BCDEFHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
MeasureSubjectMeasure TitleDescriptionNext HearingAnalysisTalking PointsStatusReferralNotesIntroducer(s)Companion
2
HB1948 HD2RELATING TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS.Personal Care Products; Small Plastic Containers; Lodging Establishments; Prohibition; FinesProhibits lodging establishments from providing personal care products in small plastic containers within sleeping room accommodations, any space within sleeping room accommodations, or bathrooms used by the public or guests. Establishes civil penalties. Effective 7/1/3000. (HD2)Key changes in H.D. 1:

Phased compliance by property size is now explicit.
Earlier versions applied the prohibition more uniformly. H.D. 1 clearly delays compliance for smaller lodging establishments (50 or fewer rooms) until January 1, 2029, while larger properties must comply by January 1, 2027.

Short-term rentals are explicitly included.
The revised definition of “lodging establishment” now expressly includes transient vacation rentals, transient accommodations, and hosted rentals, removing prior ambiguity about whether STRs were covered.

The scope of prohibited products is narrowed.
H.D. 1 limits the ban to three specific personal care products—shampoo, conditioner, and bath soap—rather than a broader set of toiletries.

Permitted alternatives are clearly defined.
The bill now expressly allows:

bulk dispensers; and

non-plastic packaging provided upon request and outside guest rooms and bathrooms, giving operators clear compliance pathways.

Enforcement and penalties are more clearly structured.
H.D. 1 specifies inspection authority, civil penalty amounts ($500 first violation; $2,000 thereafter), daily violation treatment, and environmental court jurisdiction, replacing earlier, less defined enforcement language.

Counties are expressly authorized to go further.
The revised bill explicitly allows counties to adopt more stringent ordinances, which was not always clear in prior drafts.

What did not change:

The bill’s core policy goal of reducing plastic waste in visitor accommodations.

Application to guest rooms and public bathrooms.

Use of a placeholder effective date (July 1, 3000), with real compliance dates spelled out in statute.

HB1948 would prohibit all lodging establishments—including hotels, bed-and-breakfasts, and short-term rentals—from providing personal care products in small single-use plastic containers (six ounces or less) within guest rooms or public bathrooms. The ban would take effect January 1, 2027 for properties with more than 50 units and January 1, 2029 for properties with 50 or fewer units. Lodging operators would be required to switch to bulk dispensers or provide non-plastic alternatives upon request outside guest rooms.		HD1: Clarity improved, but coverage expanded to STRs.

HIMAST supports reducing plastic waste. The problem is this bill applies a hotel operational model to a highly diverse lodging sector and explicitly sweeps STRs into rules designed for large properties with staff, inventories, and centralized supply systems.

Do not regulate STRs as if they are hotels. Many STR operators are small, owner-operated, or professionally managed but not staffed like a hotel. Mandating bulk dispensers and hotel-style distribution systems creates disproportionate cost and operational burden for lawful STRs without evidence of meaningful incremental environmental benefit.

Fix the enforcement structure: education first, not daily fines. The bill’s escalating penalties and per-day violations create punitive exposure for a packaging choice rather than health or safety risks. Any compliance framework should start with notice-and-cure, education, and reasonable timelines, especially for small operators.

Prevent a county-by-county patchwork. The bill allows counties to go further, which risks a fragmented compliance landscape that is nearly impossible for statewide operators and local owners to track. If the state acts, it should establish one clear statewide standard and preempt inconsistent county add-ons.
(H ) 2/18/2026 - Report adopted; referred to the committee(s) on JHA with none voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) Alcos, Garcia, Pierick, Shimizu voting no (4) and none excused (0).
(H ) 2/10/2026 - Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on EEP with none voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) Alcos, Garcia, Shimizu voting no (3) and none excused (0).
(H ) 2/9/2026 - Reported from TOU (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 59-26) as amended in HD 1, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to EEP.
(H ) 1/28/2026 - Referred to TOU, EEP, JHA, referral sheet 3
(H ) 1/23/2026 - Pending introduction.		TOU, EEP, JHA48 hour notice 3/10/2026TAM, AMATO, EVSLIN, GRANDINETTI, ILAGAN, KAHALOA, KAPELA, LOWEN, MARTEN, MATAYOSHI, OLDS, PERRUSO, POEPOE, SOUZA, TEMPLO
3
HB2585 HD3RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL TOURISM.Agricultural Tourism Activities; Counties; DAB; Uniform Statewide Standards; Report; Principal Farming OperationEstablishes statewide, uniform standards to promote agricultural tourism activities in the State for all counties that have adopted an agricultural tourism ordinance. Requires agricultural tourism activities to be registered with the county planning department. Requires agricultural tourism activities to coexist with an agricultural activity on a farming operation and to be accessory and secondary to the principal farming operation. Establishes a process for the termination of an authorization for agricultural tourism activities upon a determination that productive agricultural activity has ceased. Requires the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to report to the Legislature. Effective 7/1/3000. (HD3)HD3 Under current law, counties are told to regulate agricultural tourism by ordinance. This bill would keep county ordinances, but it would add a new state statute that tells counties what ag tourism is, what conditions must exist, what must be filed, and when authorization must be terminated. So the state is not eliminating county control; it is boxing it in.

~~~~~~~~~
What the bill does not do
It does not outright ban short-term rentals on AG land.
It does not repeal existing county ordinances that allow overnight farm stays or ag tourism accommodations.
It does not say “no overnight accommodations” anywhere in the new section.

What the bill does do (and why it matters)
It eliminates the existing explicit statutory reference to “overnight accommodations of twenty-one days or less” that currently appears in HRS §205-2 and §205-4.5 for certain counties.
It replaces that language with a new statewide framework where agricultural tourism must:
be accessory and secondary,
coexist with active, productive agriculture, and
be registered, not specially permitted.

Overnight stays are no longer named as a distinct, protected category in state law. Instead, they are left to:
county ordinances that already exist, and
how counties interpret “agricultural tourism activities” under the new framework.
~~~
H.B. 2585, H.D. 1 would create a more uniform statewide framework for “agricultural tourism activities” in counties that have adopted agricultural tourism ordinances. The bill authorizes agricultural tourism on a “farming operation” for visitor enjoyment/education, but requires it to remain accessory and secondary to the principal farming operation, coexist with active agricultural activity, and not interfere with on-farm operations. Agricultural tourism would only be allowed where “productive agricultural use” is occurring, and it defines key terms like “principal farming operation” and “productive agricultural use” (including being taxed as agricultural and current on property taxes).

Instead of using the special permit process as the main pathway, the bill requires agricultural tourism activities to be registered with the county planning department before starting, with detailed documentation such as access/parking information, descriptions of accessory facilities and visitor activities, proof of productive agricultural use, tax returns showing farm income, and verification of enrollment in county agricultural dedication and water rate programs (if applicable). The bill also creates a termination and reinstatement process: if the farm stops active agricultural production for 60 consecutive days, the county can move to terminate the authorization for agricultural tourism, with exceptions for temporary disruptions (catastrophic events, weather, disease/pests, market/supply chain disruptions, or crop changes), notice and an opportunity to respond, and the ability to reinstate once agriculture resumes.

Conforming amendments update cross-references in Chapter 205 and related statutes and adjust county authority language in section 205-5(b), while preserving that counties may further define accessory agricultural activities by ordinance. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity is required to report to the Legislature by the 2027 regular session on implementation. The listed effective date is July 1, 3000, which appears to be a placeholder.		HD3: the bill confuses “secondary use” with “lower revenue use.” It defines “principal farming operation” as the primary and predominant use for commercial production, and says agricultural production must constitute the majority of the land use, labor, and operational activity. Then it defines “secondary to the principal farming operation” to mean the ag tourism use generates less annual revenue than the farming operation. That is a very aggressive standard. It means a farm could be operating legitimately, but if its visitor revenue exceeds farm revenue in a given year, the ag tourism side could arguably fail the statute. That is a huge policy choice. It effectively says ag tourism cannot be the stronger economic leg of a diversified farm business.

There is also an internal inconsistency in the terminology. The bill uses “agricultural tourism activities,” “agricultural activity,” “agricultural operation,” “principal farming operation,” “productive agricultural use,” and “farming operation,” but those are not perfectly aligned. For example, subsection (b)(2) says ag tourism must coexist with an agricultural activity conducted on a farming operation, while the definitions later define “agricultural operation” rather than “agricultural activity.”

AT minimum, drafters should remove or soften the revenue-comparison test, lengthen or modernize the cessation standard, clarify that dedication-program enrollment is not mandatory, allow flexible proof of bona fide agriculture instead of mandatory full tax returns, and tighten the definitions so counties cannot use ambiguity as a denial tool.
~~~~~
HIMAST recognizes that diversified income streams—including lawful, county-approved short-term accommodations—are often essential to keeping agricultural land in active production in Hawaiʻi. For many farms, limited overnight stays are not a luxury but a practical tool for economic survival.

Statewide standards can provide clarity only if they preserve existing county authority to allow well-regulated farm-based overnight stays and do not erase or weaken lawful pathways that currently exist.

The requirement that agriculture remain the primary use is appropriate, but must not be used to eliminate or functionally prohibit lawful, accessory overnight accommodations that directly support farming operations.

HIMAST urges the Legislature to ensure this bill does not become a backdoor mechanism to phase out or eliminate lawful farm-based STRs through omission, reinterpretation, or uneven county enforcement..		(H) 03/04/2026 - The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 8 Ayes: Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Hashem, Kahaloa, Sayama, Takayama, Garcia; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Shimizu; Noes: none; and 2 Excused: Representative(s) Belatti, Cochran.
(H ) 2/20/2026 - Report adopted; referred to the committee(s) on JHA as amended in HD 2 with none voting aye with reservations; none voting no (0) and Representative(s) Quinlan excused (1).
The committee on WAL recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 9 Ayes: Representative(s) Hashem, Morikawa, Belatti, Ichiyama, Iwamoto, Poepoe, Woodson, Souza; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Shimizu; 0 Noes: none; and 0 Excused: none.
(H ) 2/13/2026 - Bill scheduled to be heard by WAL on Thursday, 02-19-26 9:00AM in House conference room 411 VIA VIDEOCONF
ERENCE.(H ) 2/10/2026 - Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on WAL with none voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) Pierick voting no (1) and none excused (0).
(H ) 2/9/2026 - Reported from TOU/AGR (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 61-26) as amended in HD 1, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to WAL.		TOU/AGR, WAL, JHA48 hour notice 3/10/2026KAHALOA, EVSLIN, GARRETT, KEOHOKAPU-LEE LOY, KILA, KUSCH, MARTEN, MORIKAWA, TAM, TARNAS, TODD
4
HB1737 HD3RELATING TO FARM EMPLOYEE HOUSING.
Agriculture; Agricultural Districts; Zoning; Farm Dwelling; Accessory Employee HousingClarifying the allowable uses within the agricultural district with respect to farm dwellings and farm employee housing. Effective 7/1/3000. (HD3)HD3: The first major change is how “farm dwelling” is defined. Earlier drafts limited it to a single-family dwelling. HD3 removes the phrase “single-family.” The definition now says a “residential dwelling located on and accessory to a farm.”

"Farm Employee Housing" is one or more residential units, accessory to the farm operation, attached or detached from the main farm dwelling, each unit capped at 800 square feet

HD3 modifies subsection (c) so that lands with lower productivity soils (C, D, E, or U) can also use the farm dwelling and employee housing provisions.

This is significant because many agricultural parcels—especially on Hawaii Island—are in these lower soil productivity classes. Earlier interpretations sometimes limited farm dwelling allowances primarily to higher-quality agricultural land.
~~~~~~
This bill clarifies what types of housing are permitted on land zoned for agriculture. Specifically, it confirms that a farm dwelling may consist of a single-family residence plus an accessory employee housing structure on the same farm, as long as certain conditions are met.

The accessory employee housing may include multiple dwelling units, can be attached or detached from the main farm dwelling, and is capped at 800 square feet per unit. The housing must remain accessory to bona fide agricultural use, cannot be converted into condominiums, and cannot be used for agricultural tourism or short-term visitor accommodations. The bill also limits how much land can be used for the dwelling and related structures relative to the acreage actively farmed.

In addition, the bill maintains existing agricultural district rules by soil classification and clarifies that lands with lower productivity ratings (Class C, D, E, or U) remain limited to farm dwellings and uses allowed under existing law.

Overall, the measure is intended to support agricultural operations by allowing practical on-site housing for farm workers, while preventing misuse of agricultural land for non-farm residential or visitor purposes.		HIMAST supports clearly defined agricultural housing that serves bona fide farm operations - and strongly supports the preservation of lawful, permitted short-term rentals where authorized by county and state law. BECAUSE Housing workers on-site is often essential to keeping farms economically viable in Hawaiʻi, clear authorization for accessory employee housing helps reduce labor shortages, transportation barriers, and operating costs while keeping agricultural land in active use.These are two distinct uses and should not be conflated.

Accessory employee housing must remain dedicated to supporting agriculture, not used as a proxy battleground against STRs. This bill appropriately clarifies that employee housing is for workers, not visitors. That clarity protects both farm operations and lawful STRs by preventing misuse that invites backlash and overbroad enforcement. BECAUSE blurring the line between worker housing and tourism undermines land-use planning and creates enforcement challenges, strong guardrails are essential to prevent unintended use as visitor accommodations. Explicit prohibitions on agricultural tourism or short-term rentals protect zoning integrity and reduce enforcement ambiguity. HIMAST supports clear separation so that lawful STRs — including farm-based stays authorized under other laws — are not jeopardized by misuse or mislabeling.

Clear standards benefit counties and compliant property owners alike. Defined size limits, land-area ratios, and ownership restrictions reduce disputes and inconsistent interpretation at the county level. BECAUSE reducing ambiguity, inconsistent interpretation, and retroactive enforcement risk provides predictability for farmers investing in housing and help counties apply rules fairly and consistently.

While consistent enforcement across counties is important, HIMAST urges that HB1737 not be interpreted or applied in a way that expands beyond employee housing or is later cited to restrict lawful, county-approved STRs elsewhere in statute or ordinance.		(H) 03/04/2026 -The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 8 Ayes: Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Hashem, Kahaloa, Sayama, Takayama, Garcia, Shimizu; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and 2 Excused: Representative(s) Belatti, Cochran.
(H ) 2/20/2026 - Report adopted; referred to the committee(s) on JHA as amended in HD 2 with Representative(s) Perruso voting aye with reservations; none voting no (0) and Representative(s) Quinlan excused (1).
(H ) 2/18/2026 - The committee on AGR recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 7 Ayes: Representative(s) Chun, Kusch, Kahaloa, Lowen, Quinlan, Matsumoto; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Perruso; 0 Noes: none; and 0 Excused: none.
(H ) 2/13/2026 - Bill scheduled to be heard by AGR on Wednesday, 02-18-26 9:30AM in House conference room 325 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
(H ) 2/11/2026 - Reported from HSG/WAL (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 179-26) as amended in HD 1, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to AGR.
The committee on WAL recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 7 Ayes: Representative(s) Hashem, Morikawa, Belatti, Iwamoto, Poepoe, Shimizu, Souza; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and 2 Excused: Representative(s) Ichiyama, Woodson.		HSG/WAL, AGR, JHA48 hour notice 3/10/2026EVSLIN, HUSSEY, ILAGAN, IWAMOTO, KEOHOKAPU-LEE LOY, KILA, KUSCH, LEE, M., MARTEN, MATSUMOTO, MIYAKE, MORIKAWA, REYES ODA, SAYAMA, SHIMIZU, SOUZA, TARNAS, TODD, AmatoSB2006
5
SB2006 SD2RELATING TO FARM EMPLOYEE HOUSING.Agriculture; Agricultural Districts; Zoning; Farm Dwelling; Accessory Employee HousingClarifies that a "farm dwelling" permitted in an agricultural district includes a single-family farm dwelling with an accessory employee housing structure, subject to certain restrictions. Effective 3/22/2075. (SD2)SD2: “Farm employee housing" means one or more residential dwelling units accessory to the farm operation that may be attached or detached from the primary farm dwelling. That clarification matters because it formally recognizes multiple units as accessory structures, rather than leaving counties to interpret whether only one structure is allowed.

SB 2006 tightens and clarifies the definition of a permitted “farm dwelling” in the State Agricultural District in a way that may significantly affect landowners who have historically relied on part-time or incidental rental of farm dwellings to offset the limited economic viability of low- or non-productive agricultural land. This is especially relevant on Hawaiʻi Island, where large areas zoned agricultural consist of lava-based soils with limited or no realistic capacity for commercial farming.
SD2 clearly locks in the size cap as 800 habitable square feet per unit under roof.
• A farm dwelling cannot be used for agricultural tourism accommodations under the farm dwelling provision.
• Agricultural tourism activities cannot occur in farm employee housing units.
agricultural tourism may occur on the same parcel as a farm dwelling if:
it is secondary to bona fide agriculture, it complies with county ordinances, and it does not occur in employee housing units.
The language now repeatedly ties the housing to a “farm operation” and “agricultural activity.”

By expressly defining a farm dwelling as a single-family residence with accessory employee housing—and explicitly prohibiting the use of any portion of the farm dwelling for agricultural tourism or short-term accommodations—the bill removes ambiguity that some landowners have relied upon to justify limited rental use as a financial bridge rather than as a primary business activity. Under SB 2006, the existence of accessory employee housing is conditioned on a bona fide agricultural operation and is clearly tied to housing farm labor, not generating supplemental income through visitor or transient occupancy.

Although the bill does not change underlying productivity classifications or create new restrictions specifically targeting lower-productivity lands, it effectively narrows the practical flexibility available to owners of marginal agricultural parcels (including Classes C, D, E, or U soils) by reinforcing a strict separation between agricultural housing and visitor use. For landowners on lava-based or otherwise non-arable lands, this clarification may eliminate one of the few economically viable mechanisms previously used to subsidize land holding costs, taxes, and basic stewardship where meaningful agricultural production is not feasible.

In practice, SB 2006 shifts the regulatory risk profile for owners utilizing farm dwellings as part-time rentals. Activities that may have existed in a gray area—such as occasional short-term rental of a farm dwelling while maintaining nominal or experimental agricultural use—would be more clearly exposed to enforcement, even where no expansion of tourism activity occurs and no adverse impacts to surrounding agricultural operations are present.

The bill reflects a policy choice to prioritize land-use integrity and enforcement clarity over flexibility for marginal lands. While it supports legitimate agricultural operations and employee housing, it may disproportionately impact owners of agricultural-zoned land with limited productive potential, particularly in regions where zoning classifications do not reflect on-the-ground soil conditions or economic realities.		SD2:
Many parcels zoned agricultural cannot support meaningful commercial agriculture due to soil conditions, topography, water availability, or parcel size. State policy should recognize these realities and allow reasonable land use flexibility rather than assuming all agricultural parcels can support a viable farm operation.

A related issue is that some landowners maintain ag uses that are small-scale or lifestyle agriculture rather than full commercial farms. These parcels still contribute to local food production and rural land stewardship, but they may not generate enough revenue to support full-time employees.

Agriculture in Hawaii includes a wide range of operations—from commercial farms to small diversified agricultural activities. Policies governing worker housing should recognize this diversity and avoid requirements that unintentionally exclude smaller agricultural operations.

The second issue is existing rental units on agricultural land. Many rural parcels across the state already have cottages, ohana units, or detached dwellings that are rented long-term. In some cases those rentals predate current interpretations of the law; in others they were permitted under older rules or county practices.

SB 2006 doesn’t contain a clear grandfathering framework for these situations. Because it defines employee housing strictly as accessory to a farm operation, properties that currently have rentals unrelated to agriculture could fall into a gray area.

Many rural properties already include long-standing rental units that provide needed housing for local residents. The Legislature should ensure that new regulations do not unintentionally create compliance problems for existing lawful uses.

Another concern is that rural housing supply is already tight, particularly on islands like Hawaii Island and Maui. Removing or restricting existing rentals could worsen local housing shortages.

Existing rural rental housing plays an important role in providing workforce housing in areas where housing options are limited. Policy changes should avoid reducing the availability of these units without providing viable alternatives.

If new restrictions are adopted, the Legislature should include clear grandfathering or transition provisions to ensure that existing structures and long-standing rental uses are treated fairly.

~~~
S.B. 2006 responds to past misuse by imposing rigid structural and use prohibitions that will discourage lawful housing development rather than target bad actors who were never compliant to begin with. Limiting accessory employee housing to small, fixed-size units and prohibiting flexible configurations ignores the realities of modern agricultural labor, seasonal staffing, and multigenerational households. These constraints risk worsening—not easing—housing shortages for actual farm employees.

While clarifying that employee housing is not agricultural tourism is appropriate, S.B. 2006 relies heavily on structural definitions and blanket prohibitions instead of enforceable standards tied to occupancy, employment verification, and duration of stay. Effective enforcement should distinguish lawful worker housing from illegal short-term rentals without penalizing good-faith operators and the bill should be careful to grandfather in existing use.

Hawaii County code 25-4-15(d)8 already says, “shall not include … overnight accommodations, unless allowed by special permit or use permit.” This bill will not change Hawaii County's restrictions.
Maui County code Ordinance 5839 (which is silent on overnight stays) regulates Ag Tourism while Title 19 chapter 19.65 continues to regulate TVRs. This bill will not change Maui County restrictions.
SB 2006 does not create any new entitlement to overnight accommodations anywhere in the state, nor does it remove existing rights. All authority over overnight stays remains with the counties, exactly as under current law.		(S ) 2/26/2026 - The committee(s) on JDC recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in JDC were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s) Rhoads, Gabbard, Chang, Awa; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 1 Excused: Senator(s) San Buenaventura.
(S ) 2/20/2026 - Report adopted; Passed Second Reading, as amended (SD 1) and referred to JDC.
(S ) 2/12/2026 - The committee(s) on AEN recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in AEN were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s) Gabbard, Richards, Rhoads, Awa; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 1 Excused: Senator(s) DeCoite.
The committee(s) on AEN/HOU has scheduled a public hearing on 02-12-26 1:05PM; Conference Room 225 & Videoconference.
(S ) 1/22/2026 - Referred to AEN/HOU, JDC.
(S ) 1/14/2026 - Pending Introduction.		AEN/HOU, JDC48 hour notice 3/10/2026INOUYE, FEVELLA, GABBARD, KANUHA, Moriwaki, San Buenaventura
6
HB1590 HD3RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS.Short-term Vacation Rentals; Enforcement; Liens; Screenshots; Fines; Destination Management; County Transient Accommodations Tax; Appropriation Part I: Allows counties to use time-stamped screenshots as evidence for the enforcement of short-term vacation rentals. Requires the Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority's plans, practices, and efforts involving destination management to include promotion of use of traditional or lawful transient accommodations. Clarifies that the counties may use revenue from the County Transient Accommodations Tax for the enforcement of short-term vacation rentals. Appropriates funds. Part II: Requires hosting platforms that earn service fees for providing booking services for short-term vacation rentals to register with the Department of Taxation as tax collection agents and report, collect, and remit general excise and transient accommodations taxes on behalf of operators. Part II effective 1/1/2027. Effective 7/1/3000. (HD3)H.D.3 The bill says counties may use time-stamped screenshots from hosting platforms as evidence when enforcing ordinances against illegal STRs, but it defines “illegal short-term vacation rental” narrowly as a rental a court has already determined violates county STR, minimum-stay, or zoning ordinances. That narrow definition matters. Screenshots are useful only after illegality has already been judicially established, which limits how aggressive this tool really is.

The bill amends the definition of destination management so it includes promoting stays in traditional transient accommodations or legal vacation rentals and discouraging use of illegal STRs, appropriates money to the Department of Taxation to collect taxes owed by illegal STR operators.

Part II. It requires a hosting platform that earns service fees for booking services to register with DOTAX as a tax collection agent as a condition to providing booking services. Once registered, the platform must report, collect, and remit GET and TAT on behalf of all operators for Hawaii STR bookings made through that platform. If the platform fails to do that, it becomes liable for the unpaid tax, plus penalties and interest.

The bill also requires annual reporting by the hosting platform for each operator it covers, including the STR address, gross receipts, GET license number, and TAT registration number. At the same time, it says that information provided by the platform is confidential and may be used only for levying and collecting taxes, not shared with other departments or political subdivisions. That confidentiality language is a very important limiter: counties and other agencies do not automatically get platform data for zoning or permit enforcement under this bill as drafted.

H.B. 1590, H.D. 1 significantly revises the original bill by narrowing enforcement triggers and shifting primary responsibility for tax compliance to hosting platforms. The measure now focuses less on direct penalties against property owners and more on improving tax collection and discouraging illegal short-term rentals through platform accountability and destination management policy.

Part I clarifies that an “illegal short-term vacation rental” is only one that has been determined by a court to violate county law, which narrows enforcement authority and reduces the risk of premature or administrative determinations. Counties are authorized to use time-stamped screenshots from hosting platforms as evidence of illegal advertising in enforcement actions. The bill also amends the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s destination management mandate to actively promote stays in hotels, timeshares, and lawful vacation rentals, while discouraging use of illegal short-term rentals. In addition, counties are explicitly allowed to use county TAT revenues for short-term rental enforcement, and the Department of Taxation is appropriated funds to collect taxes owed by illegal operators.

Part II represents the most consequential shift in the bill by establishing hosting platforms as tax collection agents for both the General Excise Tax and the Transient Accommodations Tax, effective January 1, 2027. Hosting platforms that earn service fees must register with the Department of Taxation as a condition of operating in Hawaiʻi and are required to collect, report, and remit taxes on behalf of operators for bookings they facilitate. Platforms become legally liable for unpaid taxes, including penalties and interest, if they fail to comply. The bill also requires platforms to file annual returns identifying operators, properties, tax registration information, and taxes remitted, and updates record-keeping and electronic filing statutes to reflect this platform-based compliance model, while preserving operators’ responsibilities for non-platform transactions.

Extremely important changes introduced in H.D. 1 include:

Illegal STR status now requires a court determination, not an administrative finding

Hosting platforms become mandatory tax collection agents for GET and TAT

Platform tax collection provisions take effect January 1, 2027

Overall, H.B. 1590, H.D. 1 represents a structural shift toward centralized tax compliance through booking platforms, clearer evidentiary standards for county enforcement, and a policy emphasis on steering visitors toward lawful accommodations, while leaving land-use authority and legality determinations with the counties and the courts.		HD3 Part I is framed as anti-illegal-STR enforcement, but Part II’s data regime is largely walled off for tax purposes only. So the bill strengthens tax compliance more than it strengthens county code enforcement intelligence. In practical terms, it may collect more tax without necessarily making it dramatically easier for counties to identify unlawful units, except through the screenshot provision and whatever independent county tools already exist.

Part II is the real bill and Part I is partly political packaging. The tax-collection-agent framework is the durable structural change. It makes Hawaii less dependent on voluntary operator compliance and more dependent on platform-level remittance and reporting. That is a meaningful shift in leverage toward DOTAX.
The bill does not just regulate illegal STRs, It normalizes the idea that platforms are part of Hawaii’s tax-enforcement architecture. Once that principle is established, future legislatures may try to expand it from tax collection into permit verification, registration screening, listing removals, or data-sharing with counties.

HD1: HIMAST supports cracking down on illegal activity, but this bill goes far beyond that and risks harming lawful, permitted operators and property rights.

Protect due process and lawful rentals. H.D. 1 improves the definition of “illegal” by tying it to a court determination, and that principle must be protected and strengthened throughout the bill. No one should face penalties, forced actions, or loss of property rights based on accusations, screenshots, or shifting county interpretations.

Stop unprecedented lender mandates and forced foreclosures. The bill’s lender/foreclosure requirements are an extraordinary government intrusion into private lending relationships and property rights. It sets a dangerous precedent that can spread beyond STRs. HIMAST strongly opposes any provision that pressures lenders to foreclose or forces outcomes unrelated to safety, fraud, or true criminal conduct.

Limit enforcement tools to precise, lawful targeting. Using screenshots as evidence and expanding enforcement funding without clear guardrails invites abuse and uneven application across counties. Enforcement must be tied to court orders, clear standards, and transparent procedures, not broad authority that sweeps up lawful operators acting in good faith.

Reject excessive data collection and privacy risk. The bill’s reporting requirements go far beyond what is needed for tax compliance and create unnecessary cybersecurity exposure for residents and local businesses. Tax collection can be accomplished without collecting sensitive personal identifiers on every listing statewide.

If the Legislature wants better tax compliance, do it cleanly and narrowly. HIMAST can support platform-based tax collection only if it is paired with strict limits on data collection, clear confidentiality protections, and an explicit prohibition on using tax filings as an enforcement dragnet against lawful rentals.		(H ) 2/26/2026 - The committee on FIN recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 16 Ayes: Representative(s) Todd, Takenouchi, Hartsfield, Hussey, Keohokapu-Lee Loy, Kitagawa, Kusch, Lee, M., Miyake, Morikawa, Perruso, Templo, Yamashita, Gedeon, Reyes Oda; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Alcos; Noes: none; and Excused: none.
(H ) 2/24/2026 - Bill scheduled to be heard by FIN on Thursday, 02-26-26 10:00AM in House conference room 308 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
(H ) 2/19/2026 - Report adopted; referred to the committee(s) on FIN as amended in HD 2 with Representative(s) Alcos, Cochran, Garcia, Gedeon voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) Pierick, Shimizu voting no (2) and none excused (0)
Reported from JHA (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 585-26) as amended in HD 2, recommending referral to FIN.
(H ) 2/10/2026 - The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 8 Ayes: Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Belatti, Hashem, Kahaloa, Sayama, Takayama; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Cochran; 2 Noes: Representative(s) Garcia, Shimizu; and Excused: none.
(H ) 2/3/2026 - The committee on TOU recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 7 Ayes: Representative(s) Tam, Templo, Holt, Hussey, Ilagan, Yamashita, Gedeon; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and Excused: none.
(H ) 1/21/2026 - Introduced and Pass First Reading.
(H ) 1/16/2026 - Prefiled.		TOU, JHA, FIN48 hour notice 3/10/2026TAM, BELATTI, EVSLIN, GRANDINETTI, ILAGAN, IWAMOTO, KAHALOA, KAPELA, KILA, KUSCH, LEE, M., LOWEN, MARTEN, MATAYOSHI, OLDS, PERRUSO, POEPOE
7
SB2031 SD2RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION.Consumer Protection; Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices; Live-Event Tickets; Short-Term Lodging; Disclosures; Total Price; Junk FeesMakes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for businesses to: offer, display, or advertise the price of live-ticket events or short-term lodging without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price; and misrepresent any fees or charges in any offer, display, or advertisement for the sale of live-event tickets or short-term lodging. (SD1)This bill makes it illegal for any business selling live-event tickets or short-term lodging (including STRs and vacation rentals) to:
Advertise a price without showing the total cost up front
Hide or misrepresent mandatory fees
This means that if you list a nightly rate, you must clearly display the full price (room rate + mandatory fees) before checkout, and do so more prominently than any other pricing info.
The legislature is targeting what they call “drip pricing”, which they associate with hotels, live event ticketing platforms, and vacation rentals. The bill is modeled after recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rules on junk fees.		S.D.2 tightens the price-disclosure rule, clarifies definitions, and aligns more closely with the FTC junk-fee rule. It does not fundamentally change the bill’s goal but it expands the operational compliance requirements, especially for online listings and booking platforms.(S ) 2/26/2026 - The committee(s) on CPN recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in CPN were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s) Keohokalole, Fukunaga, McKelvey, Awa; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 1 Excused: Senator(s) Lamosao.
(S ) 2/20/2026 - The committee(s) on CPN will hold a public decision making on 02-26-26 9:45AM; Conference Room 229 & Videoconference.(S ) 2/12/2026 - Report adopted; Passed Second Reading, as amended (SD 1) and referred to CPN.
(S ) 2/3/2026 - The committee(s) on EDT recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in EDT were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) DeCoite, Wakai, Fukunaga, Kim, Fevella; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 0 Excused: none.
(S ) 1/22/2026 - Referred to EDT, CPN.
(S ) 1/14/2026 - Pending Introduction.		EDT, CPN48 hour notice 3/10/2026KEOHOKALOLE, CHANG, FUKUNAGA, KIDANI, MCKELVEY, MORIWAKI, SAN BUENAVENTURA, Hashimoto, Kanuha
8
HB1960 HD2RELATING TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.AG; DLIR; Human Trafficking Awareness; Transient Accommodations Sector; Training; Signage; Reporting; Penalties; RulesRequires the Department of the Attorney General to develop a Human Trafficking Awareness Training Program to educate and train workers in the transient accommodations sector. Requires transient accommodations employers or transient accommodations third-party contractors to periodically provide the human trafficking awareness training to certain employees and contract workers, keep records of the training, post signage, and develop and implement a human trafficking prevention policy that includes procedures for the reporting of suspected human trafficking. Establishes penalties. Requires the Department of Law Enforcement to adopt rules. Effective 7/1/3000. (HD2)H.D. 2 does not make substantive changes
H.D. 1 shifts the bill from an open-ended mandate to a more structured, standardized compliance framework.

1. Training is now centralized and standardized.
Earlier versions contemplated broader or less-defined training obligations. H.D. 1 now requires the Attorney General to develop a single, statewide training program, with the option for employers or contractors to use alternative programs only if approved by the AG and meeting the same standards. This reduces uncertainty about what qualifies as “adequate” training.

2. Clear timelines replace vague expectations.
H.D. 1 establishes firm compliance dates:

Training development by July 1, 2027

Employer compliance beginning July 1, 2027

Training within 180 days of hire/placement and every two years thereafter
This replaces earlier ambiguity and allows operators time to plan and budget.

3. Scope is clarified to employees and contractors with guest access.
The revised bill limits training and obligations to employees and contract workers who have guest contact or access to guest rooms, rather than all personnel. This narrows applicability and better aligns with risk exposure.

4. Liability protection is expressly added.
H.D. 1 includes an explicit good-faith immunity provision, protecting employers, contractors, and workers from civil or criminal liability when they comply or report suspected trafficking—unless they knowingly assist in trafficking. This protection was absent or unclear before.

5. Compliance obligations are more detailed—and more expansive.
While clearer, H.D. 1 also adds explicit operational requirements that were not always fully specified before:

Mandatory recordkeeping subject to inspection

Required workplace signage in multiple languages

A written trafficking prevention and reporting policy

Civil fines with per-day violations

6. Rulemaking authority is clarified.
Implementation authority is now clearly placed with the Department of Law Enforcement, in consultation with the Attorney General, replacing earlier uncertainty about which agency would administer and enforce the program.		HD2 Did not make substantive changes
H.B. 1960 (HD1) shows meaningful improvement, but compliance impacts remain.

The revised bill improves consistency and due process.
HIMAST appreciates that H.D. 1 centralizes training under the Attorney General and limits “illegal” exposure by clearly defining who must be trained and what compliance requires. Standardized training and explicit good-faith liability protections are meaningful improvements over earlier drafts.

The scope is clearer, but still broad for small operators.
While H.D. 1 narrows training to workers with guest contact or room access and clarifies timelines, the bill still applies uniformly across the transient accommodations sector, including small and owner-operated rentals that do not resemble hotels in staffing or operations.

Third-party contractor inclusion raises practical questions.
Explicitly applying requirements to staffing agencies improves accountability, but operators may still face recordkeeping and enforcement exposure for contractors they do not directly control. Clear guidance is needed to avoid duplicative or conflicting compliance obligations.

Penalties remain tied to administrative compliance.
Although enforcement is now more defined, fines may still be imposed for paperwork, signage, or timing failures rather than actual trafficking activity. HIMAST urges an enforcement approach that prioritizes education and correction before penalties.		(H ) 2/24/2026 - The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 8 Ayes: Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Belatti, Cochran, Kahaloa, Sayama, Takayama, Shimizu; Ayes with reservations: none; 0 Noes: none; and 2 Excused: Representative(s) Hashem, Garcia.
(H ) 2/20/2026 - Bill scheduled to be heard by JHA on Tuesday, 02-24-26 2:00PM in House conference room 325 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
The committee on LAB recommend that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED. The votes were as follows: 5 Ayes: Representative(s) Sayama, Lee, M., Garrett, Kapela, Reyes Oda; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and 1 Excused: Representative(s
) Kong.(H ) 2/17/2026 - Bill scheduled to be heard by LAB on Thursday, 02-19-26 9:30AM in House conference room 309 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
(H ) 2/10/2026 - Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on LAB with none voting aye with reservations; none voting no (0) and none excused (0).
(H ) 2/9/2026 - Reported from TOU (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 60-26) as amended in HD 1, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to LAB.
(H ) 2/2/2026 - Bill scheduled to be heard by TOU on Thursday, 02-05-26 9:30AM in House conference room 423 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
(H ) 1/28/2026 - Referred to TOU, LAB, JHA, referral sheet 3
(H ) 1/23/2026 - Pending introduction.		TOU, LAB, JHA48 hour notice 3/10/2026TEMPLO, AMATO, BELATTI, GRANDINETTI, HARTSFIELD, HASHEM, ICHIYAMA, ILAGAN, KAHALOA, KAPELA, KEOHOKAPU-LEE LOY, KILA, LA CHICA, LOWEN, MARTEN, MATAYOSHI, MORIKAWA, OLDS, PERRUSO, POEPOE, REYES ODA, SAYAMA, SOUZA, TAKAYAMA, TAKENOUCHI, TARNAS, YAMASHITA
9
HB1950 HD1RELATING TO THE TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS TAX.Transient Accommodations Tax; Dedicated Funding; State-led Marketing and Branding Special Fund; Annual Comprehensive Marketing, Branding, And Tourism Management PlanEstablishes the State-led Marketing and Branding Special Fund and requires that a portion of all transient accommodations taxes that would otherwise be deposited into the general fund be deposited into the special fund, to be used for state-led marketing, branding, and tourism management. Requires the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism to develop and submit an annual comprehensive marketing, branding, and tourism management plan to the Legislature. Effective 7/1/3000. (HD1)(H ) 2/18/2026 - Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on FIN with none voting aye with reservations; none voting no (0) and none excused (0).
(H ) 2/12/2026 - The committee on ECD recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 6 Ayes: Representative(s) Ilagan, Hussey, Tam, Templo, Yamashita, Gedeon; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and 1 Excused: Representative(s) Holt.
(H ) 2/10/2026 - Bill scheduled to be heard by TOU/ECD on Thursday, 02-12-26 10:30AM in House conference room 423 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
(H ) 1/28/2026 - Referred to TOU/ECD, FIN, referral sheet 3
(H ) 1/23/2026 - Pending introduction.		TOU/ECD, FINWill miss first decking deadlineTAM, GEDEON, HUSSEY, ILAGAN, TEMPLO
10
SB2023RELATING TO TAXATION.General Excise Tax; Transient Accommodations Tax; Filing Threshold; IncreaseIncreases the filing thresholds for the General Excise Tax and Transient Accommodations Tax.This bill raises the threshold at which small businesses and operators must file General Excise Tax (GET) and Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) returns monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually. Lawmakers argue that inflation since 2001 has caused many small businesses with relatively low tax liabilities to be pushed into more frequent filing schedules, which increases administrative burden for both businesses and the Department of Taxation. The department is already operating with a high vacancy rate, so reducing filing frequency for low-liability taxpayers is presented as a relief measure for both sides.

Under current law, anyone with $4,000 or more in annual GET or TAT liability must file monthly; below that amount, quarterly or semiannual filing is allowed depending on the taxpayer’s liability. This bill would increase those dollar thresholds (exact figures are left blank in the draft to be filled in), which would allow more small operators to file less frequently. The same increased thresholds are applied to electronic filing requirements, meaning that electronic filing would only be mandated once a higher annual liability is reached.

For operators who file quarterly or semiannually, the bill preserves all existing enforcement tools. If a taxpayer becomes delinquent or exceeds the new liability limits, the director can revoke their quarterly or semiannual filing permit and require monthly filings instead. Overall, the bill does not change tax rates, exemptions, or definitions—its sole purpose is to update filing thresholds to reflect current economic conditions and reduce administrative workload. The effective date would be July 1, 2026.		(S ) 1/22/2026 - Referred to WAM.
(S ) 1/14/2026 - Pending Introduction.		WAMWill miss first decking deadlineINOUYE, CHANG, HASHIMOTO, KIDANI
11
SB2359 SD1RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF TIME SHARES.Time Shares; Registration; Renewal; Amendments; Director of Commerce and Consumer AffairsProvides that applications for registration renewal required by section 514E-10, HRS, shall be deemed approved upon delivery. Provides that any amendment to a required time share plan registration shall be deemed approved by operation of law on the sixtieth day after the amendment is submitted to the Director of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, unless the Director issues a deficiency letter within that period. Effective 1/1/2050. (SD1)This bill streamlines how time share developers and related entities maintain their required registrations with the State of Hawaii. The legislature argues that time shares are an important part of Hawaii’s visitor industry, that the sector has matured with major international hotel brands, and that delays in state review of registration renewals and amendments create unnecessary burdens for the industry and consumers.

The bill’s two key changes are: first, time share registration renewals are automatically deemed approved the moment they are delivered to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs; second, amendments to an existing registered time share plan are automatically deemed approved on the 45th day after submission unless the director issues a deficiency letter explaining what needs to be fixed. In both cases, the idea is to avoid lengthy state review timelines and give developers predictable regulatory processing.

The rest of the time share statute remains intact, including requirements that developers, acquisition agents, plan managers, and exchange agents register, renew, provide disclosure information, and maintain bonding or good-character qualifications. The bill simply converts previously discretionary state approvals into either instant approvals (for renewals) or automatic approvals after a fixed review period (for amendments). The intent is administrative efficiency rather than policy change, and the law would take effect January 1, 2027.		(S ) 2/12/2026 - Report adopted; Passed Second Reading, as amended (SD 1) and referred to CPN.
(S ) 2/5/2026 - The committee(s) on EDT recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in EDT were as follows: 3 Aye(s): Senator(s) DeCoite, Fukunaga, Fevella; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 2 Excused: Senator(s) Wakai, Kim.
(S ) 2/2/2026 - The committee(s) on EDT has scheduled a public hearing on 02-05-26 1:00PM; Conference Room 229 & Videoconference.		EDT, CPNWill miss first decking deadlineDECOITE, MCKELVEY, RICHARDS
12
SB2841 SD1RELATING TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.AG; DLIR; Human Trafficking Awareness; Transient Accommodations Sector; Training; Signage; Reporting; Penalties; RulesRequires the Department of the Attorney General to develop a Human Trafficking Awareness Training Program to educate and train workers in the transient accommodations sector. Requires transient accommodations employers to periodically provide the human trafficking awareness training to certain employees and contract workers; keep records of the training; post signage; and develop and implement a human trafficking prevention policy that includes procedures for the reporting of suspected human trafficking. Establishes penalties. Requires the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to adopt rules.SB2841 establishes a mandatory human trafficking awareness and compliance framework for the entire transient accommodations sector. The bill requires the Department of the Attorney General to develop a standardized training program and directs the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to adopt rules requiring transient accommodations employers to train employees and contract workers, maintain training records, post multilingual signage, and implement formal human trafficking reporting policies. Violations would be subject to civil fines assessed on a per-violation, per-day basis.

SB2841 mirrors HB1960 in scope and structure and raises similar concerns about uniform compliance mandates applied across a highly diverse lodging sector. While the objective of preventing human trafficking is fully supported, the bill places primary enforcement weight on administrative compliance rather than targeted prevention, exposing lawful STR operators—especially small and professionally managed properties—to ongoing penalty risk for procedural failures rather than misconduct. Key compliance details and penalty thresholds are left to future rulemaking, creating uncertainty and expanding regulatory discretion without clear statutory guardrails.		HIMAST supports anti–human trafficking efforts, but compliance mandates must be proportional and practical.
Applying identical training and recordkeeping requirements to large hotels and small STR operators creates disproportionate burdens without demonstrated effectiveness.

The bill prioritizes paperwork enforcement over targeted prevention.
Penalties attach to administrative noncompliance rather than trafficking activity, increasing liability risk for good-faith operators.

Clear statutory limits are needed before rulemaking authority is expanded.
Definitions, timelines, and penalty thresholds should be established in statute to prevent shifting standards and unintended enforcement consequences.		(S ) 2/12/2026 - Report adopted; Passed Second Reading, as amended (SD 1) and referred to WAM.
(S ) 2/5/2026 - The committee(s) on JDC recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in JDC were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Rhoads, Gabbard, Chang, San Buenaventura, Awa; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 0 Excused: none.
(S ) 1/26/2026 - Passed First Reading.
(S ) 1/23/2026 - Introduced.		JDC/LBT, WAMWill miss first decking deadlineKIDANI, CHANG, DECOITE, FUKUNAGA, HASHIMOTO, KEOHOKALOLE, KIM, LAMOSAO, SAN BUENAVENTURA, Elefante, Richards, Wakai
13
HB1947 HD1RELATING TO TOURISM.Office of Tourism; Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism; Division of Destination Management, Department of Land and Natural Resources; Repeal of Hawaii Tourism AuthorityRepeals the Hawaii Tourism Authority. Establishes the Office of Tourism within the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. Appropriates funds. Effective 7/1/3000. (HD1)This bill would eliminate the Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority and replace it with a new structure split between two existing state departments. It repeals Chapter 201B (the HTA law) and moves statewide branding, marketing, promotion, contracting, research, and convention center–related functions into a new Office of Tourism within DBEDT. It also creates a new Division of Destination Management within DLNR, based on the finding that DLNR is best positioned to manage the on-the-ground environmental and natural resource impacts of visitor use across all islands.

The new DLNR division would be led by a chief administrator and island-based destination management managers (Hawaiʻi, Kauaʻi, Maui, Molokaʻi/Lānaʻi, and Oʻahu), all exempt from civil service, and would implement county destination management action plans dependent on cooperation from other agencies and/or advisory groups. The bill allows the division to convene an advisory group including leaders from DLNR, DBEDT, DOT, and the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts to coordinate on tourism emergencies, natural resource protection, airline access issues, and cultural/community programs. The division must submit an annual report detailing activities, expenditures, and results.

Within DBEDT, the new Office of Tourism would be overseen by the DBEDT director and advised by a 12-member Advisory Board on Tourism with county representation and industry expertise requirements, term limits, quorum/voting thresholds, and a two-year “cooling off” restriction for people coming from organizations under contract with the office. The office’s staff structure is spelled out (brand, finance/procurement, compliance/legal, and administrative roles), and the advisory board is authorized to retain independent counsel for certain contract negotiations if the attorney general lacks expertise, in coordination with the deputy AG.

Extremely important elements include:

Repeals HTA and shifts responsibilities to DBEDT (marketing/branding) and DLNR (destination management/visitor impacts) effective January 1, 2027.

Creates new exempt positions and formalizes county destination management action plans with annual reporting requirements.

Establishes a new tourism governance model (advisory board, liaison to the governor, procurement/compliance staffing) and makes convention center construction contracts subject to the state procurement code.

The bill also makes conforming and funding changes, including updating references from HTA to the new office, adjusting special fund treatment (including the convention center enterprise special fund and tourism emergency special fund references), and appropriating funds to staff the new DLNR and DBEDT tourism functions. Sections funding positions take effect earlier (July 1 of the specified year), while the overall reorganization takes effect January 1, 2027.		This bill is not “about rentals” on its face, but it can reshape the agencies and budgets that drive visitor-impact policy, enforcement priorities, and public messaging. That makes it high-stakes for lawful STR preservation.

Demand neutrality and accuracy toward lawful STRs. If the state is reorganizing tourism governance, it must clearly distinguish between illegal activity and lawful, permitted, tax-paying vacation rentals. State marketing and destination messaging must not stigmatize legal STRs or treat them as a problem category. HIMAST will oppose any agency guidance or messaging that blurs that line.

Do not allow destination management to become enforcement-by-another-name. Moving “on-the-ground impacts” into DLNR creates a real risk that STRs get swept into visitor-impact narratives even when operations are legal. Any destination management program funded with tourism dollars must be limited to measurable resource/infrastructure impacts and may not be repurposed as a backdoor anti-STR enforcement program.

Follow the money and require guardrails. This bill shifts structures, positions, and funds. HIMAST will push for transparency, performance metrics, and restrictions that prevent tourism funds from being diverted into category-based crackdowns. If the Legislature wants accountability, it needs enforceable KPIs and public reporting that shows outcomes, not just activity.

(H ) 2/19/2026 - The committee(s) on JHA recommend(s) that the measure be deferred.
(H ) 2/13/2026 - Bill scheduled to be heard by JHA on Thursday, 02-19-26 2:00PM in House conference room 325 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
(H ) 2/12/2026 - Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on JHA with Representative(s) Alcos, Gedeon, Matsumoto, Reyes Oda, Shimizu, Souza voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) Garcia, Muraoka, Pierick voting no (3) and none excused (0).
(H ) 2/10/2026 - The committee on WAL recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 9 Ayes: Representative(s) Hashem, Morikawa, Belatti, Ichiyama, Poepoe, Woodson; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Iwamoto, Shimizu, Souza; Noes: none; and Excused: none.
(H ) 1/28/2026 - Referred to TOU/WAL, JHA, FIN, referral sheet 3
(H ) 1/23/2026 - Pending introduction.		TOU/WAL, JHA, FINDeferredTAM, GRANDINETTI, HUSSEY, ILAGAN, MARTEN
14
HB1598 HD1RELATING TO THE HAWAII CLIMATE INSTITUTE.University of Hawaii; Hawaii Climate Institute; International Pacific Research Center; Transient Accommodations Tax; AppropriationPart I: Allows counties to use time-stamped screenshots as evidence for the enforcement of short-term vacation rentals. Requires the Hawaii Tourism Authority's plans, practices, and efforts involving destination management to include promotion of use of traditional or lawful transient accommodations. Clarifies that the counties may use revenue from the County Transient Accommodations Tax for the enforcement of short-term vacation rentals. Appropriates funds. Part II: Requires hosting platforms that earn service fees for providing booking services for short-term vacation rentals to register with the Department of Taxation as tax collection agents and report, collect, and remit general excise and transient accommodations taxes on behalf of operators. Part II effective 1/1/2027. Effective 7/1/3000. (HD2)HB1598 establishes the Hawaiʻi Climate Institute at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa to consolidate climate research, workforce development, and adaptation planning, and transfers the International Pacific Research Center into the new institute. The bill appropriates $6 million in general funds for FY 2026–27 and, more significantly, permanently allocates six percent of any future increases to the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT)—including TAT assessed on cruise fares—to support the institute’s ongoing operations.

The bill reflects a growing legislative pattern of dedicating tourism-generated revenues to permanent special funds without clear nexus, limits, or sunset provisions. While the goals of climate resilience, research, and workforce development are broadly supported, HB1598 further entrenches transient accommodations as a long-term funding source for state priorities unrelated to visitor accommodations, increasing fiscal dependence on the STR/MTR sector. The bill also creates an automatic revenue allocation tied to future TAT increases, effectively pre-committing STR-generated revenues before any rate changes are even enacted.		WAITING FOR AMENDED BILL...
HB1598 establishes the Hawaiʻi Climate Institute at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa to consolidate climate research, workforce development, and adaptation planning, and transfers the International Pacific Research Center into the new institute. The bill appropriates $6 million in general funds for FY 2026–27 and, more significantly, permanently allocates six percent of any future increases to the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT)—including TAT assessed on cruise fares—to support the institute’s ongoing operations.

The bill reflects a growing legislative pattern of dedicating tourism-generated revenues to permanent special funds without clear nexus, limits, or sunset provisions. While the goals of climate resilience, research, and workforce development are broadly supported, HB1598 further entrenches transient accommodations as a long-term funding source for state priorities unrelated to visitor accommodations, increasing fiscal dependence on the STR/MTR sector. The bill also creates an automatic revenue allocation tied to future TAT increases, effectively pre-committing STR-generated revenues before any rate changes are even enacted.		(H ) 2/12/2026 - This measure has been deleted from the meeting scheduled on Tuesday 02-17-26 9:30AM in conference room 325 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
(H ) 2/10/2026 - Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on EEP with none voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) Garcia voting no (1) and none excused (0).
(H ) 2/4/2026 - The committee on HED recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 10 Ayes: Representative(s) Garrett, Amato, Evslin, Kapela, Kila, La Chica, Olds, Woodson, Muraoka, Souza; Ayes with reservations: none; 0 Noes: none; and 0 Excused: none.
(H ) 1/21/2026 - Introduced and Pass First Reading.		HED, EEP, FINWill miss referral deadlineGARRETT, AMATO, EVSLIN, KAPELA, KILA, LA CHICA, OLDS, SAYAMA, SOUZA, WOODSON
15
HB1944RELATING TO TOURISM.Destination Stewardship; Corporation for the Stewardship of Hawaii Tourism; Nonprofit Organization; Hawaii Tourism Authority; RepealEstablishes and designates the Corporation for the Stewardship of Hawaii Tourism, a nonprofit organization, as the official destination stewardship organization for the State. Repeals the Hawaii Tourism Authority.DEFERRED
(H ) 2/3/2026 - The committee(s) on TOU recommend(s) that the measure be de
ferred.(H ) 1/28/2026 - Referred to TOU, WAL, FIN, referral sheet 3
(H ) 1/23/2026 - Pending introduction.		TAMDeferredTAM
16
HB2351RELATING TO THE HAWAII HOMES FOR HAWAII FAMILIES ACT.Corporate Ownership; Housing Stock; Restrictions; HomeownershipProhibits corporate owners from renting a single-family home to a residential tenant when the owner has a property interest in five or more such properties. Prohibits individual owners from renting a single-family home to a residential tenant when the owner has a property interest in seven or more such properties. Allows for exemptions and enforcement.(H ) 2/2/2026 - Referred to HSG, CPC/JHA, FIN, referral sheet 6HSG, CPC/JHA, FINMissed triple-referral cutoff
17
SB2199RELATING TO THE POMAIKAI HAWAII FUND.Director of Finance; Pomaikai Hawaii Fund; Sovereign Wealth Fund; Special Land and Development Fund; Investment; Dividend Distribution; Qualified Residents; Rules; ReportsEstablishes the Pomaikai Hawaii Fund, a state-owned sovereign wealth fund, into which certain portions of the transient accommodations tax revenues, moneys from general fund balance surpluses, moneys from civil action settlements where the State is a party, and a portion of the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of public lands shall be deposited. Establishes a Board of Directors to manage and invest the moneys in the Fund and distribute the earnings to qualified residents of the State beginning calendar year 2030. Requires the Board to adopt rules. Requires the Director of Finance to provide guidance to the Board on the establishment and administration of the Fund. Requires reports to the Legislature.S.B. 2199 creates a sovereign wealth fund (the “Pomaikai Hawaii Fund”) modeled loosely after the Alaska Permanent Fund. It would divert portions of:

• Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) revenues
• State budget surpluses
• State legal settlements/judgments
• Proceeds from State land sales

…into an investment fund. Earnings would then be distributed as annual cash dividends to qualifying Hawaii residents beginning in 2030.		Long-term revenue dependence should be paired with policy stability, fairness, and meaningful consideration of cumulative impacts on lawful operators—particularly on neighbor islands.(S ) 1/26/2026 - Referred to EDT, WAM/JDC.
(S ) 1/21/2026 - Introduced and passed First Reading.
(S ) 1/14/2026 - Pending Introduction.		EDT, WAM/JDCWill miss referral deadlineCHANG, FEVELLA, RHOADS
18
SB220RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION FINANCING.County Surcharge on State Tax; Extension; General Excise Tax; Transient Accommodations TaxAuthorizes a county that has adopted a surcharge to state tax to extend the surcharge to 12/31/2056. Extends the end date of the one percent Transient Accommodation Tax increase to 12/31/2056. Requires the State Auditor to conduct an audit and annual review of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation until 12/31/2056. Requires the Comptroller to certify the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation's invoices for capital costs until 12/31/2056.S.B. 220 extends the elevated Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) rate and county surcharge authority through December 31, 2056, continuing the long-term use of STR-related tax revenues to fund Honolulu’s rail project. While framed as transportation financing and accountability legislation, the bill effectively converts what was represented as a temporary TAT increase into a multi-decade obligation, with excess TAT revenues statewide continuing to be deposited into the Mass Transit Special Fund. This has direct and ongoing cost impacts for short- and mid-term rental operators across all counties, regardless of whether they receive any corresponding benefit from the rail system.

From HIMAST’s perspective, the bill raises significant concerns regarding tax equity, geographic fairness, and precedent. Neighbor island STR operators would continue subsidizing a single Oʻahu infrastructure project without proportional reinvestment or opt-out mechanisms, reinforcing a policy pattern that treats STRs as a permanent revenue backstop rather than legitimate local businesses. While the bill maintains audit and oversight requirements, it lacks meaningful guardrails, sunset triggers, or benefit-nexus protections for STR contributors, making it problematic absent substantial amendments.		This bill extends “temporary” taxes for another generation without a reset.
S.B. 220 locks in the county surcharge on state tax and the elevated Transient Accommodations Tax until 2056, turning what were sold as temporary financing tools into permanent burdens on residents, visitors, and local businesses—without a meaningful reassessment of necessity, effectiveness, or alternatives.

STR operators continue to be treated as a dedicated funding source.
By extending the higher TAT rate for decades, the bill disproportionately relies on transient accommodations—including lawful short- and mid-term rentals—to subsidize a single major infrastructure project, even though many operators and communities receive little to no direct benefit from the rail system.

Oversight alone is not a substitute for results.
While continued audits and invoice verification are important, extending taxes through 2056 without performance benchmarks, cost-containment triggers, or sunset-linked milestones rewards delay rather than delivery. Long-term financing should be tied to demonstrated progress, not just continued review.		 (S ) 1/21/2026 - Re-Referred to TRS/EIG, WAM.TRS/EIG, WAMWill miss referral deadlineELEFANTE, AQUINO, CHANG, RICHARDS
19
SB241RELATING TO STATE FINANCES.DLNR; Climate Health and Environmental Action Special Fund; AppropriationsEstablishes the Climate Health and Environmental Action Special Fund in the Department of Land and Natural Resources to minimize the impacts of, and respond to, climate crises, which, beginning 1/1/2026, will be funded by a $25 tax on transient accommodations. Exempts certain housing used for emergencies during a state disaster from the Transient Accommodations Tax. Appropriates funds.(S ) 1/21/2026 - Re-Referred to WLA/AEN/EDT, WAM/JDC.WLA/AEN/EDT, WAM/JDCWill miss referral deadlineGABBARD, RHOADS, Moriwaki
20
SB2484RELATING TO THE HAWAII CLIMATE INSTITUTE.University of Hawaii; Hawaii Climate Institute; International Pacific Research Center; Transient Accommodations Tax; AppropriationEstablishes the Hawaii Climate Institute at the University of Hawaii to support climate resilience and adaptation initiatives of the University and the State. Requires six per cent of the revenue generated by any increase to the Transient Accommodations Tax rates beginning on January 1, 2026, and by assessment of the Transient Accommodations Tax on gross rental proceeds derived from cruise fares to be allocated to the University of Hawaii annually to support the programs and operations of the Hawaii Climate Institute. Transfers the International Pacific Research Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa's School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and Technology to the Hawaii Climate Institute. Appropriates funds.(S ) 1/28/2026 - Referred to EDU/AEN, WAM.
(S ) 1/22/2026 - Passed First Reading.		EDU/AEN, WAMWill miss referral deadlineGABBARD, RHOADS
21
SB3018RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION.Consumer Protection; Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices; Live-Event Tickets; Short-Term Lodging; Disclosures; Total Price; Junk FeesMakes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for businesses to: offer, display, or advertise the price of live-ticket events or short-term lodging without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price; and misrepresent any fees or charges in any offer, display, or advertisement for the sale of live-event tickets or short-term lodging.(S ) 1/26/2026 - Passed First Reading.
(S ) 1/23/2026 - Introduced.		EDT, CPN/JDCWill miss referral deadlineLEE, C., CHANG, GABBARD, HASHIMOTO, KEOHOKALOLE, MCKELVEY, MORIWAKI, RHOADS, SAN BUENAVENTURA, Wakai
22
SB3150RELATING TO HOSTING PLATFORMSDoTAX; Hosting Platform; Tax Collection Agent; General Excise Tax, Transient Accommodations TaxRequires hosting platforms that earn service fees for providing booking services for transient accommodations to register with the Department of Taxation as tax collection agents and report, collect, and remit general excise and transient accommodations taxes on behalf of operators.
(S ) 2/2/2026 - Referred to EDT, C
PN/WAM.(S ) 1/26/2026 - Pending Introduction.		EDT, CPN/WAMWill miss referral deadlineGovernor's Package
23
SB3289RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION.DOT; Governor; Transient Accommodations Tax; Cruise Ships; Cruise Fares; Budget Request; Maritime Purposes and UsesRequires the Governor to request in the executive budget or supplemental budget that an amount of general funds that approximates the additional revenue generated by assessing the Transient Accommodations Tax on gross rental proceeds derived from cruise fares be expended for maritime purposes and uses, including addressing maritime environmental issues, as determined by the Department of Transportation, rather than be expended as part of the green fee. Amends the definition of "cruise fares" with respect to the Transient Accommodations Tax.(S ) 2/2/2026 - Referred to TRS/AEN, WAM.TRS/AEN, WAMWill miss referral deadline
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100