Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2012 Committee of the Whole re: C 2012-74MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE March 21, 2012 A meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Council of the County of Kaua`i, State of Hawai`i, was called to order by Councilmember Jay Furfaro, Chair, at the Historic County Building, Room 201, Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday, March 21, 2012, at 12:08 p.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roll: The Committee proceeded on its agenda items as follows and as a shown in the following Committee Reports which are incorporated herein by reference: C 2012 -74 Communication (03/01/2012) from the Chairperson, Salary Commission, transmitting the Salary Commission's Resolution No. 2012 -1, Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2011 -1 Relating To The Salaries Of Certain Officers And Employees Of The County of Kaua`i. [This item was deferred.] JAY FURFARO, Committee of the Whole Chair: At the request of the Council, I erred on us being a little later than anticipated, but I do believe we have three members of the Salary Commission here. If that is a correct statement —at least the Chairman and another member are here —could I please ask them to come up. Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Tim Bynum Dickie Chang KipuKai Kuali`i Nadine K. Nakamura Mel Rapozo JoAnn A. Yukimura Jay Furfaro, Chair There being no objection, the rules were suspended. Chair Furfaro: Gentlemen, thank you very much and I do want to express to you our thanks for your being here as we get ready to roll into the budget session. This may be very short, but if I could ask you to introduce yourself, if you are on the commission as a Chairperson or Vice Chairperson or as a Member of the Commission, we could start that way: name and position on the Salary Commission. ROBERT CROWELL, Salary Commission Chair: I am Bob Crowell. I am this year's Chair of the Salary Commission. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. RANDY FINLAY, Salary Commissioner: Randy Finlay, commissioner on the Salary Commission. Chair Furfaro: Randy and Bob, thank you again for submitting, prior to the budget date of March 15, your resolution. We have 60 days to take action on it, but before we rolled into the beginning of the budget session, I wanted to see if there were any Members of the Council that would like to pose any questions to the commissioners on your arrival at your resolution. So on that note, Members, are there any questions for the Salary Commission on the resolution they submitted to us for this year's Operating Budget? Mr. Rapozo, you have the floor. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Thank you for being here today and thank you for meeting the March 15 deadline. I appreciate that. It makes it a lot cleaner for everybody. I just wanted —and I just got the copy of the existing resolution —if you could discuss or someone could discuss the changes and the rationale for the changes. I guess more specifically it looks like in Section 2 there is some different language and I just wanted to know the rationale and the justification. Mr. Crowell: I believe that was just to clarify... anything. I believe the only change was that it says "the maximum salaries of the Prosecuting Attorney..." and then is "set by the Salary Resolution that took effect on 12/01/09." I believe it was just to make clarification of the maximum salary. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. This resolution amends the prior one. So typically when we get an amendment, we see the Ramseyered version. So the old language is taken out, and this probably would not be for you folks but whoever your staff is. So in other words, Section 2 would remove the language that you folks want removed and insert the language that you would want. That makes it easier for us. Because right now if you look at Section 2 on the one that is currently in effect, it is nowhere near the Section 2 that is in your amendment. So again, I do not think that is an issue for you two, but I think whoever your staff is, somebody... Because right now, if I do not have the current copy, I am assuming that the Salary Commission finds that the current salaries and so forth is what is in the existing resolution, which is not. The existing resolution starts off with "The Mayor with the approval of the County Council." So I am not sure why that was done. But I would much rather see the language that is in the current section to be removed and the new language that you folks are promoting would be underlined under Section 2, much like they did with the figures, the numbers. And if it is a new resolution, that is one thing. But this one here, if you look at the title it says, "Resolution Amending Resolution 2011 -1" which I would expect should be done in the proper format. So I guess, Amy, I am not sure if it is for you or... Chair Furfaro: Gentlemen, if you do not mind, I would like to call up the County Attorney for a moment to get some clarity on the Ramseyer process that was or was not used for this amended resolution. Amy, did you get Mr. Rapozo's question? AMY ESAKI, First Deputy County Attorney: Yes, I did. Amy Esaki, First Deputy County Attorney. I have the documents in front of me as was provided to me by the Boards and Commissions Director. From my reading of the documents here, apparently Section 2 originally started with the words "The Mayor with approval of..." and it goes on. Mr. Rapozo: Amy, Mr. Chair, I was handed the wrong year. So I was reading off the wrong document. So I was just provided the current one. Ms. Esaki: Okay, so you see the difference. Mr. Rapozo: Yes, I do see. I misspoke. I was handed the 2010 resolution and not the 2011 resolution. Ms. Esaki: Okay, very good. 2 Mr. Rapozo: I apologize. Ms. Esaki: I was going to read the whole thing as to where it was deleted and inserted. Mr. Rapozo: I understand. Chair Furfaro: Would you take a moment just to clarify the question for the many viewers on TV at this point. Ms. Esaki: Most definitely, with pleasure. Okay, Section 2 as it originally read in the previous resolution stated, "The Mayor with approval of the County Council is hereby authorized through the County's annual operating budget to limit the funding and thereby reduce the salary for any non - elected officer or employee to an amount lower than the figure established for the position in this resolution." This year the Salary Commission, I believe, deleted that entire sentence and inserted the new sentence, and the new sentence reads or the new section reads, "The Salary Commission finds that current salaries of the Prosecuting Attorney, First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County Clerk, Deputy County Clerk, and County Auditor are higher than their administrative counterparts listed under Article I of this Resolution. Therefore, the salaries of the Prosecuting Attorney, First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County Clerk, Deputy County Clerk, and County Auditor that took effect on 12/1/09 shall remain frozen on 7/1/13 or until such time that the salary levels paid to the comparable administrative officers and employees listed under Article I have caught up." So that is the new section. It is all underlined, but in your version it is not underlined. Is that sufficient, Chair? Chair Furfaro: Does that meet your satisfaction, the explanation? Mr. Rapozo: Oh yes. Chair Furfaro: Before you leave, Amy, let us see if anybody else has any other questions of you. Any other questions of the County Attorney? Thank you, Amy, very much. Ms. Esaki: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Gentlemen, thank you for your patience. Vice Chair Yukimura, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Thank you for your work on this. It is a lot of hard work I know. I just wanted to clarify Article I, Section (d) Requirements for salary increase. It says, "The salary increase for any non - elected officer or employee occupying and continuing in a position listed in this resolution is contingent on the Director of Personnel's receipt of the following:" and it outlines steps which I find very commendable because what I think you are requiring is some kind of performance review, which I think is really important for high level managers. So my question or just asking for a confirmation, this does in fact include any non - elected officer or employee, so it would include, for example, the County Clerk, right? ( ?) Yes. 3 Ms. Yukimura: And just to let you know there is one thing in the Charter that —I pointed it out to the attorneys —the appointing officer for the County Auditor is the County Council, but the salary setting authority for the County Auditor in the Charter is the Salary Commission. So I am not sure how the performance...because now the performance review power is separate from the salary setting power. And I do not know if the Council does a performance review and then sends you the performance review because you are the salary setting body. Arguably by passing this salary allowing it to take effect that is setting the Auditor's salary. Chair Furfaro: I do not disagree with you. The way you explained it, it is exactly correct. They set the salary, we do the reviews. Ms. Yukimura: But just so you know that in this one instance —I know of no other —well, the Prosecuting Attorney, because she/he, whoever it is in office, is elected has no performance review from a higher and that is part of the reason for the salary differentials that you are trying to address in the section that was read by Ms. Esaki. But anyway, she sets her own salary and has no performance review by anybody. So I do not know if you want to propose a Charter Amendment that somebody else does the performance...but that is the only...other than the Mayor. The Mayor and the Prosecuting Attorney do not have a performance... oh, I have to say the Councilmembers do not either, but ours are set. There is no fluctuation allowed. Chair Furfaro: And ours are set that whatever we approve cannot be implemented until two years after the next election. Ms. Yukimura: Right. Chair Furfaro: But I want to follow up on one question with Vice Chair Yukimura about the Mayor that I have said before time and time again and there is still no clarity, in my opinion. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, may I just finish on the Auditor point? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: So just so you know that and it is not due to any action of the Salary Commission, but it is just this one instance where the appointing authority is separate from the reviewing authority. That is the one...because of a freak language and maybe it is very intentional in the Charter that the Council reviews the Auditor but the Salary Commission sets the salary for the Auditor. Mr. Crowell: Yes, if I may comment, and this is my own personal...I am trying to recall because I think Chair Furfaro did come before us and mentioned that, and I think that is something that we will look into and review in the future. I believe, and you can correct me if I am wrong, Chair, I thought you mentioned that in your testimony to us at one time. Chair Furfaro: I did. Mr. Crowell: And I think that it is just a matter of time that we kind of review that. 4 Ms. Yukimura: Before we go to the Chair, because I do want to hear his question and the answer, so just to confirm again that these requirements for a performance review do apply to all non - elected officials covered by this salary ordinance. Mr. Crowell: Yes. Mr. Finlay: I would like to clarify that the Salary Commission does not set salaries. The Salary Commission sets maximum salary caps and it was through the past years of testimony from several members of the County Council that the clause to have the performance reviews gives leeway to the reviewing authority to set salaries possibly lower than the maximum. So the Salary Commission does not set the salary, just the salary caps. Ms. Yukimura: Except the County Auditor. Chair Furfaro: Okay and may I impose an expanded part to that? Ms. Yukimura: Sure, I am done. Chair Furfaro: In my testimony in the past, and thank you, gentlemen, for always your Commission receiving me when I give testimony. But I think that also applies to the Mayor. The Mayor cannot set his salary lower than what you approve because he has no review body over him I have shared that to... if he chooses to take a salary less than what is authorized, he should, in fact, actually do a refund check to the body. That is how I have given testimony on that. Now, I would like to also ask you before you did this resolution, I had submitted to you the Maui County salary reviews, the Hawai`i Employers Council salary reviews, as well as the Hawai`i Hotel Association, and AFL -CIO guidelines. I think there were four packages that I submitted to you to make sure that you had some guidance from these other sources. Did you in fact have that available to you? Mr. Crowell and Mr. Finlay: Yes. Mr. Crowell: And we intend to look into more detail on these. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Finlay: As a matter of fact, the Salary Commission has reached out to the other counties to discuss the possibility of collaborating on a new study for future salaries but do it in conjunction with the other counties instead of each county working independently. Chair Furfaro: And again, I want to caution you on the fact that you have Maui County that has a $318 million operating budget, we have only $158 million operating budget, and any way you look in business, obviously the chief engineer for a County that is twice the size of ours has a little more responsibilities encompassing his assignment. So you have to take that into consideration. But I just wanted to reconfirm that those salary gradings from Maui County, Hawaii Employers Council, Hawai`i Hotel Association, and AFL -CIO were available to you this time around. Okay, on that note, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Excuse me, Amy, you want to...yes. 5 Ms. Esaki: It is on a statement that was previously made. I believe in this year's Salary Resolution, if you notice on page 5 it is under (d). It is right below County Clerk, Deputy County Clerk, and County Auditor. It states, "Salaries of the Council Chair, Councilmembers, and employees shall not exceed the maximum salary provided for in this article at the time of employment." It also goes on to say "However, the respective appointing authority may set a salary for any new or existing non - elected appointee at a figure lower than the figure established for the position." So that includes your County Clerk, Deputy County Clerk, and County Auditor. Chair Furfaro: Yes, thank you for that clarity. Ms. Yukimura: Excuse me, I have a question. Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair Yukimura now has the floor. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. So the County Charter says the Office established County Auditor 32.01A, "The salary commission shall fix the salary of the county auditor." Ms. Esaki: They establish a maximum. Ms. Yukimura: No, it does not say that. It "shall fix the salary of the county auditor." Chair Furfaro: It is fixed. Ms. Esaki: Okay, well then, there is a... we have to look into that a little further. However, the Salary Commission did want to give the authority to the Council so that when there is an evaluation to determine what the salary should be. Maybe we need to look at the Charter. Ms. Yukimura: I mean I do not think the Salary Commission can violate the Charter, right? Ms. Esaki: That is true, that is true. Ms. Yukimura: So if the Charter is saying that the Salary Commission shall fix the salary of the County Auditor, I do not know how they can give it to the Council to fix. Ms. Esaki: Well then that is a problem, thank you. Chair Furfaro: I believe Mr. Rapozo might have a question for you. Mr. Rapozo: I do not. It is a follow -up to Councilmember Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I agree with her. The Salary Commission cannot... no resolution can trump the Charter. I battle with this and the reason I will not be supporting it today, I battle with this because if you look at page 3 where it talks about the requirements for the salary increase, it talks about the performance evaluation and it says, requirements, the salary increase for any non- elected officer or employee occupying or continuing in a position is contingent on the 6 Director of Personnel's receipt of the following. Yet the Charter clearly gives the salary setting authority to the appointing authority. So I do not believe this is in line. I do not believe that the Salary Commission has the right, I do not believe this Council has the right to mandate, let us say, the Police Commission, Planning Commission, Civil Service Commission. The Charter gives them the absolute authority with no conditions to set the salary of their appointee. I am not going to argue with the Charter. This to me is in conflict and I do not want to have the debate, but my point was when JoAnn brought up the fact that she does not think the Salary Commission can trump the Charter, I would agree with that. I definitely agree with the Auditor's analysis that that is fixed. We do not have the right, nobody does. That salary is fixed. The only way we fix that is we have to change the Charter. But I guess my question is and maybe it is...I do not expect you to answer it here, Amy, because I think it involves research. Ms. Esaki: I think so. Mr. Rapozo: Section (d) and Section (e), in my opinion, directly conflicts with the Charter authority to Commissions that appoint their department heads. So we will send over a communication, but I did want to raise that because of Councilmember Yukimura's comments that I agree with wholeheartedly that we have to take the Charter first and we have to implement that. I do not believe we have... Ms. Esaki: I appreciate that. We will take a look at it and you can submit your questions. We appreciate that, thank you. Mr. Rapozo: had a question for the... Chair Furfaro: thank you very much. Ms. Esaki: Thank you very much, and then Mr. Chair, I just If the two gentlemen can come back up. Amy, You are welcome. Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo, you have the floor, and then Mr. Bynum. I am going to step out with our legal analyst for a moment. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, and again thank you, and please do not take my comments as being disrespectful to your function because I understand you operate under the parameters given to you by your legal advisors and I just happen to disagree with that advice. I think the Charter is really...we need to retain that, really need to retain the integrity of that Charter. I will be asking for an opinion later. I guess my question as it relates to the appointing authorities, the Police Commission, Planning, Civil Service, did they participate? Did they provide any testimony or provide any kind of response to the current resolution as it sits regarding the delay of the raises that were supposed to be granted back in 2011? Did we receive any testimony this year? Mr. Crowell: Yes, we did. I am just trying to recall. I believe the Fire Chief came, the Police Commission came, as well as the... the Chief himself did not come. I believe it was his wife that came Mr. Rapozo: But any commission...because I am more concerned of what... 7 Mr. Crowell: Police Commission for sure and I was absent at that one. I am not sure if any Fire Commissioner came also. Mr. Rapozo: To the best of your recollection, what was the... and I do not know this, I have not spoken to them, I am just curious as to what...did they support the resolution? Did they not support the extension of the pay raise? Mr. Crowell: I think they asked. Mr. Finlay: I was at the meeting and it is very interesting. The Police Commission used the data from other counties to point out that Kaua`i was under the equivalence of Maui, but we just heard testimony just 15 minutes ago saying you cannot compare bigger counties to smaller counties. So I just wanted to share that that data is used both ways. Mr. Rapozo: Oh yes, yes, and I agree. Just because the Maui Police Chief makes X- amount, they have a much higher budget than we, as the Chair has clearly stated. Likewise, I find it very difficult to see us suppressing public safety salaries, and again, because I think the message was we need to cut cost. That is how it was from the last salary resolution, hey, we have to cut cost. But interestingly, our budget is jumping up $10 million. Our Mayor has proposed 10 more positions, and yet we have employees /appointees, more specifically...for me it is public safety, for me it is the Police Chief because I think more...especially of what has just occurred. We are going to have a hard time retaining police chiefs or hiring police chiefs if we... They come in with an understanding when they look at the Salary Resolution from 2007 or 2008 up until 2011, and then we withheld that final pay raise. I guess for me I have a problem with that. And that is just my own personal opinion. Do I think we cannot afford the $7,000 raise? I believe it is about a $7,000 raise. Do I think that we are that broke, we cannot afford it? Of course not. Look at our budget this year. I think we send out mixed signals to the community. Hey, we are broke, blah, blah, blah, but we are going to create 18 more positions in the County. We are going to cut our departments 25 %, but we need 18 more positions. But the raise that we promised the Police Chief and the Fire Chief and all these other department heads back in 2007 when the resolution first passed, we are not going to do it now because we cannot afford it. I think that is what I struggle with as a Councilmember. I am very familiar with the budget. Unfortunately for the Salary Commission, you do not have that luxury of the knowledge and the luxury of the budgets from year to year to year to year, which we do here. So please, I appreciate the work you do, and I really appreciate the thought, but I do... and I will close with this, and this goes back to my item (d) question. When the Salary Commission what I call was reformed back in 2006 or whenever it was, it was specific because we had that conflict of private sector versus government. And they were tasked with going out, go do the study, find out where we need to be, and set the salaries. And I still believe today in my heart and I think the Charter reinforces what I believe, your function is to set the salaries. It is the appointing authorities' discretion as to where they want to pay their appointees. So if we want to pay the Auditor at a lesser amount that is our prerogative. If the Mayor wants to pay his people less, if they are under performers or whatever the case is, then that is his prerogative, and he deals with that at the Election Box every four years. We deal with it every two years. If we are retaining incompetent managers, incompetent people, then we need to be removed. That is where that lies. But as far as setting of the salaries, it was clear and I remember it as if it were yesterday, it was to study the difference and the disparity between private and public, bring us more in line so we could recruit and retain qualified people, and I think we have expanded that. Again, not your fault, I think you have been guided that hey, you know what, you guys do have the authority to include evaluations. I 8 disagree. But I appreciate what you folks do, and I thank you, and I hope there is a new study because I think there still is a disparity that needs to be addressed. Thank you very much. Chair Furfaro: Before I go to recognize Mr. Bynum, I just want to share, we have 60 days to approve this or not. So I am going to be looking for a deferral for at least two weeks, but I am going to ask Mr. Bynum to take advantage of the time that you gentlemen are with us. So Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: I will try to be quick. I just really want to thank you for your work. I have been very supportive of the Salary Commission and very appreciative that they took an untenable situation in 2006, put a lot of thought into it, and helped get us in the ballpark big time, and it made a lot of sense. I support this resolution as is. Some of the legal questions that are coming up here, our attorneys have to sort those things out, but you have worked under direction, and I think you have done a good job. First of all I will point out that I like the idea and I did testify at the Salary Commission some time ago, and you asked tough questions and I gave straightforward answers. But I had a concern, the fact that currently the Auditor and the Prosecutor are both being paid in excess of the Mayor. And I think you have recognized that in your statement here. And also the Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys have a higher ceiling than the Deputy County Attorneys, right? And I think it is wise to... the move you made. Just going forward, I have said this before, that on the other hand I also agree that we may need some flexibility based on just reality of the marketplace for certain positions and not all positions are created equal. Some of our department head positions require advanced degrees and licensure for instance, which typically gets rewarded in salary. Some of our job descriptions for other department heads, you can have no background in that field, no licensure or advanced degree, and be that department head. And so that is something I hope you look at going forward in the future. Same with the Police Chief and Fire Chief, they operate in kind of a different world than some of these other people, and we want to be competitive to make sure we have the quality people. And I think that would also be true of the Managing Director position. There has been a lot of energy in this community about a so called City Manager, and there is this profession out there called City Manager and I know that their compensation is kind of based on population base, and if we actually were to recruit that kind of person, which could be in the Managing Director —we do not have to change the Charter or anything —a Mayor can choose to look for that expertise and that background. But I think a competitive salary would likely be close to $200,000 for a community this size if we actually wanted to procure that expertise. Those are just future thoughts. This is the one time you get to come here and so...but I am very appreciative of your work, thank you. Chair Furfaro: Members, I am going to ask just for a few more comments here before we actually ask for a deferral on this. Vice Chair Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I will try to be quick too. Thank you, Chair. So I just wanted to be clear that in your deliberations over this, you are trying to keep some pay equity with the market so that we can recruit the kind of qualified people we need, right? That is still...that was the beginning in 2006, but that has continued in your work, right? Mr. Crowell: That is correct and just to follow up on both your and Councilman Rapozo's comment, back in 2006 and 2007 there was that Nash Study. It was about $100,000.00. We have written to the other counties and asked them (1) just to see how they determine their salaries, but also if they would 9 consider jumping in and participating in hiring another consultant to look at all of this again from our side. I think it appears to be a good time to do that. It is just the economics of it all for some people. Mr. Finlay: Councilmember Yukimura, in response to your question, we very much so try to equate these salaries of the County positions with salaries in the private sector or other parts of the market. One thing that really skews that is the benefits package that is associated with public employees versus private employees, it really can skew the salaries, and so we have to take that into consideration as well. And that is why we are seeking a study from some outside consultants to help us try to assess where that is in today's economic times. Ms. Yukimura: So can I just ask for... Chair Furfaro: I want to let you know we are 15 minutes behind by our normal lunchtime. So keep your questions to the point. This is a deferral. We are going to have an opportunity in two weeks again to hear from the County Attorney. But these two gentlemen were so gracious in coming today, so I do not want to cut you off, but certainly keep it short, please. Ms. Yukimura: I think the answer will take one sentence. So the benefits package you are seeing for the County is richer than the private or the other way around. Mr. Finlay: Far richer than for the private sector. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you very much. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Very quickly, just one thing I did not say. When I said that there were these positions that are paid in excess of the Mayor, I did not include the County Clerk. I do not know if you are aware of this, but the previous County Clerk did have that salary, and I think the wisdom of this body reset the new County Clerk, with his concurrence, consistent with the other department heads. So I just want you to be aware of that. Chair Furfaro: Now I am going to excuse you two gentlemen not from the area, but the County Attorney is anxious to speak on something that was said. So if you could just step to the side again. Ms. Esaki: I have Mona Clark here, and she is the expert in the Salary Commission. So I think she can address Councilmember Yukimura's question on the Charter regarding fixing the salary for the County Auditor. MONA CLARK, Deputy County Attorney: There are two sections in play. There is 29.03 which states that the appointing authority may set the salary of any appointee below the level fixed in the Salary Resolution. So that is one of the provisions. The other one is that the County Auditor's salary is to be fixed b'y the Salary Commission. I think if you read the two together and try to reconcile them, it would be that the County Auditor's maximum salary is set by the Salary Commission, but under 29.03 the appointing authority can set it lower. Chair Furfaro: Got it. Thank you for that clarification. Gentlemen, if you would like to come up one more time before we actually break for lunch, and I want to share something with you, and I want to make sure that the 10 Boards and Commissions Director hears it. I want to make sure the County Attorney hears it. Before you launch into a new survey, it would be appreciated by this Council because I had requested a copy of the Nash Survey and it was never shared with the Council. So if you are going to come to me and ask for more money to do another survey, it needs to be understood that when you are pau with it, it needs to be shared with us. Any more questions before we go and break here? Mr. Rapozo? Mr. Bynum? Gentlemen, your work is most appreciated by this body, and thank you for always being available to take commentary or publications that we submit to you. Thank you again very much. Mr. Crowell: Thanks. Mr. Finlay: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Upon motion duly made by Mr. Chang, seconded by Mr. Kuali`i, and unanimously carried, C 2012 -74 was deferred. There being no objections, the Chair recessed the meeting at 12:45 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 4:15 p.m., and proceeded as follows: CR -COW 2012 -06: on Bill No. 2429 CR -COW 2012 -07: on Bill No. 2430 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, tU,.ty Ct c Wilma Akiona Council Services Assistant APPROVED at the. Co A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING BY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS [Approved.] A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5A, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY TAX [Approved.] mittee Meeting held on April 18, 2012: 11