining limit on major sources of climate pollution, covering the largest polluters, including
• The limit is an aggregate limit set for all sources. There are no facility-specific caps.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It sets a declining limit on major sources of climate pollution, covering the largest polluters, including
• The limit is an aggregate limit set for all sources. There are no facility-specific caps.

Committee: House Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It sets a declining limit on major sources of climate pollution, covering the largest polluters, including
• The limit is an aggregate limit set for all sources. There are no facility-specific caps.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• It sets a declining limit on major sources of climate pollution, covering the largest polluters, including
• The limit is an aggregate limit set for all sources. There are no facility-specific caps.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a 90-minute hearing time slot, and as such this committee observes a 2-minute testimony time limit
• </c> been that a lot of people have limited been that a lot of people have limited access<00:16:44.800
• </c><00:30:21.840><c> requirements</c> waiting period and bonding requirements waiting period and bonding
• I have some concerns about the 2-year limitation. So noted. Any other comments or questions?
• </c> concerns about the 2-year um limitation concerns about the 2-year um limitation so<00:37:29.119>

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Summary: The joint hearing first took up SB 696, which would create an emergency management office and fund tax credits, grants for low-income taxpayers to fortify homes, shelter development, and staffing. Supporters argued Hawaii needs a dedicated preparedness office and funding before the next hurricane season, while the Tax Foundation said the bill was too vague, especially on who would qualify for the tax credits and under what conditions. The Department of the Attorney General and the insurance division offered comments, and both committees recommended deferral of SB 696. The Commerce and Consumer Protection committee then heard SB 179 on construction defect remedies and the contractor repair act. Builders, Realtors, carpenters, and a mortgage industry witness supported the bill, saying it would reduce abusive litigation, speed repairs, and help housing production and affordability. Homeowner advocates and plaintiff attorneys opposed it, arguing it would weaken consumer protections, shift repair costs to homeowners, and delay or limit legitimate claims. One testifier suggested the Senate focus instead on stronger alternative dispute resolution, and the committee noted 105 written supporters, four opponents, and one comment submission. The committee next heard SB 416 on allowing pets in rental housing, with the Attorney General recommending a non-impairment safeguard because of possible effects on existing contracts. SB 593 on commercial dog breeders drew support from the Hawaii Humane Society and others, with concerns raised that counties would be expected to enforce the new regime without funding. SB 641, creating a tax on low-alcohol-by-volume spirits beverages, drew opposition from the Wine Institute, which said it would create a tax break for one segment and likely reduce state revenue. SB 1048 on online crowdfunding received support from GoFundMe and comments from the Attorney General, with GoFundMe urging changes to reduce burdens on charitable fundraising. SB 1213, allowing businesses to accept service of process by email instead of maintaining a registered agent, drew DCCA comments and opposition from LegalZoom, which warned email service could be unreliable and vulnerable to phishing.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2015, that was changed to put term limits on board members.
• There are term limits that are in the...
• I was not there when they did the bond issue, the $3.2 billion dollar bond issue.
• Because there's no limitations on... ...there's no limitations on... an auspicious omission of sewer
• system limitations.

Bills: HB 1520 , HB 1545 , HJR 110 , HJR 203 , HB 245 , HB 1465 , HB 1482 , HB 294 , HB 793 , HB 809 , HB 3928 , HB 334 , HB 2037 , HB 1973 , HB 285 , HB 4341 , HB 4264 , HB 1043 , HB 837 , HB 1234 , HB 1193 , HB 1194 , HB 1646 , HB 1729 , HB 2498 , HB 1314 , HB 2295 , HB 1353 , HB 1531 , HB 1988 , HB 5398 , HB 3960 , HB 3923 , HB 1407 , HB 1764 , HB 2221 , HB 2214 , HB 2517 , HB 2518 , HB 2213 , HB 5008 , HB 5092 , HB 3421 , HB 3663 , HB 3748 , HB 3800 , HB 3756 , HB 2613 , HB 3782 , HB 5246 , HB 4344 , HB 4044 , HB 4066 , HB 2702 , HB 2807 , HB 2869 , HB 2898 , HB 3181 , HB 3250 , HB 4153 , HB 2091 , HB 2115 , HB 2542 , HB 2768 , HB 3349 , HB 3352 , HB 4406 , HB 1593 , HB 1899 , HB 3133 , HB 4432 , HB 4960 , HB 3214 , HB 3915 , HB 3508 , HB 2145 , SB 304 , SB 608 , SB 2312 , SB 494 , SB 530 , HB 45 , HB 2520 , HB 35 , HB 47 , HB 318 , HB 349 , HB 554 , HB 1359 , HB 1373 , HB 2254 , HB 2259 , HB 2853 , HB 3073 , HB 3088 , HB 353 , HB 355 , HB 786 , HB 762 , HB 705 , HB 932 , HB 849 , HB 1119 , HB 3041 , HB 713 , HB 3104 , HB 3970 , HB 4042 , HB 4490 , HB 1731 , HB 2607 , HB 3689 , HB 1788 , HB 1612 , HB 138 , HB 15 , HB 1971 , HB 1338 , HB 2989 , HB 267 , HB 1201 , HB 2954 , HB 5265 , HB 1804 , HB 5061 , HB 1520 , HB 1545 , HJR 110 , HJR 203 , HB 1887 , HB 1914 , HB 2402 , HB 2306 , HB 1809 , HB 2350 , HB 3000 , HB 3237 , HB 3326 , HB 3211 , HB 1056 , HB 2081 , HB 2187 , HB 3092 , HB 3308 , HB 3526 , HB 3750 , HB 3527 , HB 4219 , HB 4230 , HB 4290 , HB 5238 , HB 4804 , HB 4749 , HB 245 , HB 1465 , HB 1482 , HB 294 , HB 793 , HB 809 , HB 3928 , HB 334 , HB 2037 , HB 1973 , HB 285 , HB 4341 , HB 4264 , HB 1043 , HB 837 , HB 1234 , HB 1193 , HB 1194 , HB 1646 , HB 1729 , HB 2498 , HB 1314 , HB 2295 , HB 1353 , HB 1531 , HB 1988 , HB 5398 , HB 3960 , HB 3923 , HB 1407 , HB 1764 , HB 2221 , HB 2214 , HB 2517 , HB 2518 , HB 2213 , HB 5008 , HB 5092 , HB 3421 , HB 3663 , HB 3748 , HB 3800 , HB 3756 , HB 2613 , HB 3782 , HB 5246 , HB 4344 , HB 4044 , HB 4066 , HB 2702 , HB 2807 , HB 2869 , HB 2898 , HB 3181 , HB 3250 , HB 4153 , HB 2091 , HB 2115 , HB 2542 , HB 2768 , HB 3349 , HB 3352 , HB 4406 , HB 1593 , HB 1899 , HB 3133 , HB 4432 , HB 4960 , HB 3214 , HB 3915 , HB 3508 , HB 2145 , HCR 6 , HCR 12 , HCR 34 , HCR 50 , HCR 55 , HCR 58 , HCR 70 , HCR 71 , HCR 72 , HCR 74 , HCR 75 , HCR 78 , HCR 80 , HCR 93 , HCR 100 , HCR 107 , HCR 116 , HCR 117 , HCR 90