Bills: SJR36, SJR34, SJR18, SCR9, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB140, SB262, SB370, SB372, SB495, SB627, SB764, SB842, SB971, SB767, SB480, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB20, SB441, SB442, SB1621, SCR13, SB569, SB314, SB25, SB293, SB914, SB260, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SJR34, SCR9, SB10, SB11, SB19, SB20, SB25, SB62, SB140, SB260, SB262, SB290, SB293, SB314, SB370, SB384, SB412, SB441, SB442, SB480, SB494, SB495, SB616, SB627, SB706, SB707, SB764, SB767, SB869, SB890, SB929, SB992, SB1145, SB1621, SJR34, SB140, SB262, SB370, SB480, SB627, SB764, SB767, SR224, SB1626, SB1627, SB1628, SB1629, SB1630, SB1631, SB1632, SB1633, SB1634, SB1635, SB1636, SB1637, SB1638, SB1639, SB1640, SB1641, SB1642, SB1643, SB1644, SB1645, SB1646, SB1647, SB1648, SB1649, SB1650, SB1651, SB1652, SB1653, SB1654, SB1656, SB1657, SB1658, SB1659, SB1660, SB1661, SB1662, SB1663, SB1664, SB1665, SB1666, SB1667, SB1668, SB1669, SB1670, SB1671, SB1672, SB1673, SB1674, SB1675, SB1676, SB1677, SB1678, SB1679, SB1680, SB1681, SB1682, SB1683, SB1684, SB1685, SB1686, SB1687, SB1688, SB1689, SB1690, SB1691, SB1692, SB1693, SB1694, SB1695, SB1696, SB1697, SB1698, SB1699, SB1700, SB1626, SB1627, SB1628, SB1629, SB1630, SB1631, SB1632, SB1633, SB1634, SB1635, SB1636, SB1637, SB1638, SB1639, SB1640, SB1641, SB1642, SB1643, SB1644, SB1645, SB1646, SB1647, SB1648, SB1649, SB1650, SB1651, SB1652, SB1653, SB1654, SB1656, SB1657, SB1658, SB1659, SB1660, SB1661, SB1662, SB1663, SB1664, SB1665, SB1666, SB1667, SB1668, SB1669, SB1670, SB1671, SB1672, SB1673, SB1674, SB1675, SB1676, SB1677, SB1678, SB1679, SB1680, SB1681, SB1682, SB1683, SB1684, SB1685, SB1686, SB1687, SB1688, SB1689, SB1690, SB1691, SB1692, SB1693, SB1694, SB1695, SB1696, SB1697, SB1698, SB1699, SB1700

Keywords: parental rights, parents, children, custody, care and control, upbringing, family law, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, child welfare, education policy, medical decisions, parental authority, primary decision makers, family autonomy, capital gains, taxation, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court

Transcript Highlights:

• negotiating accommodations. negotiating accommodations. Representative<00:03:42.360> Niska.
• Uh just like all accommodations Uh just like all accommodations processes,<00:04:12.520> it
• Do they have to accommodate people in the process of accommodation?
• accommodations is monumental. accommodations is monumental.
• accommodations are provided. accommodations are provided.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House debated Representative Hicks’ motion to place Senate File 3210 first on the calendar for the next day. Hicks said the bill, which concerns disability accommodations, had been on the general register since March 9 and had passed the Senate 46-18. Supporters argued it would strengthen the process for requesting accommodations and should be heard on the floor without further delay. Representative Niska opposed the motion, arguing the bill was poorly drafted, had not received enough committee work, and could create ambiguity in the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He focused on the bill’s use of “may” in describing failure to engage in the accommodation process and questioned how the proposal would affect existing law in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education. Hicks responded that the bill addresses the process for reasonable accommodations, not the underlying accommodation standards, and said disability advocates and the Department of Human Rights supported the language. Several members spoke in favor of calendaring the bill, emphasizing that it was bipartisan, had already moved through committee, and was important to people with disabilities. Some supporters described the accommodation process as difficult and said the bill would help ensure good-faith engagement between employers and individuals seeking accommodations. The exchange ended with the motion still under debate, with members indicating the bill would likely be taken up on the floor the following day.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, the process public accommodation.
• which is about the public accommodations which is about the public accommodations discrimination
• However, how you determine whether or not a decision to accommodate or what the accommodation is is sometimes
• <00:36:53.880> for they are making those accommodations for they are making those accommodations
• And together, we can accommodations.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House took Senate File 3210 off the table and then adopted an amendment from Representative Nadeau that added the word “reasonable” and a statutory reference clarifying who qualifies as a person with a disability. The bill, as amended, was then given third reading. The measure is described as relating to human rights and disability accommodations as protection from discrimination. Representative Hicks, the bill’s author, said the proposal is intended to send a clear message that discrimination against people with disabilities is unlawful and that entities must engage in a good-faith process to identify reasonable accommodations. Supporters, including Representatives Finke, Feist, and Luetkemeyer, argued the bill reinforces existing law, reflects the interactive process already used in practice, and helps protect access in employment, public accommodations, schools, and other settings. Hicks also responded to questions from Representative Joy by describing the process as a simple conversation to meet a person’s needs. Representative Niska opposed the bill, arguing that it is unclear whether it changes the meaning of other provisions in the Minnesota Human Rights Act beyond employment and that it could create ambiguity and more litigation for businesses, schools, and public entities. He said the legislature should be explicit if it intends to change those provisions and warned the bill could invite lawsuits rather than provide clarity. Representative Loegering-Nicolai responded that the bill would change the practice of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and that referencing the interactive process in public policy would provide a lens for assessing whether accommodations were handled in good faith. No final vote on passage was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• accommodation accommodation and<00:58:39.280> education.
• reasonable accommodations. reasonable accommodations.
• <01:15:01.199> Accommodations what accommodations mean.
• Accommodations what accommodations mean.
• have the dialogue about accommodations. have the dialogue about accommodations.

Bills: HF3661, HF2380, HF3468, HF3483

Keywords: facial recognition, privacy, government surveillance, public safety, data protection, civil liberties, disability rights, discrimination, accommodations, employment, housing, public services, education, civil action, failure to render aid, damages, Minnesota Statutes, legal liability, trespass, civil immigration enforcement

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from February 24 and February 26. It then took up House File 3661, a bill originally authored by Representative Gomez and presented by Representative Feist, which would ban government use of facial recognition technology and be re-referred to the Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. The committee adopted the A1 amendment, described as a technical amendment based on House Research recommendations, before hearing testimony on the bill. Representative Feist said the bill is aimed at preventing serious privacy and civil-liberties harms, including secretive surveillance, racial and gender bias, and the lack of statewide rules governing government use of facial recognition. Supportive testimony came from Chad Marlo of the ACLU, who argued the issue is bipartisan, the technology has accuracy problems, and government use is expanding against vulnerable groups. Chris Wayland of Restore the Fourth Minnesota also supported a ban, emphasizing the inability to opt out of facial recognition and the lack of standards, disclosure, and community input. Rich Newmeister urged stronger transparency measures, including agency policies and public notice in buildings using the technology. Major Spencer Baky of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office opposed an outright ban, saying facial recognition is used only as an investigative lead, not for positive identification or real-time surveillance, and that results are corroborated before use. He said the office has used the tool in hundreds of investigations and supports a statutory framework with safeguards instead of a ban. In member discussion, Representative Hudson argued a blanket ban was too broad and suggested a more targeted evidentiary approach, while Representative Moller and Representative Kurr expressed concern about misuse and the federal government's use of the technology. Representative Durant asked whether there was a current Minnesota problem and whether stakeholders and law enforcement had been involved in drafting the bill. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided, beyond adoption of the amendment and the committee’s continued consideration of HF 3661.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is both, for instance, in disability accommodations as well as religious accommodations.
• as well as religious accommodations as well as religious accommodations<00:18:38.280> um<00:18
• <00:19:41.440> accommodate<00:19:41.919> an employers to reasonably accommodate an
• <00:20:22.320> in provide a reasonable accommodation in provide a reasonable accommodation
• , religious accommodations.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:25.120> to these tests often do not accommodate to these tests often do not accommodate
• to provide those accommodations.
• to provide those accommodations.
• And, Madam Chair, if you don't mind, I just on the accommodations as well—the SAT does provide accommodations
• And, Madam Chair, if you don't mind, I just on the accommodations as well—the SAT does provide accommodations

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Denial of reasonable accommodations occurs without actually engaging in the process.
• until you reach an accommodation between the two.
• "I need an accommodation," and they just get a no.
• However, the accommodations are not enough.
• Rather than fully accommodate me, I was told I should get approved for FMLA.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh just like all accommodations Uh just like all accommodations processes,<01:50:57.520> it
• about those accommodations? about those accommodations?
• Do they have to accommodate people in the process of accommodation?
• It is accommodations are provided.
• So those accommodations were met. work. So those accommodations were met.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House first adopted non-controversial motions, then approved an urgency motion to suspend the rules so Senate File 4476, the human services program integrity package, could move quickly to conference committee before the end of session. The House then adopted a DE amendment to insert House language into the bill, and proceeded to debate several amendments focused on program integrity, fraud prevention, and reporting requirements in human services programs. Representative Schultz offered Amendment A5 to remove a sunset on the periodic data matching report requirement, arguing the report helps ensure only eligible people receive medical assistance and welfare benefits and should continue to be delivered annually. Supporters said the report had been inconsistently delivered, cited past findings of ineligible recipients, and framed the amendment as a low-cost accountability measure. Opponents, including Representative Nor, said the report had been sent to the chairs, that the issue should be handled through broader HR1-related changes and negotiations with the Senate, and that the amendment was not the right vehicle. After roll call, A5 failed on a 63-67 vote. Schultz then offered Amendment A6, which would require reporting on homelessness programs, including how many people are served, total costs, outcomes, and possible recoupment of funds if reporting is inadequate. Schultz said the state spends tens of millions on homelessness programs without clear results and that better data would help the legislature make decisions and protect taxpayers. Several members supported the idea of more accountability, while others said the state already receives reports, that homelessness work is being done in partnership with stakeholders, and that the amendment was not the best approach. The discussion continued with further comments on homelessness data and program oversight, but no final vote on A6 is shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• area of public accommodations. area of public accommodations.
• Accommodations to find a reasonable accommodation, that will be protected in law.
• But we we accommodate for that. they do. But we we accommodate for that.
• You have to accommodate your employees. You have to accommodate your employees.
• disability accommodations. disability accommodations.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House took up House File 4138, a bill aimed at limiting harmful social media features for children and requiring parental involvement for minors using platforms in Minnesota. Early on, members reconsidered and then adopted the Smith amendment (A13) after first rejecting a narrower amendment to the amendment (A18) on a 67-67 tie. Representative Bonner then offered a technical amendment (A14) to address liability and drafting concerns, but withdrew it after saying it contained an unintended drafting error and could create legal problems, including issues around data collection and rulemaking. During third reading debate, supporters described the bill as a first step to protect children from addictive social media design, online exploitation, and harmful data practices. Representative Scott said the bill would require parental consent and limit addictive features for child accounts, while emphasizing that the consent language must be prominent and that the bill’s effective date would not begin until next July. Representative Enen, Representative Feist, Representative Greenman, and others backed the measure as a bipartisan effort to hold big tech accountable and protect kids, though Greenman also noted that the legislature had not shown the same willingness to confront gun violence. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns that the bill relies on parents understanding complex legal and technical terms, that it may not fully protect children, and that it could still leave gaps around liability and privacy. Representative Leeing questioned why the bill does not simply restrict addictive features for all children and asked about parental waivers and location tracking; Scott responded that the bill uses IP address information and does not specifically address liability waivers, but said the measure is a policy choice intended to empower parents. The debate ended with broad support from several members, and the bill was presented as likely to pass, though no final vote on the bill itself was included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• They said they had no obligation, that accommodations didn't apply.
• Landlords are required to follow these laws and provide reasonable accommodations.
• They said they had no obligation, that accommodations didn't apply.
• Landlords are required to follow these laws and provide reasonable accommodations.
• Landlords are required to follow these laws and provide reasonable accommodations.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's what an accommodation might look like.
• And the only review is what is reasonable accommodation.
• or physical accommodations for employees and for our taxpayers.
• Are ADA accommodations reviewed, or when are they checked in on?
• You know, accommodations are and should be an everyday action.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they weren't really motivated to work with me, even through the whole legal and HR accommodation
• Little bit of it so that they might have the willingness to be accommodating or try something new.
• And I'm so, like, I feel like it was very a lot of accommodation and also, like, I actually think that
• That's a part of my accommodations.
• A lot of people need real-life accommodations. You know, they have to see their families.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Permanent Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities hosted “Strength and Support,” a networking and resource-sharing event focused on employment for youth and young adults with disabilities, with ASL interpretation, CART, recording, and livestreaming provided. The panel featured self-advocates, job coaches, and employment support staff who shared personal employment stories, including internships and career services through MassAbility, community advocate work at an independent living program, advocacy and podcasting, supported employment in retail and food service, and examples of successful placements through job coaching and clubhouse programs. A major theme throughout the discussion was the barriers people with disabilities face in finding and keeping work, especially repeated rejection, lack of experience, inaccessible hiring and training processes, weak communication, and employers’ assumptions about disability. Panelists described the importance of accommodations, flexible scheduling, clear communication, patient supervision, and ongoing job retention support. Several speakers emphasized that networking and in-person connections often helped them secure interviews or jobs when online applications did not. In response to questions about making employment more inclusive and sustainable, panelists recommended person-centered support, accessible applications and onboarding, opportunities to gain experience through internships and fellowships, and stronger employer education about the value of job coaches and disabled workers. They also stressed self-advocacy, patience, and taking chances on people. The event ended with audience Q&A and closing thanks to the speakers, interpreters, tech staff, and attendees.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:13:41.440> tax requires a $20 trans accommodation tax requires a $20 trans accommodation
• <00:13:44.760> in Furnishing of transi accommodations in Furnishing of transi accommodations
• <00:27:03.279> rates have also seen accommodation rates have also seen accommodation rates
• accommodation tax either because<00:40:15.520> transient<00:40:15.960> accommodation<00
• <01:38:50.320> to require all transient accommodation to require all transient accommodation

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the House Committees on Tourism and Water and Land was held on March 20, 2025, on SB 1396 SD3 HD1, which would raise transient accommodations tax revenues beginning in 2027, impose a $20 per-night tax on stays booked through loyalty or rewards points, and dedicate funds to DLNR for natural resource protection, management, and restoration. The Office of the Governor, DLNR, DBEDT, the Hawaii State Energy Office, Tax Department, Hawaiian Home Lands, HI-EMA, the Climate Advisory Team, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, HCDA, the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force, Resource Legacy Fund, KUA, and the Hawaii Tourism Authority all testified in support or with comments, generally emphasizing the need for dedicated funding for environmental stewardship, resilience, wildfire and climate preparedness, and community-based projects. Several supporters cited polling showing broad visitor willingness to pay additional fees to protect Hawaiʻi’s resources, and DLNR and the Attorney General noted the bill aligns with broader state land-management and fire-safety priorities. Opposition came from the Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi and the Maui Chamber of Commerce, which argued the bill unnecessarily raises the TAT, places more burden on visitors and visitor-dependent businesses, and could harm Maui’s still-recovering economy. The Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaiʻi initially marked opposition but then said it had misunderstood the bill’s relationship to another measure and asked to resend testimony. Expedia Group did not oppose the TAT increase itself but raised operational concerns about the new tax on loyalty-point redemptions, calling it novel and difficult to administer. The American Hotel Lodging Association and Hawaiʻi Hotel Alliance were listed as having no comments present. Testifiers also suggested amendments, including dedicating the revenues to a special fund, ensuring community grants, and clarifying administrative provisions. One testifier urged the bill be used to fund hurricane shelters and stronger building standards, while another emphasized that the measure should support people and disaster resilience as well as environmental protection. During questions, members asked for the polling methodology and for a breakdown of current TAT allocations; staff indicated they could share the survey memo and began identifying existing statutory remittances. No vote or final committee action was taken during the excerpted portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Another area that we see these reasonable accommodations is in religious accommodations.
• <01:12:57.120> to creatively to provide accommodations to creatively to provide accommodations
• religious accommodations is in religious accommodations<01:13:16.040> now<01:13:16.239> here
• requesting a religious accommodation requesting a religious accommodation from<01:13:54.880>
• she was looking for some accommodations she was looking for some accommodations that<01:13:59.320

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Judiciary and Civil Law Committee met to hear an informational presentation from the Board of Judicial Standards. After brief member and staff introductions and a review of committee rules, the board’s executive secretary, Sarah Bas, and Mary Pat Maher explained the board’s history, mission, and operations. They described the board as an independent state agency that handles complaints about judicial misconduct and disability, issues advisory opinions, and educates judges on ethics. The presentation covered the board’s composition, complaint intake and screening process, and the levels of discipline available, ranging from summary dismissal and letters of caution to private admonitions, deferred disposition agreements, public reprimands, and formal complaints that can lead to Supreme Court review. Members asked about the board’s budget, public access to discipline records, confidentiality of complaints, and how the board balances accountability with protecting public confidence in the judiciary. The board said public discipline is posted on its website, while private admonitions, deferred dispositions, dismissals, and letters of caution remain confidential. It also said judges generally are told who complained so they can respond, though the board can withhold the source for good cause. Questions also focused on whether attorneys are underreporting misconduct, how many complaints are nuisance complaints, and whether the online complaint system changed the types of complaints received; the board said nuisance complaints make up more than half, the complaint types have not changed much, and it does not have data comparing complaint sources to outcomes. No votes or formal committee actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for the accommodation. Thanks, Senator. The chair now opens up public testimony.
• Taxes from accommodations intermediaries such as Airbnb, VRBO, Booking.com, and others.
• When you say accommodations intermediary, what do you mean?
• base for the hotel tax is the amount paid from the accommodations intermediary to the hotel.
• So since that fee is paid in the transaction between the consumer and the accommodation.

Bills: SB209, SB529, SB1265, SB1592, SB1728, SCR37, SCR38

Keywords: SB 529, Texas Tax Code, municipality, hotel and convention center, hotel convention center project, tourism development, economic development, tax revenue pledge, revenue commitment, qualified project, municipal finance, local government, special district, hotel occupancy tax, nearby establishments, convention center financing, city population 130000, Section 351.155, Section 351.157, child care

Transcript Highlights:

• And I've adequately accommodate.
• <01:02:58.480> is<01:02:58.720> inherently accommodations is inherently accommodations
• reported that their accommodations reported that their accommodations requests<01:03:12.079>
• . accommodation. accommodation.
• Accommodation required.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in all state facilities, accommodations in all state facilities, state<00:12:40.480> parks,<00
• ,<00:14:18.720> I stations to make this accommodation, I stations to make this accommodation
• This represents a pretty significant step toward achieving equity and access to public accommodations
• stations to allow for this accommodation stations to allow for this accommodation to<00:18:24.000
• not only for reasonable accommodations not only for our<00:23:54.799> disabled<00:23:55.280><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard STR 73 SD1, which requests the Office of Wellness and Resilience to develop a report on the developmental needs of children born during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Office of Wellness and Resilience testified in support, saying it was eager to work with local researchers on evidence-based, community-informed recommendations. Support also came from a Zoom testifier, the Department of Education, and the Hawaii Community Foundation. The testifier emphasized the need for trauma-informed supports for children who were ages zero to five during COVID, especially in communities also affected by the Kilauea eruption and the Maui wildfires. Members discussed the long-term impacts of the pandemic and natural disasters on children, and one member said they would support the measure but vote with reservations because they wanted the phrase “climate crisis” changed to “natural disasters.” The committee adopted the chair’s recommendation to pass the resolution as is, with some members noting reservations. The committee then took up SCR 239 SD1, which asks DAGS, DLNR, and the City and County of Honolulu Department of Parks and Recreation to provide universal changing accommodations in state and county facilities and parks. DAGS submitted comments, DLNR State Parks testified that it supported the intent but raised concerns about the cost and feasibility of retrofitting existing facilities, noting it has 73 comfort stations statewide, ongoing vandalism and maintenance issues, and possible ADA space conflicts. The Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Hawaii Disability Rights Center supported the measure, with testimony stressing that accessible changing facilities are important for independence and equity for people with disabilities. In response to questions, DLNR said it had not received complaints about the lack of such infrastructure and that any future installations should be considered in new designs rather than existing facilities. After discussion, the chair moved to defer the resolution, citing budget and implementation concerns and suggesting the issue be revisited in the future with a revised approach and possible needs assessment. The committee agreed to defer SCR 239 SD1 and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• But colleges aren't required to accept all of the accommodations that are in an IEP.
• This is a little bit of a response to the previous question, but accommodations are not a loophole.
• Accommodations. So again, thank you for your time, and I urge you to advance H. 1433. Thank you.
• An allergy to Wi-Fi is a really difficult thing to accommodate for.
• or a single accommodation.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its fourth public hearing, opening with remarks about the importance of protecting and expanding access to higher education amid federal disinvestment. The chairs also announced future informational hearings on the impact of federal cuts and on ASAP models. The hearing then focused on several bills, beginning with S. 951/H. 1462, An Act to Support College Students in Recovery, which would require recovery-focused housing on public campuses and expand naloxone access and overdose training. Senator Rausch, medical professionals, students, and advocates testified in support, emphasizing the prevalence of overdose risk among college students, the value of recovery housing, and the need for campus naloxone; committee members asked about implementation details and the existing state pilot program. Deb Schmill and Rep. Tarski gave especially personal testimony in favor of the bill, and the committee discussed broadening the naloxone language to opioid reversal agents. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1461, which would expand MassReconnect scholarships to practical nursing students at vocational and technical schools to help address the long-term care workforce shortage. Rep. Stanley argued that vocational schools graduate more practical nursing students than community colleges and serve many low-income students in areas without nearby community college programs. The committee then took up H. 1433, which would require public higher education institutions to accept IEPs and 504 plans as sufficient documentation for disability accommodations. Advocates from the National Center for Learning Disabilities described the high cost and burden of repeat testing, the lifelong nature of disabilities, and the need for more uniform access across campuses; committee members raised questions about documentation freshness, campus autonomy, and how to preserve the integrity of accommodations. Later, the committee heard S. 919/H. 1454 on modernizing the Community College Endowment Match Program so community colleges could receive state matching funds for current-use donations as well as endowments and capital gifts. Community college foundation leaders said the change would help fund immediate student needs such as food pantries, child care, emergency aid, and equipment. The hearing then moved to faculty-related bills: S. 933 on UMass faculty rights and tenure transparency, S. 930/H. 3948 on contingent faculty rights and career advancement, and S. 940/H. 1429 on an Adjunct Bill of Rights. Testimony from faculty and union representatives focused on low pay, lack of benefits, job insecurity, and the need for clearer pathways to full-time positions and fairer treatment for adjuncts who teach large shares of courses. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and asked clarifying questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• It increases the transient accommodations tax rates by 1 percentage point.
• <00:16:03.920> Transit 2026 increases tax accommodation Transit 2026 increases tax accommodation
• :16:05.519> 1<00:16:05.680> percentage Accommodations Tax raise by 1 percentage Accommodations
• First up is House Bill 973, relating to transient accommodations.
• furnishing of the transient accommodation.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the House Committees on Tourism, Housing, and Economic Development and Technology began with House Bill 604, which would raise the transient accommodations tax by 1 percentage point starting January 1, 2026 and direct the revenue to the Hawaiian Homes General Loan Fund. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands supported the bill as a source of consistent funding, while the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii opposed it, warning that Hawaii already has very high tourism taxes and that further increases could hurt visitors, workers, and the broader economy. The committees later voted to pass HB 604 with amendments as an HD1 and to defer the date; the vote was adopted, with one member noted as having reservations in the housing committee vote and one no vote in that committee. The committees then heard House Bill 973, which would require transient accommodations brokers and others to display all resort fees, taxes, and government-imposed charges upfront in advertised prices and would establish penalties. The Office of Consumer Protection expressed concerns about the bill’s intent requirement and noted a forthcoming federal FTC rule on junk fees; the Hawaii Hotel Alliance strongly supported the measure as promoting transparency and uniformity, and a public witness also supported price transparency while questioning the size of the penalties. After questions about federal rescission of the FTC rule and enforcement authority, the committees voted to pass HB 973 with amendments as an HD1, including removal of the intent requirement and technical changes, and the recommendation was adopted unanimously. House Bill 594, relating to hotel service disruptions, would require hotel keepers to give notice of disruptions to guests and third-party vendors and allow damages. The Attorney General’s office recommended amendments to add a purpose section and savings clause to address First Amendment and contract clause issues, and Unite Here Local 5 supported the bill, saying guests are not always notified of disruptions and that the measure would improve transparency; the union agreed with the legal amendments. The committees voted to pass HB 594 with amendments as an HD1 and to defer the date, adopting the recommendation. The final measures were House Bill 448 and House Bill 449, both related to technology enablement and economic development for small businesses, including tourism-related businesses. HTDC strongly supported both bills but emphasized that technology should be targeted to the actual problem and coordinated with sister agencies rather than applied broadly; the Hawaii Food Industry Association and Chamber of Commerce also supported HB 448, and HB 449 received support from HTDC and HFIA. The committees adopted amendments to HB 448, including moving a $250,000 appropriation to the committee report, and to HB 449, including deleting duplicative language tied to HB 448 and moving a $500,000 appropriation to the committee report; both bills were passed as HD1s with deferred dates, and the hearing adjourned after the votes were adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill repeals existing laws imposing the transit accommodations tax on cruise ships, effective retroactive
• It repeals existing laws imposing the<00:15:20.800> transit<00:15:21.199> accommodations
• <00:51:10.079> Specifies<00:51:10.720> that accommodations tax law.
• Specifies that accommodations tax law.
• c> transit<00:51:16.319> accommodation<00:51:16.960> taxes to state transit accommodation

Bills: SB2816

Keywords: enterprise zones, economic development, innovation enterprise, job creation, Hawaii, 910, house, all

Summary: The committees heard House Bill 2195, HD1, which would replace the existing transit accommodations tax on cruise ships with a per-passenger infrastructure fee collected by the Department of Transportation and deposited into a new cruise ship special fund. Testimony included support from Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings and comments from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii warning that the bill should remain narrowly tied to harbor-related uses to avoid potential Tonnage Clause issues. The Department of Transportation testified that cruise-related harbor work includes pier repairs, dredging, terminal upgrades, and shore power, and said a dedicated revenue stream would help prioritize cruise infrastructure needs. The Attorney General’s office said it had submitted written comments but did not address questions about the litigation or constitutional background. Members questioned whether the new special fund was necessary when the existing harbor special fund already finances similar improvements. DOT said the funds overlap and suggested the bill could be amended to use the harbor special fund with a separate cruise subaccount, while still preserving a dedicated revenue stream and separate accounting. DOT also said it currently collects port entry, dockage, and per-head passenger fees from cruise ships and that existing cruise-related expenditures from the harbor special fund have not been challenged. The chair ultimately recommended moving HB 2195 forward as introduced, while continuing discussions about the fund structure and awaiting further clarity from the Attorney General and DOT. In decision-making, the committees voted to pass HB 2195, HD1, as is. They also voted to pass House Bill 916, HD1, relating to the low-income housing tax credit, which would allow certain state low-income housing tax credits to offset state transient accommodations taxes in the same county and make Act 129 of 2016 permanent. Both the Committee on Tourism and the Committee on Economic Development and Technology adopted the chair’s recommendation to pass HB 916, HD1, unamended. The hearing was then adjourned.