Transcript Highlights:

• will<00:13:14.240> be<00:13:14.399> DMing<00:13:15.279> on<00:13:15.839> HB2611
• So, we will be DMing on HB2611 So, we will be DMing on HB2611 and<00:13:17.760> HB2102 and

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Bills: HB2035, HB2086, HB2434, HB2611, HB2732, HB2733, HB2830, HB2923, HB2932, HB4004

Keywords: kinship care, child welfare, foster care, relative placement, child protection, vaccination mandates, mask requirements, public health, government entities, COVID-19, controlled substances, prescription monitoring, opioid crisis, healthcare regulations, patient safety, group homes, children's rights, safety protocols, employee training, mental health

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix on its new tuition-free, three-year regional medical school branch in Yuma, which is intended to address Arizona’s primary care shortage by training students in a rural setting and linking them to rural residency opportunities. Members asked about who could apply, whether out-of-state applicants were eligible, and whether graduates would be required to remain in rural Arizona; the presenter said there is no post-graduation practice commitment, but the program is designed to encourage retention through rural training and residency placement. The committee then considered several child welfare and behavioral health bills. HB 2923 would expand judicial review procedures for court-ordered mental health treatment, adding timelines, notice, counsel protections, and a clear-and-convincing standard for continued treatment; the sponsor and a retired judge said it fills gaps in a 1974 statute. HB 2035 would expand kinship foster care to extended family members, require more notice and written findings when kin placement is denied, and strengthen presumptions favoring placement with relatives or other significant adults; DCS said the bill largely reflects current policy but raised a timing concern about a required report before preliminary protective hearings. HB 2611 would create a Youth Safety Rights and Mental Health Protection Act for foster youth and group homes, adding rights related to immediate and unbiased health care, anti-bullying protections, retaliation safeguards, drug screening, and safety rules; foster youth and former foster youth testified strongly in support, while DCS was neutral and noted possible implementation and fiscal impacts. The committee also heard HB 4004, which would require DCS to investigate credible abuse or neglect reports even when one parent is considered protective, and to take protective action when warranted. Several parents testified that DCS had previously closed or minimized cases because a protective parent existed, leaving children exposed to abuse; DCS did not testify against the bill, and members later said the agency should not use the presence of a safe parent as a reason not to investigate. The committee also considered pharmacy and AHCCCS-related bills: HB 2434 would revise the controlled substances prescription monitoring program and reporting requirements; HB 2732 would continue the State Board of Pharmacy; HB 2733 would make several pharmacy regulation changes including delivery, continuing education, and change-of-ownership rules; and HB 2932 would require AHCCCS contractors to reimburse noncontracting labs referred by contracting providers, which health plans opposed as undermining managed care tools while a lab provider argued it would improve fair payment and competition. On the floor, the committee also took up HB 2086, which would prohibit government and business mask and vaccination mandates, HB 2830, which would require instruction on fetal and prenatal development and bar abortion-related curriculum materials, and HB 2035, HB 2434, HB 2611, HB 2732, HB 2733, HB 2923, HB 2932, and HB 4004. Amendments were adopted on several bills, including HB 2086, HB 2611, HB 2830, and HB 2932. Final committee votes gave HB 2035, HB 2086, HB 2434, HB 2611, HB 2732, HB 2733, HB 2830, HB 2923, HB 2932, and HB 4004 do-pass recommendations, with HB 2086, HB 2611, HB 2830, and HB 2932 reported as amended.

Bills: HB2035, HB2041, HB2611, HB2860, HB4004, HB4049, SCR1032

Keywords: kinship care, child welfare, foster care, relative placement, child protection, child neglect, financial resources, behavioral health, Christian Science treatment, parental rights, group homes, children's rights, safety protocols, employee training, mental health, child safety, oversight, independent committee, transparency, accountability

Summary: The Senate Committee on Government considered only SCR 1032, along with a strike-everything amendment. The amendment would require school districts, subject to voter approval, to dedicate at least 60% of operational spending to teacher pay, with a phased-in increase starting in FY 2028 for districts below that threshold. It also would penalize noncompliant districts by requiring unexpended Classroom Site Fund monies to revert, making districts ineligible for those funds until back in compliance, and directing JLBC to exclude those districts from per-pupil calculations. The Superintendent of Public Instruction could grant limited waivers of the forfeiture provisions for up to one year, not more than two consecutive years for the same district. Supporters, including representatives of Heritage Action, the Goldwater Institute, and the Center for Arizona Policy, argued that Arizona has increased school funding substantially while teacher pay has remained flat in real terms, and said the measure would improve accountability and ensure more money reaches teachers rather than district administration. They cited Auditor General findings and prior voter-approved efforts such as the Classroom Site Fund and teacher pay initiatives as evidence that districts have not prioritized classroom spending as intended. A rural school coalition testified in opposition, saying the proposal would be difficult for small districts to meet because it could force cuts to other essential costs such as fuel, insurance, facilities, and other operating needs, and that the Auditor General’s classroom-spending categories may not accurately reflect actual teacher pay. One committee member also raised concerns that the measure could harm special education and other legally required student services. During discussion, the sponsor said charter schools were excluded because they are private businesses under the state’s framework, despite receiving public funds. The committee adopted the strike-everything amendment and then voted 4-3 to give SCR 1032, as amended, a do pass recommendation.

Keywords: HI House YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MISAwB7PQs8, 2026-07-02T01:22:49+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, House Agenda: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2024/hearingnotices/HEARING_WAL_01-30-24_.PDF 8:52 - Introduction 10:14 - HB1627 13:14 - HB1918 14:57 - HB1901 21:40 - HB1928 33:23 - HB1529 44:37 - HB1544 46:53 - HB1900 47:42 - HB1781 49:16 - HB2724 50:54 - HB1902 52:20 - HB1835 53:02 - HB1930 53:32 - HB2611 58:17 - HB1922 59:24 - HB2473 1:12:38 - HB1592 1:14:12 - HB1581 1:17:56 - HB1841 1:20:22 - HB2174 1:23:01 - HB1948 1:53:40 - Decision Making, 910, house, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47