Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none to testify on HB1 1842?
• Um, practically speaking, this HB1 1741.
• HB1 1741 Hawaii's housing market.
• Voting on HB1<02:20:39.439> 1741.
• The recommendation is to pass HB1 1741.

Bills: HB1721, HB1714, HB1718, HB1732, HB1740, HB1777, HB1842, HB1919, HB1701, HB1923, HB1741, HB1734, HB1739

Keywords: housing, expedited permits, insurance, indemnification, construction, affordable housing, executive compensation, Hawaii housing finance, legislative approval, low-income housing, moderate-income housing, mixed-use development, transit-oriented development, TOD, county powers, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, HHFDC, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, DHHL, affordable housing credits

Summary: The House Housing Committee met on February 4 and heard testimony on several housing measures, beginning with HB1721, which clarifies insurance, indemnification, and certificate-of-occupancy requirements for expedited permits. Testimony on HB1721 was uniformly supportive from the American Council of Engineering Companies, the Grassroot Institute, and individual testifiers, who said the bill would fix insurance issues for design professionals and encourage more participation in the expedited-permit program. No opposition was heard and no questions were raised. The committee then heard HB1714, which would raise salary caps for the executive director and deputy executive director positions at the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation and allow more autonomy in personnel matters, including employment contracts. HHFDC supported the bill, saying greater flexibility is needed to recruit and retain staff and that current pay ceilings are not the main issue because the agency lacks operating funds to reach them. The Department of Human Resources Development offered comments and raised concerns about autonomous personnel authority and employment contracts, saying state personnel matters are governed by existing statutes and collective bargaining rules; the Hawaii Public Housing Authority also offered comments, and one board member and one individual opposed the measure. Members questioned whether performance-based pay or existing incentive policies could address retention instead of statutory salary changes. The committee also heard HB1718, which would make permanent county authority to facilitate mixed-use developments and issue county bonds for low- and moderate-income housing projects. Support came from OPSD, HHFDC, the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Housing and Land Management, and Housing Hawaii’s Future, all emphasizing that permanent authority is needed to finance long-term mixed-use and transit-oriented projects. A member asked whether the sunset provision would make bonding impractical, and the city representative agreed that temporary authority would make financing difficult because development takes time. Later, the committee took up HB1732, establishing the Kamina Homes program to fund counties’ purchase of voluntary deed restrictions from eligible buyers. The Department of Taxation and several groups, including HHFDC, AARP Hawaii, the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Hawaii Realtors, Holomua Collaborative, and others testified, with most supporting the bill as a way to help local families remain in Hawaii and age in place. Holomua said a recent survey found 75% of 3,200 working families were considering moving, and argued the bill could preserve housing for local residents. Members asked about the bill’s 8% cap on deed-restriction cost and why the program focuses on residency rather than resale restrictions; the bill’s proponents said the cap allows flexibility for county negotiations and that the measure is aimed at workforce preservation rather than land-trust-style appreciation limits. Finally, the committee heard HB1740, which would modify a prior HHFDC housing pathway by reducing the qualified-resident requirement from 100% to 80% and allowing more flexibility for long-term rental instead of owner occupancy. HHFDC and Holomua Collaborative supported the change, saying the earlier 100% requirement had produced no developments or applicants and that the revised standard would make projects more feasible while still preserving housing for local residents. The committee did not take final votes on these measures during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't apply to HB1 passes.
• That's my issue with<00:18:52.240> HB1.
• with HB1. Thank you, Madam Speaker. with HB1. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
• A lot has been said third reader HB1.
• Now, I've heard about this being<01:10:20.960> HB1 being HB1 being HB1 does<01:10:22.640> not

Keywords: House streaming session for Friday, February 6, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with 117 members present, then 123 after a quorum call, and proceeded through routine introductions and referrals, including introductory House bills 959 through 1018, House Joint Resolution 8, House Simple Resolution 1, several Senate bills, and bond initiatives referred to Appropriations. The main floor item was House Bill 1, concerning investor-owned electric and gas utility cost recovery limitations, which was on third reading and final passage. Debate on HB 1 focused on whether the bill would meaningfully lower utility bills and whether it was necessary given existing Public Service Commission authority. Supporters argued the bill would prevent ratepayers from bearing the cost of executive bonuses and other compensation above $250,000, saying utilities can still pay those costs from shareholder profits and that the measure would save money for customers, even if only modestly. Opponents argued the PSC already has authority to review executive compensation, warned the bill could be largely symbolic or misleading, and said it might encourage utilities to shift bonuses into base salaries or harm recruitment and service quality. Several members also argued the bill did not address other drivers of high bills, such as riders and program costs, and one member said the General Assembly itself was responsible for rising energy costs. No final vote on HB 1 was shown in the transcript excerpt, but members on both sides stated their intended positions, with supporters urging a yes vote and opponents indicating they would vote no. The discussion ended with another member beginning remarks about taking on concentrated corporate power and standing with working people.

Transcript Highlights:

• against HB1 1793 is rejected. Thank you. against HB1 1793 is rejected. Thank you.
• There are two opposition of HB1 1793.
• while I recognize the intent behind HB1 while I recognize the intent behind HB1 1793<02:55:26.319
• Thank you urge you to oppose HB1 1793.
• But I mean, we'll see what HB1 1793.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• missed deleting the sections out in HB1. missed deleting the sections out in HB1.
• <00:27:51.600> So,<00:27:51.840> no back into the budget into HB1.
• So, no back into the budget into HB1.
• where it technically moving it into HB1 where it technically should<00:27:56.559> be.
• It's a HB1 Rosenald and Senator Waters.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, what is this HB1 amendment? Mr. Chairman, I can explain.
• And so what this amendment is, it's an HB1 amendment to add $100,000 specifically to run that program
• <00:26:54.159> amendment<00:26:55.120> the So what is on your HB1 amendment the So
• what is on your HB1 amendment the house<00:26:55.840> introduced<00:26:56.559> that<00:
• In the HB1, the accounting unit office.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee worked through several HB 2 budget amendments, focusing first on energy-related transfers and then on judicial funding. For the energy item, members discussed moving remaining money from the renewable energy fund into the general fund for the biennium, with later-year amounts going to the general fund rather than ratepayers. They noted the proposal was based on prior House Bill 111 language, that the exact amount was still being worked out with the Department of Energy, and that some language about “incentive payments” was being removed or clarified. Amendment 1211H was moved and adopted on a 5-4 vote. The committee then considered amendment 1040 on the governor’s scholarship fund, which would eliminate the program and sweep uncommitted funds. Members supporting the program argued it helps New Hampshire students afford in-state college and should be reworked rather than repealed; opponents said the remaining balance was limited and the program should be ended. Amendment 1040 was defeated 4-5. The committee then turned to a judicial council request tied to a Franklin Pierce criminal justice clinic that had previously used ARPA funds. Supporters said the clinic cleared 323 cases in nine months, provided training for future attorneys, and could reduce more expensive assigned-counsel costs by helping the public defender system handle cases more efficiently. The amendment would add $100,000 to the judicial council line for that purpose. There was some confusion over the line item and whether the request should be attributed to the judicial branch or judicial council, which was corrected during discussion. Members also discussed a larger issue: the judicial council’s budget request appeared lower than intended because of a possible clerical error in how prior-year funding was calculated, especially after the last budget combined HB 1 and HB 2 funding. The committee compared the public defender line and assigned counsel line, noting that if public defender funding is cut, more cases would shift to assigned counsel, which is more expensive. No final vote on the judicial council amendment is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:38.839> Health<00:09:39.279> um<00:09:39.440> supports<00:09:40.240> hb1
• <00:09:41.680> we<00:09:41.839> do<00:09:42.240> ask of Health um supports hb1
• 1260 we do ask of Health um supports hb1 1260 we do ask um<00:09:42.800> for<00:09:42.959>
• for the making sure we get that right um for the next<00:37:49.160> measure<00:37:49.760> hb1
• <00:37:50.160> 1260<00:37:50.839> relating next measure hb1 1260 relating next measure

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Transportation and Culture heard testimony on several transportation-related bills. HB 1422, which would exempt certain community-based organizations providing transportation services from motor carrier law, drew support from the Department of Transportation, PUC, DLNR, Kauaʻi County, the Hōnaunau Initiative, and others; members asked about narrowing amendments to prevent unintended use, and the bill later advanced with amendments, including a three-year sunset. HB 1162, requiring motorcycle instruction permit applicants to complete a DOT-approved basic rider course, received support from DOT and Honolulu Customer Services; it advanced with amendments to address city and county concerns and to allow more implementation time. HB 1259, which would remove the need for an engineering study when reducing speed limits by up to 10 mph, had mixed testimony and was deferred for further discussion. HB 1260, establishing summer streets pilot programs for counties other than Oʻahu, drew support from DOT, DOH, UH, Hawaiʻi Appleseed, bicycling and public health groups, and individuals; DOH and others asked that Oʻahu be included, but the measure was deferred for later decision-making. HB 177, making civil ID cards free, had opposition from DOT and Honolulu Customer Services and support from health advocates; DOT said the program costs about $1.3 million annually and would need replacement funding, and the bill was deferred. HB 862, authorizing motor coaches, small buses, and vans for school bus services under certain conditions, received broad support from disability advocates, DOE-related entities, neighborhood boards, and private providers, with testimony emphasizing flexibility and accessibility; it was deferred. HB 667, requiring microchip scanning and reporting when deceased cats or dogs are removed from roadways, was supported by DOT, the Hawaiian Humane Society, and many animal groups and individuals, and was passed unamended. HB 960, increasing the cap on certain DOT capital investment contracts, and HB 228, authorizing electronic license plates and banning plate-obscuring devices and flipping devices, were both heard and then deferred. HB 1156, increasing the amount of special facility revenue bonds available for harbor improvements, received support from DOT, the Island Chamber of Commerce, Alakaʻi Energy, and the Harbor Users Group, and was passed unamended to Ways and Means.

Transcript Highlights:

• 1294 HD1 relating to agricultural is hb1 1294 HD1 relating to agricultural Workforce<00:54:14.319>
• peruso we're voting on hb1 peruso we're voting on hb1 1417 1417 1417 I<02:10:47.239> representative
• <02:18:33.760> 1497 adopted thank you next 1490 hb1 1497 adopted thank you next 1490 hb1 1497
• <02:19:58.720> 1427 adopted thank you next measure hb1 1427 adopted thank you next measure
• you chair voting on hb1 you chair voting on hb1 1237<02:25:24.640> chair's<02:25:25.080><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• um the office of the commissioner hb1 um the office of the commissioner used<00:49:04.040> to
• <04:19:23.640> and you give an appropriation in hb1 and you give an appropriation in hb1 and
• we have the authority and are in hb1 we have the authority and are mandated<04:19:58.159> to<
• for district adequacy we are put0 in hb1 for district adequacy we are going<04:20:06.279> to<
• number it's more just a putting an hb1 number it's more just a budgeting<04:20:19.640> process

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II committee heard a Department of Education budget presentation from Commissioner Frank Edelblut and CFO Tammy Valen-cour. The department outlined its organizational structure and emphasized that it functions largely as a flow-through agency for school funding. The commissioner reviewed general fund and Education Trust Fund items, including state aid, dropout prevention, special education, building aid, lease aid, charter schools, Education Freedom Accounts, and the district adequacy calculation. He also highlighted the public school infrastructure fund, saying the state has invested well over $50 million in school safety since 2018 for measures such as access controls, locks, and window film, and argued that safety spending should be ongoing rather than reactive. Members asked about the variability in the school infrastructure line, special education aid, and the Discovery Education learning platform. Edelblut explained that some safety funding had come from one-time surplus appropriations rather than the agency line, and said special education aid was underappropriated because districts submitted more invoices than expected; he said the governor added $16 million to address the shortfall. He also described CTE renovation funding, noting four projects were initially proposed but only Jaffrey and Milford were still moving forward, with local votes required and the state covering 75% of costs. He said Milford’s project was omitted from the governor’s budget by oversight. The department also reviewed enrollment trends, noting public school enrollment has fallen from about 230,000 students in 2002 to about 185,000 today. Edelblut clarified that charter students are not eligible for Education Freedom Accounts, while EFA students attending non-public schools are counted as EFA students. He described several one-time surplus-funded initiatives, including Student Clearinghouse, MTSSB work, civics curriculum development, computer science education, and adult education. He also discussed a $4 million CTE tuition and transportation grant, saying it was kept as a competitive grant rather than a formula grant to avoid creating an ongoing maintenance-of-effort commitment that could jeopardize federal Perkins funding. In the final portion, Edelblut identified prioritized needs in the department’s budget, especially funding for a state administrator for assessment to support the legislatively required civics assessment, and additional support for the Discovery Education platform. He said every school in the state is using the platform and cited more than 1.5 million educator engagements, while a member raised concerns about mixed reviews and uneven district awareness of the program. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and question period.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, any discussion on the H moving into HB1?
• <00:24:30.320> as adopting the uh changes to HB1 as adopting the uh changes to HB1 as described
• , I would feel that already in HB1, I would feel that probably<00:30:57.840> we<00:30:58.080><
• the HB1 the HB1 um<00:39:03.920> like<00:39:04.240> line<00:39:04.480> items
• Would we need two different motions because we are modifying HB1 and HB2? It's your call.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first revisited HB 781, the cell phone bill, after previously retaining it. On reconsideration, members moved to OTP the bill, and it passed unanimously. The committee then moved into the budget tracking packet and adopted an amendment to HB 2 to add the same cell phone policy language, also unanimously, and separately reduced HB 1 by $1 million to match the policy change. Members noted the cell phone language had already been stripped of grant funding language in the House version and that the policy and funding pieces were being aligned across the budget bills. The committee then took up a Department of Education technical amendment to HB 2 on charter school grants, which made timing and administrative changes without altering grant amounts, and adopted it unanimously. Members also discussed but held other education-related items, including adequacy grants, pending broader decisions on overall education funding. Another HB 2 item concerning E-911/state police radio communications prompted a longer discussion about whether E-911 surcharge funds were being used for purposes that should instead be general-funded. After debate over whether to leave the current practice in place or split the funding 50/50 between E-911 and general funds, the committee adopted a joint HB 1/HB 2 change to shift the funding source to a 50/50 split and delete the HB 2 language authorizing the prior use; the motion passed 7-0. The committee also discussed but did not act on several lottery-related provisions, including the video lottery terminal amendment, the increase in maximum ticket price from $30 to $50, and related tax split changes, with members planning to hear from the Lottery Commission on Monday. The meeting ended with the committee beginning review of new amendments in the tracking packet, including a Department of Education request related to Public School Infrastructure Commission grant administration, but no action was taken on that item in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• wishing<00:03:22.239> to<00:03:22.360> testify<00:03:22.760> on<00:03:22.920> hb1
• anyone else wishing to testify on hb1 anyone else wishing to testify on hb1 1428<00:03:26.280>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard three bills. HB 1428 would appropriate funds for HHFC to distribute to HUD-certified housing counseling agencies and require a report to the Legislature. Testimony was uniformly supportive, including HHFC, the County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development, and individual testifiers who said housing counseling, financial education, and one-on-one guidance can help keep residents housed. In response to a question, HHFC said there are five certified agencies in the state and requested $1.5 million for one year, noting uncertainty around federal funding. The chair recommended passage with amendments, and the committee adopted the recommendation unanimously. HB 833 would create a five-year Community Land Trust Equity pilot program through HHFC, using Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund money to provide lines of credit for acquisition, rehabilitation, renovation, or construction of housing for certain households. Multiple organizations and individuals testified in support. HHFC said the needed funding depends on the size of the pilot and estimated that 50 homes at $500,000 each would require about $25 million; members discussed how the funds would revolve as loans are repaid. The chair recommended passage with amendments, including replacing the income restriction with qualified residents under HRS 20-32 and prioritizing applications requiring the lowest funds per unit per year. The recommendation was adopted. HB 286 would increase the maximum annual deduction and account limits for Individual Housing Accounts. The Department of Taxation testified, with support also noted from the Maui Chamber of Commerce and several individuals, and one individual in opposition. In response to questions, DOTAX said the change would likely have limited impact because fewer than 100 IHAs have been reported and suggested the deduction would need to be above the Roth IRA limit to matter. The chair recommended passage with technical amendments and reported the proposed limits as $10,000 for single filers and $20,000 for married filing jointly. The committee adopted the recommendation, and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• First up, we have HB1<00:13:49.200> 1881<00:13:50.240> relating<00:13:50.639> to
• <00:13:52.720> Um, HB1 1881 relating to land use. Um, HB1 1881 relating to land use.
• 1845 relating to the land we have HB1 1845 relating to the land use<00:35:48.160> commission.
• 1844 relating to the land up we have HB1 1844 relating to the land use<00:45:40.960> commission.
• Next up, we have HB1 1844. >> Okay. Next up, we have HB1 1844.

Bills: HB1881, HB2218, HB1956, HB2151, HB1845, HB1844, HB2103, HB2424, HB1650, HB376, HB2599, HB1861

Keywords: land use, ropeway, transportation, state regulation, government exemption, DLNR, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Board of Land and Natural Resources, BLNR, public lands, public trust resources, community co-management, co-management agreement, community-based organization, Native Hawaiian, malama aina, ahupuaa, subsistence, cultural resources, religious practices

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 10, 2026, with Chair Mark Hashem outlining strict testimony rules and noting a time constraint because of later hearings and floor session obligations. The committee then took up several bills, hearing mostly supportive testimony on HB 1881 relating to land use, HB 2218 relating to DLNR/community management, and HB 1956 relating to freshwater waves, while HB 1845 relating to the Land Use Commission drew legal concerns and opposition. HB 2151 relating to building materials had no substantive testimony presented in the excerpt, and the committee moved through it quickly. On HB 1881, testimony focused on protecting North Shore lands from overdevelopment. A supporter described the area as valuable precisely because it remains largely undeveloped, and a member asked whether the bill’s restrictions on “finculars” would affect existing or future private residential installations; the response suggested the bill was aimed at future commercial uses and that grandfathering or personal-use exceptions might be possible, but the exact wording would need legal refinement. HB 2218 received broad support from OHA, DLNR, Kua, Sierra Club, Hui Maka Aana, the Honlay Initiative, and others, who said the measure would expand community-based co-management across DLNR divisions, build on existing park partnerships, and produce real benefits such as better stewardship, safer access, local jobs, and stronger community trust. Members asked about the bill’s five-year review structure, how multiple community groups would be handled, and whether the model could apply to ocean or nearshore areas; DLNR said the board would retain authority, agreements would be non-exclusive and subject to review, and the department was still working through how the approach would function across different divisions and marine settings. For HB 1956, the Attorney General offered technical comments, urging clearer definitions of “residing” and “freshwater way,” clearer timing for citations and arrests, and more explicit procedural safeguards and agency roles. On HB 1845, the Attorney General and Land Use Commission raised concerns that the bill could conflict with constitutional protections for important agricultural lands and could not be reconciled with existing voting requirements; the LUC also said commissioners cannot vote by proxy under sunshine law and warned that the bill could allow too few commissioners to approve major boundary changes. Members questioned how the bill would work in counties without designated important agricultural lands, and the LUC explained that Kauai is the only county to have completed the IAL process, while the broader statutory process remains county-driven and has been the subject of litigation. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to have HB1 agenda. 1616.
• We have HB1 1732 HD2 relating next bill. We have HB1 1732 HD2 relating to<00:19:03.280> housing.
• Uh the before we proceed on to HB1 1976.
• HB1 1749HD1. HB1 1749HD1. >> Thank<01:23:19.280> you.
• Uh >> HB1 1941 HD1 relating to taxation.

Bills: HB1977, HB1764, HB1934, HB2533, HB1790, HB2181, HB1870, HB2140, HB2468, HB2358, HB1588, HB1688, HB1986, HB2030, HB2195, HB1949, HB1695, HB1950, HB2094, HB2115, HB2297, HB2336, HB2416, HB2049

Keywords: maternal health, infant health, mobile application, Medicaid, healthcare access, state programs, music education, public concerts, Hawaii State Library, cultural collaboration, music accessibility, libraries, education, reading programs, early childhood, nonprofit, community engagement, teacher retention, Hawaiian language education, special needs schools

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:11:56.279> decisions<00:11:57.279> um<00:11:57.839> with<00:11:58.240> hb1
• time to make some decisions um with hb1 time to make some decisions um with hb1 077<00:12:01.600

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the Committees on Economic Development and Technology and Tourism on February 12, 2025, focused on HB 77/HB 1077, a measure related to increasing the transient accommodations tax and directing revenue toward climate mitigation/resiliency and economic development/tourism resiliency. Most testifiers supported the bill, including the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, State Energy Office, Governor’s office, DLNR, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, the Nature Conservancy, the Hawaii Climate Advisory Team, Care for Aina Now Coalition, the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and the Ocean Legislative Task Force. Supporters emphasized the need for reliable funding for disaster preparedness, environmental restoration, infrastructure resilience, and tourism-related resilience projects; some cited polling and a reported funding gap for natural resource protection and restoration. Opposition or concerns came from the Kohala Coast Resort Association, which argued the state should fully collect existing taxes from short-term vacation rentals and other accommodations before considering any tax increase. The Attorney General and Department of Taxation offered technical comments, noting the bill’s special fund language referred to fees that the chapter did not actually authorize and recommending either deleting that language or authorizing fee collection through rulemaking. The Hawaii Tourism Authority supported the measure but asked that the funding mechanism have a clear nexus to tourism resiliency. After a brief recess, the chair recommended amendments to redirect the proposed 1.75% TAT increase away from the two special funds and into the general fund, while earmarking 7.3% of total revenue for climate mitigation/resiliency and 7.3% for economic development and tourism resiliency, with technical and defect-effective-date amendments. Both committees then voted to pass the measure with amendments; the recommendations were adopted, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• 1777's goal of comments of a on HB1 1777's goal of reducing<01:12:08.320> tenant<01:12:08.640
• Uh, we are in support of HB1 Institute.
• Um, and 17 HB1 1741 housing prices.
• <01:25:46.400> Thank<01:25:46.639> you<01:25:46.800> very HB1 1741 HD1.
• Thank you very HB1 1741 HD1. Mahalo.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2592, which would clarify the powers of the Mauna Stewardship and Oversight Authority regarding land use on Mauna Akea and related property transfers. The Department of Land and Natural Resources supported the rural property transfer but objected to language transferring conservation district use permits, saying CDUPs normally run with the land rather than being assigned to specific telescopes or observatories. The University of Hawaiʻi and the observatories generally supported the bill but urged clearer language, especially on the transfer of real property assets, related obligations and liabilities, and the inclusion of milestones for the transition. Office of Hawaiian Affairs supported the bill’s overall intent but warned that some language could be overbroad and might improperly waive future beneficiary claims. Several testifiers opposed the measure, arguing it ignored DHHL lands and beneficiary rights, while others supported it as a way to clarify the authority’s role. Members questioned DLNR about the practical effects of transferring CDUP responsibility, and the committee emphasized that the bill was narrowly focused on specific land. The committee then took up House Bill 2593, which would authorize the Mauna Stewardship and Oversight Authority to extend existing leases and subleases for up to 10 years. The authority explained that the bill does not itself extend any lease, but instead gives the authority discretion to initiate a transparent public process if extensions are needed. The University of Hawaiʻi supported the concept but said the timing of any extension matters and noted possible legal requirements under state law. The observatories also supported the bill, describing it as a flexible tool during a broader transition process and noting that the authority has held many public planning workshops. Opponents, including Native Hawaiian and community testifiers, argued that the conservation lands should receive the highest protection, that the community had not consented, and that the observatories have had decades to plan ahead. One testifier urged the bill be deferred or killed for lack of clarity. In response to questions, the committee clarified that the bill only authorizes a process and does not itself extend leases, and that any extension would require public participation. The final measure discussed in the excerpt was House Bill 2047, relating to the AHAPU advisory committee. The discussion focused on the committee’s administrative relationship to the Department of Land and Natural Resources and whether DLNR should oversee basic legal compliance issues such as Sunshine Law and legislative reporting. DLNR explained that the committee is administratively attached to the department, which provides support on human resources, procurement, and legal questions, but that the committee itself generally handles its own operations. The department said it would route compliance questions to its attorneys and implement their advice. The hearing then moved on to House Bill 2231, which would transfer appointment authority for island burial council members from the governor and Senate to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs board of trustees. OHA said it generally supported the change for geographic moku representatives, since it already nominates candidates for those seats, but expressed concern about taking on appointment authority for the large landowner seats because that role is less directly tied to its statutory duties.

Transcript Highlights:

• HB1 is the money, right?
• HB1 is the money, right?
• HB1 is the money, right?
• HB1 is the money, right?
• HB1 is the money, right?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Environment and Agriculture Committee met in executive session on SB 302, a bill requiring background checks for solid waste facility owners. The chair announced a staffing change, noting Representative Comtois was no longer vice chair and Representative Barber would serve in that role. The chair then explained that the committee had before it an amendment incorporating Senator Pearl’s updated language and additional technical changes requested by DEES Director Whimsat for FBI background-check requirements, and a separate amendment offered by Representative Patenza that would add language from the budget bill relating to a site evaluation committee, moratorium provisions, and harms-and-benefits language. Representative Patenza argued that the governor’s solid waste and site evaluation language had been developed over years with the committee, the governor’s office, and DEES, and should be moved into a standalone bill so it would not be lost if the budget failed. She said she had been told by Senator Roseford that the budget language would be placed into a separate House bill, and several members supported having a standalone vehicle as a backup. Representative Bixby, Haskins, Gruber, and others said they favored keeping the work alive in a separate bill, while Representative Scully said he disliked non-germane amendments and would vote only for the base bill and the chair’s amendment. Representative Barber asked for clarification on why the amendment was considered non-germane, and the chair and Representative Patenza explained that the budget-related policy had not had a separate public hearing. Members discussed legislative procedure, including whether the committee should recess to allow a hearing on the non-germane amendment and then return to act on SB 302. After discussion, the committee took a show of hands and overwhelmingly favored recessing the executive session to Tuesday, May 13 at 10:00 a.m. in LOB room 301-303, so a separate hearing could be held on Representative Patenza’s amendment before further action on SB 302.

Transcript Highlights:

• on HB1 1915? on HB1 1915? See<00:56:44.799> none. See none. See none.
• on HB1 1884? on HB1 1884? See<01:12:15.520> that? See that? See that?
• HB1 1915, I'd like >> Thank you, members.
• >> Voting<01:53:29.119> on<01:53:29.280> HB1<01:53:29.840> 1915.
• The recommendation >> Voting on HB1 1915.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several transportation-related bills. HB 1688, which would provide a general excise tax exemption for certain aircraft maintenance materials, parts, tools, and facility construction, received comments from the Department of Taxation and support from Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Kohala Coast Resort, the Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii, and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. Testimony indicated the measure was intended to clarify an existing exemption rather than create a new one. The bulk of the hearing focused on HB 2386, which would authorize the Public Utilities Commission to establish automatic adjustment mechanisms and a water carrier inflationary cost index. The Department of Transportation said it would change its testimony to support the bill, citing a 2020 working group recommendation, while the PUC and DCCA offered comments. Matson, the Maritime Group, Hawaii Harbors Users Group, and Young Brothers supported the measure, arguing it would modernize regulation, improve predictability, and help maintain reliable interisland shipping. Hawaii Farm Bureau offered comments, while Hawaii Food Industry Association, Maui Brewing Company, Lani Kai Brewing Company, and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Hawaii opposed it, arguing automatic rate increases were not the solution and that underlying costs and efficiencies should be addressed first. The chair noted the bill was essentially the same as one previously considered, and asked questions about how Hawaii’s water carrier regulation compares with other states. The committee also heard HB 1691, which would allow electronic signatures for certain motor vehicle title transfers after total-loss insurance settlements and remove the notary requirement for that narrow transaction. The City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services, Hawaii Insurers Council, Copart, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, and one individual supported it, with Copart saying the change would reduce delays and could allow a faster, largely electronic settlement process. Members asked about county impacts, and Copart said counties would only see a different form with no added cost or electronic integration. HB 1680, requiring county finance directors to notify agencies through a centralized system for vehicle transfers, drew opposition from the City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services and one individual in support. HB 2516, raising helmet requirements for electric foot scooters and bicycles and requiring helmets for high-speed or Class 3 electric bicycles, received support from DOT, DOH, AAA Hawaii, and the Hawaii Bicycling League. HB 193, allowing deaf vehicle owners to register a deafness designation visible to law enforcement, drew support from the City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services, the Hawaii Disabilities Rights Center, and an individual who suggested amendments to broaden the bill to deaf and hard of hearing individuals and adjust the proof standard. HB 2442, increasing required accessible and van-accessible parking spaces in larger parking lots, was supported by the Disability and Communication Access Board, the Council on Developmental Disabilities, and the Disability Rights Center, which said the bill would address shortages of accessible parking and may need technical amendments to align terminology with the ADA.

Transcript Highlights:

• here<00:29:37.679> is<00:29:37.840> new<00:29:38.039> in<00:29:38.159> hb1
• we need to everything here is new in hb1 we need to approve<00:29:39.480> all<00:29:39.640>
• so this is accurate uh is this just hb1 so this is just<00:29:46.279> House<00:29:46.480>
• approve it as written in the back of hb1 approve it as written in the back of hb1 because<00:32:
• <00:33:32.519> as page 724 in hb1 as page 724 in hb1 as written<00:33:35.159> second

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II work session focused on organizing the committee’s remaining budget work and reviewing a set of recommended changes to House Bills 1 and 2. Mr. Landrian explained the committee’s tracking sheets and draft amendment package, noted that the division was being asked to find roughly $200 million in reductions, and said the governor’s lottery proposal in House Bill 2 could help offset part of that target. Members also discussed how revenue estimates tied to fee changes would be handled, with the chair saying the committee could seek Ways and Means input but would ultimately decide the estimates itself. The committee then considered four mostly technical amendments to House Bill 2. It voted unanimously to delete Section 81, which duplicated CCSNH dual and concurrent enrollment language already moving in House Bill 192; to delete Sections 143 and 144, which duplicated police standards and training extra-duty language already in House Bill 778; to adopt a correction to Section 151 that removed an inadvertently repeated sentence; and to delete Section 178 because the same Lottery Commission language already appears in House Bill 1. The committee also agreed to approve Section 4 of House Bill 1, the Lottery Commission boilerplate language, while deferring action on Section 2 of House Bill 1 until the university and community college budget is settled. A substantial portion of the meeting was spent planning upcoming work sessions and discussing possible revenue measures. The committee planned to invite Fish and Game on Monday to review a large set of follow-up materials and to discuss a possible amendment requiring hunters and trappers to pay the license fee before taking free training classes, with a second chance to retake the class if needed. Members also discussed possible fee adjustments for Safety and Fish and Game, including using dedicated-fund fees to reduce reliance on general funds and help stabilize the Highway Fund and Fish and Game Fund. The chair emphasized that all actions were recommendations until the committee’s final deadline and encouraged members to review draft language carefully before voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um we respectfully oppose uh HB1<00:21:47.039> 1947<00:21:48.080> for<00:21:48.320>
• know<00:35:55.280> with<00:35:55.599> the<00:35:55.760> with<00:35:56.160> HB1
• <00:35:56.800> 1947<00:35:57.839> it um you know with the with HB1 1947 it um you know
• with the with HB1 1947 it defines<00:35:58.480> destination<00:35:59.280> stewardship<

Bills: SB2187

Keywords: housing, economic development, tourism, state department, renaming, Hawaii Revised Statutes, 910, house, all

Summary: The joint House Tourism and Water and Land hearing focused on HB 1947, which would repeal the Hawaii Tourism Authority, create an Office of Tourism in DBEDT, and establish a Division of Destination Management in DLNR. The Attorney General opposed provisions allowing the new tourism office or advisory board to hire independent attorneys, and also noted civil service and transfer-of-functions issues, including the need for standard transition language for employees, contracts, records, and equipment. DNR said it stood on its written comments, while the Department of Taxation also stood on its written testimony. HTA opposed the bill, arguing that Act 132 had already improved its governance and that destination management should remain within a single, holistic tourism framework. HTA said it is better positioned to coordinate with counties, communities, and state agencies on both tourism promotion and mitigation of impacts, and pointed to its strategic plan and DMAP work as evidence. The County of Kauai Office of Economic Development also opposed the bill, saying tourism issues cross multiple agencies and that coordination is best handled by one entity rather than splitting responsibilities between DBEDT and DLNR. One member of the public testified in support with reservations, saying Hawaii needs stronger leadership and control, but also warning that dissolving HTA would be a major change. During questioning, committee members pressed HTA on why destination management should not simply be handled by DLNR if HTA already consults with it on land-use and conservation issues. HTA responded that its role is broader than conservation alone and includes balancing economic development, visitor management, and resident quality of life, while deferring to DLNR on matters within DLNR’s jurisdiction. The hearing then moved to decision-making, where the chairs announced amendments that removed the transfer of destination management to DLNR, added counties and state/county agency assistance to the Office of Tourism, and made other conforming changes. The House committees voted to recommend HB 1947 pass with amendments, with several members voting aye and some voting with reservations, and the hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I'm testifying in support<00:26:35.200> of<00:26:35.360> HB1<00:26:36.000> 1870<
• order to effectuate the intent of HB1 order to effectuate the intent of HB1 1839.<00:53:48.079><
• Moving on to HB1 >> Thank you vice chair. Moving on to HB1 1839. 1839. 1839.
• <02:19:17.519> HB1<02:19:18.319> 1939 for your work on this bill.
• HB1 1939 for your work on this bill.

Bills: HB1838, HB1870, HB2445, HB2540, HB1886, HB1839, HB2269, HB1939, HB2037, HB1635, HB1941, HB1576, HB2568, HB2267, HB2590, HB2266, HB2597, HB2499, HB2500, HB2502, HB2607, HB2137, HB2357, HB1782

Keywords: HB1838, Hawaii, Act 142, U visa, T visa, U nonimmigrant status, T nonimmigrant status, immigration certification, visa certification, Form I-918 Supplement B, Form I-914 Supplement B, noncitizen victims, crime victim, human trafficking, victim helpfulness, law enforcement certification, prosecutor certification, judicial review, circuit court, confidentiality

Summary: The committee opened testimony on House Bill 1838, relating to visas. Testifiers from the State Health Planning and Development Agency, the legal clinic, the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the ACLU, CARES, and immigrant-rights groups strongly supported the bill, saying it would bring Hawaii into compliance with federal law, standardize and speed up certification for U and T visa applicants, and better protect survivors of crime and trafficking. Supporters emphasized that delays in certification can leave eligible survivors waiting years for federal visa access and can undermine public safety by discouraging victims from reporting crimes. The chair announced there were 103 testimonies in support and one in opposition, and the committee then moved on without taking a vote on the bill in the hearing. The committee next heard House Bill 1870, concerning protected locations and immigration enforcement. Testimony from the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, ACLU of Hawaii, educators, students, and community advocates supported limiting immigration enforcement at schools and other essential-service sites, arguing that families should be able to access education, health care, shelters, libraries, and social services without fear. The Department of Education said it had already issued guidance in March 2025 for how staff should respond when law enforcement comes onto campus, and the Public Charter School Commission noted implementation would need to occur at the school level. Testifiers said the bill would create standardized protocols and protect students and families from fear and disruption; the chair reported 142 testimonies in support, one in opposition, and five comments. The committee then took up House Bill 2445, relating to student safety and law enforcement on campus. The Department of Education again said it had already rolled out statewide guidance and described its process for staff to notify administration, verify law enforcement identification and purpose, and route matters through the complex area superintendent and attorney general, while noting emergencies would be handled differently. A committee member questioned whether the procedures were sufficiently standardized and whether staff were trained for unusual situations. Student and community testifiers supported the bill, saying schools should remain safe havens and that clear procedures are needed if federal immigration enforcement appears on campus. The Department of Law Enforcement testified in opposition to parts of the measure, raising concerns about masking requirements, vehicle markings, officer safety, doxxing, retaliation, costs, and possible supremacy-clause conflicts, and suggested more exemptions and a compromise approach. The chair reported 106 testimonies in support, two comments, and no opposition for the bill before moving on to the next measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• So item seven is the HB1 back of the budget.
• So, item seven is the HB1 back of the budget.
• And and so so HB1 item is brought up.
• Uh we're talked about that in the HB1.
• talked about that as an having an HB1 talked about that as an having an HB1 effect<05:41:30.480>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 66, a right-to-know measure that would broaden access from “citizen” to “person,” including out-of-state requesters. Members also adopted an amendment removing the current no-filing-fee provision for appeals of unfavorable right-to-know ombudsman rulings, citing budget concerns. The bill was then reported ought to pass as amended on a 16-9 vote, with a minority report requested. House Bill 187, which would let a parent or guardian seek a protective order on behalf of a minor alleging abuse by someone outside the family or household, was described as a narrow fix with little fiscal impact. It passed unanimously, 25-0, and was placed on the consent calendar. House Bill 215, requiring landfill permit applicants to submit a report on potential harms and benefits, was retained because its policy had been folded into House Bill 2; the committee voted 25-0 to retain it. House Bill 219, dealing with renewable portfolio standard changes and lower renewable energy certificate values, drew opposition from members who said it would weaken renewable energy development and raise concerns about energy costs, but the motion to retain was adopted 14-11, allowing the bill to be moved into House Bill 2. The committee then retained House Bills 365, 552, 566, 572, 607, 611, and 624, all by unanimous or near-unanimous votes, generally because the relevant policy or funding had been incorporated into House Bill 2 or because the bills were viewed as technical or low-impact. HB 566 was described as a landfill leach-management bill with a fiscal note under $10,000 annually and was sent to consent. HB 572 and HB 607 were retained because their money components were moved into HB 2, though one member objected that HB 607 represented an unfunded mandate for the Hampton Beach Area Commission. House Bill 511, concerning ICE detainers and county detention practices, generated the most debate. Supporters said the amendment clarified how long counties may hold detainees without a federal contract and compared the detention period to existing bail rules; opponents argued the bill could sanction detention of people not charged with crimes and raised due-process concerns. The committee adopted the amendment 14-11 and then reported the bill ought to pass as amended on another 14-11 vote, with a minority report requested. House Bill 639, involving securities and digital currency issues, was also reported ought to pass after members noted unresolved concerns but said the Secretary of State’s Securities Division was willing to continue working on it in the other body; the vote was 16-10.